A high-stakes ethics confrontation at Peterborough City Council is set to come to a head on December 2, as the constitution and ethics sub-committee prepares to examine allegations that Councillor Kirsty Knight breached the members’ Code of Conduct.
The hearing, to be held behind closed doors, stems from a complaint made in March 2025 by a member of the public following an interaction with Cllr Knight at their home.
What began as a routine complaint quickly escalated into a full investigation, one that has now concluded the Code of Conduct was engaged, had been breached, and that informal resolution is not appropriate. As a result, the council must now decide whether the behaviour of one of its elected members fell below the standards expected of those in public office.
A complaint that spiralled into a full-scale review
According to the formal report prepared for the sub-committee by a democratic services officer the complainant alleged that Cllr Knight had engaged in bullying, harassment and discrimination, misrepresented the council, and brought her office into disrepute.
A third potential breach—misuse of position—was added during the initial assessment by then-monitoring officer Neil McArthur.
The allegations were considered serious enough that the council determined a full investigation was required, with Ben Stevenson, head of information governance and deputy monitoring officer, appointed to lead it. Under first McArthur’s oversight, and later that of acting monitoring officer Graham Kitchen, Stevenson conducted a review of the statements and evidence put forward by the complainant, Cllr Knight, and other witnesses.
His conclusion was unambiguous: the code had been breached, and by conduct that gave a misleading impression of the councillor’s authority, misrepresented the council, and brought both the council and her role into disrepute.
Independent oversight backs referral to a full hearing
As required by the standards framework, the findings were reviewed by the council’s independent person—an external adviser whose role is to provide impartial guidance on member conduct complaints. Their view aligned with that of the investigators: the matter should proceed to a full hearing before the constitution and ethics sub-committee.
The panel assigned to the hearing consists of Cllrs Sam Hemraj (chair), Richard Strangward, and Lynne Ayres. Their remit is narrow but weighty: they must decide whether Cllr Knight failed to comply with the members’ code of conduct, and, if so, what action is appropriate. That could range from a formal censure to further measures permitted by the code.
Delays, cancellations and frustration as process dragged on
The road to the December 2 hearing has been far from smooth. A hearing was initially scheduled for September 1, 2025, but was abruptly postponed due to what the council described as a procedural misstep. That session was later formally cancelled after a change in committee membership, forcing officials to restart the scheduling process.
Both Cllr Knight and the complainant were given the opportunity to comment on the draft investigation report prior to it being finalised—standard practice, but another step that extended the timeline.
Complicating matters further, parts of the report are exempt from publication under the Local Government Act 1972. This is intended to protect the identities of those involved, but it has also meant that much of the detail remains confidential, fuelling speculation about the underlying facts. What is publicly confirmed, however, is that the investigator found multiple breaches of the code and that senior officers agree a formal hearing is necessary.
A councillor already familiar with controversy
Knight, first elected under the Green banner in 2021, left the party in 2023 claiming that “their beliefs don’t coincide with mine anymore” and that the party was “no longer green.”
At the time, the local Green Party said she had been suspended pending an investigation into multiple allegations. When the council’s own process later concluded she “may have” breached the code, the Greens said the findings vindicated their decision, urging high standards of conduct from elected representatives.
Since then, Knight has served as an independent councillor for Orton Waterville. She has not issued any public statement regarding either the earlier controversy or the current complaint under investigation.
Legal framework demands action—and integrity
The hearing’s legal backbone lies in the members’ code of conduct adopted by Peterborough City Council in September 2022. The document sets out clear expectations for councillors, including prohibitions on bullying, harassment, discrimination, misrepresentation, and misuse of authority.
The Localism Act 2011 requires councils to maintain arrangements for investigating and determining allegations of misconduct by elected members. Crucially, it also requires involvement of an independent person in the process, to guard against political or administrative bias.
In this case, both the monitoring officer and the independent person have taken the view that informal resolution—a pathway that sometimes allows complaints to be settled through apology or mediation—would not be appropriate. With that option off the table, the matter must now be publicly addressed by the hearing panel.
December 2: what the panel must decide
When the constitution and ethics sub-committee convenes on December 2, its task will be twofold:
- Determine whether Cllr Knight failed to comply with the code, giving brief reasons for its conclusion.
- Decide what action, if any, should follow, depending on its findings.
The sanctions available to the panel range from formal censure to recommendations about committee roles or other measures permitted within the council’s governance framework.
A pivotal moment for local political standards
Whatever the final decision, the December 2 hearing marks a significant moment for Peterborough City Council. At stake are not only the reputation of one councillor, but also the effectiveness of the council’s standards system—and the confidence of residents in how seriously their elected representatives take public trust.
For now, both the complaint and the councillor at the centre of it remain publicly silent. The answers will come only when the panel finally decides what happened—and what should come next.
