1

CANGENSIRPOWYS

BRECONANDRADNORBRANCH

POWYSBranchesoftheCampaigntoProtectRuralWalesBrecon&RadnorandMontgomeryBranches

7thNovember2019

PowysCountyCouncildecisiontostoppublishingthirdpartycommentsonplanningapplicationsonthePlanningweb-sitedecidedDecember2018reviewdueDecember2019SUMMARYOFISSUE . . . . . . . page2AppendixAQuestiontotheCouncil:July2019 . . page3AppendixBSummaryofFOIrequest . . . . page4AppendixCCommentsonPowysdecision . . . page6AppendixDCaseforrevisingthedecision . . . page8AppendixEPetition.Closingdate30thNovember2019 page11

MONTGOMERYBRANCH

CANGENSIRTRWFALDWEN

2

SUMMARYOFISSUE:PowysreviewofthedecisionnottopublishthirdpartycommentsdueDec.2019InDecember2018,PowysCountyCouncildecidedtostoppublishingthirdpartycommentsontheplanningapplicationswebsite.OfficerssaidPowyshadalreadybeenreprimandedbytheInformationCommissionerandtheriskofdata-protectionbreachesoutweighedthepublic interest indata-access.TherehavebeenmanycomplaintsaboutthishugelyunpopulardecisionOn11thJuly2019apublicquestiontoaFullCouncilMeetingaskedif itwouldbebettertoimprovestafftraining to avoid data breaches rather than withhold public comments. The (then) Portfolio-holderansweredwiththeriskofbreachingdata-protectionregulationsandlackofstaff.Hecitedthefinesofover90millionpoundsimposedonBAandMarriottHotels.Inthesecases,millionsofcustomershadidentitydetails,includingbankdetails,stolen.ThescaleandnatureoftheserisksbearnorelationtothesmallrisksforPowysPlanningwhichcouldbemostlyavoidedbybettertraining.A Freedomof information request toPowys revealed therehadbeen8 incidentsbetween June2014&Nov.2018,ofwhich3werewebsitedisclosuresreportedtotheICO. Residents’datawasrevealedabout(1)holidaydates,(2)personalfamilyinformationand(3)emailaddresses.TheICOconcludedthatthedatashouldhavebeenredactedbutnoharmwasdone.Advicewasgivenbutnofinewasimposed.TheseverereprimandfromtheICOhasbeenexaggerated.PCC claimed that they have insufficient staff to redact public comments for web-site viewing and thatceasingpublicationhelped“mitigate”thelossofonefull-timeequivalenttemporarystaffmember.Thereisnoclearevidenceaboutstaffrolesandworkloadstosupportthis.PowyssaidthatitispossibletoviewplanningfilesatPowysCountyHallinLlandrindodWells(orNeuaddMaldwyn inNewtownwhich isclosed). Recently,whenpeoplehaveaskedtoseeaplanningapplicationfile, theyhavebeendeniedaviewingandsentemailscontaining redactedpubliccomments fromwhichsome public comments have beenmissing. Besides, anyonewanting to see all public comments for aparticularapplicationwouldhavetoaskrepeatedlyuntiltheapplicationisdetermined.TheFOIrequestshowedthatPowysPlanninghasnoprotocolsaddressingthehandlingofdocumentsinapaper-freeorpaper-liteenvironment.APowyswebsitesearchalsodrewablank.All the large rural Local planning authorities surrounding Powys: Monmouthshire, Carmarthenshire,Ceredigion,Gwynedd,Denbighshire,ShropshireandHerefordshirepublishpubliccommentsfreelywithnamesandaddresses.SomeLPAspublishasensiblewarningnoticetothepublicthattheircommentsonplanningapplicationswillbepublishedunlessthereisaspecificrequesttothecontrary.PowysisbyfarthelargestLPAinWales.Wehavepoorpublictransportandresidentslivingupto65milesfromCountyHall. YetPowyshasunilaterallydecidedtodeprivethepublicofinternetaccesstothehighvolumeofpubliccommentsonplanningapplicationswithoutanyconsultationwiththepublic.These comments require a huge investment of research and effort from the public andwell respectedenvironmentalorganisations.Theycontaindetailedknowledgeoflocalfactorsandthekindsofevidencewhichmustbetakenintoaccountinplanningdecisionsandyettheydonotseethelightofday.Norcanthey be easily accessed by Planning Committee Members. The brief summaries in Planning Officer’sReportsrarelydojusticetotheconcernsexpressed.ThePowyspublicdeservestherighttoparticipateinafairandtransparentplanningsystem.ThePowysBranches of the Campaign for the Protection of RuralWales have started a petition to ask Powys toreversetheirhugelyunpopulardecisionandtoreinstatethirdpartycommentsonplanningapplicationsonthePowysplanningportal.SEE:http://www.brecon-and-radnor-cprw.wales/?page_id=1840

