Lewes District Council Cabinet Meeting on Thursday

[Lord Bracknell]

The Agenda for this meeting has just been published on the Lewes DC website:-

http://www.lewes.gov.uk/council/6844.asp

There is nothing on the Agenda about the possible funding of an application for Judicial Review of Prescott's Falmer decision.

It looks like Lewes DC have decided to accept the decision.

However ... I am checking this out and will post an update if and when I get a definite answer.




EDIT ... In my hurry, I misread the information on the website. There IS an Item on the Agenda. The Public will be excluded from that part of the meeting.

My apologies!

 

[Da Man Clay]

Please god let this be right!

 

[Muhammed - I’m hard - Bruce Lee]

 

[Hatterlovesbrighton]

Did you not read the agenda.



8.18 Proposed Brighton & Hove Albion FC Football Stadium at Falmer: To Consider the Decisions by the First Secretary of State on the Planning Applications for the Proposed Development
Lead Councillor: Councillor Commin
To consider the joint Report of the Director of Planning and Environmental Services and the District Solicitor (Report No 293/05 to be circulated).


And they are going to exclude the public as well.

 

[Easy 10]

Eh ?
Thats not on the agenda Lord B has linked to.

 

[Hatterlovesbrighton]

Thats not the agenda, thats the list of reports. Click on the first item, which is the actual agenda. It's there or look

http://www.lewes.gov.uk/Files/cabinet_051124_ag.doc

 

[Dandyman]

Did you not read the agenda.



8.18 Proposed Brighton & Hove Albion FC Football Stadium at Falmer: To Consider the Decisions by the First Secretary of State on the Planning Applications for the Proposed Development
Lead Councillor: Councillor Commin
To consider the joint Report of the Director of Planning and Environmental Services and the District Solicitor (Report No 293/05 to be circulated).


And they are going to exclude the public as well.

Exclusion of the Public

To consider, under Section 100(A)(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, excluding the public from the meeting during the discussion of to Items 8.18 and 8.19 on this Agenda as there is likely to be a disclosure of exempt information as defined in paragraphs 3 and 12 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Act.


- Key Decisions


8.18
Proposed Brighton & Hove Albion FC Football Stadium at Falmer: To Consider the Decisions by the First Secretary of State on the Planning Applications for the Proposed Development
Lead Councillor: Councillor Commin

To consider the joint Report of the Director of Planning and Environmental Services and the District Solicitor (Report No 293/05 to be circulated).



Lord B, cam this be challenged at the meeting ?

 

[Easy 10]

Thats not the agenda, thats the list of reports. Click on the first item, which is the actual agenda. It's there or look

http://www.lewes.gov.uk/Files/cabinet_051124_ag.doc

Ahh, I see.
I was confused by the heading 'Agenda'

 

[Lady Bracknell]

Lord B has gone to work and I've been out of this local government business too long to remember whether you can challenge this consideration at the consideration stage of the meeting.

To consider, under Section 100(A)(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, excluding the public from the meeting during the discussion of to Items 8.18 and 8.19 on this Agenda as there is likely to be a disclosure of exempt information as defined in paragraphs 3 and 12 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Act.

I'll put out an all points alert though.

 

[The History Man]

"Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972
Access to Information
Part I — Description of Exempt Information: ...

3. Information relating to any particular occupier or former occupier of, or applicant for, accommodation provided by or at the expense of the authority.

12. Any instructions to counsel and any opinion of counsel (whether or not in connection with any proceedings) and any advice received, information obtained or action to be taken in connection with –

any legal proceedings by or against the authority; or

the determination of any matter, affecting the authority."


Don't understand para 3 - it presumably relates to the other matter on the agenda at this point, about irrecoverable debts - but para 12 seems to cover what we expect to be discussed, the opinion of Robert White, their counsel, on the possibilities of a judicial review.

So it looks like any decision to exclude the public under para 12 would be valid. Unless someone can find some other legislation that overrules it!

