Details of Planning Enforcement Notice on Willow Farm, Pymoor
Request received 19 December 2026
I am writing to request information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 regarding planning enforcement activities at Willow Farm, Corkers Crisps/Taylor Farms complex at Willow Farm, Pymoor Common, Pymoor, Ely in relation to planning application 21/00396/FUM and the historical/current use of the site.
The Planning Enforcement team has confirmed that a Planning Contravention Notice (PCN) was served on or around October 2025. I am seeking transparency regarding the Council’s handling of reported breaches and the current unauthorized use of the land for vehicle and plant storage.
Please provide the following information:
- Planning Contravention Notice (PCN) Data:
- The date the PCN was formally served.
- The date the Council received the completed response to the PCN.
- If no response has been received, please provide the date the Council initiated (or intends to initiate) prosecution for non-compliance with the PCN.
- Internal Assessments and Legal Advice:
- Copies of internal memos, meeting minutes, or emails between the Planning Enforcement Team and Legal Services regarding the "advice" being sought as mentioned in Juleen Roman’s email of 12 December 2025.
- Any internal assessment or "Officer Report" concluding why enforcement action has not yet been taken regarding the storage of FDS vehicles and plant equipment. As well as the other sites usage including storage of HGV and other plant in relation to WMS services Cambridge and Gressingham Foods
- Public Interest Justification:
-
Any recorded decision or memo detailing why the Council considers "non-enforcement" or delayed enforcement to be in the public interest in this specific case, particularly concerning the building at the rear of the site that lacks planning permission.
Responded 20 January 2026
-
1.Planning Contravention Notice (PCN) Data:
• 23 September 2025
• 25 November 2025
• n/a
2.Internal Assessments and Legal Advice:
• Regarding your request for copies of internal memos, meeting minutes, or emails between the Planning Enforcement Team and Legal Services. ICO Guidance explains that there are two types of Legal Professional Privilege (Litigation Privilege and Advice Privilege). We believe that the requested information falls under Advice Privilege. It covers confidential communication between the client and lawyer, made for the dominant (main) purpose of seeking or giving legal advice.
There is a strong public interest in the Council being able to communicate freely regarding legal proceedings, as well as provide and receive advice in confidence. The Council requires high quality and comprehensive legal advice for the effective conduct of their business, and that advice needs to be given in context. The legal adviser needs to be able to present the full picture to both internal departments and external legal advisers.
This information is therefore considered exempt from disclosure under Section 41(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. In respect of those requests that are answered in full, partially or the total refused, please take this as notice under FOIA, that we:
a) Consider the following exemption of FOI apply; and
b) Claim exemption under sections of the Act:
Section 42 – Legal Professional Privilege
c) State why the exemption applies:
42 (1) Information in respect of which a claim to legal professional privilege or, in Scotland, to confidentiality of communications could be maintained in legal proceedings is exempt information.
(2)The duty to confirm or deny does not arise if, or to the extent that, compliance with section 1(1)(a) would involve the disclosure of any information (whether or not already recorded) in respect of which such a claim could be maintained in legal proceedings.
• Regarding your request for any internal assessment or "Officer Report" – the documentation requested relates to an open planning enforcement case.
All requests are reviewed on a case-by-case basis and are assessed as to the benefit or detriment of releasing the requested information. We have reviewed the ICO Guidance for EIR Exception 12(5)(b) Course of Justice, which explains that proceedings can apply to any situation where an authority is exercising its formal decision-making powers. We consider that this planning enforcement matter falls within this exception. We note paragraph 39 of the ICO guidance which outlines the factors an authority should consider including:
o The stage or stages reached in any particular investigation or proceedings.
The investigation is still open and ongoing, and we are monitoring the site.
o Whether and to what extent the information has already been released into the public domain.
The Planning Enforcement Officer dealing with the case has openly provided information on the ongoing situation, advising of progress, and providing regular updates. The procedure outlining ECDC’s decision making process regarding planning enforcement matters can be found in the Local Enforcement Plan.
o The significance or sensitivity of the information
The requested information could potentially form part of a prosecution file. Premature disclosure of the information could compromise the proceedings and prejudice the right to a fair trial, as well as impact an appeal against any Enforcement Notice that may be served.
o The age of the information
The documentation relating to this case is new and is relevant to the open and ongoing enforcement case.We have reviewed this request and the case fully, and we are unable to provide you with the documentation, as disclosure could hinder the ongoing investigation.
The information is therefore considered exempt under EIR Exception 12(5)(b) – Course of Justice. In respect of those requests that are answered in full, partially or the total refused, please take this as notice under FOIA, that we:
a) Consider the information as exempt from disclosure under the Act.
b) Claim exception under sections of the Act:
Exception 12(5)(b) Course of Justice
c) State why the exception applies: -
Exception 12(5)(b) Course of Justice
Regulation 12(5)(b) provides an exception from the disclosure of environmental information which would adversely affect the course of justice.
As both Section 42 exemption and Section 12(5)(b) exception are qualified, we are obliged to outline the harm in disclosure and explain why we consider that the public interest in maintaining the exemption / exception outweighs the public interest in disclosure.
Public interest considerations favouring disclosure:
There is a general public interest in authorities being accountable for the quality of their decision making and ensuring that decisions have been made on the basis of sound legal advice is part of that accountability. It could also be seen that there is a public interest in some cases in knowing whether or not legal advice has been followed.
Public interest considerations favouring withholding the information:
Without being able to do this, the Council’s decision making would be reduced for the following reasons:
o To disclose information provided in a legal capacity to a third party could breach the confidentiality status of privileged communications with the internal legal team; and
o It may also affect confidential communications between the internal legal team and third parties when seeking evidence for the purpose of legal advice.
o Disclosure of legal advice provided in confidence also has a high potential to prejudice the Council’s ability to defend its legal interests.
o Disclosure of the planning enforcement documentation would not only prejudice the ability to take effective action in this investigation but would also undermine the Council’s ability to take similar action in the future. If the proceedings are over, but there is still a prospect of future litigation, the public interest in maintaining the exception still remains.
Whilst we appreciate the benefits in transparency and that disclosure could improve public knowledge and debate on planning enforcement cases, the public interest in preserving the course of justice is paramount. We have therefore reached the view that, on balance, the public interest is better served by withholding this information.3.Public Interest Justification:
East Cambridgeshire District Council does not hold a recorded decision or memo detailing the removal of the portacabin building at the rear of the site, as this is being dealt with by Cambridgeshire County Council. This question is therefore refused Under Section 12(4)(a) – Information Not Held
In respect of those requests that were answered in full or partially and the total refused please take this as notice under FOIA, that we:
a) Consider the information as exempt from disclosure under the Act;
b) Claim exempt under sections of the Act:
Section 12(4)(a) – Information Not Held
c) State why the exemption applies:
Regulation 12 (4) a public authority may refuse to disclose information to the extent that (a) it does not hold that information when an applicant’s request is received.