A FORMER Cornwall councillor, who was at the centre of controversy for supporting £200,000 funding for Spaceport Cornwall after he was offered a top job at the facility, has been found in breach of the authority’s code of conduct. Part of the decision has now been referred to Devon and Cornwall Police.

Louis Gardner, the former Conservative portfolio holder for the economy, accepted the role of head of future air and space at the space sector headquarters at Newquay airport while still a member of the Cabinet. He did not declare an interest during a meeting in which £200,000 of government funding was approved for the Spaceport.

The matter, dubbed a “scandal” by opposition councillors, dominated the final meeting of Cornwall Council before the election on May 1, with many saying it had brought them and the council into disrepute. The ruling Conservative group was wiped out at the election, with many Tory voters switching allegiance to Reform. There is now a Liberal Democrat / Independent administration leading the council.

Mr Gardner, from Newquay, stepped down as the council’s head of the economy on taking the Spaceport job and retired as a councillor on May 1. Cornwall Council withdrew the £200,000 funding in April and Mr Gardner resigned from Spaceport Cornwall in May following the furore.

An assessment of Mr Gardner’s behaviour was conducted by Cornwall Council assurance officer Simon Mansell following complaints from Matthew Stokes, the council’s head of legal and democratic services, and Independent councillor Julian German.

In his report, dated May 28, Mr Mansell has found that Mr Gardner “failed to correctly register his disclosable pecuniary interest upon becoming an employee of Spaceport as is required by paragraph 3.8 of the Code of Conduct. The failure to register the interest may also be a failure to comply with the requirements of Section 30 of the Localism Act 2011 and this part of the complaint will be forwarded to the police to allow them to consider if an offence under Section 34 of the Localism Act has been committed.

“In failing to declare a non-registerable interest at the meeting of the Economic Prosperity Board on February 27, 2025, [Mr Gardner] has breached paragraph 3.5 of the Code in addition to 2.5, 2.10 and 2.11. However, whilst a breach of this nature would normally result in a recommendation of a censure, as the subject member is no longer a councillor no further action can be taken beyond the referral to the police.”

Devon and Cornwall Police said in early April they were investigating following a report of misconduct in public office by an individual in the Newquay area. A spokesperson said today (Monday, June 2): “Enquiries remain ongoing.”

In his complaint (made while Mr Gardner was still a councillor), Mr Stokes said: “On February 27, 2025, Cllr Gardner participated in a meeting of the Cornwall and Isles of Scilly Economic Prosperity Board (EPB), two days before that Cllr Gardner was offered the Cornwall Airport Limited, head of air and space role by email, on February 25, 2025, and he accepted the appointment by email the following day, February 26, 2025.

“One of the items dealt with at the meeting was the proposed award of funding to Spaceport. The minutes of the meeting do not record Cllr Gardner declaring an interest in that item even though he was in attendance and his appointment would doubtless have been fresh in his mind. The natural conclusion therefore is that he did not declare an interest, and this is supported by the public minutes of that meeting [which] confirm there were no declarations of interest.

“At the time of the EPB meeting he would not have had a disclosable pecuniary interest, but he clearly had a non-registerable interest because of the Spaceport appointment. There was clearly a decision to be made, which might reasonably be regarded as affecting the financial position of Spaceport (a body with which he had a close association as his future employer) and which might also reasonably be regarded as affecting his own wellbeing (by providing funding for Spaceport that he would then have at least some responsibility for and which would enable him to succeed in his role).

“There is clearly a more demonstrable impact for Cllr Gardner and Spaceport than other taxpayers and inhabitants of his division, and it is quite clear from the public interest and media speculation that a reasonable person with knowledge of all the relevant facts would consider his interest so significant that it was likely to prejudice his judgement of the public interest. The circumstances do not fall within any of the exceptions to the definition of non-registerable interest.”

Mr Stokes said it seemed to him that Mr Gardner had breached the following provisions of the Cornwall Council code of conduct for councillors, which Mr Mansell agreed with in his assessment: Paragraph 2.5 – “You must not conduct yourself in a manner which is contrary to the council’s duty to promote and maintain high standards of conduct by members, by dint of being in breach of the following paragraphs.”

Paragraph 2.10 – “You must not conduct yourself in a manner which could reasonably be regarded as bringing your office or the council into disrepute. It is evident from the public, member and media interest that there is a perception of disrepute for both Cllr Gardner and the council. That he was clearly aware of his acceptance of employment, the funding proposal and that he had interests in his mind point to an argument at the very least bringing his office into disrepute.”

