A Shropshire town council has been ordered to disclose withheld information about a collapsed wall

Ludlow Town Council (LTC) must disclose information it has withheld in respect to a long-running saga about a collapsed wall.

A complaint was made to the Information Commisioner’s Office (ICO) after the complainant was not happy about how their request for was handled.

They initially contacted the council on November 22, 2024 asking for various information in relation to the wall’s collapse that happened in 2013.

LTC is currently at loggerheads with the Parochial Church Council over who should be liable for the upkeep and maintanence of the wall by St Laurence’s Church. The council was asked to disclose a whole heap of information, including an unredacted copy of the structural engineer’s report and how much it cost, whether all councillors had been given access to it, and whether it had an insurance policy in place in February 2013 that might have covered the cost of repairing the wall.

Other details the complainant wanted to know included if any insurance had been made on any insurance policy, what insurance the council has on any other sections of the wall, whether all councillors had been given access to all legal advice received by LTC, and how much had been spent on legal fees.

The complainant also requested to know how much LTC spent on renting scaffolding for the temporary buttress of the wall and renting storage space owned by third parties displaced by the collapsed wall, as well as the minutes of meetings or other documentation showing approval for the cost of the legal advice. The correspondence the council had with Shropshire Council (SC) concerning the maintenance reponsibility for the collapsed section of the wall was also requested.

LTC responded on December 20, 2024. It declosed a copy of the report to various bodies, including the complainant, and confirmed that a summary had been provided to town councillors, adding it would be disclosed in full once published. The authority said it had an insurance policy in place, but did not specify that it covers the wall and reiterated that no claim had been made.

The council confirmed that all councillors had access to the legal advice, which is available in its published accounts, and it did not hold an inventory of the third party items it has in storage. In relation to what insurance it had in place for other sections of the town wall, LTC said it did not have the information.

Meanwhile, it refused to disclose copies of all the correspondence it had with SC, applying section 36 of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) – prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs.

On January 14, 2025, the complainant said it was dissatisified with a number of the answers given and asked LTC to carry a review of its decision.

LTC subsequently responded on February 13, 2025 following an internal review. However, it maintained that some information was not held by the authority, and some was publicly available. It also retained its reliance on using section 36 of the FOIA for two parts of the request.

The complainant contacted the ICO on March 6 to complain about the way their request for information had been handled. In its response to the Commissioner, the council confirmed that no councillors were refused access to the report, and it agreed to provide the complainant with the total amount it had spent on legal expenses and on scaffolding.

Following the Commissioner’s advice that the information was environmental, the council reconsiderd the details it had previously withheld. It therefore applied Regulation 12(4)(e) of the Environmental Information Regulations (EIA) to withhold internal communications information from disclosure.

Given that the other matters were resolved, the Commisisoner considered whether the council was correct to apply that regulation, and whether it held any further information that was requested.

LTC argued that its relationship with SC is such that it is more akin to communications between internal departments rather than external communications between different parties. It clarified that SC has provided legal advice and assistance in respect of the collapsed wall, and the council shave acted collaboratively in partnership on the issue.

The Commissioner’s guidance makes clear that, other than in limited circumstances which do not apply in this case, communications between two separate local authorities will not be internal communications for the purposes of Regulation 12(4)(e). Therefore, LTC was not correct to withold the information, and the Commissioner has asked for it to be disclosed, subject to the appropriate redaction of personal data.

The Commissioner has concluded though that, on the balance of probabilities, no further information is held by LTC. The authority must now disclose the withheld information by November 22, while both parties have the right to appeal. LTC has been approached for comment.