An attempt by CambsNews to obtain detailed information about more than £60,000 of council payments to a series of local radio organisations has resulted in a formal internal review — and renewed questions about transparency and record-keeping at Peterborough City Council.
The Freedom of Information request, submitted by CambsNews in September, sought documents and correspondence relating to five separate payments made between 2012 and 2016 to Radio Peterborough, Peterborough Community Radio Ltd, and Peterborough FM Radio.
The payments — ranging from £500 to £30,000 — were distributed during a period when Councillor Wayne Fitzgerald was reportedly associated with some of the organisations receiving council funding. Companies House records indicate that Fitzgerald served as a founding director or member of predecessor or successor entities linked to the radio stations.
FOI requests probe Peterborough City Council’s payments to local radio
CambsNews requested clarity on who authorised each payment, what services were delivered in return, and whether appropriate declarations of interest were made by councillors involved in or connected with the organisations.
Council rejects much of the request under Freedom of Information Act cost rules
In its initial response, Peterborough City Council confirmed the payment amounts and dates, but refused to release much of the underlying material. Officials cited section 12 of the Freedom of Information Act, which permits a council to refuse a request requiring more than 18 hours of work.
The council said the information sought — including correspondence, internal approvals, and advice given to councillors — existed only in archived paper files, some dating back more than a decade. Retrieving and reviewing these, it claimed, would exceed the legal cost threshold of £450.
The council also stated that some documents may no longer exist, given its six-year financial retention policy.
However, CambsNews challenged the decision, arguing the council had failed to explain how it calculated the “18-hour” figure. No breakdown was provided showing:
- how many files would need inspection,
- which years or payments were most time-consuming, or
- how the estimated hours were arrived at.
FOIA guidance requires cost estimates to be realistic, evidence-based, and clearly explained — something CambsNews argued had not occurred.
Was the council’s duty to assist met?
CambsNews also questioned whether the council complied with section 16 of the Act, which obliges authorities to help requesters narrow their queries to fall within cost limits.
Although the council invited CambsNews to “refine” its questions, it did not indicate how the request could be reduced or what information could be extracted within the 18-hour cap. Past FOIA rulings make clear that councils must offer practical, targeted advice — for example by suggesting:
- narrowing the timeframe,
- limiting the request to specific payments, or
- identifying particular document types that can be retrieved.
CambsNews argued that without such guidance, the invitation to refine was effectively meaningless.
Public-interest questions at the centre of the dispute
CambsNews emphasised the strong public interest behind the request.
The payments under scrutiny were substantial, totalling more than £60,000, and some went to organisations linked to a serving councillor. In addition, council minutes from December 2011 show Cllr Fitzgerald seconded and amended a motion on local radio — raising questions about whether a declaration of interest was required.
Peterborough City Council challenged over £60,000 in payments to local radio companies
CambsNews argued that the public has a right to understand:
- who authorised the payments,
- what was received in return, and
- whether potential conflicts of interest were handled properly.
Given this context, CambsNews said the council should take extra care to demonstrate that proper processes were followed.
Internal review upholds original decision
The council’s legal department reviewed the case and upheld the refusal.
The reviewing officer maintained that the 18-hour estimate was reasonable, highlighting the age of the materials, the likelihood that documents were disorganised or unindexed, and the possible absence of reference numbers linking correspondence to expenditure records.
PHOTO: Terry Harris
The review also concluded that the council had met its section 16 obligations by inviting refinement and referenced the 2021 ICO decision involving Kingston-upon-Thames — the same case cited by CambsNews — as justification.
However, the internal review did offer one possible route forward: it suggested that CambsNews could narrow its question about councillor involvement to one named individual, rather than asking for information about all councillors. Focusing solely on Cllr Fitzgerald, officials said, might bring part of the request within the cost limit.
The council reiterated that some financial records had already been deleted in line with its six-year retention schedule.
Unanswered questions over what records still exist
One area where uncertainty remains is the status of the archived files themselves. CambsNews specifically asked the council to clarify which categories of documents had been destroyed and under what retention schedule. The internal review did not address this in detail.
This lack of clarity could become important if the ICO becomes involved, because the question of whether the council still holds key documents determines what can be retrieved — and whether the section 12 exemption applies at all.
Next steps: ICO complaint likely
CambsNews now has the option of escalating the matter to the Information Commissioner’s Office, which can order the council to provide proper cost calculations, offer more meaningful advice, or release additional material if it finds the section 12 refusal unsound.
The ICO can also investigate whether the council’s record-keeping practices meet statutory obligations — a particularly relevant issue when the use of public funds and potential conflicts of interest intersect.
However, CambsNews has, as the council suggested, narrowed its FOI and is seeking one last attempt to obtain the background detail prior to any possible appeal to the Information Commissioner.
