Request
In its evidence to the public hearings for the 2012 NLWP, NLWA submitted an opinion by Neil Cameron QC relating to the issue of whether the Pinkham Way site should be regarded as previously developed land or greenfield land.
Please supply Mr Cameron's opinion
Response
The NLWA (Authority) holds information within the scope of your request; however, it does not hold a separate or freestanding opinion document as described in your request. The information that the Authority holds comprises legal advice provided to the Authority and cannot be disclosed.
The information is exempt from disclosure under section 42(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, which applies to information in respect of which a claim to legal professional privilege (LPP) could be maintained in legal proceedings.
The requested document comprises a formal legal opinion provided by counsel to NLWA for the purpose of obtaining legal advice in relation to the preparation of submissions to a statutory planning process. As such, the information is subject to legal advice privilege, which protects confidential communications between a client and its legal advisers made for the dominant purpose of giving or receiving legal advice.
Public Interest Test – Section 42 (Legal Professional Privilege)
Section 42 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 is a qualified exemption. The Authority has therefore considered whether the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosure.
Public interest factors in favour of disclosure
- There is a general public interest in transparency and accountability in the formulation of planning policy and evidence submitted to public hearings.
- The requested information relates to the North London Waste Plan public hearings held in 2012, and the passage of time since the hearings reduces the immediacy of the decision‑making context.
- Disclosure could assist in retrospective scrutiny of the role legal advice played in NLWA’s submissions, particularly in relation to the classification of the Pinkham Way site.
- The issue of whether land is previously developed or greenfield is a matter of significant public interest in the planning system.
These factors weigh in favour of disclosure and have been given appropriate weight.
Public interest factors in favour of maintaining the exemption
- There is a strong and well‑established public interest in the protection of legal professional privilege, which the Information Commissioner has consistently recognised as carrying significant inherent weight.
- Legal professional privilege ensures that public authorities can seek and receive legal advice openly, frankly and without inhibition, which supports sound decision‑making and effective public administration.
- The passage of time does not diminish the importance of protecting privileged legal advice; privilege does not expire merely because advice is historic or proceedings have concluded.
- Disclosure would reveal the confidential legal reasoning and analysis of counsel, including the Authority’s approach to legal risk in planning matters, which could be relied upon in future proceedings to the Council’s disadvantage.
- There is a strong public interest in avoiding a chilling effect, whereby disclosure of historic legal advice discourages the seeking or provision of full and candid legal advice in future cases.
- The requested information is intrinsically legal in nature, and partial disclosure or redaction would not meaningfully protect privilege while satisfying the public interest in transparency.
Balance of public interest
Having weighed the competing public interest factors, the Council concludes that the strong and enduring public interest in maintaining legal professional privilege outweighs the public interest in disclosure in this case.
The information is therefore withheld under section 42(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000.
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.
Website: https://ico.org.uk
Kind Regards,
North London Waste Authority
