Information on Investigations

Which Sector? > Local Authorities > Aberdeenshire >LA/As/788

Note of Decision Web Version

Complaint no. LA/As/788 concerning an alleged contravention of the Councillors’ Code of Conduct by Councillors Amanda Allan, Anne Allan, Alastair Bews, Graeme Clark, Linda Clark, John Cox, Jean Dick, Sandy Duncan, Allison Grant, Ian Gray, Allan Hendry, Fergie Hood, Albert Howie, Fiona McRae, Sydney Mair, Rob Merson, Stuart Pratt, Andy Ritchie, Norman Smith, Stephen Smith, Joanna Strathdee, Sandy Stronach, Bryan Stuart, Ian Tait, Brian Topping and Michael Watt of Aberdeenshire Council

1. Complaint number LA/As/788 alleged a contravention of the Councillors’ Code of Conduct (“the Code”) by Councillors Amanda Allan, Anne Allan, Alastair Bews, Graeme Clark, Linda Clark, John Cox, Jean Dick, Sandy Duncan, Allison Grant, Ian Gray, Allan Hendry, Fergie Hood, Albert Howie, Fiona McRae, Sydney Mair, Rob Merson, Stuart Pratt, Andy Ritchie, Norman Smith, Stephen Smith, Joanna Strathdee, Sandy Stronach, Bryan Stuart, Ian Tait, Brian Topping and Michael Watt (“the respondents”).

2. It was alleged that the respondents had contravened the Code, in particular, the provisions in paragraph 6.4 relating to Lobbying and Access to Councillors and paragraph 7.8 relating to Dealing with Planning Applications.

3. The person complaining alleged that councillors who were not members of the Infrastructure Services Committee (“the IS Committee”) (which deals with planning applications) placed improper pressure on members of that Committee, at a meeting of the Council on 12 December 2007, when the Council decided by 26 votes to 10 to replace the former Chair of the IS Committee. The complainant alleged that the Chair was voted out of office because other members did not agree with his action when he had exercised his casting vote on the IS Committee to refuse a planning application for a major golfing development. The complainant considered that the effect of the Council’s vote was to give a message to councillors on the IS Committee that their position on the Committee was dependent on making decisions which were acceptable to their peers.

4. The complainant acknowledged that he did not know whether there had been any discussions within the political groups on the Council regarding how councillors should vote on planning applications or on the replacement of the Chair of the IS Committee and that this was not a substantive part of his complaint.

5. The complainant was advised that, in the absence of any evidence that these matters had been the subject of group voting, this aspect of the complaint could not be pursued further. It was explained to the complainant that, under its Scheme of Delegation the Council, therefore, has the power to appoint and replace Chairs and Vice-Chairs of Committees and that the Scheme places no restriction on the Council regarding the grounds on which a Chair or Vice-Chair can be replaced. The Council had the right, therefore, as a democratically elected body to decide to replace the Chair of the IS Committee and, in doing so, had acted in accordance with its approved powers. The provisions of paragraph 7.8 of the Code, in any event, apply to conduct prior to a planning application being considered and voted upon. As the conduct referred to by the complainant was in relation to the conduct of councillors at a meeting of the Council (as opposed to the conduct of councillors in relation to their duties as members of the IS Committee) and was not in relation to the determination of a planning application it did not fall within the provisions of paragraph 7.8.

6. Having considered the information that arose from my initial inquiries I concluded that there were no grounds for pursuing the complaint and the councillors named in paragraph (1) above had not contravened the Councillors’ Code of Conduct.

D Stuart Allan

Chief Investigating Officer

Forsyth House

Innova Campus

Rosyth Europarc

Rosyth

KY11 2UU

14 November 2008