KCC Leaders Meet Sir Roger De Haan in Folkestone: What’s on the Public Record?

A set of photographs posted online by Cllr John Baker (Reform UK, Kent County Council) shows a small delegation meeting in Folkestone with Sir Roger De Haan, followed by what appears to be a walkabout of key regeneration sites — including Folkestone’s Creative Quarter (the “Creative Quarter” sign is visible overhead) and an interior location with a distinctive arched timber structure.

According to the caption and the way the post has been described publicly, this was presented as “a very positive meeting” followed by a tour of the Harbour Arm and Creative Quarter.

Those pictured left-to-right include Sir Roger De Haan, Cllr Paul King (Cabinet Member for Economic Development and Coastal Regeneration), Cllr Linden Kemkaran (KCC Leader), Cllr Paul Webb (Cabinet Member for Community and Regulatory Services) and Cllr John Baker.

None of that, on its face, is scandalous. Elected members meet prominent local figures all the time. In a town where regeneration, development and public realm decisions attract strong views, it can even be a sensible thing to do.

And it would not be the first time Folkestone’s regeneration story has played host to high-profile political visitors. In October 2014, the then Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, Sajid Javid MP, was invited to Folkestone to look around that year’s Triennial. The Shepway Vox Team reported that, during the walkabout, he also took time to speak with Sir Roger De Haan at the Quarterhouse. The relevance of that earlier visit is not to suggest anything improper, but to note that Folkestone’s cultural-regeneration showcase moments have, from time to time, included meetings between senior decision-makers and figures closely associated with regeneration activity in the town.

But it does trigger a basic public-interest question: what is the governance trail? When senior decision-makers and portfolio holders meet a prominent figure associated with local regeneration and then tour sites closely bound up with regeneration and development, the democratic safeguard isn’t mind-reading motives. It’s being able to see, afterwards, what the meeting was for, what was discussed in broad terms, and what (if anything) flowed from it.

That matters because the individuals in the photos are not generic backbenchers. They include the Leader of the Council and cabinet members whose briefs naturally overlap with economic development, coastal regeneration, and regulatory/community services. In practical terms, that is the part of the council that can shape priorities, partnerships, funding bids, infrastructure conversations, and the direction of travel — even where another authority may hold the formal planning decision.

So the transparency test is simple and largely administrative:

1. Purpose and agenda.
   Was this an official engagement with an agreed purpose (for example: updates on regeneration projects, investment plans, community impacts, infrastructure constraints, or partnership opportunities), or a more informal courtesy meeting? If an agenda existed, it should be easy to summarise.

2. Who attended, and in what capacity.
   The photographs show who was there, but the public should not have to infer roles and responsibilities from a social-media album. If officers attended, or if the meeting was facilitated through a council channel, that may affect how the engagement should be recorded and followed up.

3. What was discussed — and what wasn’t.
   A short, factual note of topics covered is not “spin”; it is basic accountability. If specific projects, sites, funding requests, or timelines were raised, the public interest lies in knowing that — not to criminalise conversation, but to reduce the risk of decisions later being perceived as having been shaped out of public view.

4. What follow-up actions were agreed.
   If the meeting generated next steps — further meetings, introductions, requests for information, site visits, or proposed council actions — those are the breadcrumbs residents will look for later when decisions appear on agendas.

5. Declarations and hospitality.
   If any hospitality was provided (even modest), or if any live matters could intersect with council responsibilities, the normal expectation is that members follow their authority’s transparency arrangements: registers of interests where relevant, and gifts/hospitality declarations where required. The point isn’t insinuation — it’s protecting both the public and the councillors by keeping the record clear.

This is the kind of issue that can be resolved quickly. A short, published explanation — where the meeting took place, what the purpose was, the broad topics discussed, and whether any declarations were required — would answer most reasonable questions without turning routine engagement into theatre.

Until then, residents are left with a familiar modern gap in local governance: high-profile photos, high-powered attendees, and no publicly accessible note that allows the public to follow what, if anything, comes next.

If you have a story we should be looking at, then please do contact us at: TheShepwayVoxTeam@proton.me – Always Discreet, Always Confidential

The Shepway Vox Team

Discernibly Different Dissent