When serious allegations first emerged against senior leaders at City College Peterborough in July 2023, the reaction from both the council and the college was swift, decisive—and secretive. Executive principal Dr. Pat Carrington MBE, alongside colleagues Julie Bennett and Sue Watsham, were immediately placed on gardening leave. Staff were warned not to contact the three senior figures “for any reason,” as an independent investigation got underway.
Two years later, the investigation has concluded, a new leadership team is in place, and the college is preparing to be formally reintegrated into Peterborough City Council. Yet despite repeated efforts by CambsNews to uncover the full story, the details of what went wrong remain hidden behind a wall of silence.
The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), designed to pierce that wall, has instead exposed the limits of transparency in cases where reputations, governance, and public trust collide.
This is the story of the City College Peterborough affair—a cautionary tale about secrecy, accountability, and the fragility of public confidence.
A Timeline of Secrecy
The controversy began in July 2023, when CambsNews reported exclusively that Peterborough City Council confirmed it had received “serious allegations” concerning the leadership of City College. The council declined to specify the nature of those claims, but confirmed that Dr. Carrington, Bennett, and Watsham had been suspended pending investigation.
An internal email sent by Adrian Chapman, then Executive Director for Place and Economy, underscored the gravity of the situation. Staff were instructed that those on gardening leave should not be contacted under any circumstances.
The revelations came not from official announcements but from whistleblowers. CambsNews, tipped off by concerned insiders, ran the story. From the outset, the pattern was clear: while the investigation would run, information would not be forthcoming.
For more than a year, the council declined to offer updates, citing the confidentiality of the process. Finally, in December 2024, the college acknowledged that the investigation had ended. It confirmed that Carrington had resigned and announced a new leadership team under principal Tasha Dalton. Beyond that, silence.
The final official acknowledgement came in September 2025, when a Freedom of Information response confirmed that the investigation had formally concluded on 5 July 2024. Crucially, the council stated the inquiry had not led to any changes in governance.
The only structural shift would be the reintegration of the college into the council’s governance system, with a Cabinet report scheduled for 14 October 2025. For those seeking answers, this was a disappointment. The response left the most pressing questions—what the allegations were, whether they were upheld, and whether public funds had been misused—entirely unanswered.
The FOI Request: What Was Asked, What Was Withheld
In August 2025, CambsNews submitted a carefully worded FOI request, asking four direct questions:
1. The outcome of the investigation, including disciplinary action or findings.
2. The nature of the allegations.
3. The date of the investigation’s conclusion.
4. Any changes to governance or oversight resulting from the investigation.
The request was framed around public accountability for a publicly funded body.
But nearly all substantive information was withheld. The council relied on Section 40(2) of the FOI Act, which protects personal data from disclosure if it would breach principles of fairness and transparency under the UK’s data protection regime.
The council acknowledged that Carrington’s resignation was a matter of public record but declined to provide any detail about the circumstances. For Bennett and Watsham, it argued, their roles were not senior enough to justify any reduction in privacy expectations.
The end result: confirmation of a timeline, confirmation of Carrington’s departure, but no explanation of what had actually happened.
FOI Success or FOI Failure?
For campaigners, the case highlights the paradox at the heart of Britain’s Freedom of Information Act.
On one level, the FOI process worked. The council was forced to acknowledge dates, outcomes, and structural changes. It admitted that the investigation had concluded that Carrington resigned, and that governance procedures remained unchanged.
But on the central issue—what went wrong at City College Peterborough—the Act failed.
Section 40(2) exemptions are common in personnel cases, yet critics argue the balance should shift when the individuals involved are senior public leaders.
Carrington was not only executive principal but a nationally recognised figure in adult education, chair of HOLEX, and the recipient of an MBE in 2017. For such a public figure, the case for disclosure in the public interest appears compelling.
A Culture of Silence
The secrecy is particularly striking given the college’s central role in Peterborough civic life.
Founded in 1944, City College has long been a cornerstone of adult and community learning. Under Carrington’s leadership, it expanded to include the Day Opportunities Service for disabled adults and, for a period, operated libraries, museums, and theatres under the “City Culture Peterborough” banner.
At the time of its launch in 2019, Carrington championed the initiative enthusiastically:
“I had the privilege of setting up City Culture Peterborough—operating our city’s libraries, the Key Theatre, museum, and Flag Fen. This is such an exciting opportunity, with so much synergy between the College and City Culture. I think I have the best job in the world by caretaking these amazing facilities and services.”
Her influence extended beyond Peterborough. She held senior roles at Cambridgeshire County Council, served as Assistant Director for Adult Education and Libraries, and was a member of the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Combined Authority employment and skills board.
That such a high-profile figure could resign amid unpublicised allegations has fuelled suspicion.
Unconfirmed reports have circulated of a damaging Ofsted inspection. Others point to questions around the City College Foundation, a charity handling millions in funds. Yet FOI exemptions prevent these avenues from being examined with official documentation.
Instead, the public is left with a vacuum—rumours, fragments, and silence.
A New Era—But Built on Fragile Ground
In December 2024, Tasha Dalton was confirmed as the college’s new principal. The transition was framed as a fresh start, with emphasis on transparency, strong values, and a forward-looking agenda.
Dalton has won praise for her early leadership, injecting energy into programmes and strengthening links with the council. But the credibility of the institution remains compromised. For many, the unanswered questions about Carrington’s departure cast a shadow over the new leadership.
The forthcoming reintegration of the college into Peterborough City Council is presented as a safeguard—oversight will increase, decision-making will be folded into council governance, and accountability will theoretically improve. Yet without clarity on past failings, doubts remain about whether oversight mechanisms are genuinely robust.
Lessons for FOI and Governance
The City College Peterborough affair provides a vivid case study in the strengths and weaknesses of FOI legislation.
• What FOI revealed: timelines, structural decisions, confirmation of resignation.
• What FOI concealed: the nature of the allegations, the investigation’s findings, and whether public funds were wasted.
The case underscores the tension between privacy rights and public accountability. The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) has previously ruled that senior public officials have a lower expectation of privacy when allegations concern their official duties. Yet councils frequently adopt a risk-averse approach, defaulting to secrecy.
Some reformers argue for automatic publication of investigation summaries when senior public leaders are involved—redacted for personal detail but sufficient to explain what went wrong. Others call for clearer statutory guidance balancing privacy with accountability in cases involving public funds and public trust.
Without such reforms, the risk is that scandals repeat: the public knows something happened, but not what, not why, and not whether it could happen again.
Conclusion: A Hollow Transparency
The Freedom of Information Act was once hailed as a revolution in government openness. Two decades on, the City College Peterborough affair illustrates both its enduring potential and its profound limitations.
Through FOI, the public now knows when the investigation ended, that no governance reforms resulted, and that the college will soon be folded back into council control.
But the central truth—the allegations that shook a respected institution, forced out a nationally recognised principal, and left staff and students in uncertainty—remains hidden.
For the people of Peterborough, that is not transparency but its hollow echo.
Until FOI laws are strengthened, the story of City College Peterborough will stand less as a tale of resolution than of silence—a silence that risks corroding public trust not only in one college, but in the very idea of accountability in public life.
