Information on Investigations

Which Sector? > Local Authorities > Dundee City > LA/D/515

Note of Decision Web Version

Complaint no. LA/D/515 concerning an alleged contravention of the Councillors' Code of Conduct by Councillor Neil Powrie of Dundee City Council

1. Complaint number LA/D/515 alleged a contravention of the Councillors' Code of Conduct ("the Code") by Councillor Neil Powrie ("the respondent").

2. It was alleged that the respondent had contravened the Councillors' Code of Conduct and in particular the provisions in section 2 relating to Duty, in section 5 relating to Declaration of Interests and in section 7 relating to Taking Decisions on Individual Applications.

3.0 The complaint alleged that the respondent;

3.1 Subverted the Council's due processes and procedures by discussing matters related to the development of the complainant's property at 6 Glamis Terrace, Dundee with the Director of Planning and his staff;

3.2 Acted against the interests of the complainant and his family by undertaking investigations, consultations and discussions with and on behalf of his neighbours in connection with planning permission granted by Dundee City Council to the complainant in 2003 in respect of the proposed extension of his family home at 6 Glamis Terrace, Dundee;

3.3 Failed to make himself sufficiently familiar with the situation and failed to discuss the matter with the complainant;

3.4 Failed to represent the interests of all his constituents including the complainant, contrary to the general principle relating to Duty as set out in the Code; and

3.5 Contrary to the requirements of the Code relating to non financial interests and dealing with individual applications, failed to acknowledge the conflict of interest arising from his prior commitment to the position of those residents who were opposed to the development, and wrongly fully participated in formal Council meetings dealing with the matter.

4.0 The facts in this case - as opposed to the inferences to be drawn from them - were not contentious. They related to the planning history of 6 Glamis Terrace, Dundee. Put briefly the complainant sought and was granted planning permission in 2003 for the construction of a new dormer window and balcony at first floor level, and for the erection of a single storey double garage and a conservatory at ground floor level. As the project developed on site changes were made to the construction to accommodate the complainant's desire to use the garage as a play area for his children. In 2005 the complainant's neighbours questioned whether these changes were consistent with the planning permission granted in 2003 and as a result the Council's planning officers reviewed the developments, concluding that they did not represent a 'material' departure from the planning permission which had been granted. Their discretion to make that assessment and give that confirmation on behalf of the Council was clearly set out in the Council's scheme of delegations and represented an ex facie valid decision of the corporate body. In the face of continuing complaints from the complainant's neighbours the Council then reconsidered the exercise of that delegation at meetings of the Development Quality Committee in May and June 2006 as a result of which the decision made by officers was, in effect, overturned.

5.0 This was obviously a critical issue for the complainant and while the consequences - legal and otherwise - for the Council in recalling an apparently valid decision lay beyond the scope of this determination, it was perhaps not surprising that the complainant might have questioned the regularity of the process. In the absence of any other explanation, it might also have explained why he was also concerned about the respondent's role in the matter. The approach taken by the Council was just that, however, a corporate process for which the respondent, as an individual councillor, could not be held responsible. In that context the complaint that he subverted the Council's processes (paragraph 3.1) was not, in my view, made out.

6.0 The respondent's evidence was to the effect that he had received complaints and facilitated their consideration by the Council through dialogue with appropriate officers. He did not seek to insinuate his opinion on the merits of the controversy in doing so. That view received support from the Council's Monitoring Officer who felt that the respondent did not have a closed mind on the planning issues, but did want to explore whether and how the Council as a corporate body could consider the issues which had been raised by the complainant's neighbours. The complainant very fairly explained at interview that he had not enjoyed a comprehensive view of the Council's decision making process, having had access to only a 'snapshot' of the internal mechanisms of the Council. In these circumstances neither was I of the view that the respondent orchestrated a campaign designed to prejudice the interests of the complainant and his family as is suggested in paragraph 3.2.

7.0 Similarly, I did not think that the terms of the correspondence between the Council and his neighbours read individually or together warranted the conclusion which the complainant sought to draw (paragraph 3.2) that the respondent conspired with officers and neighbours to his detriment. The reference to a 'discussion', for instance, did not necessarily imply a rehearsal of the merits far less the adoption of a particular perspective.

8.0 I did not think that the respondent could be criticised for not familiarising himself with the issues in this case as is suggested in paragraph 3.3. He visited the site and generally appeared to have been diligent in making contact with the appropriate officers within the Council.

9.0 With the benefit of hindsight it might have been helpful if there had been direct contact between the complainant and respondent at an earlier stage. This would have perhaps avoided the parties reaching premature conclusions about their respective positions. That each party did not know but rather assumed the other's point of view did not in itself, however, warrant a conclusion that the respondent had failed to represent the interests of all his constituents. Consequently I did not find to be made out that part of the complaint set out in paragraph 3.4.

10.0 To some extent it follows from the view I took of the respondent's actions that I did not consider that he either adopted an advocacy role or approached the planning issues with a predetermined or closed mind set. Again the Council's Monitoring Officer was of assistance explaining that she had advised the respondent on the implications of the Code prior to the meetings of the Development Quality Committee. As indicated at paragraph 6.0 she was of the view that the mind of the respondent was open to the proper consideration of the material put before members at the meetings on 22 May and 30 June 2006. I found that the respondent approached the meetings of the Development Quality Committee with an open mind and accordingly I did not consider that the substance of the complaint in paragraph 5.2.5 was made out.

11.0 Having considered the information that arose from my investigation, I therefore concluded that Councillor Neil Powrie had not contravened the Councillors' Code of Conduct.

D Stuart Allan,
Chief Investigating Officer.
Forsyth House
Innova Campus
Rosyth Europarc
Rosyth
Fife
KY11 2UU
16 May 2007