Information on Investigations

Which Sector? > Local Authorities > Aberdeenshire >LA/As/613

Note of Decision Web Version

Complaint no. LA/As/613 concerning an alleged contravention of the Councillors' Code of Conduct

by Councillor Bruce Luffman of Aberdeenshire Council

 1. Complaint number LA/As/613 alleged a contravention of the Councillors' Code of Conduct (“the Code”) by Councillor Bruce Luffman (“the respondent”).

2. The persons complaining (“the complainants”) alleged breaches of Key Principles in section 2 of the Code of Conduct, also paragraphs 5.1, 5.2, 5.9 and 5.10 relating to Declaration of Interests and paragraph 7.10 relating to Taking Decisions on Individual Applications. It was alleged that during a committee meeting on 3 July 2007, the respondent made a number of statements about the complainants and their son which they regarded as slanderous; that in doing so, he misled other members of the Area Committee and that he failed to declare an interest relating to his membership of SEPA. Additional complaints were that the respondent breached the complainants' confidentiality by referring to IACS forms relating to their farm, and that he should have declared an interest and not participated in a meeting concerning their planning application held on 25 September 2007.

3. The complainants bought a farm in 2005 and in early 2007 they applied for planning permission to erect a new house on the farm. In support of their planning application, they presented a report from the Scottish Agriculture College (SAC). They also applied for retrospective planning permission for caravans which they were occupying. Their complaint concerned statements which they alleged were made by Councillor Luffman during the Area Committee meeting.

4. The information obtained during the investigation did not support the allegations made by the complainants about the nature of the respondent's comments at the meeting on 3 July 2007. None of the parties interviewed, nor the documentary evidence, provided confirmation that Councillor Bruce Luffman accused the complainants of having no respect for Council regulations or of having acted illegally in regard to their occupation of caravans on their farm. Members and officers who gave evidence during the investigation were clear that no claim was made by the respondent that the complainants bought the farm to build houses on it. However, the fact was that the caravans they were occupying did not have planning consent. While the complainants may have been misinformed when they made enquiries about the need for this, it was the case that the caravans were unauthorised, as stated by Councillor Luffman, and that the drainage system in use had not been approved by SEPA until the point when the applications for planning permission were made.

5. Clearly, Councillor Luffman had had concerns about aspects of the application and, as a member of the Area Committee, he was entitled to air these concerns. Applications for consent for houses in the countryside fall into a category where close examination of the application is inevitable given the number of policies which apply and whether a valid need case has been made out. In this case, the respondent questioned that particular point. I did not consider that it was inappropriate for him to raise the question whether the potential labour need as set out in the SAC report would be met and to point out that the complainants' son's intended entry into farming was not yet fixed. No confirmation was found that the respondent imputed their son could or would ‘cop out'. While the complainants categorised certain comments made by Councillor Luffman as ‘slanderous', in considering the information obtained during the investigation I did not think this claim was justified.

6. It may well be unwelcome for applicants to have some of their affairs examined in public. However, it is the purpose of a planning committee to scrutinise applications for planning permission and I take the view that this was what the respondent was seeking to do in regard to the complainants' application. He, like others on the Committee, wanted consideration to be given to the possible conversion of steading buildings and any reference by him to the ploughing up of part of the track there was clearly not seen by members as being of significance. I did not consider that the respondent said anything which misled the Area Committee.

7. The complainants considered that because Councillor Luffman is a member of the North Board of SEPA, he should have declared an interest at the meeting in light of his reference to their drainage not having a SEPA certificate. However, this was not the kind of circumstance in which a Board member would require to declare an interest. Such an occasion may only arise if the matter under consideration related to a planning application by The North Board of SEPA itself or some proposal of theirs which required Council approval.

8. The complainants subsequently alleged that, given the earlier comments he had made on their application in July, the respondent should have declared an interest and not participated in the meeting of 25 September 2007. I did not consider that this was necessary. The respondent had given his views within the Committee on the basis of the information available to him and other Committee members. The Area Committee had deferred consideration of the application to allow for further information regarding the possible conversion of the steading. The purpose then of the meeting on 25 September 2007 was to obtain this new information and, like other members of the Committee, the respondent was entitled to participate and consider it.

9. In regard to the complaint that Councillor Luffman publicly referred to the complainants' IACS form at the meeting on 25 September 2007, the complainants were understandably concerned that this occurred. The form and its contents were regarded by them as confidential to themselves, although they did make the forms available as supporting their complaint against the respondent. Had Councillor Luffman exhibited the contents or circulated the document, this would have to be considered as a breach of their confidentiality. However, I am satisfied that he did not divulge the contents and referred only to a comparative calculation of man hours that he had made from looking at both the IACS form and the SAC report. In view of this background, Councillor Luffman decided not to participate in the meetings on 6 and 20 November 2007 when the complainants' application was given final consideration and was approved.

10. Having considered the information that arose from my investigation, I concluded that Councillor Bruce Luffman had not contravened the Councillors' Code of Conduct.

D Stuart Allan

Chief Investigating Officer

Forsyth House

Innova Campus

Rosyth Europarc

Rosyth

KY11 2UU

13 February 2008