What The Council Refuse To Tell You !
From the very outset of our campaign in 2020, Chelmsford City Council have refused to be fully open and transparent in relation to the Hamptons Islamic Centre.
Requests by the public for officially held documents are made under the Freedom Of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) or the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (EIR), our City Council processes information requests under the EIR.
The most contentious issue is the legal advice taken by Planning Services to help determine reports of planning breaches at Hamptons, which is completely off limits to Chelmsford residents, who paid for it !
What are the council hiding ?
When we initially challenged the withholding of legal advice with the Information Commissioners Office (in 2020), this was the response. Why would the council need to defend itself in court ?
Reasons Given For Withholding The Legal Advice
Residents have submitted more than a dozen information requests to the City Council in relation to the Hamptons Islamic Centre.
While some have yielded key information, every single response has contained a refusal to disclose certain information (under the EIR), here are the most common reasons:
Regulation 13 - Personal data under the Data Protection Act and Environmental Information Regulations. Information supplied has been redacted to conceal the identity of council staff.
Regulation 12(5)(a) – Information that has the potential to affect public safety A public authority may refuse to disclose information to the extent that its disclosure would adversely affect: (a) international relations, defence, national security or public safety;
The council further qualifies the exemption by stating :The release of information disclosing details of local tensions may increase those tensions, and inhibit the Council’s ability to keep the public safe. Therefore the safety of the public could be compromised and an inappropriate release of information could cause damage to the community.
Regulation. 12 (5) (b) – Information supplied in the course of justice and enquiries Regulation 12 (5) (b), states that disclosure of the information is exempt if it would affect the course of justice, the ability of a person to receive a fair trial or the ability of a public authority to conduct an enquiry of a criminal or disciplinary nature.
Legal Professional Privilege section 42(1) of the Freedom of Information Act
Legal professional privilege is an established principle which allows parties to take advice, discuss legal interpretation or discuss matters of litigation freely and frankly in the knowledge that such information will be retained in confidence. This Legal advice is privileged and disclosure would inhibit Lawyers from giving advice in the future.
Just to recap here:
Council employees are public servants, do you not have a right to know who deals with the case work relating to the Hamptons Islamic Centre ?
How exactly will disclosing legal advice taken by the council impact public safety ? What do they expect from residents, pitchforks and torches ?
By not disclosing the legal opinions, will that not further increase local tensions ? Residents cannot fully understand how the council arrives at it’s decisions without seeing the legal advice.
Most worrying is the justice exemption, who at the council would face trial or an enquiry, and why is it ok for the council to protect them ? We’ve long suspected that a council official made a serious error with the original planning permission for MASC Club. Does this sound like a cover-up to you ?
The council now refer anything to do with the Hamptons Islamic Centre to Legal Services, giving them a further excuse not to disclose information to the public, citing Legal Professional Privilege
The Public Interest Test should be applied here to all legal advice taken by the council in relation to the escalation of religious and religious education use of Hamptons. Disclosure encourages understanding : withholding information encourages suspicion.
Have the council even sought legal advice ?
Without any real proof, we can’t say for sure. Given that some of the breach reports have taken 8 months to rule upon, you’d think the legal bill would be sky high, and there’s no record of that level of public expenditure.
And given the sudden reversal in legal opinion, where in 2020, quite a low level of use for worship required planning permission, to allowing the operation of a full blown mosque and madrassah, with little remaining sport/leisure use, is hard to explain away on legal grounds;