Re: Public Meeting Confirmed for 22nd April - Cats : Fri May 01, 2015 4:00 pm  

The Avenger wrote:

As someone else said on here earlier, there must be a paper trail an invoice or something, that's if it ever happened

You would think so wouldn't you but it may be as you have speculated.

Whatever the case they are not producing the advice for us to see.

Re: Public Meeting Confirmed for 22nd April - Cats : Fri May 01, 2015 4:02 pm  

The Avenger wrote: As someone else said on here earlier, there must be a paper trail an invoice or something, that's if it ever happened Here is the email reply in full for the record. Dear Mr Jennison, Freedom of Information Act 2000 - Request for Information Thank you for your request for information about the issues raised in the letter from Council Leader Peter Box dated 28/8/14 Ref PB/KES concerning Newcold development at Newmarket. Namely the request asked for 1. In what form were both parties [the club and the trust] alerted (written, verbal, other etc) and if there is any record or copies of these alerts and their subsequent replies available, could I please see them and 2. Copy of the legal advice sought by WMDC in respect of the planning application for the Newcold Development at Newmarket and a copy of the advice given with the details of the lawyers who provided it. Your request has been considered under the Freedom of Information Act 2000. With regard to Question 2 concerning legal advice I can confirm that the Council do not hold a record of the legal advice received. I am unable therefore to provide you with the information requested. With regard to Question 1 following careful consideration, I regret to inform you that we have decided not to disclose this information. The information you requested is being withheld as it falls under the exemption in Section 43(2) under the Freedom of Information Act which applies to information which, if released, would be likely to prejudice the interests of the Council or another person. As this is a qualified exemption, we have also considered whether in all the circumstances of the case, the public interest in withholding the information outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information. In reaching our conclusion we have considered the factors in favour of and against disclosure. We believe in promoting transparency and accountability by public authorities for decisions taken by them. However, we believe that the release of the information relating to correspondence between the Council’s economic development officers and their business clients would be likely to prejudice any ongoing and future negotiations in relation to any ongoing and future development activities in the District. There is an expectation from both parties that any initial discussions should be treated as commercial and confidential. This is to ensure that both parties can conduct preliminary discussions without these being exposed into the public domain before they reach the formal stages of negotiations. Release of the correspondence between the parties would also be likely to prejudice the companies’ commercial interests in that it would reveal their internal business operations and intentions which in turn would be likely to place them at a competitive disadvantage when competing for business and negotiating suitably advantageous terms of contracts. The release would be likely to prejudice the Council’s commercial interests in not being able to secure agreements on a more advantageous and value for money terms. We can however confirm the following: • At the request of senior representatives from the business NewCold and Wakefield Wildcats both parties were provided with each other’s contact details in September 2013. • Contact details for the then Chair (Mr Andrew Glover) and Chief Executive (Mr James Elston) of Wakefield Wildcats were given to NewCold. • Both parties: NewCold and Wakefield Wildcats, then met at their mutual convenience to discuss matters as they saw fit or had agreed. • No one from Wakefield Council (elected official or council officer) was present at or party to those discussions. In all the circumstances of this case we have concluded that the public interest in withholding the information is greater than disclosing it. If you are unhappy with the way the authority has handled your request, you may ask for an internal review. Please contact Information Compliance Officer either on the above number or in writing: Information Compliance Team, Room 115, County Hall, Wakefield WF1 2QW (marked Private & Confidential) or e-mail on freedomofinformation@wakefield.gov.uk who will arrange an internal review of your case. 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. If you have any queries about this letter please contact me on the above number / e-mail. Alternatively you can direct your correspondence in relation to this matter (marked Private & Confidential) to the Freedom of Information Officer, Information Management Team, Room 115, County Hall, Wakefield WF1 2QW. Yours sincerely Galina Smithson Freedom of Information Officer Room 115, County Hall Bond Street Wakefield West Yorkshire WF1 2QW Tel 01924 306112 e-mail: gsmithson@wakefield.gov.uk