That doesn't mean that they will vote to exclude the public - but I expect they will.

 

[Lady Bracknell]

That doesn't mean that they will vote to exclude the public - but I expect they will. [/B]

I'm absolutely certain they will! However, if this exclusion is to discuss the legal advice provided by their brief, it isn't the same thing as a decision to commit the funds necessary to back a judicial review.

That recommendation surely HAS to go to Cabinet and the decision reached during the section of the meeting open to the public. If they attempted to push through such a commitment of public funds behind closed doors then "hell to pay" is the least of the consequences.

 

[Easy 10]

Mmm, certainly worth keeping a VERY close eye on I'd say. Could be worth a bit of shit-stirring on the Argus letters page as well.

 

[The History Man]

There is of course the Freedom of Information Act which can overrule the Local Government Act 1972.

According to Lewes' website, there is an exemption within the FOI Act for "Legal Professional Privilege: This is designed to make sure that the confidential relationship between lawyer and client is protected. Although it is subject to the public interest test, current guidance suggests that it would only be in exceptional circumstances where the exemption would be outweighed by the public interest."

We would of course argue with them over "public interest" but I suspect we would not get anywhere in the short term.

 

[Lady Bracknell]

We would of course argue with them over "public interest" but I suspect we would not get anywhere in the short term.

Agreed!

And I'd suggest that allowing them to maintain their "confidential relationship between lawyer and client" isn't entirely unreasonable.

But it'd be downright unacceptable if protecting that confidentiality allowed them to sneak in a decision to spend public funds backing a judicial review. Indeed, I'd say it was downright criminal!

 

[Lord Bracknell]

My apologies for missing the Item on the Agenda.

I was far too hasty in scanning the stuff on the LDC website.

As Roz indicates, I was in a hurry to get off to work!

 

[Lord Bracknell]

How they instruct Counsel is undoubtedly a reason that justifies the exclusion of the public.

Whether they commit funds to this cause is another question altogether, and one that I think should be discussed in public.

 

[Scoffers]

So am I right in presuming that the NIMBYs can't or won't be able to procede with a Juducial Review without the backing of LDC?

 

[Easy 10]

Well if they're going to do anything, they've got 16 days to decide, and stump up the cash.

Tick tock tick tock.....

 

[Lord Bracknell]

I received an e-mail this afternoon from LDC's District Solicitor:-

The Council has received legal advice from counsel and we are taking a report to Cabinet as an urgent item tomorrow so that a decision can be made within the 6 week statutory timescale.

The report is not a public one and members of the public will not be able to sit in on the debate.

Yours sincerely,

Catherine Knight
District Solicitor



I've replied:-

Dear Ms Knight

Thank you for this reply.

I fully understand why it is appropriate for ASPECTS of any decision to support an application for a Judicial Review of the First Secretary of State’s decision to be discussed in private. This is because the Cabinet will be considering counsel’s advice, which is exempt information, as defined in paragraph 12 of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972.

However, there is another aspect to the decision that does NOT fall within the 1972 Act’s definition of “exempt information”. That is the political decision as to whether or not it is appropriate for the Council to commit public money to the pursuit of an outcome that is clearly not supported by the majority of residents in the District, including myself.

Can you confirm (1) that no commitment of funds will be made to pursuing a Judicial Review until AFTER members of the council have had the opportunity to debate the issue in public? And (2) that the Council will consult stakeholders, including the public, before such a debate takes place?

It is important that any decision to commit the funds of Lewes District Council to this venture is taken not only in the light of counsel’s advice, but in the context of local public opinion and the budget pressures that are currently being felt by the Council.

In view of the fact that the Cabinet meets tomorrow, I have copied this response to Cabinet Members and the Chief Executive.



I'll report any further developments

 

[Mellor 3 Ward 4]

Too right - the decision as to whether MORE public money is thrown at this should NOT be made in secret.

Please keep us informed.