Investigation: Council’s ‘inconsistent’ approach to disclosing information

Yesterday we reported on how the council’s has a shocking record of withholding information compared with similar councils.

Today, we are looking Harrogate Borough Council’s response to public and the press who use the Freedom of Information act and other means to force the council to reveal information they have kept secret.

Over the past year, the Stray Ferret has investigated and published stories scrutinising the use of Harrogate taxpayers’ money.

To do this, we have submitted Freedom of Information requests to the borough council to get information or asked direct questions on matters of public interest.

As a taxpayer, it is your right to know what the local authority does with your money, how it is spent and what it is spent on.

What we have found is an inconsistent approach to responding to freedom of information requests, suspicion of the press and members of the public who feel the council has a defensive attitude to requests for information.

On two significant occasions, the council has decided to withhold information where thousands of pounds of public money has been spent – only to later publish it when challenged.

Today, we will focus on two FOI requests from ourselves and two from residents:

On two of these occasions the council refused the FOI and then, inexplicably, posted the information on Twitter.

Jacob Bailey and Visit Harrogate

When the borough council decided to bypass its own procurement rules to hand a contract to revamp the Visit Harrogate website, it posed serious questions of public interest as to whether the contract was value for money.

The decision was taken by the Cabinet Member for Culture, Tourism and Sport, Cllr Stan Lumley in November 2020.

While the council published a public report on what it wanted to do with the website and that it was going to hand the contract to a Suffolk-based company, Jacob Bailey, it also contained information that was confidential.

The public parts of the report did not include any reference to how much the contract cost.

Read more:

The Stray Ferret asked the borough council what the value of the contract was, while a member of the public submitted a freedom of information request with the same question.

We also asked why the authority had not dealt with the matter sooner and what market research had led it to select the Jacob Bailey Group over local companies.

The council refused to answer our questions and refused the FOI – citing grounds of commercial confidentiality.

Yet, two months later in January, the council did publish the cost – which was £165,000 over four years – on Twitter.

The matter raises questions once again as to why that information was not public in the first place and why it was not given at the point of request – to either journalists or the member of the public.

Flaxby Park legal costs

In October, the borough council appeared at the High Court as part of a judicial review over a decision to choose Green Hammerton over Flaxby for a new settlement.

The authority hired Paul Brown QC, joint head of Landmark Chambers in London.

Despite the costs being paid through public money, the council refused an FOI request from the Stray Ferret to reveal the sum paid to Mr Brown.

It said the information was exempt from disclosure because its lawyers’ legal fees should remain private.  We challenged that by requesting an internal review.

Read more:

In January the borough council revealed on social media that the legal costs were £57,360. But instead of giving to us, it published it on Twitter first.

We later found that the authority paid Mr Brown on five separate occasions and published his name on its publicly available expenses.

It begs the question why was the information denied to us in the first place when it was already available publicly?

Live streaming costs

One request last year dragged on for six months before the council decided to hand over the information.

In January 2020, the ruling Conservative group, led by leader Cllr Richard Cooper, rejected a proposal to stream meetings live.

At the time, Cllr Cooper said there was “not enough public interest” in the idea and added it would “cost tens of thousands of pounds”.

As a result, Jerry Diccox, a local resident, submitted a freedom of information request asking for the details of the council’s cost analysis of live streaming meetings.

Mr Diccox documented his e-mail exchange with the council on the website WhatDoTheyKnow. It lasted for six months until finally the authority released the information.

Initially, HBC rejected the FOI request due to “commercial confidentiality”. Mr Diccox asked for an internal review but the council’s chief solicitor upheld the original decision.

He argued that the cost analysis related to a “potential expenditure of public money”.

After taking his complaint to the Information Commissioner, Mr Diccox finally received his information.

Six months after his initial request, the council said it had reconsidered his request after being advised of the complaint.

The analysis showed indicative cost of live streaming meetings over one year and three years.

It showed that streaming meetings could cost £5,377.20 or £25,185.80 for one year. Meanwhile, three years could range from £5,377.20 to £40,623.80.

Mr Diccox said at the time that the council’s attempts to “hide behind the public interest” exemption was “nothing short of shameful”.

