The inclusion of a former councillor’s sprawling estate in a document earmarking land for future housing developments could yet be investigated further despite an independent review finding all rules had been followed.

Louise Jones-Roberts was a Conservative member of Canterbury City Council (CCC) when the Milton Manor site in Thanington appeared on a lucrative list of plots designated for large residential schemes.

Its inclusion in the draft Local Plan for up to 100 homes sparked questions over a lack of transparency as the 39-year-old’s ownership of the site had never been disclosed publicly.

But the city council revealed Mrs Jones-Roberts had made every declaration required of her, with her ownership of the land - where she lives with her family - only kept off the public record because of threats of violence she had received in her role as a nightclub boss.

The case was the subject of a Private Eye article, which independent auditors said sparked “considerable public interest” and contained “allegations that planning permission had been granted for that site, all without appropriate levels of transparency”.

As a result of the interest generated, a special review was commissioned by CCC to examine whether the authority’s rules and procedures were robust, had been followed and could be tightened.

It was carried out by the East Kent Audit Partnership (EKAP) - a collaborative body pooling the auditing resources of Canterbury, Thanet, Dover and Folkestone & Hythe district councils - and concluded all processes had been adhered to.

But some councillors argue the review did not have the scope to fully investigate the facts and are calling for a further external probe, claiming if one is not carried out the authority’s reputation will be stained with allegations of “sleaze”.

Among them is Cllr Peter Old (Lib Dem), who recently told the authority’s audit committee: “The scope of the EKAP review was merely to look at the processes and how they could be improved, so there’s not been an investigation in the true sense of the word.”

His party colleague, Cllr Roben Franklin, added: “There were a lot of local residents and a lot of local councillors who raised this issue with me during the election; a lot of them used words like sleaze, a lot of them used words like ‘typical councillors, typical council’.

“I think not having a proper investigation is going to be really damaging for the council and its reputation.”

EKAP, which is stated in its charter as “sufficiently independent of the activities that it audits”, confirmed that all rules and procedures relating to Milton Manor’s inclusion in the draft Local Plan had been followed.

It initially said it appeared Mrs Jones-Roberts should have disclosed she was a director of a company set up to develop the land - highlighting a potential breach of the Localism Act 2011.

However, the council’s legal chief later issued a correction on the public record.

A supplementary note was also added to the published review, stating: “It was not necessary to declare this directorship as the company was dormant, was not registered in the Canterbury area; nor did it hold any land assets; nor did it have a place of business in the Canterbury area.”

In circumstances where the review was itself framed as both independent and external, our client is unclear on what value this would bring to the local taxpayers...

Neither Mrs Jones-Roberts or her husband stood for re-election last May, and the Milton Manor land is now subject to a planning application for 95 homes.

Acting for Mrs Jones-Roberts, leading libel law firm Carter-Ruck has reiterated that she has done “absolutely nothing improper and followed the council’s advice and procedures at all times”.

It told KentOnline she will take part in any further investigation should one be commissioned, but added she was unclear of “the necessity of a second independent and external” probe.

It said: “In circumstances where the review was itself framed as both independent and external, our client is unclear on what value this would bring to the local taxpayers, who would of course ultimately be paying for such an investigation.

“Regardless, she will of course participate in any such investigation if commissioned to once again demonstrate that her conduct was unimpeachable.”

How did the saga begin?

In March 2018, and while a serving city councillor, Mrs Jones-Roberts bought the six-bedroom Milton Manor on the edge of Canterbury for £1.95 million.

She moved into the Georgian-style property, which is surrounded by acres of picturesque woodland, with her husband Matthew, who was elected to the council in May 2019, and their three children.

Mrs Jones-Roberts, who runs Club Chemistry and Tokyo Tea Rooms in Canterbury, previously told KentOnline she bought the house to live in and at the time of the purchase had no idea about its true development potential.

“We were not blind to the fact there was land to the very front of it we thought we could probably sell for self-build sites, but we were talking about two or three,” she said.

However, she says following discussions with local builder Clive Hammond - a friend of the family - it became apparent there was scope for more development.

“He said we could probably put in for a few houses, and then he put forward the idea of a care home,” she said.

Mrs Jones-Roberts says during later talks with planning officers she was told the site was more suitable for housing.

In October 2022, the site was included in the council’s draft Local Plan, having been assessed as suitable for “approximately 100 new dwellings”.

Did the council know she owned the site?

Before buying Milton Manor, Mrs Jones-Roberts notified council officers of the impending purchase and asked for it to be added to her register of interests - a document listing a councillor’s financial interests, or any benefits they receive that it could be argued might influence their actions.

