FOI request (FOIR-745662226)

General Dynamics response to HBC re activities at Castleham site

Requested Mon 01 September 2025
Responded Wed 24 September 2025

In the HBC cabinet meeting of 1.9.25, Council Leader Haffenden stated that the council had written to General Dynamics to enquire about its activities at its Castleham site in Hastings, in light of concerns that it might be supplying weapons' components for use in Israel, which would put it in breach of its lease with HBC (which requires it to carry out only lawful activity at the site).

Councillor Haffenden stated that General Dynamics had responded, but that he had not yet been able to go through the response with the chief executive of HBC.

I would like to see both HBC's letter to General Dynamics, and General Dynamics' response.

---

Response

The information you have requested is being refused for the following reasons:

NOTICE OF REFUSAL

Section 43 of the Freedom of Information Act – Commercially Sensitive Information - Information prejudicing commercial interests – commercial interest relating to an organisations commercial activity and may include trading activity procurement and relationships with third parties.

The exemption afforded by Section 43 is subject to what is known as the ‘public interest test’. When applying the test in a particular case a public authority is deciding whether the public interest is better served by non-disclosure than by disclosure.

Although the Freedom of Information Act does not define ‘in the public interest’, there is a presumption under Freedom of Information that openness is in the public interest. In applying the public interest test a public authority will take into account the distinction that has been often made by courts between things that are in the public interest, and things that merely interest the public. Where applicants have not identified public interest considerations succinctly or accurately, the public authority has a responsibility under the Act to make their own assessment of the public interest considerations in the particular case.

We have identified the following public interest factors that may be seen as encouraging the disclosure of information:

a) accountability of public spending.

We consider these factors to be of limited relevance in relation to the information in question.

Public interest factors seen as encouraging non-disclosure are, generally, the exemptions themselves. In consideration of this matter we came to the following conclusions:

a) ensuring that companies are able to compete for business fairly.

b) damage to reputation, commercial activity and/or financial interests.

In weighing the factors for and against disclosure we have concluded that the likely benefit to the applicant and the wider public of disclosure is outweighed by the likely prejudice caused by such disclosure and that therefore the public interest is better served by non-disclosure.

For the reasons given above we will not be communicating to you the information you have requested.

In addition to the above Hastings Borough Council are also replying on: Section 38 (1) (b) of the FOIA 2000 – Health and Safety.

NOTICE OF REFUSAL

Section 38 (1) (b) of the FOIA 2000 – Health and Safety.

S38 allows public authorities to decline a request for information if it will endanger the safety of any individual. Under S38 we are not obliged to confirm or deny if we hold the information you have requested.

S38 is also subject to public interest test where public authorities have to consider if disclosing information is outweighed in cases where the health and safety of an individual or a group of individuals is put at risk.

We have identified the following public interest factors that may be seen as encouraging the disclosure of information:

a) transparency and accountability.

We consider these factors to be generally of limited or no relevance in relation to the information in question.

Public interest factors seen as encouraging non-disclosure are, generally, the exemptions themselves.

In consideration of this matter we came to the following conclusions:

a) the safety of any individual.

b) information, which if disclosed, could predictably be used to or would otherwise harm the safety of an individual or a group of individuals.

c) the safety of these individuals is paramount.

In weighing the factors for and against disclosure we have concluded that the likely benefit to the applicant and the wider public of disclosure is outweighed by the likely prejudice caused by such disclosure and that therefore the public interest is better served by non-disclosure.