The local plan consultation's stirred up more than its fair share of controversy and there is a nagging suspicion that there isn't a level playing field for those unhappy with the way the original decisison to progress with it was made 'behind closed doors' in a council cabinet meeting.
One concerned Bickerstaffe resident's been on the case for the last few months but looks to be in a no win situation after this response from John Harrision, the WLBC Director of Development and Regeneration.
To follow, his letter to Eric Lupton who's been trying to find who voted for and against the plans to take the local plan to consultation: Eric explains his response first of all:
'Here is the (totally expected) response to my request for copies of the Local Plan Cabinet Working Group minutes.
As the Plan/preferred options are based, at least in part, on reports compiled by Mr Harrison I don’t see how he can be tasked with carrying out an ‘independent’ review. However that is an aside. From a practical point of view, I will take this forward with the Information Commissioner. Also as Mr Harrison’s only justification appears to be that it is an ongoing process I will email him to ask if the minutes will be released once the preferred options decision has been made.
Dear Mr Lupton
Thank you for your letter regarding your EIR (environmental information request), reference 2018/852, where you ask that I review the decision made by the Council in not disclosing the information you requested.
As you refer to, the EIR (2004) only provides a qualified exception for disclosing internal communications (regulation 12(4)(e), (EIR), and so the Council must apply the public interest test set out in Regulation 12(1)(b) in considering whether they should disclose the internal communications or not.
The Council did apply the public interest test in considering your request to view the Local Plan Cabinet Working Group (LPCWG) minutes and came to the conclusion that the public interest in maintaining the exception outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information because:
-The underlying rationale behind the exception is that public authorities should have the necessary ‘space to think’ in private I.e. to protect internal deliberation and decision making processes. The LPCWG is tasked with deliberation and making recommendations on the Local Plan and this is an ongoing process.
- Consideration of the public interest test should include a consideration of the content and sensitivity of the particular information in question and the circumstances of the request. These factors are especially relevant in the context of the Local Plan which, at the time of your request, was the subject of a Preferred Options consultation. Even now that the consultation is closed, the preparation of the Local Plan is ongoing, and so the consideration of content and sensitivity still applies.
-The need for ‘space to think’ will be strongest when the issue is still live (confirmed in DDBERR v Information Commissioner and Friends of the Earth (EA/2007/0072, 29 April 2008 and DIES v IC and Evening Standard EA/2006/0006, 19 February 2007). As the preparation of the Local Plan is still ongoing (‘live’), the public interest in withholding the LPCWG minutes outweighs the public interest in disclosing the minutes.
As such I am satisfied that your EIR request was handled correctly by the Council.
If you are not content with the outcome of the internal review, you have the right to apply directly to the Information Commissioner for a decision. The Information Commissioner can be contacted at Information Commissioner’s Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire, SK9 5AF.
Yours sincerely
John R Harrison
Director of Development and Regeneration.