Agreed processes for including site owned by councillors into Draft Local Plan were followed, review finds

A former Conservative councillor correctly declared that she owned land that became included in Canterbury City Council’s local plan for housing but the opportunity was missed to make this known to officers concerned.

That is among findings in a report by the East Kent Audit Partnership (EKAP) - of which Canterbury forms part - set up after the magazine Private Eye reported then councillor Louise Jones-Roberts owned the site. Her husband Matthew was also a Conservative councillor.

The EKAP report said: “There has been considerable public interest in a Private Eye article about the inclusion of a site owned by councillors in the draft local plan and allegations that planning permission had been granted for that site, all without appropriate levels of transparency.”

Auditors reviewed how Ms Jones-Roberts’ Milton Manor site came to be included in the draft local plan and whether this complied with the council’s constitution.

They said the council had issued a call for sites, which did not require a declaration on whether the landowner was an officer, councillor or related to either.

In this case, the planning agent concerned told the planning team: “Whilst the form did not enquire as to the nature of the landowners and whether they have a connection to the council, both councillors are keen to ensure that their land ownership is known by officers to ensure disclosure”.

The report said this had been “a missed opportunity, as the information was not passed to the monitoring officer at that time”.

Auditors recommended adding a declaration seeking confirmation whether a landowner is an officer, member or related to one and forwarding this to the monitoring officer, who would ensure any decisions were handled in accordance with the constitution.

The report noted an allegation that a company directorship was incorrectly omitted from the register of interests, but said a review of Companies House records had shown this did not need to be declared as the company did not operate “for profit or gain”, did not trade nor hold any assets on the public record.

But auditors said “after looking more closely” it appeared this should have been declared as the shares held exceed one-thousandth of the total issued share capital in the company CCH Milton Manor Park.

They found Canterbury’s code or conduct - unlike the model code - lacked a requirement to register any unpaid directorships.

If Canterbury adopted this provision “this would prevent any ‘uncertainty’ in future, as in future all positions of office would need to be declared”, it said.

A factor in the Canterbury dispute was that the address of the site in the local plan was also Ms Jones-Roberts’ home address and she had since 2015 secured permission from the monitoring officer for this to be withheld as she feared threats or violence associated with her night club business.

“The published interests therefore indicated that five properties had been disclosed to the monitoring officer, and that these were to remain undisclosed under s32 [of the Localism Act],” the report said.

“It is not for this review to challenge the decision of the monitoring officer, the 2023 decision is recorded and the outcome was shared with the senior governance colleagues via email.”

Auditors recommended the introduction of a ‘control sheet’ to record all s.32 requests received, the evidence reviewed and the outcome.

Claims were also raised that Matthew and Louise Jones-Roberts both voted to approve the local plan without declaring an interest.

But the audit report said: “The only decision taken by the council in relation to the draft local plan was the decision of cabinet on 19 October 2022 to put the draft local plan out for public consultation.”

A subsequent full council received the minutes of this and “there was no discussion on the minutes so in the absence of any dissent they were received by general assent”.

It went on: “As there was no discussion regarding the draft local plan at the full council meeting there was no need for [Cllrs Jones-Roberts] to disclose an interest in the property or abstain from voting by general assent.”

There was “no evidence [they] gained an advantage due to their councillor positions”.

Mark Smulian