Wycombe District Council fails in bid to keep stadium document secret (From This Is Local London)

Wycombe District Council fails in bid to keep stadium document secret

7:00am Friday 19th March 2010 in

By Oliver Evans »

Skip social links
Print
Email
Comments(32)

COUNCIL chiefs tried to keep secret a passage in a document that has led to questions about whether Wycombe Air Park could be used for a stadium.

Wycombe District Council blacked out a section in the 1965 covenant signed when it bought the site from the Ministry of Defence when asked for it under Freedom of Information rules.

Yet the Ministry of Defence did not black out this section when asked under FOI.

The site is being looked at as a possible location for a new stadium for Wycombe Wanderers and London Wasps.

It says the park cannot be used for ‘noisy noxious or offensive trade or business or for any purpose which may be or become a nuisance damage or annoyance’.

A council statement said: “The decision to redact part thereof was taken on grounds of commercial confidentiality, relative to on-going negotiations with the tenants of the airpark.

“The council and the MOD have different considerations in this matter and the council was entitled to rely on appropriate exemptions in the Freedom of Information Act to protect its own interests.”

And it said: “Whilst covenants can be a hurdle in relation to local authority development proposals, they are seldom insurmountable, in that there are legal mechanisms that allow for the council to apply for the modification or discharge of a covenant in prescribed circumstances, or to over-ride the same subject to the satisfaction of certain conditions.”

It said another provision in the covenant regarding the need to protect ‘light and air’ use at the site is to stop owners of houses Clayhill and Claymoor Park building on their land in a way that ‘would interfere with the use of the airpark land as an airfield’.

Yet Liberal Democrat councillor Steve Guy said: “They are too ready with their marker pen.

“I don’t see how that particular line in the lease affords them commercial confidentiality.”

He said the ‘noisy and noxious’ paragraph could prove a sticking point if the site is chosen for a stadium. This would include a sports village and possibly other businesses and housing.

Cllr Guy said: “People who are not sports fans might regards sports crowds cheering their team on as noisy and noxious – but some people may consider an air park to be noisy and noxious.”

The Information Commissioner, which regulates use of the FOI act, said it could not comment.

It said: “Individuals must make freedom of information requests directly to the relevant public authority. If the request is not answered to the satisfaction of the requester, he/she can ask the authority to carry out an internal review.

“If the requester remains dissatisfied, a complaint can be made to the ICO. The ICO looks into all complaints.

“We do not have the authority (and nor do we seek it) to consider individual complaints about whether authorities should release certain documents, unless people have used the Freedom of Information Act in the way outlined above.”

Comments(32)

Punchy says...
7:21am Fri 19 Mar 10

This passage has not been redacted for any reason of sensitiivity but for the sole purpose of misleading.

Misuse of these special permissions granted by the FOI Act must surely leave someone culpable? Why not pass it on to Thames Valley Police BFP and let them decide?