Information on Investigations

Which Sector? > Local Authorities > East Ayrshire > LA/EA/198

Note Of Decision Web Version

Complaint no. LA/EA/198 concerning an alleged contravention of the Councillors' Code of Conduct by Councillor Maureen McKay of East Ayrshire Council

1. Complaint number LA/EA/198 alleged a contravention of the Councillors' Code of Conduct ("the Code") by Councillor Maureen McKay ("the respondent").

2. It was alleged that the respondent had contravened the Code, in particular paragraphs 7.3 and 7.10 relating to conduct when dealing with planning applications.

3. The person complaining ("the complainant") alleged that the respondent wrongly advised him that he would have a right of appeal against the decision of the Planning Committee, in respect of a planning application to which he was objecting. He also alleged that the respondent changed her explanation of the reason why she had apologised to him for giving him wrong advice and that she reneged on two appointments which she had made to meet with him.

4. After seeking advice from the Council's Monitoring Officer the respondent, who is Chair of the Planning Committee which was dealing with the application, decided that she would not attend the meeting of the Planning Committee at which the planning application would be considered, as she was acquainted with the applicant. Consequently, she took no part in the consideration of the application.

5. Prior to the Planning Committee meeting the complainant spoke to the respondent, by telephone, to discuss concerns which he had regarding the Planning Department. The complainant alleged that, during the course of their conversation, the respondent advised him that he would have a right of appeal in the event of the Planning Committee approving the application. He claimed that, based on this advice, while he appeared before the Planning Committee as an objector, he did not fully prepare or present his objection, believing that he would have an opportunity to do so at a subsequent formal appeal.

6. The complainant further alleged that, in a telephone conversation with the respondent, following the Planning Committee meeting, the respondent apologised to him for having given him wrong advice and stated that she did not know that there was no third party right of appeal. He also alleged that the respondent had agreed on two occasions to meet with him to discuss his concerns and then subsequently withdrew her offers.

7. The respondent claimed that she was aware that there was no third party right of appeal and that she had previously given accurate advice to other constituents on the same issue. She believes that she did not give wrong advice about his right of appeal. She acknowledged that, as her conversation with the complainant had taken place more than one year previously, she could not give an absolute guarantee on this but said that if she had given him wrong advice this would have been as a result of a mistake.

8. The respondent stated that, during the course of her second telephone conversation with the complainant, she may have extended a general apology to him for any contribution she may have made to his sense of injustice but she does not believe that she apologised specifically for having given him wrong advice.

9. She accepted that she withdrew her offer to meet with the complainant and explained that she did so because she was unwilling to put herself in a potentially abusive situation and that, in any event, the complainant had ample opportunity to attend her surgeries and Community Council meetings which she regularly attends.

10. In the absence of any witnesses to the telephone conversations between the complainant and Councillor McKay I found that it was not possible to form a conclusive view on the nature of the advice given to the complainant. Even if Councillor McKay had given the complainant wrong advice about his right of appeal (and I emphasize I made no such finding) before this could be considered as a possible breach of the Code there would have to be evidence that she did so knowingly. I found no such evidence during the course of my investigation. In regard to Councillor McKay's wider role in the processing of the planning application I found that there was nothing improper in her conduct.

11. In relation to complaint number LA/EA/198, I concluded that Councillor Maureen McKay had not contravened the Councillors' Code of Conduct.

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