The Avenger wrote: As someone else said on here earlier, there must be a paper trail an invoice or something, that's if it ever happened Here is the email reply in full for the record. Dear Mr Jennison, Freedom of Information Act 2000 - Request for Information Thank you for your request for information about the issues raised in the letter from Council Leader Peter Box dated 28/8/14 Ref PB/KES concerning Newcold development at Newmarket. Namely the request asked for 1. In what form were both parties [the club and the trust] alerted (written, verbal, other etc) and if there is any record or copies of these alerts and their subsequent replies available, could I please see them and 2. Copy of the legal advice sought by WMDC in respect of the planning application for the Newcold Development at Newmarket and a copy of the advice given with the details of the lawyers who provided it. Your request has been considered under the Freedom of Information Act 2000. With regard to Question 2 concerning legal advice I can confirm that the Council do not hold a record of the legal advice received. I am unable therefore to provide you with the information requested. With regard to Question 1 following careful consideration, I regret to inform you that we have decided not to disclose this information. The information you requested is being withheld as it falls under the exemption in Section 43(2) under the Freedom of Information Act which applies to information which, if released, would be likely to prejudice the interests of the Council or another person. As this is a qualified exemption, we have also considered whether in all the circumstances of the case, the public interest in withholding the information outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information. In reaching our conclusion we have considered the factors in favour of and against disclosure. We believe in promoting transparency and accountability by public authorities for decisions taken by them. However, we believe that the release of the information relating to correspondence between the Council’s economic development officers and their business clients would be likely to prejudice any ongoing and future negotiations in relation to any ongoing and future development activities in the District. There is an expectation from both parties that any initial discussions should be treated as commercial and confidential. This is to ensure that both parties can conduct preliminary discussions without these being exposed into the public domain before they reach the formal stages of negotiations. Release of the correspondence between the parties would also be likely to prejudice the companies’ commercial interests in that it would reveal their internal business operations and intentions which in turn would be likely to place them at a competitive disadvantage when competing for business and negotiating suitably advantageous terms of contracts. The release would be likely to prejudice the Council’s commercial interests in not being able to secure agreements on a more advantageous and value for money terms. We can however confirm the following: • At the request of senior representatives from the business NewCold and Wakefield Wildcats both parties were provided with each other’s contact details in September 2013. • Contact details for the then Chair (Mr Andrew Glover) and Chief Executive (Mr James Elston) of Wakefield Wildcats were given to NewCold. • Both parties: NewCold and Wakefield Wildcats, then met at their mutual convenience to discuss matters as they saw fit or had agreed. • No one from Wakefield Council (elected official or council officer) was present at or party to those discussions. In all the circumstances of this case we have concluded that the public interest in withholding the information is greater than disclosing it. If you are unhappy with the way the authority has handled your request, you may ask for an internal review. Please contact Information Compliance Officer either on the above number or in writing: Information Compliance Team, Room 115, County Hall, Wakefield WF1 2QW (marked Private & Confidential) or e-mail on freedomofinformation@wakefield.gov.uk who will arrange an internal review of your case. 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. If you have any queries about this letter please contact me on the above number / e-mail. Alternatively you can direct your correspondence in relation to this matter (marked Private & Confidential) to the Freedom of Information Officer, Information Management Team, Room 115, County Hall, Wakefield WF1 2QW. Yours sincerely Galina Smithson Freedom of Information Officer Room 115, County Hall Bond Street Wakefield West Yorkshire WF1 2QW Tel 01924 306112 e-mail: gsmithson@wakefield.gov.uk

Re: Public Meeting Confirmed for 22nd April - Cats : Fri May 01, 2015 4:14 pm  

We are going to discuss taking this FOI request further and potentially making a formal complaint to WMDC & the Information Commissioner after the Bank Holiday weekend. Interestingly, since this email, no one at WMDC has ever mentioned said legal advice again... until a very recent piece of correspondence that came back to us from a supporter of the club who had contacted WMDC (after the public meeting) and had a reply.

I don't want to say exactly what it said just yet, but suffice to say that we think we can make use of this in the follow up!

Re: Public Meeting Confirmed for 22nd April - Cats : Fri May 01, 2015 4:25 pm  

Like I said before, they may have been successful with this story they're trying to spin but for the sheer arrogance in assuming the legal advice line would not be challenged.

Re: Public Meeting Confirmed for 22nd April - Cats : Fri May 01, 2015 4:55 pm  

Inflatable_Armadillo wrote:

We are going to discuss taking this FOI request further and potentially making a formal complaint to WMDC & the Information Commissioner after the Bank Holiday weekend. Interestingly, since this email, no one at WMDC has ever mentioned said legal advice again... until a very recent piece of correspondence that came back to us from a supporter of the club who had contacted WMDC (after the public meeting) and had a reply.

I don't want to say exactly what it said just yet, but suffice to say that we think we can make use of this in the follow up!

Very good,

I was about to say, surely they must have to justify to someone, somewhere that the information you're requesting is too sensitive for public release? Otherwise what's the point of a Freedom of Information Act?

I'm purely speculating here, if the legal advice line was a lie then why,
unless the WMDC feel they've acted inappropriately and are trying to cover it up, again pure speculation on my part.

