papers for Hoylake Golf Resort call in (Business Overview and Scrutiny Committee) meeting held on the 7th December 2016
Dear Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council,
On the 7th December 2016 in Committee Room 1 of Wallasey Town Hall, Brighton Street, Seacombe, CH44 8ED Wirral Council's Business and Overview Scrutiny Committee met for a public meeting.
A "Private Document Pack" was produced and sent out by post to councillors on that committee prior to the meeting.
This is a request for a copy of pages 15-136 of that Private Document Pack which is for the following agenda item:
"6 - Call-In of Cabinet minutes 55 and 61 - Exempt Appendices"
Due to what is in those pages, I consider this to be a request under the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 as some of what is in the exempt appendices will be "environmental information" as defined by reg 2(1) of the Environmental Information Regulations 2004.
Moving to regulation 6 (1) of the Environmental Information Regulations 2004, I am requesting that the information be supplied in an electronic format such as a PDF file.
If this is not possible, I am happy to accept a hard copy through the post (if this is the case please inform me and I will supply an address).
I remind you of your duty under regulation 9(1) to provide advice and assistance to those who make EIR requests.
Thank you,
John Brace
Dear Mr Brace
I refer to your email dated 12 December 2016, which contained the
following request for information:-
Dear Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council,
On the 7th December 2016 in Committee Room 1 of Wallasey Town Hall,
Brighton Street, Seacombe, CH44 8ED Wirral Council's Business and Overview
Scrutiny Committee met for a public meeting.
A "Private Document Pack" was produced and sent out by post to councillors
on that committee prior to the meeting.
This is a request for a copy of pages 15-136 of that Private Document Pack
which is for the following agenda item:
"6 - Call-In of Cabinet minutes 55 and 61 - Exempt Appendices"
Due to what is in those pages, I consider this to be a request under the
Environmental Information Regulations 2004 as some of what is in the
exempt appendices will be "environmental information" as defined by reg
2(1) of the Environmental Information Regulations 2004.
Moving to regulation 6 (1) of the Environmental Information Regulations
2004, I am requesting that the information be supplied in an electronic
format such as a PDF file.
If this is not possible, I am happy to accept a hard copy through the post
(if this is the case please inform me and I will supply an address).
I remind you of your duty under regulation 9(1) to provide advice and
assistance to those who make EIR requests.
Thank you.
I consider that the information you have requested is environmental
information under the Environmental Information Regulations 2004, (“EIR”).
Regulation 2 (1) (c) of the EIR provides that measures including
administrative measures), such as policies, legislation, plans,
programmes, environmental agreements, and activities affecting or likely
to affect the elements is environmental information. Plans and activities
likely to affect the land which will form part of the proposed Hoylake
Golf Resort Project come within the definition of environmental
information.
The Council has a duty to make environmental information available on
request unless one or more of the exceptions in the Regulations apply.I
consider that your request for a copy of the information contained in the
Private Document Pack is covered by the exception contained in
Regulation 12 (5) (b) of the EIR in that its disclosure would adversely
affect the course of justice. I have had regard to the guidance issued by
the Information Commissioner, “The course of justice and inquiries
exception (regulation 12(5)(b)) 20140211 Version: 1.1. I consider that the
information requested is material covered by legal professional privilege,
specifically, legal advice privilege. The information concerns legal
advice given to the Council confidentially by external lawyers, who are
advising the Council in connection with the proposed Hoylake Golf Course
Project.
I consider that disclosure of the requested information would have an
adverse effect on the course of justice, having regard to the current
stage reached in respect of the Hoylake Golf Resort Project.
Public Interest Test
I am required by Regulation 12 (1) (b) to consider the public interest
test in applying this exception. Paragraph 31 of the ICO guidance provides
that “The public interest inherent in this exception will always be strong
due to the fundamental importance of the general principle of upholding
the administration of justice.”
Factors in favour of disclosing the requested information
· Councils should be accountable for the quality of their decision
making and this may require transparency in the decision-making process
Factors in favour of maintaining the exception:
· Without comprehensive legal advice, Council decision-making may
be compromised because it would not be fully informed.
· Disclosure of legal advice could materially prejudice the
Council’s ability to protect and defend its legal interests
· Councils require legal advice for the effective performance of
their operations which advice will include arguments in support of their
final conclusions
I am satisfied that the public interest in maintaining the exception
outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information.
