MEP Jim Nicholson has been told that his FoI queries on the matter will not be answered because it is not in the public interest to have disclosure at this time.

DECISION
He called this decision "bizarre" and added "there has been almost unprecedented interest from the public, the media and elected representatives" with regard to Environment Minister Arlene Foster's announcement last month that she is "minded" to grant approval to Seymour Sweeney's Seaport Ltd private application to build the centre.
The MEP said: "Despite what the department say it is clearly in the public interest to disclose the information. I am deeply shocked that they have chosen not to do this."

He told the News Letter it would only fuel public concern over the controversy and the DUP's role in it.
Mrs Foster revealed on September 10 that Seaport Ltd's plans had, in her view, "considerable merit".

SPECULATION
She had no idea, then, that Mr Sweeney was a DUP member, nor that Ian Paisley and Ian Paisley Jnr had lobbied for the application.
But Mr Nicholson was, in particular, interested in the Planning Service's report to the minister on the Seaport application – withheld from public view, amid speculation it urges some caution about the project.

The MEP asked to see the report, all other departmental documentation, on the Sweeney application, and any correspondence between Department of Enterprise Minister Nigel Dodds and Minister Foster on the future of the visitors' centre (as Mr Dodds, also on September 10, withdrew support for a publicly backed venture).

Planning Service accepted "strong public interest" in the matter and the need for transparency and accountability, with regard to decisions by the DoE and minister.

But it also noted there had not been a final decision yet.
It said: "As regards the report from the Planning Service to the minister, I wish to advise you this is an internal document which, in our opinion, falls within the terms of the exception under regulation 12 (4) (e) of the Regulations which states that – 'a public authority may refuse to disclose information to the extent that the request involves the disclosure of internal communications'."

The letter went on to say: "It is essential that the minister has the time and space required to fully consider all the issues and advice provided before reaching a fully- formed view on the issue at hand. The department believes that this process would be substantially prejudiced by disclosure of advice and guidance provided to the minister prior to a decision being taken.

"The department is therefore of the opinion that the public interest in withholding the information outweighs the public interest in disclosure at this time."
Mr Nicholson said this raised more serious questions.
These included:
lDoE/Planning Service say the minister has not yet taken a final decision on the application. Why then did the minister disclose that she was of a mind to approve Seymour Sweeney's application?

lIf the DoE Minister has not made her mind up – why then did Tourism Minister Nigel Dodds, on the very same day as the DoE Minister made her announcement, withdraw DETI support for the DETI/NI Tourist Board plans for a visitors' centre at the Giant's Causeway?

lDoE has said it does not hold any correspondence between the DoE and the DETI Minister on the issue, yet both ministers made announcements on the visitors' centre almost simultaneously in the Assembly, on the same day.

lWho are the DOE to decide what the public interest is? Just what are the department hiding?

Commenting further, Mr Nicholson said: "The department is hiding behind the cloak of procedure, refused to disclose the information I requested. In light of what has transpired in recent weeks I find this decision completely bizarre."