Information on Investigations

Which Sector? > Local Authorities > Aberdeenshire > LA/As/222

Note of Decision Web Version

Complaint no. LA/As/222 Concerning an alleged contravention of the Councillors' Code of Conduct by Councillor Bruce Luffman of Aberdeenshire Council

1. Complaint number LA/As/222 alleged a contravention of the Councillors' Code of Conduct ("the Code") by Councillor Bruce Luffman ("the respondent").

2. It was alleged that the respondent had contravened the Code, in particular, section 2 (the key principles of Duty, Accountability, Honesty and Leadership), and parts of section 3 (Conduct in the Chamber or in Committee), section 5 (Declaration of Interests), section 6 (Lobbying and Access to Councillors) and section 7 (Taking Decisions on Individual Applications).

3. The persons complaining ("the complainants") alleged that the respondent did not act in a balanced or impartial manner in relation to a planning application which they had submitted to Aberdeenshire Council. They also alleged that the respondent made unsubstantiated accusations about one of the complainants, and statements that were untrue, when their planning application came up for consideration at the meeting of the Planning Committee.

4. The Head of Planning and Building Control recommended that full planning permission be granted and the Planning Committee approved the application subject to certain conditions.

5. That part of the complaint which alleged that the respondent did not act in a balanced or impartial manner related to conduct which pre-dated the coming into effect of the Councillors' Code of Conduct and, therefore, did not fall to be considered under the Code. Notwithstanding, it was relevant to record in the context of the overall complaint, that I found no indication that there was anything improper or unacceptable in the respondent's conduct in relation to this part of the complaint.

6. It was possible, readily, to identify the complainants' remaining allegations with section 7 of the Code but the complainants did not attempt to demonstrate or explain why, in their opinion, the respondent's conduct also represented a breach of parts of sections 2, 3, 5 and 6. Their complaint was assessed primarily against section 7 of the Code and, insofar as the limited information from the complainants allowed, against these other sections.

7. The respondent denied that he had made unsubstantiated allegations about one of the complainants when their application came before the Planning Committee. He admitted to making certain comments but claimed that these were factually accurate.

8. The Planning Committee meeting was attended by the Area Planning Officer, the Senior Solicitor and the Area Committee Clerk. Their perceptions were that the respondent's comments at the meeting had been legitimate and that he had not said anything abusive about the complainants. They stated that if they had felt that he was going beyond what he was entitled to say they would have intervened but they found no cause to do so. The informal notes of the meeting, taken by the Committee Clerk, showed nothing unacceptable in the comments which they attributed to the respondent. The Area Planning Officer also indicated that she did not consider that any undue influence was brought to bear at the meeting, or in any discussions between members and the case officer. In a letter which he sent to the complainants about the processing of their application, the Chief Executive concluded that the respondent had not acted improperly.

9. Having considered all of the information available I found, in relation to section 7 of the Code, that Councillor Luffman's involvement in the discussion on the complainants' application at the meeting of the Committee on 12 April 2005 was entirely consistent with his rights and responsibilities as a councillor and that there was nothing in his conduct that was unacceptable or improper.

10. The complainants also alleged that Councillor Luffman's conduct represented a breach of parts of sections 2, 3, 5 and 6 of the Code. Notwithstanding the lack of specification in the complaint, I assessed Councillor Luffman's behaviour in relation to these parts of the Code and I found that there was nothing in his conduct which could reasonably be taken to be contrary to the provisions in the paragraphs identified by the complainants.

11. In relation to complaint number LA/As/222 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
Fife
KY11 2UU
23 September 2005