The Long Read: Cllr David Wimble’s Register of Interests: FHDC’s Address Trail

Cllr David Wimble, also recorded in company papers as William David Wimble, has a growing trail of company names, registered offices, trading addresses, council property links and “None” answers on his Folkestone & Hythe declaration. The question is now simple: if residents can follow the trail, why hasn’t the council’s Monitoring Officer?

Rules are rules. Legislation is legislation. They’re there for a reason. A councillor’s register of interests is not an optional Civic Centre exercise, or a form to be filled in with whatever version of the story happens to be nearest the keyboard. It is there so residents can see, clearly and without detective work, where private interests may overlap with public office. Cllr David Wimble’s Folkestone & Hythe District Council declaration gives his first names as “William David”, his surname as “Wimble”, and says his notified interests will appear in the Members’ Register of Interests and be published on the council website.

The same declaration says he is director of “The Looker Newspaper Ltd (formerly Marsh Media Ltd)”, Radiowaves Media Ltd and Feel Great Radio Ltd, and an elected member of Kent County Council. It then records “None” under contracts, land, licences, corporate tenancies and securities. At the end, it is signed “David Wimble” and dated 29 August 2025 under the words: “To the best of my knowledge, the information given in this form is complete and correct.”

The earlier FHDC declaration, registered in May 2023, is even more remarkable. It gives the surname as Wimble and the forenames as William David, but Part A — employment, office, trade, profession or vocation carried on for profit or gain — is left blank. Part B sponsorship is also blank. Part C contracts, Part D land, Part E licences and Part F corporate tenancies are likewise left blank. Then, under Part G securities, the handwritten entry says: “I am a director of Feel Great Radio LTD a tenant of a council building.” The form was signed in May 2023 and the Monitoring Officer registration box is dated 12 May 2023.

The former Monitoring Officer, Amandeep Khroud, registered the May 2023 declaration. On the face of the record, there is no visible sign that the obvious issues were checked, challenged or corrected: a blank Part A despite a declared directorship elsewhere on the form, no Part C contract entry, no Part F corporate tenancy entry, and a statement that Feel Great Radio Ltd was “a tenant of a council building” placed under Part G securities. If checks were done, FHDC should publish the audit trail. If they were not, residents are entitled to ask what exactly was being monitored by  well paid former member of staff.

The current form is not a clean fix. It was produced after the earlier form had sat on the public record, and it now names The Looker Newspaper Ltd, Radiowaves Media Ltd and Feel Great Radio Ltd under Part A. But it still records “None” under contracts, corporate tenancies and securities, even though the earlier form itself had said Feel Great Radio Ltd was “a tenant of a council building”. According to the sequence of events now before us, the update followed a formal complaint; yet the current Monitoring Officer, Ewan Green – pictured, appears to have allowed the new form without resolving the hard questions raised by the old one.

The issue is not that councillors are forbidden from running businesses. They are not. The issue is whether the public register accurately explains what those businesses are, where they operate, whether any council-linked property or agreement is involved, and whether “None” is a safe answer in the sections where the hard questions sit. The two FHDC forms, read together, now make that question impossible to dodge.

The first problem on the current form is the wording “The Looker Newspaper Ltd (formerly Marsh Media Ltd)”. Companies House shows The Looker Newspaper Ltd as a separate active company, company number 12259264. Companies House separately shows Marsh Media Limited as company number 09875047, active but with an active proposal to strike off, accounts overdue and confirmation statement overdue. Those are different company numbers and different records, not simply one company wearing yesterday’s name badge.

The control records make the point sharper. Companies House records William David Wimble as an active director and active person with significant control (PSC) of The Looker Newspaper Ltd, with 75% or more shares, 75% or more voting rights and the right to appoint or remove directors. Marsh Media Limited is also shown on a William David Wimble appointments page, while its PSC record uses the shorter “David Wimble”. That split-name trail is not automatically unlawful, but it does make the public record harder to follow. The register is supposed to make things clearer, not send residents on a Companies House treasure hunt.

