Reform UK Under Fire: Kent Councillors Use Transparency Law to Hide Already-Public Addresses

The Law: Section 32 of the Localism Act 2011

Under section 29 of the Localism Act, councillors in England and Wales are legally required to declare certain disclosable pecuniary interests (DPIs). These include ownership or tenancy of land within the local authority’s area and are published in an official Register of Interests. The purpose is clear: to ensure that the public can hold elected officials to account if decisions might benefit them personally.

However, section 32(2) of the same Act introduces an exception. Where the Monitoring Officer believes that disclosure of a DPI could lead to the councillor or someone connected to them being subjected to “violence or intimidation,” they may withhold publication of that interest. This is intended to offer genuine protection in exceptional circumstances — not a mechanism for selective concealment.

In October 2024, it was reported that more than a fifth (22%) of councillors have received a death threat or a threat of violence due to their role, whilst 23% of councillors have suffered abuse serious enough to report it to the police, according to the Local Government Association. These figures underscore the importance of section 32 as a necessary safeguard when properly applied.

To reinforce this, Monitoring Officer Guidance, states clearly:

“Councillors are advised: i. To review their online presence for any other records of their home address and remove those.”

Yet, several councillors continue to benefit from this protection while making no effort to remove their addresses from other public platforms.

Public Here, Hidden There

Despite claims of sensitivity, the home addresses of these Reform UK councillors remain accessible through various public records:

• Richard Palmer, Chair of KCC also a member of Swale Borough Council, and his home address is publicly published on Swale’s website.
• Chris Palmer, believed to reside at the same address, has previously declared it in electoral nomination papers and archived documentation still visible online as well.
• Bill Barrett, representing residents through Ashford Borough Council and Kent County Council, has similar identifying details accessible through older registers and election materials.
• Brian Collins, Deputy Leader of Kent County Council, has his registered address in Companies House filings, which are publicly available to anyone via a simple online search.

All four continue to withhold these same addresses under the s.32 exemption on the KCC register. Their failure to remove the addresses from other sources not only undermines their claim to sensitivity but directly breaches the terms set by their own Monitoring Officer.

A Loophole, Not a Shield

This is not an isolated case. In a detailed exposé published by Shepway Vox on 5 June 2025, it was revealed that Kent County Councillors Alister Brady- Lab, Rich Lehmann – Green, and Tim Prater – Lib Dem had similarly claimed s.32 exemptions at county level while leaving their addresses freely available through district or borough council records.

This growing pattern suggests a systemic failure. While Monitoring Officer Benjamin Watts has not applied a blanket redaction policy—some councillors continue to publish their addresses openly—he has failed to enforce the basic precondition of section 32: that the information must not already be in the public domain. By allowing redaction without ensuring compliance, the safeguards designed to protect against harm are being repurposed to protect political convenience.

“You cannot protect something that’s already on full display,” commented a former KCC Councillor. “When the public can verify the address elsewhere, secrecy becomes deception.”

While the s.32 exemption is not exclusive to any one party, its use by Reform UK councillors in Kent has now become a recurring feature. Chris Palmer, Richard Palmer, Bill Barrett and Brian Collins have all relied on the legal protection at county level while allowing the exact same information to remain available via other official channels.

This not only casts doubt on the legitimacy of their claims but raises a wider issue: how can voters trust a declaration regime that selectively withholds information already in the public domain? If transparency is optional, public accountability begins to erode.

In the absence of enforcement by the Monitoring Officer, the law becomes little more than a tool of political discretion.

The real-world impact of these inconsistencies is profound. Registers of Interests exist to help the public identify conflicts of interest in decisions about development, planning, asset sales, and public spending. When councillors are permitted to suppress property interests using a legal exemption while doing nothing to remove those details from other platforms, public oversight is lost.

To rebuild confidence:

1. Kent County Council must urgently audit all section 32 exemptions, comparing them against all publicly accessible sources.
2. Monitoring Officer Benjamin Watts must enforce the guidance and require the removal of any address already in the public domain or revoke the exemption for any/all Cllrs who have used it.
3. Councillors currently benefitting from this double standard must either publish their address on the county register or rescind their use of section 32.

The public has a right to know when councillors have a personal stake in the matters they vote on. Section 32 is a critical tool to protect elected officials facing genuine threats, but it must be applied rigorously and fairly. When councillors and officers treat it as a convenience rather than a safeguard, they not only bend the law, they corrode the foundations of local democracy.

If the Register of Interests is to mean anything at all, it must reflect reality — not a version edited for political comfort. Transparency is not a privilege; it is a public duty.

We would be interested in hearing about your experiences of Fokestone & Hythe District Council. Email: TheShepwayVoxTeam@proton.me in confidence.

The Shepway Vox Team

The Velvet Voices of Voxatiousness