The Macclesfield Express has taken its fight to get the report released on the Lyme Green fiasco to the Information Commissioner.

Last week we called on Cheshire East Council to publish in full the independent report into the botched bid to build a waste transfer station in the south of the town.

Residents, campaigners and political heavyweights have all backed our call for the council to release the results of the independent probe into the scandal.

We have taken our fight to the officer of the Information Commissioner – set up to uphold information rights in matters of public interest – after council bosses ruled there is no one of sufficient authority to review our case as the decision to withhold it had been made at a senior level.

The council says a summary of the report, prepared by the interim chief executive Kim Ryley, is to be released ‘in due course’.

Residents who campaigned against the proposed waste transfer station at the Lyme Green depot have added their backing to our campaign.

 

Peter Yates, former chief planning officer at Macclesfield Borough council, who lives near the site, said: “I am 100 per cent behind the Macc Express campaign and I haven’t spoken to a single person who isn’t. I don’t agree with the idea of a summary, as they may well involve someone taking things out that people want to hear about.

“Clearly, people want to see the whole report, as the Express is calling for.”

Mr Yates himself has requested copies of all correspondence between councillors and officers regarding Lyme Green last June, and after having his request denied twice – including on appeal – he has now taken this case to the Information Commissioner.

Celia Davies, a member of the Lyme Green residents group who campaigned against the plans for the site said: “It is imperative that this report is released. In fact, I think the whole reputation of Cheshire East rests on it.

“We feel deeply disappointed and let down as residents.

“The council has spoken so much about transparency and I think there was an expectation that the report, once completed, would be made available.

“This is their chance to say ‘we commissioned a report, here it is’.”

Meanwhile, the council’s former finance chief and leading councillor Frank Keegan says the public is entitled to see the results of their £225,000 outlay on the report.

Coun Keegan, Conservative member for Alderley Edge, said: “This is a transparency issue.

“And in the interests of transparency, all the information that is available should be released to the public.

“I think the public are entitled to see to what extent elected members were involved and ask if they weren’t involved, why weren’t they?

“I am comfortable it could be released into the public domain.

“The public have paid for it and have a right to see the results.”

The town’s MP David Rutley also says he has urged the council leader Coun Michael Jones to release as much information as is legally possible.

He said: “What happened at Lyme Green was absolutely wrong and I am pleased that the new council leader has taken action to hold to account the officials responsible.

“In situations like this, it is important the council is as transparent as possible with the public about what went on.

“However, I understand that the report forms part of the council’s disciplinary process and as a result parts of the report need to remain confidential.

“In this context, I have asked Coun Jones to ensure that the council makes available all the relevant information that can be released.”

An online petition urging CEC to release the report had gained 183 signatures at the time of going to press.

It was started by 46-year-old Macclesfield resident Edmund Trebus.

He said: “It just seems wrong that the full story cannot be told. All we want is the report.

“We’re not after blood and we’re not saying anyone has done anything wrong. But until we see it, we won’t know for sure and we won’t be able to ‘draw a line under it’ as Councillor Jones says he wants to.”

Council bosses have said that they could not publish the full report as it contains personal data of people whose conduct was under scrutiny, and also that of those who gave evidence about others, who are entitled to a ‘reasonable expectation of privacy’.

They said that to take out details identifying the individuals would make the report meaningless. It also said the disclosure of the report could prejudice ongoing disciplinary proceedings against any officer identified in the report.

Council bosses concluded that the public interest in not disclosing the report outweighed that for releasing it.

To view or sign the petition, visit http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/47795 .