CULCHETH & Glazebury Parish Council has responded to “serious concerns” over Freedom of Information requests from independent Cllr. Neil Johnson.
Councillor Johnson has expressed his “serious concern” at the way Freedom of Information requests are being handled by Culcheth and Glazebury Parish Council.
The Parish Council has recently employed a new Clerk, after the post remained vacant for much of 2025. Since the new Clerk’s commencement in post, responses to Freedom of Information requests have been issued to a number of residents.
Cllr. Johnson has been contacted by several of those people and has been given sight of the replies.
He says the content makes him extremely worried that the Parish Council could be issued with fines or other sanctions from the Information Commissioner’s Office. The responses, he says, are “incomplete” and, in a number of instances, the Freedom of Information Act has been “wrongly applied”.
Cllr Johnson says: “I am seriously concerned at the abrupt and unhelpful tone being used by the Parish Council in their responses to Freedom of Information requests.
“Documents have not been released on the grounds that they are still being processed, or do not exist as ‘finalised information’. This is unacceptable. Under the Freedom of Information Act, the Parish Council is required to release all relevant information, even if it is in draft or unaudited form.
“The Parish Council has failed to explain what information it does hold, and has offered residents no right of appeal or mechanism for requesting an internal review of the outcome of their request. Sections of the Act used to deny information have, in my view, been wrongly applied.
“The responses come across as extremely defensive, whereas the Parish Council has a duty to assist residents in obtaining the information they seek.
“I am shocked at what I have been shown, but I am most concerned about Freedom of Information requests which relate to the use of private security at meetings.
“The Parish Clerk has told residents that ‘no documentation exists because no formal resolution was required’ and that the decision to hire security was taken by the Parish Council’s ‘administrative team’. The Council does not, and has never had, an ‘administrative team’. Even if it did, I am extremely uncomfortable with the idea of paid, politically neutral employees taking it upon themselves to spend public money on private security guards.
“I am also very perturbed by the claim that ‘no documents’ exist relating to the hiring of private security. This is untrue. I have sent emails about the matter to the Clerk’s email address and fellow Parish Councillors. Those emails are documents held by the Parish Council and fall within the scope of the request. If they have been withheld, what else has?
“I find it incomprehensible that private security could have been hired for three consecutive meetings dating back to October, yet not a single document exists within the Parish Council’s records relating to this. That is absurd. How were the bookings made? Where is the audit trail? The invoices? Other internal emails besides my own? This does not stand up to scrutiny.”
Cllr Johnson has asked a series of questions to the new Clerk on a range of topics and is currently awaiting a response. Ironically, his own Freedom of Information request has yet to be answered!
Cllr Johnson says he is now in touch with the Information Commissioner’s office and is seeking an investigation into the way FOI responses are being handled.
In response Culcheth and Glazebury Parish Council issued the following response: “All Freedom of Information responses were provided in line with the Act and after discussion with relevant staff at the Information Commissioner’s Office. The Parish Council has sought to ensure that requests were handled correctly, proportionately, and in accordance with ICO guidance. Any suggestion that responses were issued without due consideration or without regard to applicants’ rights is incorrect.”
4 Comments
As a resident of Culcheth & Glazebury, I feel compelled to respond to the recent article concerning Freedom of Information (FOI) requests and the conduct of the Parish Council, which I believe presents a one-sided and misleading narrative.
Like many residents, I attend Parish Council meetings and observe proceedings first-hand. The portrayal of Councillor Neil Johnson as a lone champion of transparency does not align with what I and others witness at meetings, where his contribution is often minimal, yet followed by highly critical commentary on social media and in the press. Robust debate is welcome in any democracy, but it should take place openly, respectfully, and accurately.
The article also fails to acknowledge that the Parish Council has publicly stated that its FOI responses were issued in line with the Freedom of Information Act and following discussions with the Information Commissioner’s Office. That reassurance deserves equal prominence. The FOI Act does not require councils to create information that does not exist, nor does it mandate the automatic release of unfinished or informal material, as has been suggested.
I am particularly concerned by the repeated targeting of the newly appointed Parish Clerk. After a lengthy vacancy, the Clerk has taken on a demanding role under intense scrutiny. Criticism is fair, but personalising attacks on a professional officer for carrying out their duties risks discouraging capable people from serving the community at all.
The implication that security arrangements at meetings were somehow improper also lacks balance. Those of us who attend meetings are aware of disruptive behaviour from a small but vocal group, including mocking, sniggering, and insulting conduct that undermines the democratic process. Ensuring meetings are safe and orderly is not an abuse of power; it is a basic responsibility.
Most residents simply want a Parish Council that functions effectively, treats staff fairly, and focuses on the wider community rather than constant internal conflict. Persistent public accusations, selective interpretations of legislation, and adversarial media commentary do not help achieve that aim.
I hope future reporting will reflect the full context and recognise that the Parish Council, like any public body, is entitled to act proportionately, seek professional advice, and defend its staff against unfair criticism.
Yours sincerely,
A concerned resident of Culcheth & Glazebury
This piece says more about the author than it does about anything else. It’s written by a former Labour councillor who managed to lose the confidence and respect of pretty much everyone he worked with, and this feels like another attempt to deflect from that reality.
Instead of offering anything constructive, it’s just anger, blame and old grudges being aired in public. There’s no real insight, no evidence, and no sense of responsibility — just someone still trying to settle scores.
People can judge it for what it is: not serious commentary, but a personal rant from someone who couldn’t work with others and hasn’t moved on.
The news item has been supplied by a local Cllr, as many articles we receive are. Yes, there are two sides to every story, and we always try our best to give both sides. The council has responded, and we have published their response in full. In all our years of reporting local issues, it is very unusual for a parish council to have security cover at meetings – that makes it newsworthy alone, let alone anything else which is being reported. Like many others, our wish is that everyone could work together for the good of the local community. But sadly, as we see on our TV screens every night, this rarely happens. Local politicians should remove political blinkers and work together for the good of the community.
David – your comment is factually incorrect.
“The article also fails to acknowledge that the Parish Council has publicly stated that its FOI responses were issued in line with the Freedom of Information Act and following discussions with the Information.” It clealry states the below.
In response Culcheth and Glazebury Parish Council issued the following response: “All Freedom of Information responses were provided in line with the Act and after discussion with relevant staff at the Information Commissioner’s Office. The Parish Council has sought to ensure that requests were handled correctly, proportionately, and in accordance with ICO guidance. Any suggestion that responses were issued without due consideration or without regard to applicants’ rights is incorrect.”