An internal email from Peterborough City Council leader Cllr Shabina Qayyum has intensified a growing dispute over the authority’s refusal to release documents linked to controversial land transactions at the Woodlands site in Castor.
The message raises fresh questions about whether the council has a lawful basis for continuing to withhold information requested under Freedom of Information and Environmental Information Regulations.
In the email, sent to the council’s monitoring officer, Cllr Qayyum asked whether secrecy could still be justified.
“If there is a legal basis under which we should not be withholding information, can that be complied with, please, and can we offer information under the FOI request?” she wrote.
Her intervention follows an ongoing campaign by CambsNews to obtain records relating to a 2017 decision by Nene Park Trust to grant a 970-year lease over part of the Woodlands site to Starleen Investments, an overseas-based company.
The land forms part of the wider Nene Park estate. Peterborough City Council retains the freehold, while the trust holds a 999-year head lease dating back to 1988.
In January 2017, Nene Park Trust granted Starleen Investments Ltd a 970-year lease over the eastern portion of the Woodlands site for £365,000 plus VAT.
Just a year later, Starleen granted a near-identical 969-year lease to Country Court Care for £2.1 million, enabling the development of Castor Lodge care home.
The difference between the two premiums, around £1.7 million before costs, has become a central point of scrutiny, raising questions about governance and oversight. No allegation of criminal wrongdoing has been made.
CambsNews investigations have previously shown that Nene Park Trust was under financial pressure at the time. Its accounts indicate that a payment of around £205,000 arising from the Woodlands lease played a significant role in helping the trust break even in the 2018–19 financial year.
The site itself has a complex history. Formerly used by Pearl Assurance as a sports and leisure centre for staff, it was later used by Peterborough United as a training ground after the company withdrew from the city.
A former board member of Nene Park Trust told CambsNews that trustees were effectively presented with a single viable option.
“Starleen were the only show in town,” the former trustee said, describing discussions that took place privately at board level following advice from external consultants. According to the same source, trustees were warned that rejecting the deal could have led to the site being left derelict for decades.
“We received professional advice from Savills, which said Starleen were the only viable option if we wanted continued sports use and some income. At the time, that sounded reasonable.
“Phoenix Insurance, linked to Standard Life, owned the site. Their position was that if redevelopment was not allowed, they would let it deteriorate.
“They talked about demolishing the buildings and fencing the site off for 20 years until housing became possible. That was the implication.”
The latest dispute centres not on the deal itself, but on access to information about how it was handled.
CambsNews has requested planning and council correspondence from 2016 to 2018 involving Starleen Investments, its agent Barker Storey Matthews, Nene Park Trust and councillors.
Peterborough City Council has refused disclosure under Environmental Information Regulations, arguing that releasing the material could undermine an ongoing review or investigation.
While acknowledging what it describes as “a significant public interest in transparency”, the authority maintains that this is outweighed by the need to protect investigative processes.
“The public interest in maintaining effective investigative and governance processes outweighs the public interest in disclosure at this time,” the council said.
It has also refused to provide even a basic schedule of withheld documents, arguing that listing dates, parties or subject matter could prejudice its ability to exercise law enforcement functions.
Officials say such details could reveal the scope and direction of inquiries, identify potential witnesses and invite external pressure. The council has rejected suggestions that the refusal is designed to avoid scrutiny.
“This is not an attempt to avoid transparency or accountability,” it said, describing the position as a necessary safeguard to ensure investigations are conducted fairly.
It insists that disclosure may be considered once the process is complete and it is “appropriate to do so”.
However, CambsNews says Cambridgeshire Police have confirmed there is no criminal investigation into the matter, raising further questions about the basis for withholding the information.
In a strongly worded challenge to the council leader, monitoring officer and press office, the publication accused the authority of applying Environmental Information Regulations exemptions “in a way that is neither lawful nor honest”.
It argued the council had failed to clearly define the investigation it claims could be prejudiced and said broad references to “lines of enquiry” fall short of guidance set by the Information Commissioner.
CambsNews also challenged the refusal to provide a withheld documents schedule, arguing that the council had ignored the regulations’ presumption in favour of disclosure.
The intervention by Cllr Qayyum is politically significant because it places the council leader directly within the dispute.
While her email does not instruct officers to release information, it signals that disclosure should follow if legal grounds for secrecy cannot be sustained.
The Labour-led administration has repeatedly described transparency and accountability as core principles since taking control of Peterborough City Council.
CambsNews argues there is now a clear gap between those commitments and the council’s handling of the Woodlands requests.
Questions also remain over the nature of the “governance review” cited by the authority as justification for withholding information.
The council has not publicly confirmed who is conducting the review, when it began, whether external bodies are involved or whether formal terms of reference exist.
The dispute follows earlier inconsistencies in how the council has handled the requests.
CambsNews says one internal review previously concluded that legal professional privilege had been wrongly applied to some documents. A later review then introduced a different regulation as a new basis for refusal.
There are also unresolved questions about whether all relevant records still exist.
The council initially stated it held no correspondence with Starleen Investments, despite planning records indicating that communications and consultations did take place.
It has since suggested that some records “may not still be held”, but has not provided a detailed explanation of document retention policies or how material may have been lost.
The case could now be referred to the Information Commissioner’s Office if the dispute is not resolved.
At its core, the row centres on a series of unresolved questions: whether the council has lawfully applied Environmental Information Regulations exemptions, whether historic planning correspondence can be disclosed, and what exactly the council’s governance review involves.
Attention will also focus on whether the intervention by Cllr Qayyum leads to any shift in the authority’s position.
For now, the documents remain withheld, and the questions surrounding the Woodlands deal remain unanswered.
