A CONTROVERSIAL ‘rebel’ city councillor, who resigned from the council, has been cleared of breaching a code of conduct following a long investigation.

However the standards committee did criticise Kim Gottlieb, describing an action of his as “ill-judged, undisciplined and might be viewed as reckless.”

The committee also criticised the “culture of adversity” within the council and called for an urgent review of aspects of its code of conduct.

It also criticised the length of time of the investigation and the impact on Mr Gottlieb’s health.

Mr Gottlieb was first elected to the council in 2011 as a Conservative and hit the headlines when he sued his own authority, controlled by the Tories, and overturned the first Silver Hill scheme in 2014. The High Court found the council had acted unlawfully over procurement in the £150 million scheme.

Later he also fought plans for the Station Approach redevelopment and, by backing the Lib Dems, helped to defeat the initial scheme in 2016. He also opposed the second scheme, derailed in 2019 after a challenge by the City of Winchester Trust.

In 2017 Mr Gottlieb, a property developer, completed the purchase of St Clements GP surgery, within the area of the first Silver Hill scheme.

The investigation was sparked by complaints in 2017 and 2018 from former city councillor Paul Twelftree and the-then Cllr Guy Ashton. The complaints were related to the ownership of St Clements by Mr Gottlieb who had switched to the Lib Dem group in 2018.

Mr Gottlieb was alleged to have used confidential information obtained as a councillor to further his own interests. The committee found the information in question came from the doctors at St Clements.

Andover Advertiser:

St Clements Surgery

A second complaint related to comments at full Council in 2018, when, as the owner of St Clements, he had a prejudicial personal interest and should not have attended one part of the meeting. He did attend and made a statement before withdrawing.

The report by the standards committee said it “was an ill-judged and undisciplined statement made in order to demonstrate that he was generally cross with everyone. And to do so having had express advice from the Monitoring officer not to do so might be viewed as reckless, at the very least unwise.

“In acting as he did, Cllr Gottlieb did not act in accordance with the highest standards of conduct to be expected of a councillor, but nonetheless and on balance the remark was not a breach of the Code in this instance nor, for the avoidance of doubt, was it for his own benefit.”

The third allegation concerned comments made by Mr Gottlieb to a Chronicle reporter about the confidential council purchase of the Friarsgate surgery. It was also rejected.

Mr Gottlieb criticised the unfair way the complaints have been handled and the length of time it has taken for him to be cleared.

He did not publicly respond when asked if he had complained to the Liberal Democrat head office in London about a lack of promotion within the group.

Mr Gottlieb, in a statement to the Chronicle, said: “The Standards Committee decision marked the end of a series of complaints levelled at me by folk from within or associated with the council over a period of nearly four and half years. The administration of them was, in my view, almost as politically motivated as the complaints themselves.

“Instead of dismissing them at the outset for their being vexatious, the council spent the best part of £200,000 trying hard to make them stick. In addition, my internet access to council documents was subject to surveillance, and I was reported to the Police on bogus grounds in the hope that criminal proceedings might follow.

“The two most recent complaints concerned my acquisition of the St Clement’s surgery in 2016. My purpose back then was to inhibit a resuscitation of the Henderson scheme which, it seems all now agree, would have been disastrous. I was also trying to ensure that the doctors’ practice was not evicted without a new home in the city centre to move into. The proposed new surgery on the Upper Brook Street car park was given planning permission in 2012, back in halcyon days when the world was wowed by the London Olympics. However, the deal has still not been done and, even as it inches forward, the building will need to be redesigned to accommodate future virus epidemics.

“Folk are entitled to make complaints, however misguided, but all authorities need procedures that are competent, impartial, proportionate and timely to deal with them. In my case, I believe that this did not happen, the only exception being the most recent hearing. The manipulation of the complaints process for political purposes has many implications for democracy, none of which are good. As the complaints process is again reviewed, as is apparently intended some months ahead, these will need very careful examination or else all councillors will be fearful of taking on the establishment lest they suffer the Orwellian consequences.”

Andover Advertiser:

Paul Twelftree

One of the complainants Paul Twelftree, a former Conservative councillor, said of Mr Gottlieb: “Former Cllr Gottlieb set himself up as a ‘Champion for Winchester’ but he will be remembered as just another property developer. Winchester truly did deserve better.”

Cllr Thompson told the Chronicle: “The resignation of Kim Gottlieb from the council surprised us all. I would like to thank him for all his work over the years for the communities he has represented and in particular, the contribution he made within the Liberal Democrat Group. I wish him well for the future.”

In its 18-page report the standards committee - Cllrs Kathleen Becker, chairman, Mike Craske, both Lib Dems, and Hugh Lumby, Conservative, raised concerns about the way the council had handled the Gottlieb issue.

“Questions should be ased as to why it took so long to resolve these complaints and lessons learnt from this process. Cllr Gottlieb has told about the stress these complaints and this process has placed on him and his family. No one should have to go through this again for this length of time.

“ We are concerned about the culture of adversity and the issues that have arisen from the matters that have played out in this investigation.

“We particularly note here the tone and language of some emails, (and) the readiness to involve the police at an early stage. As a council, we must all, councillors and officers, work together in a civilised, respectful and non-threatening manner to achieve the best for the people we represent.

“We also think that there needs to be more, and more detailed, training on the Code of Conduct for all members and officers, and that serious consideration should be given to whether some of this should be given by external trainers, and include specific case examples in order to stimulate thought and wider understanding of the types of issues that may arise, and what sorts of interests may be personal, personal and prejudicial, or Disclosable Pecuniary Interests (DPIs) – and what obligations are associated with each. In addition, Winchester’s current Code is different from the one which applied at the time of these events. These are matters that we anticipate will be taken forward by the Audit and Governance Committee.

“The point relating to DPIs has taken on more significance now because the provisions on personal and prejudicial interest no longer appear in the current version of the Code of Conduct. In our view this must be reviewed urgently in order to ascertain whether there is a gap in the Code in which a person with a significant personal interest can nonetheless participate in a meeting which decides matters which are likely to affect that interest."

The city council has been asked to comment about the report and the 'culture of adversity' at the authority. In a statement, it only said: “The Code of Conduct complaints made against a former Councillor were investigated in line with the council’s procedures and the decision of the Standards Sub-Committee is published on the council website.”