Failure to declare a disclosable pecuniary interest (DPI) “without reasonable excuse” is a criminal offence.

But as it was her private address, Mrs Jones-Roberts’ ownership of Milton Manor was kept off the publicly viewable register.

The council’s legal chief - known as the monitoring officer - had agreed to withhold the information under section 32 of the Localism Act 2011.

The Act says such exemptions can be made where disclosure of an interest could lead to a councillor or someone connected to them “being subject to violence or intimidation”.

Mrs Jones-Roberts had been permitted to keep her home address private after telling the monitoring officer she feared for her family’s safety because of threats of violence received during her nightclub work.

She previously told KentOnline: “I am nervous about people knowing where I live because of what I do for a living. There are nasty, violent people about. They’re few and far between, but it becomes all-consuming.

“If these people know where I live, and I p*** them off, they’re going to come here when we’re not here.

“That is why the section 32 [ruling is there].”

Critics argue the exemption should have been withdrawn when the site became a potential development site, but the city council says: “The test is whether the councillors are at risk of threats and intimidation. The planning status of the property is not relevant.”

The EKAP review found that three separate monitoring officers granted Section 32 exemptions on Mrs Jones-Roberts’ private addresses, with two relating to Milton Manor.

The last - in February 2023, and after questions were put to the council about the land’s ownership - was the only exemption granted when it was known the site could potentially be developed.

Did planning officers know who owned the site?

In June 2020, the Milton Manor land was put forward for potential inclusion in the Local Plan.

The submission was made by Iceni Projects - a planning agent acting for Mr and Mrs Jones-Roberts - as part of a “call for sites” process led by the council to identify suitable development plots.

The EKAP review reported that Iceni followed up by emailing planning officers: “Whilst the (call for sites) 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 EKAP review said this information was not passed to the monitoring officer at the time - something it described as a “missed opportunity”.

However, the city council says all officers involved in creating the draft Local Plan knew who the owners of Milton Manor were.

“Formulating a Local Plan is a team effort and all those involved in the project would have been aware of the ownership position,” a spokesman said.

Was the ownership ever declared publicly?

No, but the council says there was never a requirement to.

In May 2021 a report that would help shape the draft Local Plan was debated by the council’s former Policy Committee.

Among its members was Cllr Louise Jones-Roberts, who declared she had a financial interest in “one of the sites” submitted for consideration in the planning document.

The section 32 exemption meant she did not need to declare more specific details about the site in question, and she did not take part in any vote.

In October 2022, the draft Local Plan was published and included the Milton Manor site.

A week later it was put out to public consultation by Cabinet - a committee of Conservative councillors chaired by the then council leader, Ben Fitter-Harding.

Neither Mrs Jones-Roberts or her husband were members.

The minutes of this meeting were approved by Cabinet the following month and then came before Full Council - a gathering of all councillors, including Mr and Mrs Jones-Roberts - on January 5, 2023.

Neither declared an interest as they joined other members in receiving the minutes by general assent to be entered into the council’s corporate record.

Critics argue this was the point where their ownership of Milton Manor should have been placed on the public record, but the council says there was no requirement for them to do so.

The EKAP review confirmed this, stating: “As there was no debate or vote, there was no requirement to declare any interest in the Cabinet minutes.”

Mrs Jones-Roberts says she and her husband had sought advice from other councillors and the monitoring officer and were told they were not required to declare an interest in the Cabinet meeting minutes.

Representing Mrs Jones-Roberts, legal firm Carter-Ruck added this was “on the basis that her interest had already been declared to the appropriate departments within the council and that there was no constitutional requirement to do so, as she had had no involvement in the decision being proposed by the Cabinet for the council’s approval”.

At the same meeting, the minutes of a licensing sub-committee hearing were also received by general assent, without debate.

Both Louise Jones-Roberts and her husband abstained from the item “due to their being employed within the licensing trade”.

Asked why they sat out of one vote but not the other, Mrs Jones-Roberts said votes had been held at the licensing committee relating to licence holders known to her, with the committee also a “quasi-judicial” body, unlike Cabinet.

Did the Cabinet members know who owned the site?

Mrs Jones-Roberts previously said she believed most members knew, but Cllr Fitter-Harding says he was in the dark.

The Conservative - who was portfolio holder for the draft Local Plan - last year told KentOnline he knew his colleague owned one of the sites included, but not which one.

“I didn't need to know. It didn't matter,” said the 40-year-old, who lost his seat at last May’s elections.

"What relevance does it have, if the proper processes have been followed?”

He added the part he played in the formation of the draft Local Plan was limited.

“I was advised and shown data, but I had no discretion on which sites were included,” he said.