He said:

“This whole exercise has been a huge waste of time and effort, and as such I very much hope (but very much doubt) that the council has learnt lessons about attempting to hide information from the public.

“In future, HBC should try to follow its own stated aims of being more open and democratic and should stop trying to behave like a secret state.”

The council later denied that there was any attempt to avoid accountability.

Turkish Baths

In the midst of the council taking a major decision to set up a new company to run leisure services, the Stray Ferret decided to look at how much each facility cost to run.

As well as setting up an arms-length company, the authority was planning to borrow £26 million to revamp two of its pools.

We sent a Freedom of Information request to the council asking for the running cost of each leisure facility.

The request was answered in part- however the council refused to reveal the costs of the Turkish Baths on “commercial” grounds.

A source who used to work for the council, but did not wish to be named, told the Stray Ferret that there was no reason why that information could not have been handed over.

Read more:

The Turkish Baths is owned and run by the council. It is the public’s right to know how much it costs to run.

To date we still do not know how much it cost the public to run the Turkish Baths. We do not know if it makes a profit or a loss for the taxpayer.

An Inconsistent Approach

The frustration of getting information from the authority is echoed by campaigners.

Alex Smith, a local resident, has submitted FOI requests over section 106 agreements and asked the council to update its transparency data several times over the years.

Under the Transparency Code 2015, the council is required to publish a range of data for the public such as expenses, grants and parking income.

Mr Smith said he found it difficult to get the council to update its information.

He told the Stray Ferret:

“They will not really come clean and their instinct is to be defensive.”

Our examples give rise to public accusations that the council is deliberately avoiding scrutiny- that decisions are taken behind closed doors, with the public and press not party to crucial information and that it only publishes that information when it is forced to do so and, in some cases, never.

Our findings show that Harrogate Borough Council has been inconsistent when it comes to providing information to the public and journalists – despite saying it is committed to be open and transparent.

We put our findings to the borough council. A spokeswoman said:

“In 2020/21 we dealt with 822 requests under the Freedom of Information Act of 2000 and the Environmental Information Regulations of 2004.

“Both make provision for keeping some information, which is commercially sensitive and may prejudice our commercial or contractual interests, exempt from disclosure. The same applies to personal information.

“We apply exemptions only when we need to, and if the legislation permits, but sometimes we take the view that keeping information exempt is outweighed by the public interest in disclosing it.

“This means, in certain circumstances, we may decide there is a good reason for releasing otherwise confidential or commercially sensitive information.

“We pride ourselves on being and open and transparent council.

“We publish all spending over £250, agendas, reports and papers can be found on our website and anyone is welcome to attend one of our various committee and council meetings – most recently virtually – and from this week in person.

“We are committed to explaining how council taxpayers’ money is spent.

“More information is available on our website: https://www.harrogate.gov.uk/data-protection-freedom-information/data-transparency.”

Tomorrow we will be reporting on the political reaction to our investigation of secrecy at Harrogate Borough Council.

Another seven covid cases in Harrogate district

A further seven covid cases have been reported in the Harrogate district, according to today’s Public Health England figures.

The district’s seven-day average covid rate stands at 15 infections per 100,000 people.

The North Yorkshire average is 22 and the England rate is 23.

No further covid deaths have been recorded at Harrogate District Hospital, according to NHS England statistics.

The last death from a patient who tested positive for covid was reported at the hospital on April 11.

Read more:

The death toll at the hospital remains at 179 since the start of the pandemic.

Meanwhile, North Yorkshire health officials have warned the county will have to stay on high alert over covid for at least another year as the virus “won’t just evaporate suddenly” this summer.

Speaking at a briefing today, Richard Webb, director of health and adult services at the county council, said while there was a “growing sense of optimism” in the lifting of lockdown restrictions, the threat of new variants and need for booster vaccines meant the pandemic was far from over.

He told North Yorkshire Local Resilience Forum:

“Pandemics don’t just go away – the thinking globally is they tend to take two to three years to work their way through..

“We are already talking about boosters… and we will continue to have isolated outbreaks in workplaces or schools. We may also have situations where we have new variants and have to do surge testing.

“There is a growing sense of optimism, however, we will still have to be on a high level of alert for probably the next 12 months.”

