Information on Investigations

Which Sector? > Local Authorities > Aberdeenshire >LA/As/925

Note of Decision Web Version

Complaint no. LA/As/925 concerning an alleged contravention of the Councillors’ Code of Conduct by Councillors Albert Howie and Peter Argyle and unnamed members of the Infrastructure Services Committee of Aberdeenshire Council

1. Complaint number LA/As/925 alleged a contravention of the Councillors’ Code of Conduct (“the Code”) by Councillors Albert Howie, Peter Argyle and other unnamed members of the Infrastructure Services Committee.

2. It was alleged that the respondents contravened the Councillors’ Code of Conduct.  I considered whether there was a breach by any councillor of paragraph 3.14 relating to Conduct in the Chamber or Committee.  I also considered whether Councillor Peter Argyle breached the key principles of Integrity and Objectivity in section 2.1 and whether Councillor Albert Howie failed to declare an interest as required in section 5.  I further considered whether either Councillor Argyle or Councillor Howie breached section 7 of the Code relating to Taking Decisions on Individual Applications.

3. The person complaining (“the complainant”) alleged that unnamed members of the Infrastructure Services Committee behaved rudely and talked among themselves when he addressed the Committee about his objections to a planning application for a proposed landfill facility.  He complained that they did not appear to take the proceedings seriously and that one member made a facetious remark about him during the meeting.

4. A complainant is normally required to name or identify any councillor against whom a complaint has been made.  In this case, for the reasons which the complainant explained, I accepted that he was unable to provide such identification.  From his description, the investigation attempted to establish whether any members of the Committee behaved rudely and spoke among themselves. However, such conduct has not been established.  The Committee Clerk indicated that the complainant presented his objections quickly and she thought it was possible that at certain points some members may have asked each other what he said.  Beyond that, there was no confirmation of improper conduct by members of the Committee, nor of a facetious remark by a particular member.  I found, therefore, that there was no breach of paragraph 3.14 of the Code of Conduct by any member of the Infrastructure Services Committee.

5. Turning to the complaint against Councillor Peter Argyle, the complainant alleged lack of integrity and objectivity on the part of Councillor Argyle in regard to the conduct of the Committee's consideration of the planning application.  The complainant believed that a decision to approve the application had been made prior to the Infrastructure Services Committee meeting.  He felt aggrieved that the time allowed for his objections was insufficient and that his offer to come back and appear before the Committee again was met with silence from Councillor Argyle as Chair.  He felt there was a rushed and bulldozed approach when the particular planning application was dealt with.

6. As Chair of the Committee, it was indeed for Councillor Argyle to ensure that the complainant was dealt with fairly as he addressed the meeting. As stated in paragraph 4, I did not find evidence of misbehaviour by members of the Committee during consideration of the planning application that necessitated any action by Councillor Argyle as Chair.  Councillor Argyle disputed the complainant's belief that a decision to approve the application had been made prior to the Infrastructure Services Committee meeting, which appeared to be based on the complainant having seen a reference to a meeting in the Committee diary a few days before the Infrastructure Services Committee meeting. Councillor Argyle has explained that it is routine procedure for the Chair and Vice Chair of a Committee to have a pre-meeting with relevant officials to discuss the forthcoming agenda and any issues that may be thrown up by the agenda papers. This is normal local authority practice and Councillor Argyle has confirmed that during such pre-meetings there is no discussion of the actual planning applications.

7. In regard to the time allowed for his speech to the Committee, the complainant was allocated the full time allotted under the Council's Standing Orders which govern the conduct of meetings.  From his own standpoint, the complainant clearly wanted a much greater opportunity to expand at length on his views.  However, his offer to return and speak to the Committee on additional days would have been beyond any normal practice adopted by local authorities and would explain why it was not taken up by the Chair.

8. The complainant had pointed to the extensive information which he gathered during the formulation of his own objections and he compared this to the lesser information which Committee members seemed to have before them.  He also felt there was a rushed and bulldozed approach when the particular planning application was dealt with by the Infrastructure Services Committee.  On these points, it is relevant to bear in mind that this application had been the subject of consideration by planning officers over a three to four year period and they had conducted consultations with a substantial number of departments and agencies.  Planning officers had prepared a detailed report for Committee members. In addition, the application had previously been considered by the Banff and Buchan Area Committee whose deliberations and decision would have been available.  Against all this background, councillors would have assimilated considerable information about the planning application. Councillor Argyle has stated that, as Chair of the meeting, he allowed every member who wished to speak an opportunity to take part in the debate or to ask questions.  From examination of the minutes and the Clerk's notes of the meeting, there were no grounds in this case to show that the debate was curtailed or that the planning application was bulldozed through the Committee meeting.  After consideration of the complaints made, I found that Councillor Peter Argyle had not breached the key principles of Integrity and Objectivity in the Code.  In regard to section 7 of the Code Taking Decisions on Individual Applications, I found that he had not breached the requirement to ensure that the decision on the planning application was properly taken and that the parties involved were dealt with fairly.

9. The complaints against Councillor Albert Howie were that he failed to declare an interest in the landfill planning application and he participated in its consideration despite the application having been submitted by his neighbour's company.  I have considered Councillor Howie's response, which is to the effect that his relationship with the applicant is so distant as to not require a declaration of interest.  In the circumstances described by Councillor Howie and where no interest has been asserted other than the proximity of his neighbour's house 1 km away, I did not consider there had been a breach of the requirement to declare an interest under the provisions of section 5 of the Code.  In that case, there was nothing to prevent Councillor Howie from participating in the debate on the application.  The Clerk's notes indicated that Councillor Howie made one contribution to the debate and I did not consider that this amounted to any unfairness in terms of section 7 of the Code.  I found that there was no breach of the Code of Conduct by Councillor Albert Howie.

10. Having considered the information that arose from my investigation, I concluded that Councillors Albert Howie, Peter Argyle and other members of the Infrastructure Services Committee had not contravened the Councillors’ Code of Conduct.

D Stuart Allan

Chief Investigating Officer

44 Drumsheugh Gardens

Edinburgh

EH3 7SW

9 July 2010