Information on Investigations

Which Sector? > Local Authorities > Aberdeen City > LA/AC/876

Note of Decision Web Version

Complaint no. LA/AC/876/JM concerning an alleged contravention of the Councillors’ Code of Conduct by Councillor Martin Greig of Aberdeen City Council

1. Complaint number LA/AC/876/JM alleged a contravention of the Councillors’ Code of Conduct (“the Code”) by Councillor Martin Greig (“the respondent”).

2. It was alleged that the respondent had contravened the Code, in particular, the provisions on Dealing with Planning Applications set out in paragraph 7.2; and the key principles of Integrity, Objectivity, and Accountability and Stewardship contained in section 2.

3. The complaint alleged that in addressing the Planning Committee on an application submitted by the complainant’s company, the respondent made critical references to the payment of a commuted sum as part of a planning agreement, and that these comments lacked objectivity, were not based on objections lodged as part of the planning application, and potentially influenced the decision of the Committee.

4. This case stemmed from the content of an address made by the respondent to the Planning Committee in his capacity as a local member responding to the concerns of those constituents who had contacted him in relation to a planning application submitted by a company of which the complainant is a director.  The respondent was of course entitled to reflect these views to the Committee. In so doing the respondent required to address what could reasonably be regarded as material planning issues.  It is the role of the Chair to ensure that an address by a local member, or indeed any other person seeking to make representation to the Committee, is relevant to the application and does not stray into gratuitous or unjustified criticism of the planning system or the applicant.  It is self-evident however that the purpose of any external representation to a Committee is to bring to the fore issues of concern and attempt to influence the members at least to the extent of taking into consideration the matters raised.

5. In this case the respondent highlighted a range of issues which related to the scale of the proposed development, the access arrangements, and its adverse impact on parking provision.  These were in my view entirely valid points, and served to reiterate issues that had also been covered within the Planning Officer’s report, albeit the respondent’s conclusion differed in that he expressed a view that the proposal represented over-development and should be refused.  At some point in his address it is alleged, and confirmed by the evidence of the witnesses and the respondent himself, that the respondent referred to the payment of a parking contribution in the context of an inducement to achieve planning consent.  The complainant has suggested that the words ‘bribe’ or ‘bribery’ were used, and the Clerk’s handwritten note tends to support this.  While such terminology was potentially emotive and would quite reasonably have prompted an intervention by the Convener, the point at issue is whether it was an accusation directed at the applicant, and by implication the complainant as a principal director of that company, or a more general comment on the principle of easing the impact of developments by requiring applicants to contribute to mitigating measures. The role of planning agreements is set out in guidance contained in Scottish Development Department Circular 12/1996 as being a means by which an obstacle to the grant of planning approval may be overcome in a situation where this cannot be achieved with a planning condition or other measure.

6. Clearly in this case the complainant took exception to the criticism of the planning agreement in the respondent’s address.  In his view the manner in which the respondent spoke raised an implication of malpractice.  On the other hand the respondent stated that he was simply reflecting the view of planning gain payments held by some of his constituents.  Given that the negotiation of a planning agreement, and calculation of the parking contribution, is an entirely proper process, sanctioned by law, and undertaken without the involvement of elected members (in particular those who would be called upon to decide the application), I did not accept that the respondent should have raised this in the context of any form of inducement, notwithstanding that planning permission might not have been considered in the absence of such an agreement. Distancing himself from the remark by referring to it being the opinion of unidentified constituents appeared somewhat disingenuous.  It was not possible for me to determine the respondent’s purpose in including this remark but its tenor could only be viewed as potentially critical of the process.  Without a verbatim and reliable record of the remark however I was unable to conclude that it was directed at the applicant company or the complainant as an individual.

7. The complainant alleged that the objectionable comment was such as to breach paragraph 7.2 of the Code.  This provision imposes a duty on councillors to ensure that development decisions are properly taken and that persons involved in the process are dealt with fairly.  It is important to stress that the Code in this respect makes no distinction between elected members who are required to decide applications and those members who become involved in planning matters as constituency representatives.  It was therefore incumbent on the respondent to ensure that he applied fairness to his consideration of the application in question.  On the evidence available to me I considered that the manner of his reference to the parking contribution, even if it accurately reflected constituents’ views, was unnecessary and strayed from the material planning issues.  It was particularly unhelpful in that it criticized a process encouraged by law and to which the Council subscribed as an integral part of its planning process.

8. The application was decided in favour of the application on the casting vote of the Convener.  It was not possible for me to determine the factors which prompted the individual votes of the Committee members.  Having regard to the fact that the Committee was also addressed by two other local members, Councillors Jim Farquharson and John West, who similarly commented on the parking issue and its effect on local residents, I did not think that the comment by the respondent on the parking contribution added significantly to an issue that was already evident to the Committee.  In particular I noted that the majority of his input related to appropriate planning considerations.    Accordingly I found that the respondent had not breached paragraph 7.2 of the Code, although I did so with the rider that the respondent should exercise caution in expressing views, whether his own or attributed to others, which could be interpreted as inappropriately critical to applicants.

Section 2 of the Code details the general principles which should be observed by Councillors in the course of their official duties.  The principles are not in themselves substantive provisions of the Code.

9. The complainant identified the key principles of Integrity, Objectivity, and Accountability and Stewardship as areas which are called into question by this complaint.  The key principle of Integrity relates specifically to members who place themselves under a financial or other obligation which could influence them in their actions, and I found no evidence of this whatsoever.  As a local member the respondent was entitled to speak to his constituents’ concerns before the Committee and this he did.  The unfortunate phraseology in regard to the planning agreement which at least prompted a question as to whether he was voicing a personal view or passing on the opinions of others, did raise an issue of objectivity.  However in terms of the Code members are required to make decisions solely on merit and while this should be strictly applied in that context a greater latitude might be acceptable in more general debate intended to influence others.  Care should certainly be taken to ensure that statements are based on fact and not gratuitously critical, and I did consider that in this case the respondent’s comment could have been viewed as ambiguously expressed. 

10. The complainant suggested that this lapse in objectivity was evident at the full Council meeting when the decision of the Planning Committee was reversed and that this impacted on the respondent’s accountability and stewardship.  The respondent undeniably took part in the full Council meeting and voted for refusal of the application and in so doing his position was consistent with his approach to the application submitted in September 2008.  Given the speculative nature of the complainant’s assertion I am unable to conclude with any degree of certainty the factors taken into consideration by the respondent in opting to oppose the application, but as the major part of his submission to the Planning Committee in March related to material planning issues he clearly had regard to the merits of the application.  Accordingly I found that the respondent had not breached the key principles of Integrity, Objectivity, or Accountability and Stewardship. 

11. Having considered the information that arose from my investigation, I concluded that Councillor Martin Greig had not contravened the Councillors’ Code of Conduct.

D Stuart Allan

Chief Investigating Officer

44 Drumsheugh Gardens

Edinburgh

EH3 7SW

9 December 2009