Additional reporting by Jacob Webster, of the Local Democracy Reporting Service

Ripon man charged with animal welfare offences

A Ripon man disqualified from keeping or owning animals has been charged with possessing 76 birds and a string of other offences.

Michael Andrew Hawkswell, of Nunwick near Ripon, appeared at York Magistrates Court on Monday, accused of breaching the Animal Welfare Act 2006, which forbids him from keeping animals.

Besides possessing the birds, Hawkswell, 45, is charged with five other offences.

They include buying and transporting two goats, possessing seven sheep in his trailer, possessing a duck, unloading poultry from a vehicle into sale pens at Highgate auctions in Rotherham and buying and selling poultry.

Mr Hawkswell was remanded on unconditional bail for a medical or psychiatric report to be prepared.

Read more:

 

Angry residents to fight controversial Wetherby Road Starbucks plan at appeal

Residents will fight controversial plans for a Starbucks on Wetherby Road at a public inquiry after Harrogate Borough Council decided not to risk a costly legal battle.

The council decided to withdraw its objection yesterday ahead of an appeal hearing on June 15, warning it could cost £50,000.

But residents will appear at the inquiry and make a case against the application.

Retail firm Euro Garages has spent almost a decade trying to win permission to open the coffee shop at the former 1st Dental surgery on Wetherby Road, Harrogate but has been refused three times by councillors and once by a government inspector.

Read more:

Although the council decided yesterday not to put up a defence, residents will still contest the refusal as a third party.

Cllr Pat Marsh, a Liberal Democrat whose Harrogate Hookstone ward includes the site, is to meet residents tonight to devise a strategy for the hearing.

She said:

“We have decided to do this. We are going to fight this to the bitter end.

“There is a lot of anger here about this application.”

Designs of the Starbucks as included in the planning documents to Harrogate Borough Council.

Designs of the proposed Starbucks included in planning documents to Harrogate Borough Council.

Cllr Marsh added that the application was another example of “big companies pushing for planning applications” to be put through.

The council rejected the proposal on grounds of air quality and traffic flow concerns in December 2019. It also raised concerns over a loss of amenity to those living next to the Starbucks due to noise and light pollution

Council drops defence

The council’s decision not to defend its objection was made at a planning committee meeting yesterday.

Speaking at the committee, Cllr John Mann, chair of the planning committee, said councillors did not have the legal expertise or experience to fight the appeal, which would see them “batted for six by the professional lawyers of the applicants”.

John Worthington, the council’s executive officer for development management, said officers could not stand successfully at appeal because their previous recommendation would “undermine” their case and that losing also risked legal costs of over £50,000.

After the meeting, a council spokesman told the Local Democracy Reporting Service that not contesting the appeal “hasn’t been an easy decision to make” but was “the best way forward in this instance.” 

He said:

“Officer recommendations are always taken with a balanced approach and are based on careful consideration of a wide range of issues, including local and national planning policy, case law, consultation responses and anything else considered to be ‘material’ to the decision, including the comments of local residents.

“In this case, the officer recommendation of approval was overturned by the planning committee and permission was refused, which has led to an appeal by the applicant.

“Following this recommendation, along with feedback from relevant consultees and comments made by an independent inspector – who considered a previous appeal at the site for a similar proposal – we believe the most sensible and cost-effective approach would be to not defend the appeal.”

‘Disappointment’ as Stray dining and drinking hopes dashed

Harrogate councillors have expressed disappointment after hopes that hospitality businesses could use the Stray this summer were dashed by legal complications.

There was widespread optimism that reopening restaurants, pubs and cafes could be given outdoor dining space when Harrogate Borough Council revealed the plans in March but historic laws protecting the parkland have since thrown up a series of challenges.

As landowners by law, the Duchy of Lancaster is guided by the Stray Act to ensure access to all residents and visitors.

The body had entered into negotiations with the council but took a firm stance that use of the Stray for commercial purposes, except for some large events, was not permitted by the Act.

Read more:

While the debate rumbled on as Harrogate and Knaresborough MP Andrew Jones intervened with calls for further flexibility, the bad news for businesses was all but confirmed until a meeting on Monday when a senior council official said the authority had stopped pursuing the plans.