I also consider that the exception contained in Regulation 12 (5) (e) of
the EIR also applies to the information contained in the Private Document
Pack. Regulation 12 (5)(e) provides that a public authority may refuse to
disclose information to the extent that its disclosure would adversely
affect the confidentiality of commercial or industrial information where
such confidentiality is provided by law to protect a legitimate economic
interest. I have had regard to the guidance issued by the Information
Commissioner’s Office: “Confidentiality of commercial or industrial
information (regulation 12 (5) (e)0,201205`6 : Version:1.2.
I consider that the requested information has the necessary quality of
confidence. The information is not trivial and is not in the public
domain. The confidentiality is provided to protect a legitimate economic
interest, namely, that of the Council and the proposed developer in
respect of the Hoylake Golf Resort Project. Disclosure of the information
to a member of the public would cause harm both to the Council and to the
proposed developer, if it were disclosed at this stage of the project. I
refer to paragraph 36 of the ICO guidance:-
“ In addition to the duty to interpret exceptions restrictively, the
implementation guide for the Aarhus Convention (on which the European
Directive and ultimately the EIR were based) gives the following guidance
on legitimate economic interests: “Determine harm. Legitimate economic
interest also implies that the exception may be invoked only if disclosure
would significantly damage the interest in question and assist its
competitors”.
I consider that disclosure of the requested information would
significantly damage the interests of the Council and the proposed
developer and assist their competitors, who would gain access to
commercially valuable information, when the project is still live.
Public Interest Test
Factors in favour of disclosing the requested information
· The public interest in disclosure to promote transparency and
accountability of public authorities
· That public money is being used effectively
Factors in favour of maintaining the exception
· Disclosure would undermine the relationship between the Council
and the proposed developer having regard to the stage this project has
reached
· Disclosure would adversely affect the Council’s bargaining
position and prejudice the commercial interests of both the Council and
the proposed developer
· Disclosure would affect the Council’s ability to do similar
business with others in future.
I am satisfied that the public interest in maintaining the exception
outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information
I am therefore refusing your request for information under Regulation 14
of the EIR, relying on the exceptions contained in Regulation 12 (5) (b)
and Regulation 12 (5) (e) of the EIR .You have the right to make
representations under Regulation 11 of the 2004 Regulations, which should
be sent to Jane Corrin, Records and InformationManager,Town Hall, Brighton
Street, Wallasey, CH44 8ED, email: [1][email address]. If you are
dissatisfied with this response to your request for information, you have
the right to complain to the Information Commissioner, but would normally
be expected to make representations before complaining to the
Commissioner. The address is the Information Commissioner’s Office,
Wycliffe House,
Water Lane,
Wilmslow,
Cheshire SK9 5AF
Tel -0303 123 113
[2]https://ico.org.uk/global/contact-us/
Regards
Rosemary,
Rosemary Lyon,
Solicitor,
Business Services,
Law and Governance
Town Hall,
Brighton Street
Wallasey
Wirral
CH44 8ED
0151-691-8141
References
Visible links
1. blocked::mailto:[email address] mailto:[email address]
mailto:[email address]
2. https://ico.org.uk/global/contact-us/
Dear Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council,
Please pass this on to the person who conducts Environmental Information Act 2004 reviews.
I am writing to request a reconsideration of Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council's handling of my FOI request 'papers for Hoylake Golf Resort call in (Business Overview and Scrutiny Committee) meeting held on the 7th December 2016'.
I am requesting a reconsideration of your decision to refuse this request dated 10th January 2017.
Turning to your first reason for refusal:
a) regulation 12(5)(b) legal advice privilege
The person making the request considers that this can only apply to part of the requested information (Wirral Council have not specified which page or pages in the range 15-136 you are referring to) and there would be parts of this (such as the name of the external lawyer/firm giving the advice) that would not be considered part of the advice.
Specifically 12(5)(b) refers to
"(5) For the purposes of paragraph (1)(a), a public authority may refuse to disclose information to the extent that its disclosure would adversely affect—
...
(b) the course of justice, the ability of a person to receive a fair trial or the ability of a public authority to conduct an inquiry of a criminal or disciplinary nature;"
Specifically the public authority (Wirral Council) has not explained how disclosure of the legal advice would as Wirral Council suggests have "an adverse effect on the course of justice". To be more explicit, Wirral Council hasn't stated whether there is any ongoing or proposed litigation associated with the legal advice it has obtained or in relation to the decision it relates to.
