THE city council has claimed release of a draft report about the culture and leadership within the authority is not in the public interest.

Liberal Democrat councillor Tony Sutton asked for the document under the Freedom of Information Act. He was refused access.

Stephanie Pearson, the council's information governance officer, was asked to reconsider the decision in an appeal.

Ms Pearson upheld the refusal. She wrote: "On the balance of probabilities I consider that the report's disclosure would, or would be likely to, inhibit the free and frank provision of advice, or the free and frank exchange of views for the purposes of deliberation in that the co-operation of officers and members in future similar work is less likely to be open and unguarded if there is a fear that the results of the exercise will be discloseable.

"Equally, the senior political and officer management of the council itself may be less willing to seek such an appraisal in the future, if the results are publicly accessible."

Ms Pearson said she had taken account of the public interest when considering the matter.

She said set against the need for transparency, "I have had regard to the fact that general issues on the council's perceived culture were debated in the local media at around the time of the production of the report and subsequently and that certain information was in any event in the public domain, but that the organisation now has a different chief executive and the council is in a different situation to the time when the report was commissioned such that the relevance of the report to the public at large has greatly diminished".

She said there are still a substantial number of the officers, who were interviewed in connection with the production of the report, employed by the city council, who may not participate in similar projects if the draft report was released.

Ms Pearson said that with respect to common law, which gives a councillor a right to know certain information, she supported the original conclusion of the council's legal department.

It concluded Coun Sutton had not demonstrated a 'need to know' the contents of the report, upon which the right to know is based.