Trevor Watson, director of economy and culture at Harrogate Borough Council, said:

“I certainly share the view that the Stray potentially provides a fantastic opportunity to help businesses come out of a very difficult period.

“But our custodian role for the Stray is to ensure it is maintained free and open for the use of all rather than what appears to be the use of all but effectively is for the use of individuals visiting an individual commercial premises.”

Cllr Pat Marsh said she was “very disappointed” by the decision.

She said:

“The Stray is for the people and we must remember that.”.

Cllr Chris Aldred added:

“At the start of lockdown everybody seemed to be in favour of this happening and then suddenly it got lost in bureaucracy somewhere.

“We really do need to look at how we use the Stray in the future. As a council that should be one of our priorities to see it developed for everyone.”

Mr Watson responded:

“Whilst I share some of the frustrations, it is not bureaucracy, it is legislation. The terms of the legislation we have got to work with are very restrictive.

“It is essentially what is wrapped up in the Stray Act that has led to the view that we should encourage its use for open and regular enjoyment but not perhaps for the benefit of individual businesses.”

The idea of businesses using the Stray was put forward to help those with little or no room for outdoor dining under the current lockdown restrictions.

The Duchy of Lancaster said in a statement that while it was keen to support the economic recovery, the Stray “exists for the benefit of all the people of Harrogate,” not just certain businesses.

It said:

“Harrogate Borough Council is responsible for the management of the Stray in accordance with the Stray Act.

“The Duchy has no legal grounds to object to management proposals permitted by the Act.

“It is not the role of the Duchy to act as arbitrator in what should be a local discussion among the affected stakeholders.”

Boroughbridge company completes multi-million pound expansion

One of the Harrogate district’s biggest employers has completed a multi-million pound expansion.

Reed Boardall, which stores and delivers frozen food to UK supermarkets, employs 800 staff at its Boroughbridge site and operates a fleet of 196 vehicles 24 hours a day.

It delivers 12,000 pallets of frozen food daily.

The company has finished a 110,000 square foot expansion to one of its cold storage units at its 55-acre site in Boroughbridge, which will help it meet increased customer demand.

Prior to the pandemic, the company put plans in place to increase its storage capacity to 168,000 pallets. It started the 12-month project in March 2020 along with Leeds-based building contractors Marshall.

Read more:

Marcus Boardall, chief executive of the company, said:

“Despite intense pressure on the supply chain in 2020, we were able to undertake and complete the extension project on schedule.

“From the turmoil of the pandemic to uncertainties around Brexit, we and our customers have faced some real challenges over the last year, and this latest investment makes us well-placed to continue to swiftly and efficiently respond to our customers’ changing logistics requirements.”

Andrew Baldwin, managing director of Reed Boardall cold storage division, said:

“Our customers’ ongoing organic growth has resulted in increased storage and distribution needs and we are happy to invest in the infrastructure which will enable us to continue to look after their best interests and to grow alongside them.”

 

Investigation: Shocking number of council papers withheld from public

An investigation by the Stray Ferret into whether Harrogate Borough Council has a culture of secrecy has found the authority has a shocking record of withholding information from the public.

Our findings raise serious questions over how and why the council decides to keep so much information out of the public eye on matters that are of public interest and involve large sums of public money.

The council kept information from local taxpayers on key decisions, such as contracts on the Visit Harrogate tourism website and the dire financial state of the Harrogate Convention Centre.

Our investigation 

The Stray Ferret decided to look into the number of papers withheld after noticing a number of key decisions were being made without disclosing full information to the public.

Our research looked at confidential reports known as “pink papers”. This means they are not to be seen by the public or journalists- but are seen by councillors at cabinet and council meetings.

We looked at five similar councils, including Harrogate.

The councils we looked at were of comparable population size, were Conservative-led and all operate on the same cabinet and leader system.

The authorities ranged from population sizes of a high of 140,000 and the lowest was 120,000.

A shocking revelation 

The number of papers made exempt at the five Conservative-run councils.

The number of papers made exempt at the five Conservative-run councils.

The findings show Harrogate Borough Council had three times more restricted papers than the second highest council and nearly 25 times as many as the lowest.

