Leaked monitoring officer report reveals council approach to reorganisation legal challenge warrants section 5A report

The monitoring officer, Nigel Inniss, found the council failed to provide some information to opposition members and publish a record of the leader’s decision to pursue the challenge within the statutory timeframe, according to the Local Democracy Reporting Service (LDRS).

The findings were made in a confidential report that has since been leaked.

The council sent a pre-action protocol letter to the Government in late May, arguing the decision to replace Suffolk’s existing authorities with three new unitary councils was unlawful. Suffolk's executive made the decision to pursue the challenge.

However, opposition members later attempted to call in the decision. It is understood that the request questioned whether the decision should have been a non-executive decision for full council, as the litigation might not be in accordance with the council’s full budget.

The monitoring officer subsequently prepared a confidential report responding to the request.

It is understood that the report found the council breached the Local Authorities (Executive Arrangements) (Meetings and Access to Information) (England) Regulations 2012 by failing to publish a record of the leader's decision to commence judicial review proceedings "as soon as reasonably practicable".

The report also identified a second breach arising from the council's failure to provide a member of the scrutiny committee with the claim form and related documents within the statutory timescale following their request, it is understood.

The monitoring officer proposed issuing a section 5A report in relation to the breaches. However, he said both amounted to "relatively minor and inadvertent breaches" in the context of the circumstances surrounding the judicial review proceedings, the LDRS reported.

A section 5A report has not yet been issued. The council said it will issue a section 5A report, but is not currently in a position to confirm its timetable.

The move to keep Inniss' findings confidential has garnered criticism from some members who say the council should make the report public.

In a blog post on the events, Labour Group leader, Cllr Martin Cook, said: "A council confident it had acted properly would find three things easy: publish the report, blanking out only what genuinely must stay private; bring the watchdog’s findings to a public meeting now, not in the autumn; and put a limit on what this case can cost you."

Cllr Richard Rout, leader of the Conservative Group, meanwhile told the LDRS that the decision to keep the information confidential was "frankly disgraceful".

A Suffolk County Council spokesperson said: "Some council reports have to remain confidential for legitimate legal reasons, so it is extremely disappointing that someone has chosen to leak this one to the media.

"Council officers and legal advisers must be able to give free and frank advice to councillors. Leaking confidential material undermines the proper functioning of a council's decision-making processes.

"We can confirm that a section 5a report will be submitted. We are not yet in a position to confirm a timetable for this, but we can reassure residents that it relates to minor procedural matters and will have no impact on the ongoing Judicial Review process."

Adam Carey