**Note: As it happened, I had a SAR request fulfilled and sent to me on 28 January 2026 containing internal email correspondence between staff about this specific request. These are posted below. Should be an eye opener for anyone having had trouble with FOI or SAR requests at the Council.
⚠️⚠️ The Highland Council uses IDOX database. Manual review is not required as claimed below. 👇 I've seen these filtered search results many times before. I sent a fresh request asking them to send the missing info by case officer.
27 February 2026
I refer to your request for review of the above information request to the Council which the Council has considered as a request for information under the Environmental Information (Scotland) Regulations 2004 (EIR’s).
I note that your original request was submitted on 18 December 2025 and responded to on 22 January 2026. You requested information relating to Planning Enforcement cases received by the Council during the time period 1 January 2025 to 18 December 2025 and the actions taken in each case along with the following details;
1. North or South Planning Area
2. Source of Complaint (MoP, Internal, Cllr etc.)
3. Date of Complaint
4. Dates of all updates given to or other correspondence between the complainant and the Council.
5. Dates of all correspondence from the Council to the subject of the complaint.
6. Dates of site visits.
7. Dates of all photographs or videos attached to case file including source of the photos (ie. Council employees, MoB or other)
8. Open or closed status.
9. If closed, state type of action taken if any.
10. Officer assigned to case.
I have undertaken a Review of FS-Case-774832609 and the decision by the Council to apply Regulation 10(4)(b) (Manifestly Unreasonable) to points 4, 5, and 7 of your EIR request. The findings of my review are as follows:
1. Accuracy of the burden estimate
You stated that the information requested in respect of correspondence and photos were system stamped metadata fields and you believed that these could be extracted by a report or query rather than manual review.
There is no report or query available to Council officers which can produce this information for the 523 cases which fall within the scope of your EIR request. Correspondence and photos can easily be identified within the system’s “document type” data field. Whilst the system has a field to record dates, this is the input date rather than the date of the correspondence or when a photo was taken. Furthermore, the associated description field is free text, and the data quality varies. Consequently, the only method of identifying all information you requested is to manually review the individual photos and correspondence in order to establish if these fall within the scope of your EIR. You will appreciate that the number of photos and correspondence contained within each case can vary broadly with more complex cases containing much higher volumes.
You were previously advised that the service reviewed a sample of cases which was used to estimate the time it would take to produce the information for all 523 cases, and I’m satisfied that this approach was reasonable. Furthermore, this sample included an example where a photo had been embedded within an email. This was only identified through the manual check which further emphasises the need for this check to be undertaken.
You are correct in that you did receive an export previously but I this was in respect of a single enforcement case. As detailed above, this cannot be produced due to the volume of cases that fall within your EIR request.
2. Evidence of pre-determined bias
You are correct in that the assigned Principal Planning Enforcement Officer did question whether your request should be treated as vexatious. However, this was promptly addressed by the Data Protection Officer who refuted this and asked the service to provide the requested information. This included establishing what information could be provided from the system, ascertaining what time would be required to provide the rest of the information and whether it would be reasonable under the terms of the EIRs to do so. This was undertaken by the service, and you subsequently received a response to your EIR. Information relating to seven of the ten points was provided together with the reason why the information for the other three points could not be provided. Therefore, I have concluded that this was not treated as vexatious and there was no pre-determined bias.
3. Public Interest
I note your comments regarding public interest. I have reviewed and considered the Commissioner’s guidance on this matter and have been unable to identify any factors that supports your assertion. I would advise that the Council publishes all enforcement notices on its website and so this information is readily available to the public. Therefore, I consider this meets the requirements of public interest and transparency. However, this does not preclude individuals from submitting their own FOI/ EIR requests relating to particular cases/ properties. These requests are dealt with in accordance with the relevant legislation.
For the reasons set out above, I agree with the original decision by officers and am satisfied that the application of Regulation 10(4)(b) to three points (4, 5 and 7) of your EIR was correct.
If you remain dissatisfied with the outcome of this review, you have the right to appeal to the Scottish Information Commissioner under Regulation 17 of the Environmental Information Regulations (2004), within six months of receiving the Council’s response. If you are subsequently dissatisfied with the outcome of your appeal to the Commissioner, you then have the right of appeal to the Court of Session regarding a point of law.
Their contact details are:
Scottish Information Commissioner,
Kinburn Castle,
Doubledykes Road,
St Andrews, Fife
KY16 9DS
Telephone: 01334 464610
Fax: 01334 464611
e-mail: enquiries@itspublicknowledge.info
Yours sincerely
Donna Sutherland
Strategic Lead - Corporate Audit & Performance
1 February 2026
**Note: Strictly speaking, I could take this straight to SICO, however, I am giving them an opportunity to respond to sort this issue out.
Dear Sir or Madam,
I am writing to request a review of the Council’s response dated 22 January 2026. I am dissatisfied with the Council’s decision to apply Regulation 10(4)(b) (Manifestly Unreasonable) to points 4, 5, and 7 of my request.
