CL-033
Stage 2 Complaint Response
From
Peter Moore
Assistant Director (Highways and Public Protection)
Sefton Borough Council
Reference: 20173177
Date and context
19 June 2026
Stage 2 response to SIBA's complaint of 5 June 2026. Stage 2 was escalated after Stage 1 (Stephen Watson, 4 June 2026) was assigned to an officer named in the complaint and failed to address the independence request.
The council's response, point by point
Point 1
The Closed Loop
Council's response
“Mr Catherall designed the BID governance structure and thereafter wrote the Cabinet Member report as part of his employment with the Council. He sits on the resulting BID board as the Council's representative and as part of his Council role and employment. He does not benefit in any way financially or personally, therefore there are no conflicts, structural or governance concerns.”
The council's test for whether a governance concern exists is the absence of personal financial benefit. This is not the standard the complaint applies.
Point 2
The Register of Interests
Council's response
“Consequent to my response to Point 1 above, the register has not been updated as there is nothing to declare.”
This is a formal written confirmation that the BID directorship will not be entered on the register of officers' interests. The legal basis is that carrying out a function as part of employment removes the obligation to declare it.
Point 3
The Job Description
Council's response
“All local authority employees are required to declare interests, if applicable, regardless of their job description therefore this is not listed as a requirement in a job description, nor in the Scheme of Delegation. This responsibility and process is set out in the Employee Code of Conduct, which forms part of the Council's Constitution.”
The council confirms the mechanism that should govern declarations is the Employee Code of Conduct. It does not confirm whether that code has been applied to the BID directorship arrangement.
Point 4
The MLEC Conflict
Council's response
“The Council do not accept that Mikhail Hotels is the primary commercial beneficiary, as there are numerous other hotels such as Premier Inn, Travelodge and Britannia Hotels with larger capacity than 46 rooms, notwithstanding the Vincent Hotel which is also a 4-star hotel with 59 rooms.”
The council has named Premier Inn, Travelodge, Britannia Hotels, and the Vincent Hotel (59 rooms, 4-star) as alternative or larger beneficiaries. The complaint concerned the BID Treasurer's employer, not market share. The governance question is who holds the BID Treasurer role and whether that role creates a conflict in BID decisions about MLEC-related activity.
Point 5
VisitSouthport Editorial Framework
Council's response
“The review of visitsouthport.com will be led by Mark Catherall, reporting with recommendations to Stuart Barnes (Assistant Director, Economic Growth and Housing). I would propose that this takes place in Autumn 2026 and is concluded by the end of the year, as that small team is presently focused on preparations for the Open Golf and for Sefton's ongoing events programme.”
The officer whose concurrent roles prompted this complaint has been assigned to review his own platform and report upward. The council describes this as the appropriate arrangement.
Point 6
The SHOL Consultancy Contract
Council's response
“(i) The consultancy contract was not solely for Southport Market; it covered wider hospitality sector input. (ii) The value is up to a maximum of £138,000, paid pro rata. (iii) Procurement was via a Chief Officer Report and procurement waiver, approved by the Procurement Service Manager and the Assistant Director for Economic Growth and Housing. (iv) Mr Watson serves as Director of SHOL as part of his Council role and employment. He does not benefit in any way financially or personally. Therefore, no declaration is needed.”
The SHOL consultancy contract is confirmed: up to £138,000, awarded via procurement waiver without competitive tender. The officer who approved the waiver is a director of the company that received the contract. The stated basis for no declaration is identical to that applied to the BID directorship: no personal financial benefit.
Point 7
Line Management and Stage 1 Independence
Council's response
“Mark Catherall reports directly to Stuart Barnes (Assistant Director, Economic Growth and Housing). It is normal procedure to ask the manager with oversight of the service area to provide the Stage 1 response. The Stage 2 complaint can also be dealt with by any senior manager; however the Council have requested that Peter Moore, who does not have day to day oversight of these areas, respond to your Stage 2 request.”
Catherall's direct line manager is confirmed as Stuart Barnes. The council describes Stage 1 being assigned to Watson as normal procedure. The Stage 2 independence request has been partially honoured.
Point 8
FOI Process and the Vexatious Warning
Council's response
“I cannot see a specific question to address, but would clarify that the purpose of directing future requests via Fiona Townsend is in order for the local authority to minimise the burden of responding to multiple enquiries, aspects of which may have already been addressed, which is an alternative procedure to rendering a person vexatious at this stage as set out in the ICO guidance Dealing with vexatious requests (section 14).”
The council has explicitly referenced vexatious designation as an alternative procedure it has not yet applied. This appears in a formal Stage 2 complaint response. It is noted for the record and will be included in the referral to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman.
Point 9
The Ballot
Council's response
“This again appears to be a statement with no specific question to address.”
The council treats the ballot arithmetic question as requiring no response. Three FOI requests and two internal reviews have refused the voting breakdown. The matter remains before the ICO.
Stage 2 requirements: what was asked and what was answered
Independence criteria for Stage 2 reviewer
Peter Moore confirms he holds no directorships in any council-owned company and has not publicly stated a position on the governance questions. He is outside the Regeneration, Economy and Assets portfolio. Whether he reports directly to the Chief Executive is not confirmed.
Written confirmation of register update
The register has not been updated. Nothing to declare. See Points 1 and 2.
VisitSouthport editorial review
Review to be led by Mark Catherall, reporting to Stuart Barnes, Autumn 2026.
Catherall's direct line manager
Stuart Barnes, Assistant Director, Economic Growth and Housing.
SHOL consultancy contract confirmation
Confirmed. Up to £138,000, procurement waiver, no declaration by Watson.
Substantive response to Monitoring Officer complaint (5 May 2026)
Mr Moister responded by email of 27 May 2026. No further response offered.
Council's formal policy on Cabinet-approved officer directorships
There is no policy. These decisions are made in the context of officers carrying out functions as employees of the Council.
CL-033
SIBA's Position
Peter Moore answered the questions. That is worth noting because it distinguishes this response from the eleven internal review decisions that preceded it, none of which addressed a single submitted ground. The format is different. The substance is what it is.
The response confirms four things SIBA has been attempting to establish for three months.
There is no policy governing Cabinet-approved officer directorships and register of interests obligations. The council's own words: “There is no policy.” This is not a refusal to disclose a policy. It is confirmation that no policy exists. The investigation has been asking what the governance framework is. Stage 2 has answered: there is not one.
The register of interests has not been updated and will not be. The stated reason is that carrying out a function as part of employment removes the need to declare it. Under this reasoning, the more embedded a conflicting role becomes in a job description, the less declaration is required. The logic runs in the wrong direction.
The VisitSouthport editorial review will be led by Mark Catherall. The officer whose concurrent roles prompted this complaint will review his own platform and report upward. The council describes this as appropriate. It is the same structural arrangement the complaint was about, applied to the remedy.
The SHOL consultancy contract was awarded without competitive tender via a procurement waiver. The officer who approved it is also a director of the company that received it. No declaration was made. The stated reason is that he does not benefit personally or financially. This has now been applied to three separate arrangements in this investigation. It is not a governance standard. It is the absence of one, consistently restated.
One further point. In responding to Point 8, the council identifies vexatious designation as an alternative procedure it has not yet used. SIBA notes this for the record. The investigation is conducted entirely through public records and formal statutory processes. Every request is on the public WhatDoTheyKnow record. The suggestion that this constitutes the kind of conduct vexatious designation is designed to address is itself a statement the council has now chosen to place in a formal complaint response. It will be included in the referral to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman, alongside the substantive grounds above.
The Stage 2 process is exhausted. The referral has been prepared.