3

APPENDIXAQUESTIONTOTHECOUNCIL:CountyCouncilMeeting11thJuly2019

REPORTAUTHOR:CountyCouncillorMartinWeale,PortfolioHolderforEconomyandPlanning

SUBJECT:QuestionfromDrChristineHugh-Jones

The Planning Department is apparently operating new “paperless” procedures for handlingincomingdocumentsfromapplicants,statutoryconsultees,stakeholdergroupsandmembersofthepublic.

At the same time representations from the public and stakeholder organisations are notincludedontheplanningportalastheyareformanyotherlocalauthorities.

The current procedures effectively conceal information, which is material to planningdecisions, fromthepublicview.Thisraisesseriousconcernsaboutpublicaccountabilityandpublicparticipationintheplanningprocess

What urgent action does the Council intend to take to ensure that all relevant planningdocuments,includingpublicresponsestoplanningconsultations,areavailableforpublicviewontheplanningportalandhowwilltheCouncilengagewiththepublicinachievingthis?

Response

Followingadatabreachwhichwas reported toand investigatedby the InformationCommissioner,the Council reviewed its procedures for managing personal data to prevent and avoid furtherbreachesinrelationtotheprocessingofplanningapplicationsandthehighvolumeofcorrespondencereceived from thirdparties.This review found that the authority faces significant continued riskofbreachingthedataprotectionregulationsifitweretocontinuetopublishthirdpartyrepresentationson itswebsite. In order to remove this significant risk, further staff resourcewould be required inordertoreadthroughandredactallpersonaldatabeforepublishinganythirdpartycorrespondence.Unfortunately this staff resource is not available within the financial climate that the authoritycurrentlyoperateswithin.WhilstthirdpartycorrespondenceisnotavailableontheCouncil’swebsite,this information is available for inspection at either Powys County Hall or Neuadd Maldwyn byappointmentonly.Anappointmentisnecessarybecausestafftimehastobeallowedtofullypreparetheinformationbyredactingallsensitivedata.

One-minutesupplementaryquestionatFullCouncilMeeting11thJuly2019

Councillor Weale does not realise that Powys residents live up to 60 miles from here and theWelshpoolofficeissoldoff.LocalCouncillorsandothershavemaderoundjourneysofover100miles- to inconvenient appointments - only to find that key planning responses weren’t available.Effectively,youneedacar,timeandmoneytospare,andnofull-timejobtogettotheGwaliaanyway.Thisishardlydemocratic.

Instead of stepping up to new data protection legislation, Powys made the cowardly decision toincreasesecrecyanddecreasepublicaccountabilityofplanning.WouldtheCouncilagreethattheright way to manage the Commissioner’s reprimand about significant risk is to improve PowysCouncil procedures and educate officers and staff in professional and competent management ofpersonaldata?

Othercouncilsmanagethis.Itisfairer,cheaperandsaferandmoresustainableinthelongrun.

4

AppendixB:ChristineHugh-Jones(Powysresident):SummaryofFOIresponseFOIQUESTIONSQUESTION1.TheOriginalComplainttotheICO(aboutpersonaldataprotection)Seriesofincidents(ratherthanone)arelisted:

PCConlyinvolved

ICOcomplaints

natureofICOcase.