Turning to the public interest test, there added factors in favour of disclosure.
a) that the decision makers are elected officials and are answerable to the public at election time,
b) without transparency about the legal advice the public can't know if the legal advice given to councillors may possibly be flawed, misleading or omit crucial information,
c) the legal advice is being used as justification to make decisions about expenditure of large amounts of public money
The requester disputes one of the factors given in favour of maintaining the exception namely "Without comprehensive legal advice, Council decision-making may be compromised because it would not be fully informed."
This is because releasing firstly the legal advice won't mean the Council is deprived of it. Secondly (as the decision-making has already been made at two previous meetings made prior to the date of the request) it can't compromise the Council's past decision-making process by releasing this information.
In relation to the second reason given in favour of maintaining the exception "Disclosure of legal advice could materially prejudice the Council’s ability to protect and defend its legal interests", the requestor requests that the Council is more explicit. For example when the Council commissioned the legal advice from a third party was there a contractural clause to state the legal advice couldn't be shared with third parties?
Wirral Council states that the information is not "in the public domain".
The requester respectfully refers Wirral Council to the draft minutes published on its website of this meeting at http://democracy.wirral.gov.uk/documents... .
As you can see from those 9 pages of minutes, which were approved as accurate at the Business Overview and Scrutiny Committee meeting held on the 24th January 2017, see here http://democracy.wirral.gov.uk/ieListDoc... , there was no resolution passed at the meeting held on the 7th December 2016 to exclude the press and public (although one was proposed by officers).
Therefore (as it is the period 6 years after the meeting being held), the report is open to public inspection (see Local Government Act 1972, s.100C(1)(d)). Also officer reports are part of the Council's Publication Scheme (see https://www.wirral.gov.uk/about-council/... in the heading "Agenda, reports and minutes" ). Matters in the publication scheme are required to be published, see Freedom of Information Act 2000, 19(1)(b). However this report has not been published!
The arguments about matters being in the public domain listed in the above paragraph also apply to the reason (given in Regulation 12(5)(e). Namely that it doesn't meet that test as the information is required to be in the public domain (to be more explicit both open to inspection and published).
For the above reasons, as well as the public interest arguments listed in favour of disclosure in the draft minutes here http://democracy.wirral.gov.uk/documents... , I would ask you to release the information requested following this review.
Thank you,
A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is available on the Internet at this address: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/p...
Yours faithfully,
John Brace
Dear Mr Brace,
Thank you for your email requesting a review of your recent EIR request
for information. Please take this email as the response to your request.
The Council can confirm the following:-
· The exception contained in Regulation 12 (5) (b) of the EIR
applies to pages 15 to 42 of the Private Document Pack.
· The exception contained in Regulation 12 (5) (e) of the EIR
applies to pages 43 to 136 of the Private Document Pack.
· The firm which gave the legal advice was Pinsent Mason.
I am satisfied as part of this review that the original decision in
seeking reliance on the exceptions contained in Regulation 12 (5) (b) and
Regulation 12 (5) (e) of EIR were correct. I also believe that the
public interest arguments given in the original request can be relied on.
I therefore uphold the original decision that the Council was correct in
seeking to rely on the exception contained in Regulation 12 (5) (b) and
Regulation 12 (5) (e) to withhold this information requested.
If you remain dissatisfied with the Council’s handling of your enquiry you
may complain to the Information Commissioner’s Office - contact details
here [1]https://ico.org.uk/global/contact-us/
Yours sincerely,
Tracy O'Hare
Information Management Officer
Business Services - Digital
Treasury Building
Cleveland Street
Birkenhead
Wirral
CH41 6BL
[2]Tel:0151 691 8397
[3][Wirral Borough Council request email]
[4]LGC Awards15_Winner_MIP
This information supplied to you is copyrighted and continues to be
protected by the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. You are free
to use it for your own purposes, including any non commercial research you
are doing and for the purposes of news reporting. Any other reuse, for
example commercial publication, would require our specific permission, may
involve licensing and the application of a charge
References
Visible links
1. https://ico.org.uk/global/contact-us/
2. file:///tmp/Tel:0151
3. mailto:[Wirral Borough Council request email]
ScarletPimpernel left an annotation ()
ICO issued decision notice FER0672223 (dated 7th August 2017).
Decision notice upholds refusal of pages 15-42 (regulation (12(5)(b).
Decision notice requires disclosure of pages 43-146 within 35 calendar days of the decision notice.
Copy of the text of the 14 page decision notice is here http://johnbrace.com/2017/08/08/ico-requ... .
