Request:
I am writing to you under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 to request the following information:
- All correspondence (including minuted meetings/phone conversations/emails/letters) regarding the closure of High Borrans Outdoor Education Centre from July 2, 2024, to the present day.
- All correspondence (including minuted meetings/phone conversations/emails/letters) regarding the expressions of business interests for High Borrans Outdoor Education Centre from July 2, 2024, to the present day.
- A yearly breakdown of the income generated from the site from 2020 to 2026. Please include the associated costs of running and maintaining the site, including the council subsidy.
Response 1:
-All correspondence (including minuted meetings/phone conversations/emails/letters) regarding the closure of High Borrans Outdoor Education Centre from July 2, 2024, to the present day.
Some of the information requested is currently being considered under the public interest test in relation to the exemption at section 36(2)
Some information in answer to this request is exempt under section 21 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 as the information is accessible to the applicant by other means.
The reason for this is that this information is published/publicly available FOI-8415 High Borrans Outdoor Education Centre Repair and Maintenance Costs | North Tyneside Council
- All correspondence (including minuted meetings/phone conversations/emails/letters) regarding the expressions of business interests for High Borrans Outdoor Education Centre from July 2, 2024, to the present day.
Some of the information requested is currently being considered under the public interest test in relation to the exemption at section 36(2)
Some information in answer to this request is exempt under section 21 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 as the information is accessible to the applicant by other means.
The reason for this is that this information is published/publicly available FOI-8415 High Borrans Outdoor Education Centre Repair and Maintenance Costs | North Tyneside Council
- A yearly breakdown of the income generated from the site from 2020 to 2026. Please include the associated costs of running and maintaining the site, including the council subsidy.
|
Year |
2020/21 |
2021/22 |
2022/23 |
2023/24 |
2024/25 |
2025/26 |
|
| Running costs including staff and maintenance | £599,947.00 | £679,597.00 | £799,821.00 | £759,495.00 | £800,029.00 | £827,850.00 | |
| Income | £479,605.00 | £578,796.00 | £650,896.00 | £554,627.00 | £583,001.00 | £572,642.00 | |
| LA contribution | £120,342.00 | £100,801.00 | £148,925.00 | £204,869.00 | £217,028.00 | £255,208.00 | * |
| * The variance reflects the difference between the figures reported in the Cabinet Report and the final confirmed year-end financial position | |||||||
Response 2:
We have identified 17 emails that fall within the scope of your request and are disclosing 9 of these. The remaining emails, and/or parts of emails, have been withheld as they contain information that is exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act 2000. The exemptions applied are set out below
Refusal Notice: Section 36(2)(b)(i) &(ii) - Information would inhibit the free and frank provision of advice or exchange of views for the purposes of deliberation
The Authority has considered this request carefully and has decided to withhold some information under Sections 36(2)(b)(i) and 36(2)(b)(ii) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000.
The withheld information includes internal communications and records of discussions between officers which formed part of the Authority's consideration of matters relating to the closure of High Borrans Outdoor Education Centre.
The Qualified Person has determined that disclosure of certain documents, including internal emails relating to the closure of High Borrans Outdoor Education Centre, would inhibit the free and frank exchange of views between officers when considering similarly sensitive and contentious matters in the future.
The information forms part of the Authority's internal deliberations and includes opinions, preliminary assessments, concerns, challenges and options considered before any final decisions were reached. Officers must be able to discuss issues openly, test assumptions, identify risks and challenge proposals without concern that their initial views or exploratory discussions will be disclosed publicly and taken out of context.
The Authority considers that routine disclosure of such communications would affect the frankness of future discussions and advice. Effective decision-making relies upon officers having a safe space in which ideas and options can be explored, challenged and refined before conclusions are reached. Disclosure of these internal deliberations would undermine that process and prejudice the Authority's ability to obtain robust advice and scrutiny when considering future matters of a similar nature.
As section 36 is a qualified exemption we need to apply the public interest test.
Arguments in favour of disclosing the information
- There is a significant public interest in openness and transparency regarding the closure of High Borrans Outdoor Education Centre.
- Disclosure would increase public understanding of how the Authority reached its decision and the factors considered.
- There is a public interest in understanding what alternative options were considered and the reasoning behind decisions affecting local communities and service users.
- Disclosure would support accountability and contribute to informed public debate regarding the closure.
Arguments in favour of withholding the information
- There is a strong public interest in protecting the ability of officers to provide free and frank advice and participate in candid discussions during decision-making processes.
- Officers need a safe space to explore options, test assumptions, identify risks and challenge proposals without concern that preliminary views will be disclosed publicly.
- Disclosure would inhibit future exchanges of advice and views on similarly sensitive and contentious matters.
- The information consists of internal deliberations, opinions and exploratory discussions which do not necessarily represent the Authority's final position.
- Disclosure could result in comments being taken out of context or misinterpreted, potentially undermining confidence in the decision-making process.
- There is a public interest in protecting staff from unnecessary scrutiny and ensuring that participation in internal discussions is not discouraged.
- The effective conduct of public affairs depends upon public authorities being able to obtain candid advice and robust internal challenge before decisions are reached.
On balance, having considered the public interest test, we believe that the public interest is best served by upholding the exemption in part while releasing the remaining information
Section 42 Legal Professional Privilege
This information is exempt from disclosure under section 42 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (information covered by legal professional privilege).
For the avoidance of doubt, the Authority is not prepared to waive privilege. Section 42 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act) states:
(1) Information in respect of which a claim to legal professional privilege… could be maintained in legal proceedings is exempt information.
(2) The duty to confirm or deny does not arise if, or to the extent that, compliance with section 1(1)(a) would involve the disclosure of any information (whether or not already recorded) in respect of which such a claim could be maintained in legal proceedings.
Legal professional privilege (LPP) is not defined in the Act or in any other legislation. It is a common law concept shaped by the courts over time. It is designed to provide confidentiality between legal advisers and their clients to ensure openness between them and safeguard access to fully informed, realistic and frank legal advice. This in turn ensures that justice is fairly administered. Legal professional privilege belongs to the client, and material cannot be revealed without the consent of the client, not even to a court.
A professional legal adviser for the purposes of LPP could be a solicitor, barrister, licensed conveyancer or legal executive holding professional qualifications recognised by the Institute of Legal Executives (ILEX). It makes no difference whether the legal adviser is an external lawyer or a professional in-house lawyer.
In this case, the LPP is legal advice privilege. Legal advice privilege covers confidential communications between the client and a lawyer made for the dominant purpose of seeking or giving legal advice. In the current instance, the information that you have requested constitutes confidential legal advice given by our professional legal advisers. We are, therefore, satisfied that the exemption applies.
The exemption is, however, subject to the public interest test. The Authority has considered whether the public interest is maintaining this exemption is outweighed by the public interest in disclosure.
This Council has considered the following reasons in favour of disclosure: The assumption in favour of disclosure and the rationale behind the assumption, i.e. accountability, transparency, furthering public debate etc. Balanced against this are the following reasons against disclosure: The concept of legal professional privilege and the rationale behind the concept which is to ensure frankness between lawyer and client which goes to serve the wider administration of justice.
On balance the Authority considers that the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosure.
Section 40(2) - personal data
This information is withheld under Section 40(2) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. Information is exempt from disclosure if it is the personal data of an individual other than the requester and where the disclosure of that personal data would be in breach of any of the data protection principles.