April2016

pemailaddressuunredacted:complaintu

June2014

sensitivefamilydatapublishedonw/s

August2016

pemailaddressuunredacted:complaint

Oct2015 notwebdisclosures

Jan2018

personaldataonw/s June2017

resident’sholidaydatespublished

Nov2018

personaldataonw/sincontraventionofnotice

March2018

2residentscomplained:emailaddressesonpaperfile&website

QUESTION2 The IC’s communications to theCouncilandtheCouncil’sreplies toall the IC’s

communicationsonthismatteruntilitsconclusion.Seeattacheddocs1-14(numberedinorderreceived)redactedasappropriateunderDPRs:DOC Case DATE 9 PCCtoICO

RFA055073024.9.14 casemanagement,apologymade.Complaint2.6.14

1 ICOtoPCCasin9

6.10.14 ICOtoPCC:PCCmustredactW/Sinfo

13 PCCtoICO

19.7.17 Inf.Gov.Mgrwithfurtherinfo.complaintrepublishingholidaydates

5 ICOtoPCCasin13

8.8.17 closure:noharmdone:noenforcement

6 ICOtoPCC 27.4.18 emailaddressonpaperfile:humanerror:noenforcement7 ICOtoPCC

asin64.5.18 email addresses on paper files &website&wrongly filed

docs.Needresponse.8 PCCtoICO

as in 6 & 7?RFA0736283

(2018)redacted

PCCtoICO:nostafftoredactpaperfiles.Rethinkingpolicy.

11 PCCInternal 16/5/18 GD to KY: report (re RFA0736283?): email addresspublishedonwebsite.(“ICOaware”)

3 PCCInternal 17.9.18 GDtoMW:MWagreedtostop3PRsonW/S14 duplicateof3 4 PCCInternal 5.12.18 GDtoKY:MWagreedtostop“lastnight”10 PCCInternal nodate GD:impactassessmentofstopping3PRsonW/S12 PCCInternal 6.12.18 MWtoCouncillors:Policychange:stopping3PRsonW/S2 PCCtoresident 6.6.19 PCCInf.Compliance:complaintNov.18

5

IdiscoveredasimilarFOIrequesttoPowysonthe“WhatDoTheyKnow”website.https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/procedures_for_managing_personal - incoming-1421329It asked for “fulldetailsofthereviewreferredtointheCouncil’swrittenanswer”quoting thewrittenanswerasinmyownrequest.Fourteendocumentswereprovided.Thesedidnotinclude12abovebutdidincludetwodocumentsnotsenttome.HP1

16.5.18GDtoPCCManagers

ReportonDataprotectionbreachinpaperfile.Referstoadifferentbreachfromno11

HP2 18.6.18GDtoPCCManagers

Impact Assessment Development Management: Reduction inadministrationstaffinglevelsbyoneFTE.

QUESTION3ThefinalICconclusionasreportedbacktoPowysCouncilRESPONSE3Noinfo.heldbecausemanyincidents,nofinalconclusionQUESTION4allwrittendocumentswithdates(includinginternalandexternalemails,letters,

writtennotes,meetingrecords)relevanttotheCouncil’s"reviewofitsprocedures"andconclusions.

RESPONSE4AllinRESPONSE2QUESTION 5 all written documents with dates, as above, concerning Development

Management’s implementationof thedecision towithhold thirdpartyrepresentationsfromthewebsite.

RESPONSE5AllinRESPONSE2QUESTION 6 Development Management protocol (with date and signature) for adding or

excluding documents from planning application case folders on the public PowysPlanningPortal.

RESPONSE6Thereisnodevelopmentmanagementprotocol,onlydoc12(of6/12/18)QUESTION 7 Development Management protocol (with date and signature) for viewing of

PlanningApplicationcasefilesattheGwaliaincludingwhatinformationthepubliccanexpecttosee.