1. Accuracy of the Burden Estimate.
The Council claims a manual review of 523 cases is required, taking 130 hours. I contest this. The information requested (dates of correspondence and photos) is held within the Council’s IDOX planning database. These are system stamped metadata fields. I believe this data can be extracted via a report or query rather than a manual file-by-file review as I have received these exports from IDOX database from the Council previously. I request that the Council provides evidence that a digital extraction was attempted or considered before defaulting to a manual estimate.
2. Evidence of Pre-determined Bias.
Information obtained via a concurrent Subject Access Request reveals that the Principal Planning Enforcement Officer assigned to this request sought to identify me by name and immediately suggested my requests be treated as “vexatious” before any assessment of the workload was conducted. I have attached those emails. This suggests the application of Regulation 10(4)(b) was a pre-determined outcome based on personal animosity rather than an objective assessment of the administrative burden.
3. Public Interest.
The Council has failed to give sufficient weight to the public interest in the transparency of planning enforcement actions. There is a significant public interest in knowing the frequency of site visits and chronology & efficiency of case performance and the timeliness of Council correspondence in enforcement matters.
4. Whilst I am formally challenging the refusal of points 4, 5, and 7 on the grounds of bias and inaccurate burden estimates and on principle to ensure future requests are handled lawfully and without bias, I have also submit a refined request. This is not an admission that the original was ‘unreasonable,’ but a measure to obtain urgent data while you review your handling of the original request. This does not replace this internal review required. I require a formal ruling on the Council’s initial application of Regulation 10(4)(b), as I believe the ‘significant burden’ was over-estimated and influenced by the documented bias of the planning enforcement officer.
Thank you for your time & attention.
Kind regards.
22 January 2026
Original FOI request: Planning Enforcement 2025 cases & operational actions.
The information you have requested falls within the definition of Environmental Information as defined by Regulation 2 of the Environmental Information (Scotland) Regulations 2004 (EIRs) and is exempt under Section 39(2) of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 (FOISA). The Council is, therefore, required to respond to you under the terms of the EIRs rather than FOISA.
Some of the information requested is excepted under Regulation 10(4)(b) of the EIRs.
Please provide the following information:
1. A spreadsheet of the following data in planning enforcement listed in chronological order of the complaints received between 1 JAN 2025 - 18 DEC 2025.
Columns:
1. North or South Planning Area
2. Source of Complaint (MoP, Internal, Cllr etc.)
3. Date of Complaint
4. Dates of all updates given to or other correspondence between the complainant and the Council.
5. Dates of all correspondence from the Council to the subject of the complaint.
6. Dates of site visits.
7. Dates of all photographs or videos attached to case file including source of the photos (ie. Council employees, MoB or other)
8. Open or closed status.
9. If closed, state type of action taken if any.
10. Officer assigned to case.
Please see the attached spreadsheet for the above requested information, for Point 2 and 10 please refer to the “Key” sheet for further information.
For Point 4, 5 and 7 in order to collate this information it would require a manual review of each of the 523 received during 1 January – 18 December 2025. The Council carried out a review of 5 random cases, and it is estimated in order to collate the information held for these 3 points it would take approximately 15 minutes per case or approximately 130 hours in total.
Under Regulation 10(4)(b) of the Environmental Information (Scotland) Regulations 2004, a Scottish Public Authority is not obliged to comply with requests that are considered manifestly unreasonable. The Council believes it would not be in the public interest to provide a response to these 3 points as to do so would impose a significant burden, both financially and in resources, on the Council and would divert time away from providing other statutory functions. If there are specific cases you wish this information for, please let us know.
Under Regulation 16 of the Environmental Information Regulations (2004), you have the right to request that the Highland Council reviews any aspect of how it has dealt with your request. This requirement for review should be requested to the Freedom of Information Officer, Highland Council, Glenurquhart Road, Inverness IV3 5NX, or foireview@highland.gov.uk, within 40 working days of receipt of this response. The request should include details of the information requested and the aspects of the Highland Council’s response which you are not satisfied with.
If you are subsequently dissatisfied with the outcome of the Councils review, you have the right to appeal to the Scottish Information Commissioner under Regulation 17 of the Environmental Information Regulations (2004), within six months of receiving the Councils review response.
The following FOI request is now overdue. If you could review this request and provide a response at your earliest opportunity, I shall be grateful.
1. FS-Case-774832609
Planning Enforcement Cases 2025 - Dates of complaints, correspondence, site visits & photos taken. Due: 21 January 2026
Thank you for your time & attention.
Kind regards.
18 December 2025
Please provide the following information:
1. A spreadsheet of the following data in planning enforcement listed in chronological order of the complaints received between 1 JAN 2025 - 18 DEC 2025.
Columns:
1. North or South Planning Area
2. Source of Complaint (MoP, Internal, Cllr etc.)
3. Date of Complaint
4. Dates of all updates given to or other correspondence between the complainant and the Council.
5. Dates of all correspondence from the Council to the subject of the complaint.
6. Dates of site visits.
7. Dates of all photographs or videos attached to case file including source of the photos (ie. Council employees, MoP or other)