As I've suggested earlier, if you were a competent Planning Officer you would do your job conscientiously and efficiently, you would know that the land in question is locked into an S106 contract, governed by the Secretary of State!

Why then would you allow that land to be disagregated, expressly against the clause insisted upon by the Secretary of State?

Unless someone with authority over you told you to do so, - who has that kind of authority?

If that's not the case then due to the seriousness of the error and its future implications and potential financial cost, surely someone's been severely reprimanded or even sacked!

If no ones been reprimanded or sacked then it makes the former more likely than the latter!

Beyond that, who organised the suppression of the planning information in order to hide the disaggregation of the land until it was too late for objections - who has that authority?

Once the full betrayal of the Newcold planning application was known, who concocted the story about 'Legal Advice' - who has that authority?

Who concocted the story about the Stadium Trust, the Club and The Supporters Trust being informed of the disaggregation, a statement all have refuted including Andrew Glover and James Elston - who has the authority?

So, and I'm still speculating here, who has the kind of authority, control and influence to do all of that?

Re: Public Meeting Confirmed for 22nd April - Cats : Fri May 01, 2015 5:02 pm  

I suppose the question remains if Elston and Glover were informed at the meeting did they fully understand what was being said to them.

Was it put in a way to suggest the wording had to be so to enable the increase in the height of the Newcold Development to get through the planning process but YC would still honour (ha) the agreement. I guess without a minuted meeting we'll never know. Elston ain't the most reliable of characters so him saying he doesn't recall this issue is neither here nor there.

Re: Public Meeting Confirmed for 22nd April - Cats : Fri May 01, 2015 5:05 pm  

The Avenger wrote:

Very good,

I was about to say, surely they must have to justify to someone, somewhere that the information you're requesting is too sensitive for public release? Otherwise what's the point of a Freedom of Information Act?

I'm purely speculating here, if the legal advice line was a lie then why,
unless the WMDC feel they've acted inappropriately and are trying to cover it up, again pure speculation on my part.

As I've suggested earlier, if you were a competent Planning Officer you would do your job conscientiously and efficiently, you would know that the land in question is locked into an S106 contract, governed by the Secretary of State!

Why then would you allow that land to be disagregated, expressly against the clause insisted upon by the Secretary of State?

Unless someone with authority over you told you to do so, - who has that kind of authority?

If that's not the case then due to the seriousness of the error and its future implications and potential financial cost, surely someone's been severely reprimanded or even sacked!

If no ones been reprimanded or sacked then it makes the former more likely than the latter!

Beyond that, who organised the suppression of the planning information in order to hide the disaggregation of the land until it was too late for objections - who has that authority?

Once the full betrayal of the Newcold planning application was known, who concocted the story about 'Legal Advice' - who has that authority?

Who concocted the story about the Stadium Trust, the Club and The Supporters Trust being informed of the disaggregation, a statement all have refuted including Andrew Glover and James Elston - who has the authority?

So, and I'm still speculating here, who has the kind of authority, control and influence to do all of that?

All very good points which need answering but it may take legal action to prize out the answers. You cannot hide behind sensitive information or confidentiality when asked by a High Court Judge and you cannot lie for fear of purgery and its consequences.

Re: Public Meeting Confirmed for 22nd April - Cats : Fri May 01, 2015 5:08 pm  

Sandal Cat wrote:

All very good points which need answering but it may take legal action to prize out the answers. You cannot hide behind sensitive information or confidentiality when asked by a High Court Judge and you cannot lie for fear of purgery and its consequences.

Well one last question, still speculating, what inducements would be required for an individual with such authority and influence to act in such a way?

Re: Public Meeting Confirmed for 22nd April - Cats : Fri May 01, 2015 5:09 pm  

Khlav Kalash wrote:

I suppose the question remains if Elston and Glover were informed at the meeting did they fully understand what was being said to them.

Was it put in a way to suggest the wording had to be so to enable the increase in the height of the Newcold Development to get through the planning process but YC would still honour (ha) the agreement. I guess without a minuted meeting we'll never know. Elston ain't the most reliable of characters so him saying he doesn't recall this issue is neither here nor there.

You are correct. If the question was put to them about disaggregation would they have understood it if it was not explained to them in layman terms, they will have no knowledge of planning procedures.

Re: Public Meeting Confirmed for 22nd April - Cats : Fri May 01, 2015 5:13 pm  

The Avenger wrote:

Well one last question, still speculating, what inducements would be required for an individual with such authority and influence to act in such a way?

I'm afraid I cannot answer that on here and in view of the threats of legal action against us I think we all need to be careful what we say on here.