Information on Investigations

Which Sector? > Local Authorities > Dumfries and Galloway > LA/DG/689

Note of Decision Web Version

Complaint no. LA/DG/689 concerning an alleged contravention of the Councillors’ Code of Conduct by Councillor Jane Maitland of Dumfries and Galloway Council

1. Complaint number LA/DG/689 alleged a contravention of the Councillors’ Code of Conduct (“the Code”) by Councillor Jane Maitland (“the respondent”).

2. The person complaining (“the complainant”) alleged that Councillor Jane Maitland contravened the Councillors’ Code of Conduct as a result of the nature of her participation in the consideration of a planning application from the complainant which was considered at a meeting of Stewartry Area Planning Committee (“the Committee”) held on 16 January 2008.  The respondent proposed a motion to refuse the application, which was seconded, but the application was approved by six votes to two.

3. The complaint alleged that the respondent was not entitled to be critical of the design of the house which was the subject of the planning application, that she acted unfairly and was partial to and supportive of an objector to the application, that she was a friend of the objector and should have declared an interest and taken no part in the consideration of his application and that she tried to influence other councillors by putting forward a motion to refuse the application.  The complainant alleged that the respondent’s conduct represented a breach of paragraphs 7.2, 7.3, 7.5, 7.7, 7.8, and 7.9 of the Code (Dealing with Planning Applications).

4. The respondent stated that when the application came before the Committee for consideration she spoke for approximately two to three minutes on the application and that she was entitled to do so.  She considered that the design of a property was a planning matter which could properly be addressed by members.  She stated that she has no friendship with the objector, that she did not organise support against the application and that she had no interest which she should have declared.  The respondent rejected the complainant’s allegations that she had breached the Code.

5. The report on the application to the Committee showed that, among other things, the Planning Officer referred to the design of the proposed house; his recommendation was for approval of the application.  The Monitoring Officer confirmed that the respondent spoke for approximately three minutes when the application came before the Committee.

6. Under the Council’s procedures for the consideration of planning applications the Chairman of the Committee can invite anyone who so wishes to speak in support of, or against, an application.  The respondent was, therefore, entitled to speak when the complainant’s application was considered by the Committee.  In addition, when considering planning applications, in particular those relating to residential property, members are entitled to express an opinion on the design of a building, even where their view may differ from the Planning Officer’s view or that of other members of the Committee.  The fact that the respondent expressed a view on the design of the proposed house was not surprising as this was one of the matters which the Planning Officer had referred to in his report.  The complainant produced no evidence to support his allegations that the respondent had a friendship with the objector to his application or that she had a declarable interest.

7. I found that the nature of the respondent’s participation in the consideration of the complainant’s application was entirely consistent with the role which members are entitled to exercise in relation to such matters, that her participation was in accordance with the Council’s internal procedures, that there was no evidence she had a close friendship with an objector that might have amounted to a declarable interest and that she had not breached any of the paragraphs in section 7 of the Code identified by the complainant.

8. Having considered the information that arose from my investigation, I concluded that Councillor Jane Maitland had not contravened the Councillors’ Code of Conduct.

D Stuart Allan

Chief Investigating Officer

Forsyth House

Innova Campus

Rosyth Europarc

Rosyth

KY11 2UU

20 March 2008