76 - Neighbourhood forums are public authorities under the EIR

For those concerned with neighbourhood planning Phillips v IC [2026] UKFTT 00151 (GRC) (30 January 2026) is an interesting decision of the First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber) Information Rights (“the FTT”).

The FTT ruled that a Neighbourhood Forum (“Forum”) is a public authority for the purposes of the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (“EIR”). The decision reflects the seemingly ever expanding scope of public authorities under the EIR following Fish Legal and another v Information Commissioner and others (C-279/12) [2014] QB 521 (a case which I appeared unsuccessfully for the UK before a Grand Chamber of the Court of Justice of the EU over a decade ago now).

As those involved in neighbourhood plan processes will know Forums are a “qualifying body” for the purposes of s. 38A(12) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 as amended by the Localism Act 2011 when designated as such. The criteria for designation are set out in s. 61F(5) of the 2004 Act. The reasoning of the FTT is detailed and interesting and overturns the IC’s decision.

The implications are thus now that any environmental information – which is very widely defined indeed - held by Forums may be requested and Forums are obliged to make that environmental information available: see reg. 5 of the EIR. Of course, Forums may now seek to rely on exceptions with the EIR such as those in reg. 12(4)(d) “the request relates to material which is still in the course of completion, to unfinished documents or to incomplete data; or (e) the request involves the disclosure of internal communications.” But the fact is that the decision will impose additional burdens on Forums. The Forum concerned made strenuous submissions before the FTT against the EIR applying. But those arguments were rejected. The FTT decision ends (almost apologetically) with this:

“The work of neighbourhood forums
104. We conclude by acknowledging the valuable work that is carried out by the volunteers who make up neighbourhood forums. Ensuring that the local community are able to input into the shaping and influencing of Council policies that will directly affect the local area is a vital way of empowering communities and mitigating the perception that planning decisions are taken at a national level with limited regard for local considerations and concerns. We are acutely aware, having listened carefully to the submissions on behalf of the Forum, of the resource constraints on neighbourhood forums and of the obvious diligence and care that is applied to the work by their members – for which they should be commended.”

What role did Aarhus play in the decision?

Well …

1. It seems the IC considered Aarhus in the decision: see [15]

2. The FTT looked at the Aarhus definition of public authority at [56]:

“56. Article 2(2) of the Aarhus Convention provides that, for the purposes of the Convention, the term "public authority” means:

(a) Government at national, regional and other level;

(b) Natural or legal persons performing public administrative functions under national law, including specific duties, activities or services in relation to the environment;

(c) Any other natural or legal persons having public responsibilities or functions, or providing public services, in relation to the environment, under the control of a body or person falling within subparagraphs (a) or (b) above;

(d) The institutions of any regional economic integration organization referred to in article 17 which is a Party to this Convention.

This definition does not include bodies or institutions acting in a judicial or legislative capacity.”

3. The FTT summarised the parties arguments, which encompassed Aarhus, in the following paragraphs before reaching its overall conclusion:

“74. The Commissioner also made submissions in relation to the wording of regulation 2(2)(c) of the EIR which, on its face, is wider than the corresponding provision in the Directive which refers to “any natural or legal person”. The Commissioner argued that the broader formulation in the EIR is permissible, given that the Directive only establishes the minimum standards that must be transposed into domestic law, which can be exceeded by the Member States. Even if that were not to be the case, the Commissioner submitted that the wording of the Directive and the Aarhus Convention would include a an unincorporated association for two reasons in any event. Firstly, a restrictive interpretation of the term “public authority” that excluded statutory bodies exercising statutory environmental functions, simply because they lacked corporate personality, would undermine the objectives of the Aarhus Convention in guaranteeing a right of access to environmental information. Secondly, the Forum’s members are natural persons who have come together for a common purpose and there would be no reason as to why these natural persons were outside the scope of the EIR regime when exercising public administrative functions.

75. A contrary position was advanced on behalf of the Forum, who submitted that the Forum was not an entity or legal person with reference to the specific outline in Fish Legal CJEU. The Forum noted that there were significant practical problems with imposing administrative law obligations, such as responding to EIR requests, upon a collection of natural persons. The Forum also noted that they have no postal address for service of legal process, no IT systems, and no employees.

76. In addition, the Forum sought to draw a distinction between neighbourhood forums and parish councils, being the only two entities that could be designated as a “qualifying body” pursuant to the relevant Act. The Forum noted that, unlike a neighbourhood forum, a parish council had an independent legal personality, certain public powers and duties, and are furnished with staff, public funds, offices and IT equipment. The Forum also observed that, if Parliament had considered that it was appropriate for designated forums to be subject to the Freedom of Information Act 2000 regime or the EIR regime, it could have added them to Schedule 1 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 when the Localism Act 2011 came into force.

