davidwyatt on 02 June 2005 at 21:07 said:-
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Opinions sought - Planning Applications
>
>
> This is a good debate. My 'two penneth'
>
> Anyone know the underlying UK statutes which mandate that
> names must be made
> public in planning applications and associated objections? I
> have seen no
> reference to this yet in the debate. The debate appears to
> have centred
> around the opinions about the rights and wrongs of the
> publication processes
> not whether they were legitimately conceived.
Would a pre HRA statute soundly legitimise actions carried out today?
Older statutes could well not be HRA compliant.
> DPA principle 1 - Authorities must inform applications about
> their worldwide
> disclosure intent if publishing on web sites. This
> transparency permits an
> applicant to challenge the fairness of the planning process
> using their
> Human Rights.
> My understanding is all UK laws have to be compatible with
> Human Rights.
> Article 6 of HRA is I believe where fairness of planning decisions /
> processes can be legally challenged.
>
> If an authority makes a poor decision to my mind they commit
> public funds to
> potential legislative disputes. So is that OK with you taxpayers?.
One common answer would be to conduct a risk analysis, and act upon the
outcome. That would probably completely ignore many of the HRA constraints
though.
Equally such action does not accommodate principle three and other DPA
factors. The results would likely be WWW publication of material considered
to be low risk by the publisher to a very wide audience the overwhelming
majority of whom would have very little interest in it for the purpose, but
material which could be of wider interest would possibly not be published in
the same way because of a perceived increased risk for other purposes.
As an existing risk means that something will happen given an infinite
period of time the general interest factors inherent within principle three
do not seem to sit comfortably within risk analysis processes whose main
focus unsurprisingly is on the problem areas.
Take the risk of planning material available on the WWW being used by
private investigators for their purposes. The Original purpose of
publication could be legitimate, and attempts made to justify further use by
stating the data was publicly available, but the purpose could well have
changed and be nothing to do with planning, have the principles been
followed? What risks exist? Where do the interests lay? Who would suffer?
Ian W
> -----Original Message-----
> From: This list is for those interested in Data Protection
> issues [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of davidwyatt
> Sent: 02 June 2005 21:07
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Opinions sought - Planning Applications
>
>
> This is a good debate. My 'two penneth'
>
> Anyone know the underlying UK statutes which mandate that
> names must be made
> public in planning applications and associated objections? I
> have seen no
> reference to this yet in the debate. The debate appears to
> have centred
> around the opinions about the rights and wrongs of the
> publication processes
> not whether they were legitimately conceived.
>
> DPA principle 1 - Authorities must inform applications about
> their worldwide
> disclosure intent if publishing on web sites. This
> transparency permits an
> applicant to challenge the fairness of the planning process
> using their
> Human Rights.
> My understanding is all UK laws have to be compatible with
> Human Rights.
> Article 6 of HRA is I believe where fairness of planning decisions /
> processes can be legally challenged.
>
> If an authority makes a poor decision to my mind they commit
> public funds to
> potential legislative disputes. So is that OK with you taxpayers?.
>
> Regards
>
> David Wyatt
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2005 8:09 PM
> Subject: Re: [data-protection] Opinions sought - Planning Applications
>
>
> > In a message dated 02/06/05 15:06:26 GMT Daylight Time,
> > [log in to unmask] writes (snip):
> >
> >> I think the risks are small, and the benefits could be large.
> >
> > -------
> > Then consider this. I know a man who was granted asylum in this
> > country
> > and
> > is still being sought by the regime he ran from. If he
> wants to extend
> > his
> > house, have it adapted for disabled access, or change the
> use for whatever
> > reason, he runs a risk of being found if his details are published
> > worldwide. He
> > has committed no crime, he was just "on the wrong side".
> Can he never be
> > allowed a right to improve his home? He cannot lie on the
> form about who
> > he is, he
> > cannot remain anonymous, he doesn't mind his neighbours
> knowing about his
> > application because they know little of his background. How is the
> > Internet
> > different from a local planning process? That's how.
> People running from
> > violent
> > marriages, people being stalked, and others should be given
> a right to get
> > on
> > with their lives without the "small risk" as you call it,
> due to some
> > ill-conceived operation of convenience.
> >
> > A local system could still exist using the Internet. Register all
> > relevant
> > persons and issue a PIN or other identifier. Using the
> PIN, the people
> > who
> > need to know about planning applications in their area can
> do so. People
> > from
> > outside the area who just want names and addresses for junk
> mailing,
> > scamming or
> > other nefarious purposes, can get nothing. E-government
> targets are met,
> > personal data is protected and the right to a private life
> (Art 8 ECHR) is
> > maintained.
> >
> > Ian B
> >
> >
> > Ian Buckland
> > Managing Director
> > Keep IT Legal Ltd
> >
> > Please Note: The information given above does not replace or negate
> > the
> > need
> > for proper legal advice and/or representation. It is
> essential that you do
> > not
> > rely upon any advice given without contacting your
> solicitor. If you need
> > further explanation of any points raised please contact
> Keep I.T. Legal
> > Ltd at
> > the address below:
> >
> > 55 Curbar Curve
> > Inkersall, Chesterfield
> > Derbyshire S43 3HP
> > (Reg 3822335)
> > Tel: 01246 473999
> > Fax: 01246 470742
> > E-mail: [log in to unmask]
> > Website: www.keepitlegal.co.uk
> >
> > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > 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)
> > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> 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)
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
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)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|