EXCLUSIVE: Wirral Council spent £1,009.35 on “media training” for councillors and a further £57,659.24 on legal costs over unreasonable land charges
EXCLUSIVE: Wirral Council spent £1,009.35 on “media training” for councillors and a further £57,659.24 on legal costs over unreasonable land charges
Jim Hancock invoice media training Wirral Council councillors
Wirral Council spent £1,009,35 on “media training” for councillors provided by Jim Hancock. The training was provided to councillors on the 16th March 2016, 27th April 2016 and 14th June 2016.
Part of the cost of the training were three round trips from Lymm to Wallasey (81 miles each time) charged to Wirral Council at 45 pence a mile costing £109.35.
I will declare an interest in the next part of this article as I’m currently awaiting a permission to appeal decision in relation to costs relating to an Environmental Information Regulations request (which doesn’t relate to land charges) which will be decided by the First-tier Tribunal (Information Rights).
Below are Wirral Council’s grounds of appeal. On the first page it lists Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council as the Claimant, when they are in fact the Appellant.
I received a 2 page letter yesterday (4th September 2017) sent by Second Class post dated 1st September 2017 from ICO (the regulator).
In summary the letter states that the Information Commissioner’s solicitors are now dealing with the matter as Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council have appealed decision notice FER0672223 to the First-tier Tribunal (Information Rights).
As Wirral Council are the Appellant, the Information Commissioner will be First Respondent.
ICO’s letter also states that due to this the Commissioner won’t be keeping me informed about further developments on the appeal.
Although I’m the person who made the original information request, as I’m not appealing the decision notice, I’m not at the point of writing this blog post a party to the matter.
From past experience it could take ~7 months before a decision is reached.
This is a new situation I find myself in as it’s the first time a public authority has appealed to the First-tier Tribunal a decision notice relating to an information request I’ve made!
A copy of ICO’s two page letter is below, the First-tier Tribunal case reference number is EA/2017/0191.
ICO require Wirral Council to release 94 page draft agreement with Nicklaus Joint Venture Group Limited about Hoylake Golf Resort
ICO require Wirral Council to release 94 page draft agreement with Nicklaus Joint Venture Group Limited about Hoylake Golf Resort
ICO (Information Commissioner’s Office) logo
Updated 27.2.18 with an amendment to paragraph 3 of the decision notice following First-tier Tribunal (information rights) case EA/2017/0191.
Edited 10.8.17 by JB to include text of decision notice below images of pages
ICO have required Wirral Council to disclose 94 pages of a draft development agreement between itself and the Nicklaus Joint Venture Group Limited in respect of the proposed golf course, hotel and residential property in Hoylake. This project is known as the Hoylake Golf Resort and the proposed development involves the sale of and leasing of Wirral Council owned land to the developer.
Wirral Council have 35 calendar days (from the 7th August 2017) to provide the information or alternatively they can appeal ICO’s decision to the First-tier Tribunal (Information Rights) within 28 days.
ICO ruled that a further 29 pages of legal advice that Wirral Council received from Pinsent Masons about the Hoylake Golf Resort project did not need to be disclosed.
You can read the full 14 page decision notice (FER0672223) below.
FER0672223 Hoylake Golf Resort (Wirral Council) Page 1 of 14
Reference: FER0672223
Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (EIR)
Decision notice
Date:
7 August 2017
Public Authority:
Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council
Address:
Town Hall
Brighton Street
Wallasey
Merseyside
CH44 8ED
Complainant:
John Brace
Address:
Jenmaleo
Jenmaleo
134 Boundary Road
Bidston
CH43 7PH
Decision (including any steps ordered)
The complainant has requested information relating to the Hoylake Golf Resort Project. Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council withheld the information under the exceptions for the course of justice (regulation 12(5)(b)) and commercial confidentiality (regulation 12(5)(e)).
The Commissioner’s decision is that Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council has correctly applied regulation 12(5)(b) to withhold some of the requested information but failed to demonstrate that regulation 12(5)(e) is engaged.
The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
● Disclose pages 43-146 of the Private Document Pack.
The Tribunal requires Wirral Metropolitan Council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation –
Disclose the Amended Annotated Development Agreement at pages 256 – 351 of the Closed Bundle prepared for the appeal hearing, save the passages annotated in green and any marginal green notes, which may be withheld. The Commissioner’s order at paragraph 2 of the Decision Notice stands.
The public authority must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 of the Act and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
Will a planning appeal over the Saughall Massie fire station fail due to incorrect legal advice to councillors?
Originally this bundle was going to be published in a different way, but instead it will be published as an exclusive in serial form on this blog.
I’d better start by declaring an interest as the Appellant in First-tier Tribunal case EA/2016/0054, which is about an Environmental Information Regulations 2004 request for the estimates of capital costs involving a new fire station first at Greasby, then at Saughall Massie and the sale of fire stations at Upton and West Kirby.
Despite the bundle being 480 pages in total, there are hundreds of pages missing from it (such as the transcripts of the public meetings involved, communications between the 2nd Respondent (MFRA) and the 1st Respondent (ICO) etc).