RESPONSE7Thereisnodevelopmentmanagementprotocol,onlydoc12(of6/12/18)

6

APPENDIXC.COMMENTSONPOWYSDECISIONtoSTOPPOSTINGTHIRDPARTYREPRESENTATIONSONTHEPLANNINGWEBSITE.The information about the 8 incidents resulted in no ICO enforcement and, although they arebreaches, there is no evidence of harm resulting from them. They do not include any evidence ofintimidation by neighbors. They result from poor training and human error, which can be partlyeliminatedbybettertraining.Training&workloadTherehasneverbeenaspecificPCCpolicyforsaferedactionanduploadofdocuments(19.9.17).Noprotocol about redaction isdescribedalthoughDoc 13 says the “Basildoncase” isused in training.ThereismentionofParasolguidance(Doc2)andPORSOLguidance(Doc9)inPCCcommunicationsto ICOwhich rather suggests theDoc 9 author is not surewhat this is. It probably comes from arecruitmentconsultancy:https://www.parasolgroup.co.uk/help-me-decide/guides/gdpr-recruiters/PCC (Doc 9) says a 5-person planning technician team examine an average of 20 documents/dayalthoughatworstthis is100documents. Itseemsthedailyaverageis4perperson(butthetext isunclear:thiscouldmean20/person).ChangeinpolicyInDoc1TheICOadvised:“itmaybeappropriatetointroduceaprocesswherebythecouncilgainsconsentfromtheindividualtodisclosetheirpersonaldatainthismanner.Iunderstandthatyoucurrentlyprovideindividualswithfairprocessinginformation(inyouracknowledgementemails)tellingthemthelettermaybeplacedonline.Inordertostrengthenthis,thecouncilcouldaskindividualsto‘signify’theiragreementwithapositiveaction(suchastickingabox).Thiswouldthenallowthecounciltorelyonconsentasaconditiontoprocesstheindividual’spersonaldatabyplacingitonitsonlineportal.Shouldtheindividualnotwishfor theirpersonaldatatobeused in thiswayyoucouldexplain inyour fairprocessingnotice that thelettermaystillbeplacedonlinebutwithallpersonaldataredacted.”ThereisnoevidencethiswasconsideredalthoughthepublicalsoraisedthisoptioninameetingwiththeHeadofPlanning(25/4/19).Doc9InSeptember2014,PCCwasalreadyconsideringoptionsof:

1.Additionalspecifictraining2.Changeofprocessinrelationtodeterminingwhichdocumentsshouldbeplacedontheplanning

portale.g.onlyplacingresponsesfromstatutoryofnon-statuaryconsultees.3.MovingawayfromthePlanningportalcompletely.

Doc 8 (2018), says PCC was considering revision of processes and “ the balancing of placinginformation in the public domain to support transparency and involving thewider public in planningapplicationsandconsultationsGDwrotetoKYon5/12/18sayingMWagreed“lastnight”(4.12.18)toremoving3rdpartyresponsesfromthew/s(option2above).ThiswasnotstrictlytruebecauseGDhadwrittentoMWconfirmingthat MW had “reluctantly agreed” to this three months earlier on 17/9/18 (Doc.3). An ImpactAssessmentwasalsocompletedon5/12/18andthepolicywasimplementedon6.12.18(Doc12).ThePowysimpactassessment(Doc10)TheImpactAssessmentstatesthatthemeasureto“stoppublishingthirdpartycorrespondenceinrelationtoplanningonthePowysCouncilpublicwebsite”:

7

• willmitigatetheimpactofstaffreductionsidentifiedinthe2019/20savingsproposals• noconsultationisrequired• DMwill still make the information available via requests to see paper files or requests for

electroniccopies• TheimpactontheCouncilPriorityto“supportourresidentsandcommunities”

isneutral: residentswill lose access to 3PRs on the councilwebsite but this is offset by areducedriskofdataprotectionbreachesandchancesofintimidationbyneighbors.

• Impactonallwell-beinggoalsisminimal, includingona“moreequalWales”describedas“Asociety that enables people to fulfill their potential no matter what their background orcircumstances(includingtheirsocio-economicbackgroundandcircumstances)”

• Impact on ways of working are negligible. These include “Involvement (includingCommunicationandEngagement)”

• Themedium risk to “the capacity of DM to communicate with residents and customers” isreduced by mitigation of “appointments to see hard copies or requests to be sent electronicinformation”toalowresidualrisk.

