Sheffield Council ‘significantly hampered’ £35,900 investigation into street tree FOI complaints

The council’s inability to provide details to the inquiry prevented investigators from finding out whether the authority followed Freedom of Information (FOI) law, Bevan Brittan stated in its damning report.

The law firm published the long-awaited findings of its investigation yesterday but most questions remain unanswered due to the council losing or mislaying key documents.

The probe was initially expected to be completed in May 2021 with final costs estimated to be in the region of £25,000 but it took more than a year longer, then the council released the report to the public four months after receiving it.

The council confirmed the final cost was £35,900.

It followed complaints by campaigner Marcus Combie when he discovered council emails relating to the street tree felling scandal inappropriately marked ‘legally privileged – not subject to FOI’, which resulted in information being wrongly withheld in at least once instance.

Mr Combie said: “The council insisted the use of ‘not subject to FOI’ was to enable the use of filtering and sorting messages to release to FOI, it begs the question why did they have such a hard time providing documentation to Bevan Brittan?”

He also complained about specific council members regarding the handling of tree requests but this is being dealt with separately by the council under the member’s code of conduct.

Council anxiety around “nasty” tree protesters

Investigators confirmed labelling information ‘not subject to FOI’ was inappropriate.

The council failed to provide required information relating to 13 out of a total 17 requests reviewed by the firm which used the legal privilege exemption – making it impossible to say with certainty what was going on, investigators said.

Bevan Brittan said it was aware those potentially involved with the requests leaving the council may have impacted locating information but it still expected the authority to have a working document management system in place.

Sheffield Tree Action Group said the report exposed an "astonishing absence of basic records management".

Of the limited information Bevan Brittan could analyse, some good practice was found and no evidence of information being deliberately withheld to avoid publication was seen.

However, interviews with officers at different levels of seniority revealed a lack of clarity around who was responsible for FOI decisions and what the process of handling requests was.

Council staff told investigators the ‘not subject to FOI’ heading was intended as a red flag to colleagues in response to anxiety about the tree felling scandal, adding tree protesters “got quite nasty” and it was a “very difficult time”.

One officer said: “I never considered by having that label that something that should have been disclosed wouldn’t be.”

The officer who started using it said they were trying to provide reassurance to colleagues because they were so concerned they even discussed “not putting things in writing”. They now wish they had not used the header and said the words chosen were “too strong”.

Another officer suggested it was, “probably a bit of a cloak, to prevent and enable the officer to talk freely without concern that what he said would have been subject to FOI”.

When asked why that was and whether it was a result of public pressure, they said: “I think it was a lot to do with that, but I think the officer concerned was often targeted by people in public meetings. Things were said and comments were said to [them] which were unpleasant. I don’t think [they] ever told me there were threats against [them] personally.

“Tensions were quite high, and some campaigners were unpleasant to council officers in public, which stays with you. I think sometimes you can use those emails to let off a bit of steam. That is not unusual in officers with these sorts of issues. The advice from [redacted] if you have something to say like that you don’t say it in an email. We don’t hide/destroy info if it is subject to FOI.”

One member of the information management team described their work as “busy and challenging”, saying they received on average 2,000 requests per year. Others said the volume of requests became “overwhelming”, with more requests coming in as litigation gathered pace.

Council promises to improve

In light of the report, the council committed to improving its record management including increasing capacity in its teams and making it a top priority in its corporate delivery plan.

Councillor Terry Fox, leader of the council, said: “We take our statutory duties seriously and wanted to ensure that any areas where we fall short could be identified and acted on.

“Although the report makes for uncomfortable reading in parts and does not reflect what we want to be as an organisation, we welcome the recommendations and are committed to implementing the necessary changes to improve how we handle requests for information.

“Maintaining our commitment to openness and transparency in relation to the management of street trees remains a priority.”

The authority said it would share the report with the Information Commissioner’s Office and the Independent Inquiry into the street tree scandal.

Coun Fox added: “We have come a long way in our approach to street trees, thanks to the new Street Tree Strategy, and the work of the partnership, but will continue to welcome these opportunities for further learning and reflection.”

Recommendations to the council

The authority was told: to get an FOI procedure setting out every stage of the process; review its record management system and ensure information is easily retrievable; establish a system whereby FOI responses are reviewed and signed off by management; review the FOI workloads and consider employing more resources; revisit incorrectly handled requests; and review training on FOI for all employees.

The full Bevan Brittan report can be found here: https://sheffnews.com/media/11566/sheffield-city-council-final-review-9-august-2022_redacted.pdf?utm_content=&utm_medium=email&utm_name=&utm_source=govdelivery&utm_term=