For what it's worth, I personally believe that the idea that the planning
process is made as open and transparent as it can be is an inherently good
thing.
A question posed here is what the effect would be if people didn't make
planning objections because they were afraid of having their names and
addresses published worldwide. I would like to ask another question: what
is the effect of maintaining a system where access to the planning process
is limited to people who go to the Town Hall? I believe that it curtails
the ability of a whole range of people - the elderly or disabled for
example - to see what's going on in their locality. Even if they don't have
access to the internet at home, such people often make use of libraries or
drop-in centres where there are invariably helpful staff and volunteers who
will assist them to access the web. Moreover, a wide variety of working
people might be encouraged to play a part if the internet is part of the
picture, but who might not bother if they have to visit the Town Hall. Most
people who search planning applications will be, to coin a phrase, local
people. Should they be penalised in order to prevent what looks to me like
a limited risk?
I don't believe that Data Protection should be used as a barrier to prevent
wider access to information that is traditionally seen as public,
especially if the risk is the one outlined here. Repressive governments
hunting dissidents and asylum seekers are probably able to use more
sophisticated methods than Google. And if they might, shouldn't the
solution be that Councils show some common sense, and accept a pseudonym or
a P.O. Box in the rare instances that it is necessary, rather than closing
down a process generally regarded as open?
Tim Turner
Legal and Property Services
Wigan Council
On Wed, 1 Jun 2005 09:10:42 EDT, [log in to unmask] wrote:
>In a message dated 01/06/05 13:54:58 GMT Daylight Time,
>[log in to unmask] writes:
>
>> Given that planning applications are inherently public and subject to
>> public comment and objection, I find it difficult to see why people
>> should be permitted to withdraw from the web publication of their
>> identity. I can, after all, just go to the Council offices and see the
>> full register if I want - That is a statutory right.
>
>--------
>But people (and governments) in countries where there are no data
protection
>laws do not currently have the ability to search for a person's name in the
>register available for public (ie neighbour) scrutiny. The nature of the
>internet would allow such as asylum seekers and dissidents to be sought
through
>simple web search engines. Do you need to know that a person in China has
applied
>for permission for a swimming pool?
>
>Incidentally the right to object is not there for applicants, only for
>informants of breaches of regulations, according to the guidance recently
published
>(May 2005). Objectors to applications may also have details withheld but
they
>will be told that anonymous objections can (or will) be disregarded. If a
>person then decides not to object because they don't want their details
>published wordwide, what will that do to the planning process?
>
>Ian B
>
>Ian Buckland
>Managing Director
>Keep IT Legal Ltd
>
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
All archives of messages are stored permanently and are
available to the world wide web community at large at
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/data-protection.html
If you wish to leave this list please send the command
leave data-protection to [log in to unmask]
All user commands can be found at : -
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/help/commandref.htm
Any queries about sending or receiving message please send to the list owner
[log in to unmask]
(all commands go to [log in to unmask] not the list please)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|