The companies house registered office address trail now looks like this. The Looker Newspaper Ltd is currently registered in, Ashford; its filing history shows a short 2020 registered-office move to, Littlestone, before moving back to Ashford. Marsh Media Limited is registered at Littlestone, New Romney. Feel Great Radio Ltd is registered at Unit 9, Romney Marsh Business Hub, Mountfield Road, New Romney. Radiowaves Media Ltd is registered at Littlestone, New Romney. Kent Model Exchange Ltd is registered in Ashford. That is a lot of addresses for a declaration system that keeps landing on “None”.

Then comes the newest address. The Latest Looker Magazine says Kent Model Exchange is now operating from a brand-new warehouse on the Mountfield Road industrial estate in New Romney. On page 3 it states: “The new site at Unit 12 Brocade Court is not just a relocation, but a consolidation,” and says Kent Model Exchange, The Looker Newspaper and Radiowaves have “also moved under one roof”. The same article quotes Mr Wimble saying: “Rates were crippling us,” and: “Bringing everything together in one place just made sense.”

The Editor’s Word in the same issue says the business has “successfully relocated three of our ventures into one brand-new building—bringing together our model shop, radio studios and The Looker offices all under one roof.” The contact page gives The Looker’s address as “No12 Brocade Court, Howey Road, New Romney, Kent. TN28 8GN.” So the public-facing trading address now appears to be Brocade Court, while Companies House registered address still shows The Looker Newspaper Ltd and Kent Model Exchange Ltd in Ashford. That is lawful — registered offices and trading addresses can differ — but it is plainly relevant to a register of interests.

The Romney Marsh Business Hub point is different, and more serious for FHDC. The Land Registry title summary for Romney Marsh Business Hub, Mountfield Road, New Romney, TN28 8LH, names the registered owners as The District Council of Folkestone and Hythe and East Kent Spatial Development Company. In plain English: the freehold title names FHDC.

Companies House currently places Feel Great Radio Ltd at Unit 9, Romney Marsh Business Hub. It records William David Wimble as an active director, with correspondence address at Unit 9, and records him as active PSC with 75% or more shares, 75% or more voting rights and the right to appoint or remove directors. So one Wimble-linked company is registered at a unit in a building whose freehold title names the council as a registered owner. That does not prove a lease or contract by itself. It does prove there is an obvious question.

The earlier 2023 declaration makes that question even harder to avoid, because Cllr Wimble did not merely give an address. He wrote that he was “a director of Feel Great Radio LTD a tenant of a council building”. Those are his words on the form. If that statement was accurate, why did the form not record the matter under Part F corporate tenancies? If it was inaccurate, why was it accepted and registered? And if the position later changed, where is the transparent record of what changed and when?

FHDC’s own business-rates adds the next layer. It shows Office 9, Romney Marsh Business Hub, listed to East Kent Spatial Development Company Ltd from the November 2022 snapshot through April 2023, then to The Looker Newspaper Limited from the May 2023 snapshot through April 2026, with account start date 14 April 2023, contact address in Ashford, and the property described as “offices and premises”. The April 2026 snapshot records the property as occupied, with rateable value £3,450 and total liability £1,524.90.

That is the point where the paperwork stops looking like clutter and starts looking like a governance problem. Companies House places Feel Great Radio Ltd at Unit 9. FHDC business-rates data places The Looker Newspaper Limited as liable party for Office 9. The Land Registry title shows the building’s freehold jointly registered to FHDC and EKSDC. The latest Looker says the model shop, radio studios and Looker offices have now moved together to Unit 12 Brocade Court. And the older FHDC declaration says Feel Great Radio Ltd was “a tenant of a council building”. Each fact may have an innocent explanation. Together, they demand one.

This matters because Cllr Wimble’s current declaration says “None” under Part C: Contracts. Part C asks for contracts between the councillor, or a body in which the councillor has a beneficial interest, and FHDC, where goods or services are to be provided or works executed and the contract has not been fully discharged. The form defines a body in which the relevant person has a beneficial interest as including a body corporate of which the person is a director, or one in whose securities the person has a beneficial interest.