In a report put before the audit committee, head of paid services Tricia Marshall wrote: “The draft Local Plan was put together by CCC officers who are professional planning officers.

“The Leader had no active role in selecting one site above another.

“There is no legal requirement to set up a cross-party working group to develop a Local Plan; that is a matter of choice and the previous leader chose not to establish such a group.”

When did Mrs Jones-Roberts first plan to develop the site?

In August 2018 - five months after buying Milton Manor - Mrs Jones-Roberts became a director of the newly formed development company CCH Milton Manor Park Ltd.

She and her father, Brian Jones, were directors and 25% shareholders, with local developer Clive Hammond owning the remaining 50%.

Carter-Ruck says the firm was incorporated because Mrs Jones-Roberts had “originally intended to monetise some of the land by way of carving out some of the plots for self-build and/or possibly development of a care home, and the company was a potential vehicle through which to develop these ideas”.

The former councillor resigned as a director in September 2020 - shortly after Milton Manor was submitted through the call for sites process - and a year later the company was wound up, having never traded.

Carter-Ruck explained: “Because of the events that unfolded, including Covid-19 and the council’s subsequent call for sites for the draft Local Plan, it became clear that the company was not required, and as such our client resigned in 2020 and then steps were taken by Mr Hammond to dissolve it in 2021.”

Should she have declared the directorship?

Mrs Jones-Roberts did not make any declarations related to CCH Milton Manor Park Ltd.

The council previously said she was not required to as the company did not operate “for profit or gain”, in that it did not trade or hold any assets.

The EKAP review initially reported otherwise, stating the directorship should have been declared because Mrs Jones-Roberts held at least a 1% stake in the firm.

But CCC monitoring officer Jan Guyler was forced to issue a correction on behalf of the report’s author at two recent meetings of the council’s standards and governance committees, which were considering its findings.

Referring to the Localism Act 2011, she said: “It is noted that in order to be a disclosable pecuniary interest (DPI) the company needs to be registered in or own land in Canterbury City Council’s area, plus the councillor has shares over a set threshold.

“In this case the company is registered to an address in Hythe and does not own any land. The shares being over the threshold is not enough in itself to amount to a DPI.”

On this matter, a supplementary note was added to the review, stating: “A legal opinion has now determined that it was not necessary to declare this directorship as the company was dormant, was not registered in the Canterbury area; nor did it hold any land assets; nor did it have a place of business in the Canterbury area.”

Carter-Ruck added: “To be clear, CCH Milton Manor Park Ltd was always a dormant company which never traded or had any assets, and as such there was never a requirement on our client to declare her directorship of the company on her register of interests.”

It is understood CCH Milton Manor Park Ltd was registered to the Hythe address of Clive Hammond’s accountant, who was responsible for the formalities of incorporating the company.

Companies House records show a separate building company run by Mr Hammond was established in 2011 and also registered in Hythe.

If CCH Milton Manor Park Ltd has been wound up, who is leading the development of the site now?

It is being led by a separate firm called CCH Build Solutions Ltd, which is registered to the same address in Hythe and of which Clive Hammond is the sole director.

Between December 2022 and May 2023 it submitted three applications to CCC related to pre-planning advice or information on the environmental impact of a housing development on the Milton Manor site.

For the first two of these Mrs Jones-Roberts was still a councillor, but none of the three stages required a declaration on whether the application was on behalf of a member or officer of the council, or a close associate of one.

The first stage that did was when an outline application for up to 95 homes was submitted by CCH Build Solutions Ltd in September, but by this time Mrs Jones-Roberts was no longer a councillor.

The second version of the latest draft Local Plan is expected to be published tomorrow (Friday), but the Milton Manor application will be considered ahead of the final document being adopted.

Carter-Ruck explained why CCH Milton Manor Park Ltd had been dissolved and the development then led by Mr Hammond’s other firm.

“Due to the very different nature of the project from what had originally been anticipated, Mr Hammond then used his own company, CCH Build Solutions Ltd to proceed with all planning matters because it was already highly established and so much better able to manage the work needed for the larger piece of work.

“Our client continues to work with Clive Hammond in this manner.”

A local developer familiar with the Milton Manor site previously told KentOnline it could be worth as much as £10 million with planning permission for 100 homes.

Mrs Jones-Roberts last year said any profit would be split with Mr Hammond, with the initial purchase price, planning costs and £500,000 borrowed from her father deducted from her portion.

Will anything change because of the EKAP review?

Yes, it’s made a number of recommendations to make the process of disclosing interests more robust.

Anyone submitting a site for potential inclusion in the Local Plan will now have to declare on a form if the landowner, or a director of a company that owns the land, is a council officer, councillor or close associate of one.

