By way of a supplementary question, [requestor] stated that at the council meeting on 28 September Councillor Coppinger had told [named individual] that it would be ‘a good idea’ to formally inform the Inspector about the new golf club contract with its two-year delay clause, and yet this was not done in a timely fashion. The written response said that non-transparent, unpublished notes were being exchanged with the Inspector on 20 January, after [requestor] had objected in the strongest terms. Councillor Coppinger had admitted that the housing numbers, in an allegedly fact-checked report were wrong. Why did he therefore go against his better instincts to keep the Inspector fully informed about the golf club negotiations and why did he not publish the January communications to ensure the BLP was factually correct.
Councillor Coppinger responded that he did not have all the answers required he would ask officers to respond on his behalf in writing.
The Inspector runs the Examination and was not inviting unsolicited information from the Council or others at that time. However, on 20 January 2022, the Inspector asked the council to respond to some comments made by [requestor] (and [named individual]) in relation to the lease surrender agreement and also the impact on the housing trajectory. The Council provided its response to the Inspector on 21 January. The Council has not been asked by the Inspector to publish this correspondence.
May I request copies of that correspondence on Jan 20th/21st please?
There is a number of files associated with this request which cannot be attached here. For a copy of these please contact the Information Governance Team at: foi@rbwm.gov.uk quoting the reference number (ER76957).