Information on Investigations

Which Sector? > Local Authorities > Dumfries and Galloway > LA/DG/819

Note of Decision Web Version

Complaint no. LA/DG/819 concerning an alleged contravention of the Councillors’ Code of Conduct by Councillor Grahame Forster of Dumfries and Galloway Council

1. Complaint number LA/DG/819 alleged a contravention of the Councillors’ Code of Conduct (“the Code”) by Councillor Grahame Forster (“the respondent”).

2. It was alleged that the respondent had contravened the Code, in particular the provisions set out in section 2 relating to Openness and Honesty and in paragraph 7.2 on Dealing with Planning Applications.

3. The persons complaining (“the complainants”) own a building adjacent to the harbour in the village of Drummore.  They alleged that Councillor Forster was at the forefront of promoting a Harbour Empowerment Order and a compulsory purchase order of Drummore Harbour and their own adjoining property.  They complained that he had denied them access to meetings regarding this.  They also said that although he had a conflict of interest, he had passed judgement on their planning application and made an offensive comment; that their planning application was unfairly heard, that the respondent lacked probity and transparency and was incapable of impartiality in his dealings on their planning application. 

4. Dealing firstly with the complainants’ planning application; this was determined in March 2008 following a site visit by the Wigtown Area Committee.  When it came to the committee, Councillor Forster moved that it be refused, stating his view that the proposals detracted from the character and amenity of the area.  On a vote being taken, a majority of the Area Committee, including all three local members, voted to refuse.  Against that background, I do not consider that the complainants’ application was unfairly heard, nor that Councillor Forster had a conflict of interest when dealing with the application.  There is no evidence the respondent had any personal financial or non-financial interest in the harbour area at Drummore.  The complainants’ contention is that his conflict of interest arose from his support for the Community Council’s proposal for a Harbour Empowerment Order.  However, there is nothing in the Code of Conduct which prevents a councillor from taking a favourable view of any issue which may be raised and is generally supported within their community and indeed, that issue was still at public consultation and had not been decided at the time the complainants’ application was considered.  I did not consider that, in dealing with the complainants’ planning application, the respondent breached the key principles of Openness and Honesty in section 2.1 nor section 7.2 of the Code of Conduct.

5. At the Area Committee meeting on 6 February 2008 the respondent made a comment (“the cheque is in the post”); this was indeed regrettable and it is not surprising that the complainants questioned it.  They spoke about it to a planning officer who raised it with Councillor Forster, but the planning officer confirmed that he, himself, had not taken anything offensive from it.  Councillor Forster, in turn, explained what had prompted him to make the remark, namely  that he was alluding to the authority not knowing how long it might take for developments to take place or be completed at the complainants’ boat shed site when there was no time limit which could be placed on it.  As remarks can sometimes be misconstrued, there is a need to be careful and thoughtful in public speaking.  However, Councillor Forster explained his meaning and I accepted that he meant nothing underhand when he made the remark.  I did not consider, therefore, that it amounted to a breach of the Code of Conduct.

6. The information obtained during the investigation showed that the local Community Council were concerned about the condition of Drummore Harbour and its immediate environs.  In raising this with the Council, the Community Council were fulfilling the purpose for which they were set up.  It was open to the Community Council to suggest this and indeed to approach a local member on the matter if they wished.  Likewise, it was open to Councillor Grahame Forster, in turn, to decide whether this was a proposal he wished to support.

7. I did not see anything to suggest that the decision to proceed with a Harbour Empowerment Order was arrived at other than through the democratic process.  It was placed before the Planning, Housing and Environment Services Committee in September 2007.  After public consultation, it was approved by the Committee and passed by 9 votes to 5.  It was not only agreed by Councillor Forster but also by Councillor Higgins, the other local member on the Planning, Housing and Environment Services Committee.  The complainants have described Councillor Forster as being at the forefront of the plan.  I have not seen a great deal of evidence of that, but in any event, councillors are entitled to their view on proposals affecting their ward areas. Regarding the complaint about the arrangement and lack of access to meetings, I did not consider that Councillor Forster’s action in facilitating a meeting between Community Council representatives and officers gave grounds for a complaint of breach of the Code of Conduct.  It would not be uncommon for a councillor to do so.  In this case, Councillor Forster indicated he would not be involved in any wider invitation list, leaving it to Community Council representatives to decide if they wished others to attend.

8. There was no evidence that Councillor Grahame Forster acted unfairly or improperly in regard to the matters alleged in the complaint, or that he had a conflict of interest which breached the Councillors’ Code of Conduct.

9. Having considered the information that arose from my investigation, I concluded that Councillor Grahame Forster had not contravened the Councillors’ Code of Conduct.

D Stuart Allan

Chief Investigating Officer

Forsyth House

Innova Campus

Rosyth Europarc

Rosyth

KY11 2UU

13 May 2009