A total of 222 of Harrogate’s reports were marked “commercially confidential” as a reason for being kept from the public.

By comparison, South Kesteven District Council restricted 79 reports, East Lindsey District Council 48, East Hampshire District Council 11 and Test Valley Council had 9.

In December alone Harrogate withheld information in 46 reports.

While one would accept that each authority varies in population size (the lowest being 120,000, the highest 140,000) and each has different local issues to tackle, the sheer scale of the gap suggests Harrogate has a systemic attitude of withholding information.

It begs the question as to why so many papers were withheld from the public and how the decisions were arrived at, especially on major spends of public money such as the Harrogate Convention Centre.

The Stray Ferret has looked at three examples of where the authority has chosen to exempt information on big investments using taxpayer cash and questions whether it was necessary or appropriate to do so.

Harrogate Convention Centre 

In July 2020, the Stray Ferret published a leaked (pink) report into the proposed £46.8 million refurbishment of Harrogate Convention Centre.

It’s the single biggest spend the council has proposed in recent times and yet the report that was used to make the decision included information that was not made available to the public.

The report showed the dire financial state of the centre.

It said the venue, which is owned by the council, lost £710,000 in the 2019/20 financial year.

Read more:

The report added that the HCC financial performance has “declined significantly since 2008/9”. But this information was withheld from the public and the council later approved the investment.

A source who used to work at the borough council, but did not wish to be named, told the Stray Ferret that there was little reason to keep that information from the public.

They said:

“There’s nothing in that report which would suggest commercial confidentiality. The only thing you can find is projected loss, which is hardly sensitive.”

The council was so upset about the leak that it held an internal investigation to establish who had sent us the document.

Yet we would argue that public has a right to know about the performance of one of the council’s biggest assets, owned by taxpayers, ahead of a huge investment of public money.

Jacob Bailey and Visit Harrogate 

Four months later, the council decided to approve a contract to Suffolk-based Jacob Bailey Group to revamp its tourism website Visit Harrogate without open tender.

At the council meeting where the decision was taken to award the contract, two pink papers were presented to the cabinet member responsible, Cllr Stan Lumley.

We can only assume these papers explained why there was no tendering process and the amount Jacob Bailey was going to charge.

It led to a member of the public using the Freedom of Information Act to ask for the cost, which was then declined.

Read more:

Another person has since complained to the Local Government Ombudsman, asking for information on why the council decided not to openly tender for the contract.

Eventually the information was released. It was £165,000 for the tourism website. Many questions remain about how the decision was made and how that sum represents value for money.

Leisure investment 

In June last year, the borough council outlined another of its big publicly funded projects.

It planned to borrow £26 million to fund two capital projects, a refurbishment of the Harrogate Hydro and a new leisure facility at Knaresborough.

In the report, the council outlined what the Hydro and the new centre would need and how it intended to get the money.

However, it also included nine supporting papers – eight of which were withheld from the press and public on “commercial grounds”.

Read more:

The following November, the council approved a contract for a development manager for the investment.

It appointed Somerset-based Alliance Leisure and decided to do so without competitive tender. 

The report came with a restricted paper, once again withheld on commercial grounds.

Such was the lack of information we asked exactly what the fee was for the company and why there was no competitive tender process. We did not receive a response.

It’s another example of a lack of transparency around a contract that leaves unanswered questions about value for money.

Culture of non-disclosure

Our findings suggest at best there is a culture of non-disclosure at the borough council when it comes to making information on key decisions public.

They raise legitimate questions over why the borough council decided to keep such information out of the public eye on matters which involved millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money.

The council says it is committed to openness and transparency, but our research suggests the opposite.

In the authority’s own code of corporate governance, it says it is committed to the principle of “implementing good practices in transparency”.

The council has also released public statements – one as recently as last month – saying it has a commitment to be “an open and transparent council”.

What does it say about the transparency of the council when a £710,000 loss at the convention centre is deemed too sensitive for the public to know?

We put our findings to Harrogate Borough Council. A spokeswoman for the authority said:

“We are an ambitious council with several multi-million pound and major projects underway, including new sport and leisure facilities and investment in Harrogate Convention Centre.