It also matters because the current form says “None” under Part F: Corporate tenancies. Part F asks for any tenancy where, to the councillor’s knowledge, the landlord is FHDC and the tenant is a body in which the councillor has a beneficial interest. A business-rates liability does not automatically prove a tenancy. A registered office does not automatically prove a lease. But a councillor’s own earlier declaration saying Feel Great Radio Ltd was “a tenant of a council building” should have been enough to trigger a proper check before anyone accepted a later form saying “None”.

Part G is the larger hole. Cllr Wimble’s current declaration says “None” under securities. Yet Companies House shows 75% or more ownership or control records for The Looker Newspaper Ltd, Marsh Media Limited, Feel Great Radio Ltd, Radiowaves Media Ltd and Kent Model Exchange Ltd. The current form itself says securities include shares and applies where the body has, to the councillor’s knowledge, a place of business or land in the authority’s area and the holding exceeds £25,000 nominal value or one hundredth of issued share capital. One per cent is the threshold. Seventy-five per cent is not a rounding error.

Here, again, the 2023 form is revealing. Under Part G, it did not list shareholdings in those companies. It instead recorded the Feel Great Radio Ltd directorship and council-building tenancy. That looks like the right information put in the wrong place — or, at the very least, information that cried out for officer follow-up. The former Monitoring Officer’s signature and date sit at the bottom of the form. What they do not show is any visible evidence that the contradiction was challenged.

Kent Model Exchange Ltd adds the timing issue. Companies House records it as active, company number 17101875, with registered office in Ashford, and William David Wimble as active director and PSC from 18 March 2026. The current FHDC declaration is dated 29 August 2025, so it could not have listed that company then. The proper question is whether FHDC was notified within 28 days once the new interest arose – no is the answer – quelle surprise. The latest Looker issue now says Kent Model Exchange is operating from Unit 12 Brocade Court, under the same roof as The Looker and Radiowaves.

The law is not coy about the register. Section 29 of the Localism Act 2011 says the Monitoring Officer – Ewan Green – of a relevant authority “must establish and maintain a register of interests” of members and co-opted members of the authority. The explanatory notes say section 29 requires Monitoring Officers to establish and maintain the register, make it available for inspection and publish it on the authority’s website. That is a statutory duty. It is not an optional admin favour to councillors.

That does not mean the Monitoring Officer is expected to be clairvoyant. The councillor has the separate duty to notify disclosable pecuniary interests. But once obvious documentary evidence exists — a councillor’s own declaration, Companies House records, a Land Registry title, business-rates data and an earlier form saying a councillor-controlled company was “a tenant of a council building” — the duty to “maintain” the register cannot sensibly mean filing the paperwork and looking the other way. Maintaining a register means dealing with obvious questions about whether it is complete, accurate and fit for public inspection.

FHDC’s Code of Conduct uses the same framework. It defines the Register of Members’ Interests as the authority’s register of disclosable pecuniary interests “established and maintained by the Monitoring Officer under section 29 of the Localism Act 2011”. It also requires members to notify the Monitoring Officer of DPIs and to register new DPIs or changes within the required period. In short, the councillor must notify, and the Monitoring Officer must maintain. Both duties matter.

FHDC’s own complaint arrangements go further, defining the Monitoring Officer as the senior officer with statutory responsibility for maintaining the Register of Members’ Interests and administering Code of Conduct complaints. So when a register entry is plainly questionable, the Monitoring Officer is not some passing bystander with a clipboard. The register is in his statutory lane.

FHDC’s declaration forms also warn that failure to notify DPIs can be a criminal offence under the Localism Act 2011, and that knowingly or recklessly providing false or misleading information can also be a criminal offence. The 2023 and 2025 forms both carry warnings about the criminal and Code consequences of failing to notify DPIs properly.

FHDC’s Code makes the councillor responsible for compliance. It says a member needing guidance should seek it from the Monitoring Officer or their own legal adviser, “but it is entirely your responsibility to comply with the provisions of this Code.” It requires notification of DPIs within 28 days, notification of new DPIs or changes within 28 days, and disclosure, non-participation and withdrawal where a DPI or Other Significant Interest is engaged.

