WARRINGTON Borough Council (WBC) has refused a request for it to reveal which locations have been considered or voted on as a potential transit site.

The Warrington Guardian submitted a Freedom of Information request to the council last month after finding out £2 million of its funds has been set aside to open a camp for unlawful travellers.

Cllr Paul Kennedy (CON – Hatton, Stretton and Walton), who is on the planning for travellers task group, revealed councillors also on it voted on the site in December.

The Warrington Guardian asked the authority to confirm the locations discussed, shortlisted, details and outcome of any vote, when it intends to install a site in the town and correspondences on the matter.

It confirmed the councillors at the task group meeting in December were Cllr David Keane (LAB – Penketh and Cuerdley), Cllr Geoff Settle (LAB – Poulton North), Cllr Kennedy, Cllr Steve Parish (LAB – Bewsey and Whitecross), Cllr Bill Brinksman (LAB – Rixton and Woolston), Cllr Tony Williams (LAB – Great Sankey South) and Cllr Bob Barr (LD – Lymm).

However, key details of what has been debated so far was not provided but David Boyer, the council's assistant director for transport and environment, outlined the reasons for the refusal in his response.

He highlighted regulations in place which allow a public authority to refuse to disclose information if it would 'adversely affect' the confidentiality of commercial information where such confidentiality is provided by law to 'protect a legitimate economic interest'.

"The council considers that the information is commercial insofar as it could affect the value of the sites and land in the vicinity," he said.

"It is considered that on the balance of probabilities the legitimate commercial interests of landowners and potential purchasers, including WBC itself, would be harmed in that the information would be likely to affect land values to the detriment of either purchasers or vendors.

"The council considers that information has the necessary quality of confidence as it is not otherwise accessible and is more than trivial.

"Given the contents of the information the council considers that the circumstances gave rise to an obligation of confidence."

But the council insists it has carefully considered the public interest over the matter and said after completion a full report will be put to the executive board for proper consideration.

If it progresses the matter will need to go through the required planning process.

"The council has considered carefully the public interest and therefore the need for transparency and accountability, alongside the need to promote public understanding and to safeguard democratic processes," said Mr Boyer.

"In undermining the safe space within which the council can discuss the possible options, distraction and disruption to the process of reaching a decision might be caused and the mechanisms and checks and balances inherent in local government and planning law might also be interfered with.

"On this occasion the council has determined that the prejudices which are likely to arise from disclosing the requested information at this time, for the aforementioned reasons outweigh the public interest in disclosure."

WBC reaffirmed its stance that no formal decision on a location has been made and so there is no 'finished document'.

Mr Boyer added: "The Information Commissioner's Office guidance says that the council should have the necessary space to think in private and some protection from having to spend time and resources explaining or justifying ideas that are not or may never be final and will be entitled to refuse access if the request concerns material in the course of completion or internal communications subject to that being in the public interest.

"The council anticipates that completion of the independent consultant’s work in conjunction with any necessary deliverability appraisals that the council will need to undertake, will require approximately 12 months from this date."

The council also confirmed a regulation allowed it to refuse to answer parts of the request regarding the disclosure of internal communications so it can discuss the merits of proposals and implications of decisions internally without 'outside interference'.