If this is the case, the information will be forwarded to the monitoring officer, who will be able to provide advice on declaring interests and briefing colleagues as necessary.

The monitoring officer will also have to keep a “control sheet” of all Section 32 exemption requests, detailing the evidence reviewed and the outcome of any decision.

The council’s Members’ Code of Conduct will also be changed so councillors have to declare all unpaid directorships as other registrable interests to “provide further transparency and avoid the risk of misunderstanding the legislation in terms of what does and does not amount to a DPI”.

The EKAP review was debated at recent meetings of the council’s audit, standards and governance committees.

Cllr Andrew Harvey (Green), who was elected in May, told the governance committee he supported the amendments, adding: “Regardless of the merits of the recent allegations, it’s been quite galling for me as a new councillor just to have this engrained attitude with people that there is sleaze and councillors are in it for what they can get for themselves.

“So I think anything we can do to respond to those recent allegations, and to actually be seen to be doing something and tidying up the constitution, I think it’s all for the good and I fully support it.”

From the three committee meetings, three further recommendations were put forward and supported.

The first was to compel the monitoring officer to refer a matter to the police “where there is a potential criminal offence regarding the failure by a councillor or former councillor to appropriately disclose a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest”.

Currently, the council’s constitution says any complainant should be advised to report it.

The monitoring officer will also be required to report “any potential criminal offence to the police in relation to former councillors as well as serving councillors or any other person”.

The last recommendation, from the audit committee, was for the council to commission an external investigation into the facts of the Milton Manor saga.

Full Council resolved to give officers delegated power to action the EKAP review recommendations last Wednesday.

What would be investigated?

At a meeting of the council’s audit committee, Cllr Old called for a full, external investigation into potential code of conduct failures by councillors - a matter that fell outside the scope of the EKAP review and cannot be examined by the monitoring officer as the particular members are no longer in office.

The council said in answering FOI requests about the case it had established the key points, but Cllr Old says he was told there were “no written reports, meeting notes or emails” on how the information was collected.

“Does that sound like a proper investigation of the facts has been conducted?” he asked.

“So there has been no investigation. There’s been no investigation in the EKAP review and no investigation by council officers either.

“So, who or what is responsible for investigating these serious allegations, and I don’t know sufficiently the facts behind them and the truth or otherwise of the allegations that have been made.

“How are we going to fulfil our obligations and commission a proper investigation of the facts?”

“I recommend that there is an external investigation instigated by this committee into potential code of conduct failures by former Canterbury city councillors, looking specifically at were necessary declarations of pecuniary and significant interest made when the land became a potential major development site.

How are we going to fulfil our obligations and commission a proper investigation of the facts?

“And, secondly, into the role of the former council leader in selecting sites for the Local Plan and his knowledge of the ownership of the site.

“Did he fail to declare that his fellow councillors had put forward a site for inclusion in the draft Local Plan for which he was responsible as portfolio holder within the cabinet?”

The recommendation will be considered by Cabinet at a later date, but it is not known who would carry out any such investigation.

Head of paid services Tricia Marshall told the audit committee she feared there would be practical issues as no former councillors could be compelled to take part.

She added: “When this site was put in for the Local Plan, the fact it was owned by councillors was declared at the earliest opportunity and the councillors concerned did not take any part in the decision process of putting that draft Local Plan out to consultation.

“So, there’s lots of concern about this, but actually if you go back to those facts and you go back to the timeline you can actually see all those facts laid out.”

Was the EKAP review independent?

The city council says the East Kent Audit Partnership is “independent of the council and its auditors take a great deal of pride in that fact”.

A spokesman added: "Its staff are employed by Dover District Council on behalf of four councils in east Kent - Canterbury City Council, Dover, Folkestone and Hythe District Council and Thanet District Council - and each council pays for its share of the auditors’ time.

"The EKAP reports to the chief financial officers, known as s151 officers, at each of the four councils who have a statutory responsibility to maintain an effective, independent and continuous audit (under s151 of the Local Government Act), which is also a legal duty under the Accounts and Audit Regulations.

"This long-standing partnership has demonstrated time and again that it acts truly independently by raising uncomfortable high-profile issues arising from its audit work.

"Christine Parker, who undertook the EKAP report into Milton Manor, is a member of the Chartered Institute of Internal Auditors.

"She and her team are committed to upholding its very high standards.

"The independent work conducted by EKAP on tenant health and safety compliance was influential in decisions taken by the four councils to break up East Kent Housing, which looked after council homes on behalf of the four councils, and Christine was praised for her independence when acting as commissioning officer in an investigation regarding serious problems with senior management at Thanet which resulted in a number of high-profile resignations and the arrival of a new chief executive.”