A Freedom of Information dispute over the controversial Woodlands land deal in Castor has escalated sharply, after Peterborough City Council confirmed it is withholding key documents due to an ongoing investigation involving “financial concerns”.
The admission raises new questions—not just about the £1.7 million uplift linked to the site—but about what exactly the council is investigating, under what authority, and why that process is now being used to restrict disclosure.
At the centre of the case is a request by CambsNews seeking correspondence and records tied to the Woodlands site, a former leisure complex within the wider Nene Park estate.
Council invokes law enforcement exemption
In its latest response, the council confirmed it is relying on Section 31 of the Freedom of Information Act—a provision typically associated with regulatory or enforcement activity.
It said the material relates to “matters that form part of an investigation where financial concerns may arise,” arguing disclosure could:
- Prejudice the effectiveness of any investigation
- Reveal lines of enquiry or preliminary findings
- Expose untested information
- Place inappropriate pressure on decision-makers
However, the council has not disclosed the nature or scope of that investigation.
That omission is now central to the dispute.
What kind of investigation?
Section 31 is not a routine exemption. Its use implies the council believes disclosure could interfere with functions linked to protecting public funds or regulatory processes.
But key details remain unclear:
- Is the investigation internal or external?
- Does it relate to governance, valuation, or conduct?
- What triggered the “financial concerns”?
Without that context, it is difficult to assess whether the exemption is being applied narrowly—or more broadly to withhold sensitive material.
£1.7m uplift under scrutiny
The case centres on a sequence of long lease transactions at the Woodlands site.
Public records show:
- A 970-year lease granted in 2017 for £365,000
- A near-identical 969-year lease granted in 2018 for £2.1 million
The £1.7 million difference has prompted questions about oversight, valuation, and whether safeguards were in place.
The council remains the freeholder, making its role—particularly in any consent to the lease—critical.
No wrongdoing is alleged. CambsNews is seeking clarity on governance and process.
Explainer: What is the Woodlands site and why does it matter?
The Woodlands site in Castor is a former sports and leisure complex covering around 8.77 acres on the western edge of Peterborough. It forms part of the wider Nene Park estate, with Peterborough City Council retaining the freehold and Nene Park Trust holding a long head lease.
The site was originally developed in the late 1980s by Pearl Assurance as a private sports and social facility for its workforce, which had relocated to Peterborough during a period of major corporate expansion in the city. Facilities included a sports hall, gym, squash courts, and extensive social spaces designed to support employee wellbeing.
The complex remained in use until around 2005, when the main building closed, although outdoor pitches continued to be used for some years afterwards.
Following a period of decline, control of parts of the site shifted. In 2017, Nene Park Trust granted a 970-year lease over part of the land to Jersey-based Starleen Investments Ltd for £365,000. The following year, a near-identical lease was granted on to a care home operator for £2.1 million, enabling the development of Castor Lodge care home.
This transaction created an uplift of approximately £1.7 million in under a year—raising questions about valuation and whether mechanisms such as overage or clawback were considered.
Today, the site is split between active care home use and plans to reintroduce community sports facilities, including a new pavilion and multi-use games area.
The broader significance lies in its original purpose: the land was historically structured to prevent private capture of development value and to preserve long-term public benefit. That context is now central to questions about how later decisions were made.
FOI handling under scrutiny
The dispute has also widened to include how the request itself has been handled.
CambsNews argues the request falls under the Environmental Information Regulations (EIR), which carry a presumption in favour of disclosure.
However, the council has relied on Freedom of Information Act exemptions instead—raising questions about whether the correct legal framework has been applied.
Conflicting internal reviews
Two separate internal review outcomes have added to the confusion.
One found legal privilege had been wrongly applied and required reconsideration.
The second introduced Section 31 for the first time and declared the matter closed.
The shift has prompted questions about consistency and process.
Missing documents and unanswered questions
The council initially stated it held no correspondence with Starleen Investments Ltd.
Yet planning records appear to reference such material, including internal emails and consultation documents.
The authority has since suggested some documents “may not still be held” but has not explained when or how they were disposed of.
ICO referral expected
CambsNews is now preparing to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner’s Office unless further clarification is provided.
Key outstanding issues include:
- Whether the request will be handled under EIR
- Which internal review represents the final position
- Whether a further review will be offered
- Whether relevant documents still exist
- The legal basis for applying Section 31
Transparency vs confidentiality
At its core, the council’s reliance on a law enforcement exemption suggests something more than routine administration.
But without clarity on the investigation itself, that justification remains difficult to evaluate.