• Noadditionalevidenceanddatahasinformedthedevelopmentoftheproposal

The“integratedapproachtosupporteffectivedecisionmaking”concludes:

• The risk posed by publishing the information is considered to be too great (risk of publishingsensitiveandpersonalinformation).

• Thecessationofthepublicationisconsideredtoreducethepotentialforintimidationofauthors

ofthirdpartcorrespondence.

• Thecessationof thepublicationwillhelpmitigate the impactof staff reductionsdue tobudgetcuts.

Feedbackreceivedfrominterestedpartiesistobereviewedin12monthstime.Theboxesfor“decisiontobemadeby”and“daterequired”areempty.

8

APPENDIXD:THECASEFORREVISINGTHEDECISION-NOTTOPUBLISHTHIRDPARTYREPRESENTATIONSONPLANNINGAPPLICATIONSTHEPOWYSDECISIONIn assessing the change in procedure, Powys CC did not properly consider the Council Priority tosupportResidentsandCommunitiesanddidnotconsidertheWell-beingGoalofamoreequalWalesortheWGFGA“wayofworking”whichrequires Involvement/Communication/Engagement. The Impact assessment is biased against thepublicinterest.Itbalancestheveryconsiderablelossintransparencyandpublicparticipationagainstthe risk of data-protection breaches, which can and should be remedied by any efficient publiclyaccountableCouncil.The issue of intimidation by neighbors is a red-herring. Intimidation could be largely avoided byimplementing the ICO advice in Doc 1. A member of the public can consider options whenresponding. SeriousintimidationisamatterforthePoliceandnotamatterforPowystodecideonourbehalf.Thedangershavebeenwildlyoverstated.MartinWeale,thenPlanningportfolio-holder,inhisanswertothesecondquestiontotheCouncilsaidtheriskwastoogreat,citingtherecentcasesofICOfinesimposedonBritishAirwaysandMarriottHotels.Earlier thisyear, the ICO intendedto fineMarriott£99.2millionafterpersonaldata,includingcreditcarddetails,passportnumbersanddatesofbirthof339millionpeoplewerestolen.TheICOintendedtofineBA£190millionaftercreditcardnumbers,expiry dates and the three-digit CVV codewere stolen, involving 380,000 transactions. ThewholepopulationofPowysisroughly132,000.ThedatabreachesrevealedbythisFOIinvolvedahandfulofpeopleandresultedinnosignificantharm.PowysisthelargestandmostruralLPAinWaleswithverypoorpublictransportandPowysresidentsliveup to65miles fromLlandrindodWells.Thecurrent systemof requiringpeople to come to theLlandrindodWellstoseeplanningfilesisunfairandpenalisesresidents.Itiscostlyforresidentsandit is only possible for thosewith cars and the time andmoney to arrive inworking hours. Whenelectronicsolutionsareavailable,thiscannotbeconsideredanenvironmentallysustainablesolution.Theadmitted“highvolume”ofpublicresponsestoplanningapplications,givenbythePortfolio-holderasanexcusefornotpublishingthem,demonstratesthatthepublicdowanttoparticipateinthePowysplanningsystemanddowanttoprotecttheirenvironmentandlivingconditions.ThiswasnotafairbalancingexercisebecauseitseriouslyundervaluedthepublicinterestanddidnottakethecharacteristicsofPowysintoaccount.THEALTERNATIVETOPUBLISHING3RDPARTYREPRESENTATIONSItisnotevencleartowhatextentPowysPlanningDepartmentactuallykeepspaperplanningfilesorwhetheroriginalhard-copydocumentsarescannedinthendiscarded.NorisitclearwhatdocumentsDMconsidersthepubliccansee.TheFOIquestions6and7failedtoclarifythisbecausetherearenoprotocols.There isnodataabout thework-loadofputting thirdparty representationson theweb-site. Sincethere is no clear information about division of labour between staff, document handling or filingavailableandnotevenanycertaintythatpaperfilesarekept,therecanbenoconclusionsaboutthis.Protocolsandtrainingcouldcertainlyreducemistakesandstreamlineprocesses.

