Disclosure Log
PWC report on business case for unitary authority (FOI/5642)
Message from Nottinghamshire County Council - 29 April 2025
Dear *****
Freedom of Information Request – Ref: FOI/00005642
Thank you for your Freedom of Information request of 28 March 2025 where you requested:
Please can you supply a copy of the report produced to support the development of unitary options and proposals and provision of a Strategic Business Case recently provided by Price Waterhouse Cooper (PWC)
I can confirm that the Council holds this information. This information is exempt under sections 36(2)(b)(i) and 26(2)(b)(ii) (Prejudice to the conduct of public affairs) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and is therefore being withheld.
Prejudice test
The requested information concerns discussions in respect of development of unitary options and proposals in Nottingham and Nottinghamshire Council.
An interim plan was published by the County Council as part of its Full Council papers dated 20 March, which represents a progress report to government, incorporating potential options based on work completed to date. It is not a proposal or strategic business case – this is the work that will be developed over the coming months ahead of final proposal(s) to be submitted to government in November 2025. Discussions regarding Local Government Reorganisation are ongoing involving all 9 councils.
Whilst Nottinghamshire County Council does hold some information relevant to the request it has not at this stage been used to develop final options and proposals and a Strategic Business case as set out in the request. It has been used to develop an interim plan for submission to government as required but we have not yet developed formal proposals or a business case.
Some information has been provided by PWC, who have been engaged by all 9 councils to support work on local government reorganisation. The information includes some data and describes the process to arrive at the position as reported in the interim plan.
The data provided is not yet complete as additional work is required to gather further information in order to develop and finalise the formal options and proposals.
As outlined in the interim plan the financial information requires validation as part of the work to finalise the options appraisal.
The information in its current format has not yet been shared with the Leaders of all of the impacted Councils.
Sections 36 (2)(b)(i) & (ii) provide that information is exempt if in the reasonable opinion of the qualified person, disclosure would, or would be likely to, inhibit—
- The free and frank provision of advice, or
- The free and frank exchange of view for the purposes of deliberation
Public authority staff and others need the ability to express themselves openly, honestly and completely during the process of deliberation. This includes the consideration of all available options. Public officials are expected to be impartial and robust when giving advice.
The possibility of future disclosure may hinder that process. Any loss of frankness and candour throughout this process would damage the quality of discussion, deliberation and information sharing and lead to poorer decision- making in the future.
It is the opinion of the qualified person (Monitoring Officer) that disclosure of this information, in the midst of a live and evolving process, would inhibit the provision of advice and free and frank exchange of views for the purposes of deliberation and more widely. Disclosure would thus risk infringing the frankness of discussions because of concerns about their future release.
Disclosing the document would restrain, decrease and suppress the freedom with which opinions and options are expressed and lead to members and officers being less candid. This would undermine an iterative approach to working together to develop the approach and proposals by not having the ability to seek and consider different views which would lead to poorer decision-making and not be in the public interest.
It is important for public authorities to have a safe space in which to consider options and proposals. Development of proposals and a business case for Unitary Authority or Authorities contains a range of options which require careful consideration.
Local authorities need a safe space in which to work collaboratively, share undeveloped views and comments, and gather free and frank input from consultants and others to inform decisions. Local councils need options to be developed without fear of this information making it into the public domain prematurely.
Having considered the relevant factors of the case, it is my opinion of the qualified person that the exemptions in sections 36(2)(b)(i) and (ii) should be applied.
Public interest test
In the opinion of the qualified person, the public interest in ensuring that such significant decision making is based on the best advice available would be undermined by disclosure in this case. The disclosure would have a considerable deterrent effect on the frankness of such advice and dialogue amongst the relevant parties. This would in turn affect the robustness of any recommendations made to the detriment of the quality of future decision making in relation to what are significant issues.
It could be argued that the threat of public disclosure leads to better quality advice by ensuring advice and debate is more rounded.
Further, that a transparent and accountable system should not need ‘a safe space’ for free and frank provision of advice and discussion for vulnerable areas of its deliberation process.
Premature public or media involvement would hinder the free and frank exchange of views and provision of advice. This is an ongoing and evolving dialogue about significant and sensitive issues where the ability to receive the best advice and have frank and open dialogue in shaping formal proposals is paramount and in the best interest of local residents.
It is important that robust, evidence-based decisions are made. Without the public viewing of that discussion, it could also be argued that problematic issues raised had simply been ignored.
The interim plan outlines that it is intended to run an engagement exercise with local residents over the summer period in relation to the developing proposals. This will help ensure residents’ views are taken into account and that matters of importance to local residents are properly considered.
Having considered the public interest, the Council’s decision is therefore to withhold the information.
Your privacy: we use your personal information such as name and address so that we can comply with our legal obligations to respond to FOI requests. For further details about the use of information about you, please see the information handling privacy notice on our website at https://www.nottinghamshire.gov.uk/media/4323566/informationgovernanceandinformationrightsprivacynotice.pdf.
If you are dissatisfied with the handling of your request, you have the right to ask for an internal review. Internal review requests should be submitted within 40 working days of the date of receipt of the response to your original request and should be addressed to: Complaints and Information – Team Manager, Nottinghamshire County Council, County Hall, Loughborough Road, West Bridgford, NOTTINGHAM, NG2 7QP or [email protected].
Please remember to quote the reference number above in any future communications.
If you are not content with the outcome of the internal review, you have the right to apply directly to the Information Commissioner for a decision. The Information Commissioner can be contacted at: Information Commissioner’s Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, WILMSLOW, SK9 5AF or https://ico.org.uk/make-a-complaint/foi-and-eir-complaints/.
If you have any other questions or need further clarification, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Yours sincerely
Colin Sawers (He/Him)
Information Case Officer | Customers, Complaints and Information
Chief Executive"s Department | Nottinghamshire County Council
County Hall | Loughborough Road | West Bridgford | NOTTINGHAM | NG2 7QP
Tel: (0115) 977 3714