77. Having carefully considered all of the submissions, we are satisfied that the Forum, as an unincorporated association, is “a body or other person” for the purposes of the EIR. We find that the wording of Schedule 1 of the Interpretation Act 1978 is clear and unambiguous in that a “person” include a body of persons corporate or unincorporate - in other words, including an unincorporated association. We are also satisfied – and indeed there is no dispute – that, in the absence of any contrary intention, the provisions of Schedule 1 are applicable to the EIR.”

The FTT decision explains at [16] that in Aireborough Neighbourhood Development Forum v Leeds City Council [2020] EWHC 45 (Admin) it was held that neighbourhood forums were regarded as unincorporated associations and so capable of bringing a judicial review.

This blog post was written by James Maurici KC.

----------------

Authors of the Aarhus blogs

– James Maurici KC – James has been in many of the leading cases on Aarhus costs including: R (RSPB) v SSJ [2017] 5 Costs L.O. 691; Case C 530/11 Commission v United Kingdom; Case C-260/11 Edwards v EA; R (Edwards) v EA (No.2) [2011] 1 Costs L.R. 70 and [2013] UKSC 78; and R (Edwards) v EA [2011] 1 W.L.R. 79. He has also appeared a number of times before the UNECE Aarhus Compliance Committee in Geneva, cases include: ACCC/C/2010/45; ACCC/C/2010/53; ACCC/C/2011/60; ACCC/C/2011/61; ACCC/C/2012/77; ACCC/C/2014/100 and 101; ACCC/C/2017/150. He is currently acting on the Free Trade Agreement Communication ACCC/C/2022/194. He was one of the contributors to the Aarhus Convention: A Guide for UK Lawyers (2015) and he has written and lectured extensively on the Aarhus Convention.

– Jacqueline Lean – Jacqueline has also been instructed on a number of matters concerning the Aarhus Convention, including appearing (with James Maurici KC) for United Kingdom before the Aarhus Compliance Committee on two communications concerning the Government’s decision to proceed with HS2 (ACCC/C/100 & 101); representing the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Secretary of State in R (CPRE Kent) v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2019] EWCA Civ 1230 in which the Court of Appeal considered the approach to summary assessment of costs at permission stage when an Aarhus costs cap applied; and acting for the Secretary of State in R (RSPB) v Secretary of State for Justice [2018] Env LR 13, a challenge to the Government’s amendments to the Aarhus costs protections in the CPR (also with James Maurici KC). She is also a contributing author to Coppel’s ‘Information Rights’ on Environmental Information.

– Nick Grant – Nick joined Chambers in 2019 and has regularly advised on Aarhus related matters. He has represented the UK twice before the Aarhus Convention Compliance Committee, appearing with James Maurici KC in ACCC/C/2017/150 (the Withdrawal Act case) and unled in the admissibility hearing for ACCC/C/2022/194 (the free trade agreements case).

– Margherita Cornaglia – Margherita’s public law practice often involves acting in claims raising environmental and climate change related issues. For instance, she acted as junior counsel in the judicial review of the Government’s Third National Adaptation Programme (NAP3), pursued with an Aarhus costs cap, advancing novel arguments under Part 4 of the Climate Change Act. She also acted as junior counsel for community claimants in the Launders Lane litigation, challenging Havering Council’s refusal to designate Arnold’s Field as contaminated land; that claim likewise proceeded with Aarhus costs protection to secure effective participation and accountability. Beyond litigation, she has advised solicitors on the Government’s recent consultation concerning access to justice in relation to the Aarhus Convention, drawing on her broader practice representing NGOs and affected communities in environmental and climate cases.

– Alex Shattock – Alex has been involved in a number of environmental claims including Friends of the Earth v SSLUHC (the Cumbria coal mine case: acting for Friends of the Earth in the Planning Inquiry and High Court, with Paul Brown KC and Toby Fisher); Cox and Ors v Oil and Gas Authority [2022] EWHC 75 (Admin) (representing Extinction Rebellion activists in a challenge to the Oil and Gas Authority’s Strategy, with David Wolfe KC and Merrow Golden); R (Hough) v SSHD [2022] EWHC 1635 (acting for the claimant in an environmental and equalities challenge to the controversial use of Napier Barracks as asylum seeker accommodation, with Alex Goodman KC and Charles Bishop). He regularly advises individual and NGO clients on Aarhus costs protection. Alex also has a keen interest in treaty law generally. He has a masters and PhD in public international law and has been involved in various treaty negotiations and treaty ratification processes.

– Rebecca Sage – Rebecca is a junior tenant at Landmark Chambers with a growing practice in planning and environmental law. She is regularly instructed on matters engaging the Aarhus Convention, usually through the lens of judicial review. Rebecca has a developing interest in this complex and important area of the law and its implications for access to information, public participation in decision-making and access to justice.