9

Powys planning department has a poor record of responding to emails and telephone calls and ofacknowledgingrequestsorreceiptofplanningrepresentations.Thepaper-fileviewingsystemisnotworking:residentsreportdifficulty,delaysandwastedjourneysin actually viewing paper files and, even then, have no confidence that that they are complete. Inrecent months the “paper files” seem to be files made up specifically for the viewing occasion byprintingandredactingcopiesfromanITdatastoreintowhichpaperdocumentshavebeenscannedorITdocumentstransferredfromemails.Thealternativeofrequestingelectronicfilesdoesnotworkeither.Intheexamplesknowntomeonlyaselectionofthirdpartyresponsesaresent. Bycontrast,peoplecaneasilyverifyiftheirresponseshavebeenpostedonaweb-site.The furtherproblemwith either solution is that amemberof thepublic doesnot knowwhennewresponsesaremadeanddoesnotknowwhenanapplicationwillbedeterminedsothere isneverasurewayofseeingalltherelevantdocumentsnomatterhowmanyrequestsorjourneysaremade.Forinstance,therewasanextremecaseofalargehousingapplication(103houses:RAD/2004/0572)madein2004whichdidnotgotoCommitteeuntil2017anddidnothaveadecisionissueduntil2019.Howcouldaninterestedmemberofthepublicbeexpectedtokeepupjourneystoviewapaperfileorrepeatedrequestsforelectroniccopiesofanynewadditionstothefileover13ormoreyears?In commonwith the general public, Planning Committeemembers cannot readily see resident andstakeholderrepresentations.TheyhavetorelyonaverybriefsummaryfromtheCaseOfficerwhichdoesnotalwaysdojusticetothemeritsoftheobjector’sorsupporter’scase.REDACTIONThereisapparentlynoprotocolforredactionIt appears there isnoprotocolabout redactionalthoughDoc13says the “Basildoncase” isused intraining.ThereismentionofParasolguidance(doc2)andPORSOLguidance(doc9)inPCCcommunicationstoICOwhichrathersuggeststhedoc9authorisnotsurewhatthisis.Itcouldcomefromarecruitmentconsultancy:Therearesomeexceedinglypoorexamplesofredactioninthedocumentsreceived.TheworstcaseisDoc 1 where the items to be redacted appear on the FOI author’s screen with sensitive personaldetailshighlightedinredboxesratherthanblockedout.Personaldetailsofthecomplainantarecleartoseebutwillbekeptconfidential. Thisisanexampleofhowthesupposedlyredactedinformationappears(withjustthetopofaredactionboxcontainingthenameshowing):

This is not an isolated example of redaction failure. Since the decision to suppress third partyrepresentations on the PlanningWebsite, therewas an email letter postedwith the author’s email

