Agenda item

That:

·       Council notes the representation from Councillor Cooper and this report by the Chief Executive.

·       Council decides on the appeal.

Councillor Giles-Medhurst moved that the appeal be rejected and Councillor Price seconded. The Leader advised that the matter related solely to an appeal against the withholding of legal advice and that Council was not being asked to determine the underlying planning matter which formed the background to the request. Members were reminded that the report before Council concerned the interpretation of the Council’s constitutional provisions relating to access to information.

In opening the debate, Members supporting the appeal argued that access to the legal advice was necessary to allow proper scrutiny of decisions and to enable Members to fulfil their democratic responsibilities. It was suggested that legal privilege was not an automatic bar to disclosure and that Council was required to weigh the public interest arguments in favour of releasing the information. Members contended that disclosure would improve transparency and accountability, particularly where planning enforcement decisions had attracted public concern. It was argued that there was a strong public interest in understanding the legal basis for significant decisions taken on behalf of the authority.

Other Members opposed the appeal and argued that the Council should place reliance on the professional advice of its statutory officers. It was emphasized that the matter under consideration concerned the constitutional process for handling information requests rather than the merits of the planning case itself. Members expressed concern that overturing the decision would undermine established governance arrangements and the professional judgement exercised by officers in relation to legally privileged advice. It was further argued that no substantive evidence had been produced demonstrating that the original decision to withhold the advice had been flawed.

During the debate, Officers provided clarification regarding the scope of the appeal. Members were advised that the Council was not being asked to reconsider the underlying planning issues and that the appeal was confined to the question of whether the legal advice should be disclosed. Officers explained that the original decision had been taken under delegated authority and that Members had not been required to determine the matter. It was also explained that a summary of the relevant legal advice had previously been provided and that the report set out the principal reasons why privilege had been maintained.

A number of procedural points were raised during the discussion, and the meeting was briefly suspended before resuming shortly afterwards. Following further debate, the mover reiterated that the professional judgement of officers should be supported and that Council should uphold the constitutional arrangements governing access to information requests.

A recorded vote was requested by Councillor Cooper and supported by Councillors Reed, Edwards, Fraser, Trivedi and D Morris.

On being put to the vote, the motion as declared CARRIED by the Chair, the voting being:

For: Councillors Bentley, Cox, Davies, Drury, Gazzard, Giles-Medhurst, Gormley, Humphreys, Khiroya, King, Lloyd, Major, Martin, Mitchell, Price, Raeburn, Rainbow, Scarth, Sian, Smith, Stungo, Tankard and Whatley-Smith (23)

Against: Councillors Alley, Campbell, Chopra, Cooper, Edwards, Fraser, Hudson, Hunt, Milliken, D Morris, Patel, Raner, Reed and Trivedi (14)

Abstentions: Councillor Sims (1)

RESOLVED:

That Council notes the representations from Councillor Cooper and this report by the Chief Executive.

That the legal advice not be made public.