Judge tells council to release more information on former landfill site near Ironbridge after toxic waste fears

Stoneyhill, off the A4169 near Ironbridge, was previously used for the disposing of industrial and commercial waste including animal carcasses.

Monsanto, an American agrochemical and agricultural biotechnology company, which has now ceased trading, used the site between 1985 and 1991. A stream runs through the site and down into Coalbrookdale and the River Severn.

In July last year, Vicar Paul Cawthorne asked the council to release the results of tests carried out at the site, but the council said it did not intend to respond to Mr Cawthorne’s requests and applied regulation 12(4) (b) (manifestly unreasonable) of the Environmental Information Regulations (EIR) 2004.

Mr Cawthorne then complained to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) on November 27, 2023, about the council’s lack of response and accusing it of not disclosing data that might show problems at the site.

The council claimed it received around 2,750 emails from Mr Cawthorne between January 1, 2022 and September 14, 2023, and he copied in a number of separate officers and teams. It also alleged Mr Cawthorne’s tone was “aggressive”, there were numerous follow-up requests/emails, the concerns were only raised by him, and there was no value to the council or wider public “to continue to expend resources on further replies".

In a decision made on April 18 this year, the ICO maintained that the council was right to engage the EIR and, on balance, the public interest in maintaining the exception outweighed the public interest in disclosing the withheld information.

But Mr Cawthorne appealed the decision, stating there was wide public and specialist interest in the accuracy of the council’s information and pollution containment.

He also denied sending 2,750 emails, stating the request was not disproportionate “in the light of extensive national interest”, and while he had criticised the council, his expression “was considerably short of harassment”.

The ICO opposed the appeal, so the case was brought to a tribunal, which was chaired by District Judge Moan. Mr Cawthorne was represented by his counsel, Claudia Hyde, while Pat McCarthy, the co-ordinator of the Telford and Wrekin Green Party, provided a witness statement. ICO did not attend.

The tribunal concluded that it was not correct to suggest that the concerns were just those of Mr Cawthorne, and the language used in his correspondence to the council “were neither abusive, aggressive or harassing.” It also said that while the amount of emails he sent “might cause disruption and disturbance”, it accepted that was not the intention.

“The council had the burden of proving that the exception claimed applied and the tribunal was duty bound to restrictively interpret the exception claimed,” said Judge Moan.

“The tribunal had some concern that the intent of the council was to close the door of any further request of the appellant about this site at all. That was a wide-ranging prohibition which did not recognise that his requests for information had not been satisfied and that there may be a need for further information as other information became apparent in the future including further testing results.

“There was no doubt that the requests were repetitious and persistent in requesting testing data but equally the information had not been provided.

“There was no doubt that providing partial answers (or even complete answers) may have led to further questions as the appellant wanted a complete overview of the testing regime, the nature of those tests (i.e. what was being tested) and the results of the tests, as well as other information. It is foreseeable that the appellant may wish to see the annual testing data.

“If there are genuinely no concerns about the site, a pertinent question was why the information had not been released. We do not have the council’s answer to that question.”

A Telford & Wrekin Council spokesperson said: “The council has had no direct role in this appeal process as it was the decision made by the Information Commissioner which was appealed to the tribunal.

“We will comply with the tribunal’s decision whilst also waiting to see if the Information Commissioner challenges the outcome.

“Information on Stoneyhill has been, and continues to be, available on the council website for public information.”

An ICO spokesperson said it had received the judgment and is considering it.