“This is for the benefit of our residents and for the district to be known as the best place to work, live and visit.

“This means, compared to other councils, we probably have more than the average number of commercial contracts being tendered.”

Although the council says it has major projects underway, our research shows the next highest council in our comparison – South Kesteven – also had commercial projects in the past year.

South Kesteven council set up a new leisure company and transferred its assets over to the business. The council was also involved in an investment project at St Martin’s Park in Stamford.

Tomorrow, we will look at the council’s response to Freedom of Information requests and general enquiries from the press and public.

No covid deaths at Harrogate hospital for a month

No covid deaths have been reported at Harrogate District Hospital for a month.

According to NHS England figures, the last death from a patient who tested positive for covid was reported at the hospital on April 11.

It means the covid death toll at the hospital since last March remains at 179.

Meanwhile, three more cases of covid have been recorded in the Harrogate district according to today’s Public Health England statistics.

Read more:

It takes the total number of infections since the start of the pandemic to 7,712.

The district’s seven-day covid rate stands at 12 per 100,000 people.

In North Yorkshire, the average is 20 and the national rate stands at 22.

Premier League striker Oli McBurnie bailed after Knaresborough fracas

Premier League striker Oli McBurnie has been released on bail after an altercation with a man in Knaresborough on Saturday.

McBurnie was arrested last night after a viral video showed a confrontation between the 24-year-old Sheffield United striker and a 21-year-old man on High Street in Knaresborough, towards Bond End.

The incident happened at about 8.20pm.

McBurnie has now been released on bail pending further enquiries.

Read more:

North Yorkshire Police is appealing for witnesses to the alleged assault.

A statement this afternoon said:

“Detectives investigating this case would like anyone who saw the incident to get in touch.

“It is believed that two cars passed the incident, and there was also a woman pedestrian on the other side of the road who saw what happened.

“Officers are appealing to the driver of those cars and also to the woman to please get in touch.

In addition, anyone in the area at the time who might have dashcam footage, is asked to contact police.

“Dial 101, press 1 and speak to the Force Control Room. Please quote reference number 12210115038 when passing on information.”

How does Harrogate council restrict information?

Councils across the country can restrict reports on committee agendas, if they feel it would adversely affect the financial affairs of a business or person.

Report writers have discussions with the legal service at a council to decide which information should be kept out of the public eye.

The authors of the report may be challenged on why information should be exempt before it goes to committee.

A decision as to whether to restrict information is down to council officers and their interpretation of the reports.

The authority must make clear on the public agenda why a report is restricted by quoting the relevant paragraph of the Local Government Act.

Read more:

For example, paragraph three relates to commercial grounds and paragraph one is information relating to a specific person.

However, exactly how they arrive at that decision is not revealed to taxpayers and can lead to the press or members of the public using the Freedom of Information Act to try to force councils to release the information.

Freedom of Information Act

The Freedom of Information Act was introduced in 2005 to make government more open with the public.

Its sole purpose was based around peoples’ right to know what public bodies were doing with their money and to make institutions like councils more accountable.

How does the act work?

Anyone can submit a request for information to a public body, such as Harrogate Borough Council, under the freedom of information act.

The council must then respond to that request within 20 working days.

When someone requests information, there is a presumption in favour of the council disclosing information under the act.

This is because the principle behind the legislation is that people have a right to know about the activities of public authorities, unless there is good reason for them not to.

The council must justify under what exemption it refuses information and why.

For example, it can refuse a request on the grounds of commercial confidentiality under section 43 of the act.

But it must show that it factored in the presumption of disclosure into its reasons for refusal.

Guidance from the Information Commissioner’s Office says:

“The main principle behind freedom of information legislation is that people have a right to know about the activities of public authorities, unless there is a good reason for them not to.

“This is sometimes described as a presumption or assumption in favour of disclosure.”

If the council does refuse a request and the person submitting the request is not satisfied, they can ask for an internal review.

The review is carried out by a senior officer who was not involved in the initial freedom of information request.

The council reviews its original decision and decides whether it feels the information should be disclosed.

If it decided not to hand over the information after the review, the person can take the matter further to the Information Commissioner.