Paragraph 2.11 – “You must not use or attempt to use your position as a member of the council improperly to confer on or to secure for yourself or any other person an advantage or disadvantage. Cllr Gardner should have declared an interest and absented himself from the meeting. His participation in the meeting in the face of having a non-registerable interest, and without declaring an interest, is clearly an improper use of his position to confer an advantage in relation to the Spaceport funding bid considered at the meeting.”

Paragraph 3.5 – “Declaration of interest at a meeting, etc. Councillor Gardner did not declare an interest, at least not on the basis of the information available at the time of writing and the minutes to not evidence him leaving the meeting. Rather, immediately after the recording of the resolution that approved [the funding], Cllr Gardner is recorded as seconding a recommendation to provide delegated authority to the service director for economy and skills to, inter alia, conclude contracts for the approved bids.”

Paragraph 3.8 – “Registration of new disclosable pecuniary interests. At the time of submission of this complaint the 28-day period has lapsed and the request to update his register of interests has not been received.”

Adding to this, Cllr German also said that at the time of his complaint it was public knowledge that Mr Gardner had been employed at Spaceport for more than 28 days but he had not registered this. In his defence, Mr Gardner said that he was unable to do so because he was on holiday abroad and was unable to access council emails.

The council assessment includes a response from Mr Gardner to the complaints. He said: “‘At the time of the meeting I weighed up everything and considered whether or not I had an interest. I made the personal decision that I did not based on the following:

“I had not started employment with Cornwall Airport Limited and therefore was not an employee. Whilst a formal offer had been made and accepted, I had not been given a contract, and it was by no means certain that this process would run to completion.

“The project was an existing and longstanding Cornwall Council project which was already fully endorsed by Cabinet in a formal Cornwall Council document. Although Spaceport was the applicant on the form, I thought I was merely endorsing a Cornwall Council project, like we had done multiple times before, through the entire three years of running the Shared Prosperity Fund.

“In hindsight, I would have sought legal advice from Cornwall Council legal team before the meeting.”

He added: “I was always very wary about informing anybody at all about my forthcoming employment. I had made an agreement with the managing director of the airport about who we would inform when and in what way and I believed it important to honour that agreement. I did not trust officers or councillors within the room to not leak news of my employment to the media or elsewhere.

“At this point the onboarding process was not complete and I did not want to do anything to jeopardise employment after an agreement had been made. It turns out I was correct to be wary. Details of what happened in the meeting were leaked to the media anyway by one of the few people in the room. I feel the fact that someone leaked confidential information in this way justifies why I was concerned about news of my employment being leaked, potentially breaking an agreement, I had made with my new employer.”

He said that the £200,000 funding for a feasibility study “had nothing to do with my role. It was applied for by another employee and administered by another employee. Whether the project happened or not, it would not affect me in my ability to succeed in my role”.

Mr Gardner added: ‘I did not ‘have interests in my mind about bringing my office into disrepute’. The absolute opposite is true, everything I did was to protect both the council and Cornwall Airport Limited. I had no idea that supporting an existing and longstanding Cornwall Council project, which I had already supported previously on multiple occasions would bring anybody into disrepute. However, I am very sorry for the harm which this has caused.”

Despite Mr Gardner’s explanation, Mr Mansell considered “that in the circumstances he should have realised that with his connection to Spaceport any decision to grant funds could have a future impact on his position within the company, or at the very least the approval of the grant application was in favour of his future employer, and therefore he should have declared a non-registerable interest in regard to that matter.

“It is clear that Cllr Gardner was appointed to a post at Spaceport and it would appear that the contract was signed on 12/3/25 with him beginning work on 17/3/25. He states that after a reminder he emailed the democratic lead on 11/4/25, went on leave and updated the register on 24/4/25 saying that he had no opportunity to do so earlier.

“There is no doubt that Cllr Gardner exceeded the 28-day limit but if he started his new job on the 17/3/25 and did not contact the democratic lead until 11/4/25 he would have had sufficient time to update the register during that period. I therefore consider Cllr Gardner to have breached the code of conduct.”

The council officer added: “Although Cllr Gardner insists that neither he nor Spaceport gained an advantage from the vote at the meeting it is reasonable to assume that, even if the money was for funding for what he says was for a survey, the company would still benefit as it would not need to pay for the cost of the survey itself and may have had to wait for funding from other sources.

“Even if he believed at the time of the meeting that Spaceport would not benefit, it does not alter the fact that he voted for and seconded the grant knowing that he would be working for that company and there might be at least an indirect benefit to himself. It may be therefore that Cllr Gardner had used his position improperly to the advantage of himself or anyone else contrary to the code of conduct.”

As well as part of the complaint decision being forwarded to the police, the decision notice has been sent to the complainants, Mr Gardner and a copy placed on Cornwall Council’s website.