At the time of writing this decision notice has not yet been published on ICO's website.
Dear Mr Brace,
I enclose a redacted copy of the Development Agreement, which was included
as pages 43-136 in the Private Document Pack. The redacted information
consists of the disputed information in respect of the Council’s appeal to
the First Tier Tribunal.
Yours sincerely,
Rosemary Lyon,
Solicitor,
Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council,
Law and Governance
Business Services
Town Hall
Brighton Street
Wallasey
Wirral
CH44 8ED
Dear Lyon, Rosemary A.,
Just some points of clarity, I notice the decision notice called for disclosure of pages 43-136* (which is 94 pages) whereas this is 96 pages. Can you please explain why there is a difference in pages please?
*146 is an error, I agree it should've been 136.
In appendices 1-4 various plans are mentioned (such as Appendix 1 Plans 1-9) but where these plans would be in what you sent was just blank pages.
Have the plans been omitted accidentally and as it would appear you are not claiming that at least some of these plans are the disputed information could I please be sent a copy of the agreement with those plans included? Is A72 meant to cover those plans or just part of the index to the plans?
Thank you,
Yours sincerely,
John Brace
Dear Lyon, Rosemary A.,
Also in the definitions, there is a blank page between the definition of "R&A Transport Agreement" to "Satisfactory Planning Permission". Is this intentional?
Yours sincerely,
John Brace
I will be on Annual Leave from 13 April until 3 May. If you need advice
please contact Colin Hughes on 0151-6918-502 in the first instance.
ScarletPimpernel left an annotation ()
There is a blog post about this EIR request here http://johnbrace.com/2017/09/09/what-are... .
The disputed information is currently the subject of a First-tier Tribunal (Information Rights) case, EA/2017/0191 .
Dear Mr Brace,
I refer to your emails of 14 and 15 September. Your original request for
information was for pages 15-136 of the Private Document Pack. The
Development Agreement constituted pages 43-136 of that pack. A Word
version of the Agreement was electronically redacted. I confirm that the
information you have received is exactly the same as that contained in
pages 43 -136 of the hard copy of the Private Document Pack. It is likely
that the two extra pages in the Word version were caused by the formatting
of the document. Although the plans were mentioned, there were no actual
maps included in the Private Document Pack, and I do not consider these to
be part of the requested information.
I refer to your email of 15 September. I cannot find a blank page in my
copy of the pdf in connection with the relevant Definitions section that
you refer to. However, having regard to the duty to provide advice and
assistance in connection with your request, I enclose a copy of the
Definitions section from “R and A Transport Agreement” to “ Satisfactory
Planning Permission”.
Yours sincerely,
Rosemary Lyon,
Solicitor,
Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council,
Law and Governance
Business Services
Town Hall
Brighton Street
Wallasey
Wirral
CH44 8ED
Dear Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council,
Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of Information reviews.
I am writing to request a reconsideration (see EIR reg. 11) of Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council's handling of my EIR request 'papers for Hoylake Golf Resort call in (Business Overview and Scrutiny Committee) meeting held on the 7th December 2016'.
Thank you for the information supplied on the 14th September 2017.
Regulation 14(3) states:-
"The refusal shall specify the reasons not to disclose the information requested, including—
(a) any exception relied on under regulations 12(4), 12(5) or 13; and
(b) the matters the public authority considered in reaching its decision with respect to the public interest under regulation 12(1)(b) or, where these apply, regulations 13(2)(a)(ii) or 13(3)."
I notice that this was the first time you stated that Regulation 13 applies to some of the disputed information, but you have not that matters you considered in reaching your decision with respect to the public interest (which is a requirement of 14(3)(b)).
Specifically you claim Regulation 13 applies to disputed information A1, A10, A41, A61, A65 and A72.
The reason (although unstated) for the application of Regulation 13 would appear to be that given in paragraph 17 of your appeal,
"Certain parts of the disputed information (which will be identified in the annotated version of the Development Agreement) constitute the personal data of third parties which it would be unfair, and therefore contrary to the first data protection principle, to disclose. It is therefore exempt from disclosure on the basis of regulation 12(3) and 13 EIR."
However as has already been established, this request is for a report to a public meeting held on the 7th December 2016.
The minutes which can be read on your website here https://democracy.wirral.gov.uk/document... show that the whole meeting was open to members of the press and public.
