Information on Investigations

Which Sector? > Local Authorities > Argyll and Bute > LA/AB/192

Note Of Decision Web Version

Complaint no. LA/AB/192 Concerning an alleged contravention of the Councillors' Code of Conduct by Councillors Alastair McKinlay, Alison Hay, Donald Kelly, John McAlpine, Bruce Robertson, Donald MacMillan, Robin Currie and John Findlay of Argyll and Bute Council

1. Complaint number LA/AB/192 alleged a contravention of the Councillors' Code of Conduct ("the Code") by Councillors Alastair McKinlay, Alison Hay, Donald Kelly, John McAlpine, Bruce Robertson, Donald MacMillan, Robin Currie and John Findlay ("the respondents").

2. It was alleged that the respondents had contravened the Code of Conduct, in particular that their actions breached key principles in section 2 relating to Duty, Selflessness, Accountability and Stewardship, Openness, Honesty, and Leadership and provisions of sections 5, 6 and 7 of the Code relating to Declaration of Interests, Lobbying and Access to Councillors and Dealing with Planning Applications.

3. The person complaining ("the complainant") alleged that the above named councillors, who are members of the Mid Kintyre Area Committee, should have conducted a site meeting prior to deciding whether or not to grant planning consent for a planning application on a site adjacent to the complainant's property. He complained of the manner in which the decision was taken. In his view, the Area Committee 'nodded through' approval of the application in that members did not speak to or explain their decision to grant approval and the Committee Chairman merely proceeded to say it was agreed. The complainant alleged that this was because the applicant was widely known to Committee members through various positions within the community. He further alleged that certain Councillors had associations with the planning applicant which should have resulted in declarations of interest on their part.

4. The investigation established that the decision whether to conduct a site inspection was a matter entirely for the discretion of the Area Committee and there was no requirement on a Committee to hold a site visit. In dealing with the vast majority of planning applications, Committees are entitled to rely on the information provided by their professional planners. In this case, although the property was within a conservation area, the proposed development was in accordance with the development plan and the objectors' views had been taken into account by the Head of Planning in making his recommendation. Several days before the meeting, Committee members had the planning officer's report and all the relevant information, including the objections and the conditions to be imposed on the application. Members were not obliged to visit the location. In relation to the complaint of failure to carry out a site visit, I did not find there was a breach of the Code of Conduct by any member of the Committee.

5. The complaint that the application was 'nodded through' because the applicant was well known to Committee members was not well founded and the degree of familiarity between the applicant and Committee members did not appear substantial. At the meeting, the local member stated his agreement with the planning officer's recommendations on the application. However, while the Code encourages openness in regard to decision making, there is no requirement for all Committee members to make a public statement of their position on each planning application. The manner in which the Committee decision was reached did not provide grounds for criticism. I found that there was no contravention of the Code of Conduct by the Committee Chair or by members in relation to the way in which the decision on the application was taken.

6. The Code places responsibility on members to decide whether they should declare an interest and, if so, whether such interest prevents them from taking part in Committee discussions or voting. Councillors Robin Currie and Alison Hay are members of the Liberal Democratic Party, of which the applicant is an officeholder in the area. The complainant contended that this was a substantial relationship and, as such, was an interest which should have been declared. In response, Councillor Currie stated that he had never had a conversation with the applicant. Councillor Hay stated that she had had no close contact with the applicant apart from occasional meetings and she had felt able to treat the planning application impartially. After considering the circumstances, I did not find that Councillors Robin Currie or Alison Hay required to declare an interest.

7. Likewise, I did not find failure on the part of Councillor John McAlpine to declare an interest. The complainant contended that Councillor McAlpine should have declared an interest because, as a contractor, he could benefit only if the planning application were approved. Councillors who are in relevant areas of business need to avoid giving the impression of gain from their decisions. Where there is a likelihood of benefit, councillors should declare an interest and not participate. Councillor McAlpine confirmed that he had not been asked to carry out any work at the property which was the subject of the planning application. I considered that no interest had been revealed and there was no breach of the Code of Conduct.

8. Having considered the information arising from my investigation, I concluded that Councillors Alastair McKinlay, Alison Hay, Donald Kelly, John McAlpine, Bruce Robertson, Donald MacMillan, Robin Currie and John Findlay did not contravene the Councillors' Code of Conduct.

D Stuart Allan,
Chief Investigating Officer.
Forsyth House
Innova Campus
Rosyth Europarc
Rosyth
Fife
KY11 2UU
1 November 2005