10

addressandthoseoffourotherPowysresidents,togetherwiththeirnames.Theoddthingaboutthiswasthattheauthorapparentlyaddressedthisemailexclusivelytothe4othersandnottoanyoneinPCC and yet it was sent by the Case Officer to “Planning representations” and then posted on thewebsiteon7/6/19andnotremovedforaweek.Wecansupplyclearproofofthis.Wedonotknowifthe author made a complaint but this example, which must have been known to the PlanningDepartmentwhoremovedit,wasnotincludedintheFOIresponse.These 2 examples prove that data protectionmistakes arenot eliminated by the decision to stopposting thirdparty representations on thePlanningWebsite. These2mistakes apparently involvemoreseniorofficers than thedata-handling staff. Doc1 shows thatalthoughPowys isnowrelyingheavily on IT data management, officers apparently do not know how IT documents appear torecipients. The other example shows that the Planning Department somehow forwarded an emailwhichwasnotaddressedtothePlanningDepartmenttoaweb-siteoperator.RedactionisnotconsistentInDocs1&8,thecasereferencenumbersarenotredactedwhereasinDocs7,9,&13,theyare.Most PCC staffmembers’ names, except for seniormanagement etc., are redacted but Doc 2 has aplanningofficer’schristiannamewhich identifiesher. HelenDolman’snameissometimesredactedandsometimesnot.Doc8,alone,hasthedateofthedocumentredactedbutwhyisthisnecessary?POWYSCOMPAREDWITHLOCALPLANNINGAUTHORITIESTheInformationComplianceOfficerisaUKGovernmentpostandthereforewereviewedthepoliciesofthelargerruralauthoritiesimmediatelysurroundingPowys.These are Monmouthshire, Carmarthenshire, Ceredigion, Gwynedd, Denbighshire, Shropshire andHerefordshire.All theseLPAspublishthirdpartyrepresentationsontheirplanningwebsiteswiththeaddressesoftheauthorsfullydisplayed.ThePowyspublicplanningwebsitegivesthefollowingmessagetoanyonewishingtocommentonaplanningapplicationon-line:MakeaComment:In the lightof recentdataprotection incidents, it is considered that the risk resulting frompublishingthird party correspondence is too great. Therefore, it has been regrettably agreed that only planningapplications and associated supporting information and consultee responses will be published on theCouncilswebsite.Wehavebeenunabletofindanyfurtherpolicyinformationinaweb-sitesearchorinthemostrecentversionofthePowysConstitutionorthePlanningProtocolDocument.Weunderstandthat,sinceDecember2018,therehavebeenmanyrequeststoreversethepolicynottopublish third party comments. These have come from Powys residents, from non-governmentalorganisations, fromlocalPowysCouncilsand fromOneVoiceWales. Allhavemetwithdeterminedresistance.

11

APPENDIXE:THEPETITIONtoPowysCountyCouncilPowyspeople,environmentalorganisationsandothergovernmental&non-governmentalorganisationsdeserveafairandtransparentplanningsystem.PleaseputpubliccommentsonPlanningApplicationsbackonyourwebsite.THANKYOU.InDecember2018,Powysstoppedpublishingcommentsfrom“thirdparties”ontheirplanningwebsite,withareviewinDecember2019.“Thirdparties”arelocalpeopleandotherPowysresidentsandenvironmentalorotherstakeholderorganisations.Theyoftenhaveimportantevidencefororagainstplanningapplicationswhichshouldbetakenintoaccount.Thirdpartycommentsshowustheextentandreasonsforpublicconcern.TheyshouldbeavailableontheinternetforEVERYONE,includingPlanningCommitteeMembers,tosee.ThepooralternativesofviewingfilesinLlandrindodWellsoraskingforpubliccommentsbyemailpenalisethepublicandaresimplynotworking.Therewasnopublicconsultationaboutthis.Monmouthshire, Carmarthenshire, Ceredigion, Gwynedd, Denbighshire, Shropshire andHerefordshireallpublishpubliccommentswithnamesandaddresses. Theyallmanagetheadministrationanddataprotectionlaws.Whycan’tPowys?POWYSPEOPLEDESERVEAFAIR,TRANSPARENTPLANNINGSYSTEM.PLEASEPUTPUBLICCOMMENTSBACKONTHEWEBSITE…………….signed:Date NAME ADDRESS1(in

POWYS)ADDRESS2(inPOWYS) Post

CodeSIGNATUREOREMAILADDRESS(optional)

Pleasesendcompletedsheetsto:secretary@brecon-and-radnor-cprw.walesorpostto:-CooksHouse,Norton,PowysLD82HAby30thNovember2019

WewillforwardthemtoPowysCountyCouncil.Youcanalsowritedirectlyto:-GwilymDavies(HeadofPlanning)gwilym.davies@powys.gov.uk,&HeulwynDavies(PlanningPortfolio)cllr.heulwen.hulme@powys.gov.uk.PowysCountyHall,SpaRoadEast,LlandrindodWells,PowysLD15LG

Youcanalsosignthepetitionathttp://www.brecon-and-radnor-cprw.wales/?page_id=1840