S.100C(1)(d) of the Local Government Act 1972 provides a right of inspection to reports that relate to any item during which the meeting is open to the public:
"100C Inspection of minutes and other documents after meetings.
(1) After a meeting of a principal council the following documents shall be open to inspection by members of the public at the offices of the council until the expiration of the period of six years beginning with the date of the meeting, namely—
....
(d) a copy of so much of any report for the meeting as relates to any item during which the meeting was open to the public."
Section 34 of the Data Protection Act 1998 states:-
"34 Information available to the public by or under enactment.
Personal data are exempt from—
(a) the subject information provisions,
(b) the fourth data protection principle and section 14(1) to (3), and
(c) the non-disclosure provisions,if the data consist of information which the data controller is obliged by or under any enactment [other than an enactment contained in the Freedom of Information Act 2000] to make available to the public, whether by publishing it, by making it available for inspection, or otherwise and whether gratuitously or on payment of a fee."
Therefore, the non-disclosure provisions of the Data Protection Act 1998 do not apply as the report is open to public inspection and it is erroneous to claim that Regulation 13 applies or that the first data protection principle prevents disclosure.
As to the refusals on grounds of 12(5)(e), I dispute that the Veolia ES Nottinghamshire Ltd v Nottinghamshire County Council [2010] EWCA Civ 1214 [2012] PTSR 185 case is applicable to this request because:-
a) at the time of my request the information right referred to in that case (section 15(1) of the Audit Commission Act 1998) had been repealed. For information, it was repealed by the Local Audit and Accountability Act 2014, s.1(2), see http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2014... ,
b) the replacement legal provision to section 15 of the Audit Commission Act 1998, Local Audit and Accountability Act 2014, s.25(6) does subject a refusal on grounds of commercial confidentiality to a public interest test, see http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2014... ,
c) If Wirral Council's argument is instead that the provisions in the ECHR legislation prevent disclosure then I draw your attention to EIR reg 5(6) which states:-
"Any enactment or rule of law that would prevent the disclosure of information in accordance with these Regulations shall not apply."
Therefore, for the above reasons and as it is within 40 working days since you sent me a copy of the disputed information I request (see EIR reg. 11 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2004/... ) that Wirral Council to consider this and decide whether it has complied with the requirements outlined above.
If Wirral Council decides it hasn't then I hope you will disclose the disputed information and withdraw your First-tier Tribunal case.
If Wirral Council after this reconsideration decides to continue to withhold the disputed information, please could you provide the "the matters the public authority considered in reaching its decision with respect to the public interest" as required by reg. 14(b)" in relation to both reg. 12(5)(e) and reg. 13.
A full history of my EIR request and all correspondence is available on the Internet at this address: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/p...
P.S. I will be sending a copy of this by email to ICO.
Yours faithfully,
John Brace
Dear Mr Brace,
I refer to your email of 23 October. I do not consider that you are
entitled to an additional request for an internal review as there has
been no fresh request for information in the last 40 days and the matter
is now before the First Tier Tribunal.
Yours sincerely,
Rosemary Lyon,
Solicitor,
Wirral Borough Council
Law and Governance
Business Services
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended
solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed.
If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager.
ScarletPimpernel left an annotation ()
31st August 2018 - Appealed to First-tier Tribunal by Wirral Council (case EA/2017/0191).
12th February 2018 - Hearing for case EA/2017/0191 on 13th and 14th February 2018 cancelled.
14th February 2018 - 15 minute telephone conference between parties and First-tier Tribunal
ScarletPimpernel left an annotation ()
I've written a blog post about some of the extra information released as part of this request a week ago.
https://johnbrace.com/2018/02/15/whats-i...
ScarletPimpernel left an annotation ()
You can now read the consent order that ended this case (EA/2017/0191) following the appeal by Wirral Council of decision notice FER0672223 ( https://johnbrace.com/2017/08/08/ico-req... ) on the First-tier Tribunal's website here http://informationrights.decisions.tribu... .
ScarletPimpernel left an annotation ()
I've since published the information supplied by post in response to this information request in 2016 here https://johnbrace.com/2018/02/15/whats-i... .
ScarletPimpernel left an annotation ()
This EIR request details some of the legal expenditure by Wirral Council in case EA/2017/0191 https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/l... .
We work to defend the right to FOI for everyone
Help us protect your right to hold public authorities to account. Donate and support our work.
Donate Now
ScarletPimpernel left an annotation ()
Appealed to ICO for a decision notice on 13.3.2017.