A public request for information about the Aylesbury Estate development has been met with a muted response by Southwark Council.
The Freedom of Information (FOI) request was made by Jerry Flynn of the 35% Campaign, which fights to ensure 35% affordable housing is provided in new housing developments.
It asked for the council to make public what was discussed at a meeting with developers about the future of the Aylesbury Estate.
In their response to the FOI, the council blacked out every single sentence of the report, which contained the minutes of the council cabinet meeting that took place 18 January 2021.
The only readable sentence was: “in summary the proposed further variations to the DPA [Development Partnership Agreements] are as follows.”
Everything else that followed was hidden from public view.
Possible changes to the agreement between the council and developers Notting Hill Genesis (NHG) about the redevelopment of the Aylesbury were under discussion at the meeting.
Topics are thought to have been the financial terms of the deal, although this cannot be verified.
“There is an overriding public interest in relating this report,” wrote Jerry in the FOI. “The cost of the Aylesbury regeneration to the Council and the impact this will have on its finances and Housing Investment Programme is a matter that should be subject to public scrutiny.”
Members of the public are entitled to request information from public authorities, such as Southwark Council, under the Freedom of Information Act 2000.
However, requests can be legally refused on a number of grounds, such as if the information is commercially sensitive, costs too much to gather or prejudices public affairs, although this must be weighed against the public interest.
“After careful consideration, we withhold some of the information falling under your request,” replied the council to Jerry’s FOI.
They cited the fact that the information was “confidential” and “commercially sensitive” as the reasons for not publically revealing it.
“Disclosure would adversely affect the confidentially and damage economic interests which we have identified,” they added.
The council also said public interest was not enough of a reason to publicise what was discussed at the meeting.
“By way of explanation, the public interest is not the same as what might be of interest to the public,” said the council. “In carrying out a Public Interest Test we consider the greater good or benefit to the community as a whole if the information is released or not.”
“The ‘right to know’ must be balanced against the need to enable effective government, deliver efficient policing and to serve the best interests of the public,” they added.
The council also extended the time they needed to respond to the FOI, due to the complexity of the request.
Responses should typically be made within 20 working days under the law, yet they asked for an extra five days.
In a statement, Jerry said he was “disappointed” about the council’s response to his FOI.
“It’s great if Southwark gets more social rented housing as council homes, but Notting Hill Genesis were supposed to pay for the social rented housing themselves,” he said. “Now it looks as if Southwark will be paying the bill, with money it could be spending on council housing elsewhere in the borough.”
“We will be looking at Southwark’s reasons for withholding the information and considering what action to take next,” Jerry added.
Commenting on the post on Twitter, one user wrote: “The Aylesbury’s so-called regeneration should be transparent.”
“Thousands of council homes have been run into disrepair and are being demolished all while the waiting list continues to increase. Southwark residents deserve full transparency.”
But Cllr Rebecca Lury, cabinet member for finance, performance & democracy said they will release more information, telling the News: “These redactions are temporary and we intend to publish the full report when the revised DPA has been agreed between us and Notting Hill Genesis.”
An agreement to redevelop the Aylesbury Estate was first struck between the council and NHG in 2014.
Further changes were approved in 2020, which saw the council pay NHG £210.8 million for 581 council homes, while leaving housing for the open market with the developer.
Just proves southwark council have to much to hide by doing this ! It’s absolutely shocking and shameful .