That brings us to the Monitoring Officers. The former Monitoring Officer, Amandeep Khroud, registered a 2023 form which, on its face, left Part A blank while putting a company directorship and council-building tenancy under securities. The current Monitoring Officer, Ewan Green, then had the benefit of the later update dated 29 August 2025, but the current register still says “None” in the sections that matter most: contracts, corporate tenancies and securities. If the council says checks were done, it should publish the audit trail. If it says they were not needed, it should explain why.

The Council’s own ethical-standards reporting says one of the Monitoring Officer’s roles is “to advance good governance and ensure the highest standards of ethical behaviour are maintained through the effective discharge of their statutory duties”. That is a fine sentence. It would be better still if residents could see it happening in the register.

The Audit and Governance public pack records Ewan Green as Monitoring Officer and Director of Strategy and Resources, and shows the 2024/25 remuneration figure of £151,342 (including pension contribution). For that money, residents are entitled to expect more than a standards system that waits for the public to join the dots.

This is the part FHDC should find embarrassing. A resident can search Companies House. A resident can read the Land Registry title. A resident can check the latest Looker magazine. A resident can compare the business-rates data with the declaration. A resident can spot that a 2023 form said “tenant of a council building” and that a 2025 form later said “None” under corporate tenancies. Yet the standards machinery appears to have let the paperwork pass through two Monitoring Officers without the public seeing any meaningful grip. If that is not worth checking, what exactly is being monitored?

The “just paperwork” defence deserves short shrift. In Spencer Flower, a former Dorset County Council leader was convicted after participating in a vote despite a DPI. In Tom Hollis, Ashfield District Council’s deputy leader pleaded guilty to failing without reasonable excuse to notify a DPI, even though dishonesty and benefit from council decisions were not alleged. In the Louis Gardner / Cornwall matter, Cornwall Council said it would refer to police a former cabinet member’s failure to correctly register a DPI. This is not ceremonial paperwork. It is the public-law plumbing that stops conflicts leaking into decisions.

Kelton v Wiltshire Council gives the wider warning. The High Court quashed a planning permission because a councillor who was a director of a housing association participated in the decision. The court did not find an automatic statutory DPI disqualification, but it did find apparent bias because the councillor’s private interests as a director were engaged. That is why registers must be right before a disputed decision happens, not patched up afterwards when the damage is done.

The questions for FHDC are now direct. Is “The Looker Newspaper Ltd (formerly Marsh Media Ltd)” accurate, given that Companies House shows separate active companies? Why does Part G say “None” despite 75%+ PSC records in multiple companies? Why did the 2023 form record “I am a director of Feel Great Radio LTD a tenant of a council building” under securities rather than employment, contracts or corporate tenancies? Why did the former Monitoring Officer register that form without any visible correction? Why did the current Monitoring Officer allow a later update which still says “None” under contracts, corporate tenancies and securities?

There are further questions. Was FHDC told about Kent Model Exchange Ltd within 28 days? – The answer is no.  What was the legal basis for The Looker Newspaper Limited being listed as liable for Office 9 at Romney Marsh Business Hub? When did that liability start and end? Did any lease, licence, tenancy, service agreement, virtual-office agreement, rent, desk fee, room hire or business-hub arrangement exist with FHDC, EKSDC or a managing agent? And has anyone at FHDC reviewed whether the move to No. 12 Brocade Court creates any fresh registerable interest?

Until those answers are given, this does not look like transparency. It looks like a register that says the easy things loudly and the awkward things not at all. Cllr Wimble’s companies have left a trail across Ashford, Littlestone, Romney Marsh Business Hub and Brocade Court. The old form said Feel Great Radio Ltd was “a tenant of a council building”. The new form signed on the 29 /08 /2025 said “None” where the hard questions belong. Rules are not decoration. Legislation is not wallpaper. Cllrs are required by law to declare their interests honestly accurately and on time – and Monitoring Officers are not paid to sit beside the register like ornamental furniture while the public does the monitoring for them while they pick up a £151,342 salary.