Request
I would like all documents (emails, legal advice, minutes of meetings, relevant statutes etc) regarding the arrangements put in place for the NLWA's AGM on 25th June 2026, especially with regards to opening the meeting and election of the new chair. In particular, I would like to see all documents related to the NLWA that led Cheryl Hardman to suggest that Rowena Champion had the authority to open the meeting instead of Jon Rowney. I would also like information on how the new chair would have been selected in the event of a tie. I am particularly interested in seeing all correspondence between the NLWA, Camden Council (especially Jon Rowney and any of his team), Cllr Rowena Champion of Islington, Cllr Clyde Loakes of Waltham Forest. I would also like to see the NLWA's internal correspondence on how decisions were reached that Jon Rowney would not open the meeting; the decision on how the chair would be selected in a tie situation, and whether the NLWA was part of the decision to withhold this information from the Stop the Edmonton Incinerator Now campaign group when requested in correspondence with Cheryl Hardman.
Response
Good afternoon,
Further to our acknowledgement of your freedom of information request with reference (2026-284), our response is as follows.
Your request:
I would like all documents (emails, legal advice, minutes of meetings, relevant statutes etc) regarding the arrangements put in place for the NLWA's AGM on 25th June 2026, especially with regards to opening the meeting and election of the new chair. In particular, I would like to see all documents related to the NLWA that led Cheryl Hardman to suggest that Rowena Champion had the authority to open the meeting instead of Jon Rowney. I would also like information on how the new chair would have been selected in the event of a tie. I am particularly interested in seeing all correspondence between the NLWA, Camden Council (especially Jon Rowney and any of his team), Cllr Rowena Champion of Islington, Cllr Clyde Loakes of Waltham Forest. I would also like to see the NLWA's internal correspondence on how decisions were reached that Jon Rowney would not open the meeting; the decision on how the chair would be selected in a tie situation, and whether the NLWA was part of the decision to withhold this information from the Stop the Edmonton Incinerator Now campaign group when requested in correspondence with Cheryl Hardman.
Our response:
Here is a link to our Standing Orders which govern the arrangements for the AGM held on 25 June 2026 - NLWA Standing Orders (Dec 2024).pdf
The North London Waste Authority (NLWA) has considered your request and has deemed Section 42 of the FOIA 2000 to apply. The NLWA sought independent legal advice on the election of a Chair in an event of a tie which it followed in full.
The Managing Director and Deputy Clerk emailed the NLWA Members in advance of the meeting setting out the proposed arrangements for the AGM, including the approach to the opening of the meeting and the initial process for appointing the Chair. That correspondence is attached, as it does not include material that is exempt from disclosure.
The NLWA recognises the general public interest in openness, transparency and accountability regarding the governance arrangements for the NLWA, including decisions relating to the Annual General Meeting held on 25 June 2026, the opening of that meeting, the election of the Chair, and associated decision-making processes.
Disclosure of information may assist public understanding of how these decisions were reached and promote confidence in the accountability of public authorities. NLWA has therefore carefully considered whether the public interest favours disclosure of any information that attracts legal professional privilege.
However, there are strong public interest arguments in favour of maintaining the exemption.
Section 42 reflects the fundamental principle that public authorities must be able to seek and receive legal advice in confidence. The effective conduct of public business depends upon public authorities obtaining full, frank and comprehensive legal advice. Legal advisers must be able to provide their clients with candid assessments of the strengths and weaknesses of different courses of action, including advice on governance, constitutional arrangements, statutory powers and decision-making processes.
Legal advice commonly sets out competing arguments, identifies risks, and evaluates alternative interpretations of the law before reaching a conclusion. If such advice were routinely disclosed, there would be a significant risk that legal discussions would become less comprehensive and less candid, reducing the quality of advice available to decision-makers. This would not be in the public interest, as it could undermine the ability of the Authority to make fully informed decisions.
Disclosure would also undermine the long-established principle of legal professional privilege, which protects communications between a client and their legal advisers made for the purpose of obtaining or giving legal advice. There is a strong public interest inherent in preserving this confidentiality, a principle that has been consistently recognised by the Information Commissioner, the First-tier Tribunal and the courts.
In this case, the legal advice relates to matters concerning the governance and conduct of the NLWA's AGM, including the interpretation of relevant constitutional and procedural arrangements. Disclosure would therefore be likely to prejudice the Authority's ability to obtain and receive frank legal advice in future and could adversely affect its ability to protect and defend its legal interests.
NLWA also considers that there is a strong public interest in ensuring that public authorities are able to seek legal advice whenever necessary to properly discharge the statutory functions entrusted to them. Disclosure of privileged legal advice in circumstances such as these could have a deterrent effect on the seeking and recording of legal advice, which would not be in the wider public interest.
Having carefully considered the competing public interest factors, NLWA acknowledges the public interest in transparency surrounding the arrangements for the NLWA AGM on 25 June 2026 and the decisions referred to in the request. However, we consider that there is a strong and overriding public interest in maintaining legal professional privilege.
Accordingly, the public interest in maintaining the exemption under section 42 outweighs the public interest in disclosure and the information has been withheld.
If you are dissatisfied with the handling of your request, you may ask for an internal review, which should be submitted within two months of when you received our response to either informationrequests@nlwa.gov.uk or enquiry form quoting the above reference.
If you are not content with the outcome of the review, you may complain to the Information Commissioner, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire, SK9 5AF, or via their online portal. The Information Commissioner will not usually accept complaints before a review has been completed.
Kind regards,
North London Waste Authority
