Information on Investigations

Which Sector? > Local Authorities > Aberdeenshire >LA/As/600

Note of Decision Web Version

Complaint no. LA/As/600 concerning an alleged contravention of the Councillors' Code of Conduct by Councillors Paul Johnston, John Loveday, Alisan Norrie, Anne Robertson and Debra Storr; and former Councillors James Anderson, Alan Cameron, Stuart B Mair, J Brinsley Sheridan and Alistair Strachan of Aberdeenshire Council

1. Complaint number LA/As/600 alleged a contravention of the Councillors' Code of Conduct ("the Code") by Councillors Paul Johnston, John Loveday, Alisan Norrie, Anne Robertson and Debra Storr; and former Councillors James Anderson, Alan Cameron, Stuart B Mair, J Brinsley Sheridan and Alistair Strachan ("the respondents").

2. It was alleged that the respondents had contravened the Code, in particular, the provisions relating to Taking Decisions on Individual Applications set out in paragraph 7.10 of the Code.

3. The person complaining ("the complainant") alleged that by considering and granting a planning application and listed building consent in relation to a marketing suite, the respondents had implied prejudgement of the pending related application for a golf resort at Menie Estate, Aberdeenshire.

4. The complainant identified paragraph 7.10 as the provision within the Code which applied most directly to his complaint, although it was appropriate to examine the issue by reference to the entirety of section 7 of the Code.

5. In this case the respondents at the relevant date were all members of Formartine Area Committee of Aberdeenshire Council and, as such, were empowered to consider planning and listed building applications. In this capacity they were informed that an application for planning permission and listed building consent had been submitted in relation to a former farm steading at Menie Park Lodge which the applicants sought to use for marketing purposes in relation to a much larger golf resort complex. The respondents were aware that further applications for the resort were pending but these had not yet been referred to the Area Committee. The applications relating to the steading were submitted in the name of the applicants and the link to the wider applications was clearly evident.

6. The purpose of the provisions in section 7 of the Code is to ensure that planning applications are properly and fairly considered. In particular members are not permitted to imply or declare their support or opposition, or reveal their voting intention, prior to the meeting at which an application is to be considered, and must give no grounds to doubt their impartiality. The essence of the complainant's allegation was that, by granting planning permission and listed building consent to the steading, and in particular its intended marketing use, the members implied that they were favourably disposed towards the wider development.

7. There was no suggestion that any of the respondents had an interest in the development, or that they had in any way advocated on behalf of the proposed golf resort.

8. The possible implications of considering the steading applications in isolation from the applications relating to the resort complex were considered within the report submitted to the members by the planning officers. In addition the Formartine Area Manager, who acted as the principal adviser to the Area Committee, considered the matter and sought independent advice from the Head of Law and Administration and prepared a separate briefing paper. The advice given to the members in the planning report and briefing paper was to the effect that there could be no legal objection to the Committee considering the applications relating to the steading in isolation from the resort and maintenance facility applications which for technical reasons required to be heard at a subsequent meeting.

9. Prior to the meeting of the Area Committee a pre-agenda meeting was convened and attended by Councillor Loveday and Councillor Norrie, (respectively Chair and Vice-Chair), the Area Manager, Head of Law and Administration and other officers with an interest in the agenda items. This was a normal preliminary meeting which considered the procedure and likely timing of each agenda item. At that meeting Councillor Loveday sought and received verbal confirmation of the advice given within the report and briefing paper as to the propriety of dealing with the steading applications separately from the wider golf resort applications.

10. When the steading applications came before the Area Committee meeting on 24 April 2007 Councillor Loveday introduced the agenda item by referring to the clear connection with the wider golf resort applications and advised members to consider the steading as a separate issue. Several members apparently made comment about the timing of the steading applications and whether their decision might be interpreted as implying their position on the golf resort, but this input appears to have been general rather than specific. Councillor Loveday in his role as Chair has also accepted that he raised similar concerns, although accepting the advice of the Area Manager and planning officers. The input of individual members was not recorded in the official minute of the meeting but the recollection of the Area Manager was to the effect that the members, rather than implying prejudgement of the resort, were raising a concern as to being regarded as having done so.

11. Debate on the steading applications was brief and they were decided without a division in accordance with the recommendation to grant contained within the planning officer's report. In so doing however it was agreed by the members that a specific resolution be recorded in the minute that their decision would not prejudice any subsequent decision on the golf resort applications. I considered that this was a plain statement of intent which clearly and appropriately addressed the possible implication that might otherwise be drawn from the decision to grant applications which were publicly known to be a preliminary to the wider golf resort proposal. While it would have been within the discretion of the Committee to have deferred the determination of the steading applications until the entire golf resort was before them, there was no planning reason to do so and such a decision might have been subject to challenge by the applicants.

12. I did not consider that the respondents, who it should be stressed made their decision in a corporate rather than individual capacity, acted in a manner which showed bias in favour of the golf resort, or implied a prejudgement or predetermination of the wider applications. The debate on the steading applications did not extend to discussion of the merits of the wider project and it is understood that no public statements were made by individual members which might imply their position on the resort. Accordingly their actions in granting the applications for the conversion and use of Menie Park Lodge were properly taken and did not breach the Code and I found accordingly.

13. Having considered the information that arose from my investigation, I concluded that Councillors Paul Johnston, John Loveday, Alisan Norrie, Anne Robertson and Debra Storr; and former Councillors James Anderson, Alan Cameron, Stuart B Mair, J Brinsley Sheridan and Alistair Strachan had not contravened the Councillors' Code of Conduct.

D Stuart Allan,
Chief Investigating Officer.
Forsyth House
Innova Campus
Rosyth Europarc
Rosyth
Fife
KY11 2UU
28 September 2007