Information on Investigations

Which Sector? > Local Authorities > East Dunbartonshire > LA/ED/392

Note Of Decision Web Version

Complaint no. LA/ED/392 concerning alleged contraventions of the Councillors' Code of Conduct by Councillor Fiona Callison and Councillor John Morrison of East Dunbartonshire Council

1. Complaint number LA/ED/392 alleged contraventions of the Councillors' Code of Conduct ("the Code") by Councillor Fiona Callison ("the first respondent") and Councillor John Morrison ("the second respondent").

2. It was alleged that the first respondent had contravened the provisions of section 6 on Lobbying and Access to Councillors, and section 7 on Dealing with Planning Applications.

3. It was alleged that the second respondent had contravened the key principles of Accountability and Stewardship, and Leadership, set out in section 2 of the Code; and the provisions of section 3 on Responsibilities to the Council as a Member of the Public.

4. The complaint against the first respondent related to her consideration of a planning application in respect of a housing development on land adjacent to Annan Drive, Bearsden. The complainant alleged that (a) the first respondent expressed her voting intention prior to the meeting of the Planning Board on 28 June 2005 (the first complaint); and (b) that the first respondent voted in compliance with a political group decision (the second complaint).

5. The complaint against the second respondent alleged (a) that his support for the Council's affordable housing policy was in contradiction to his opposition to development within his own ward (the third complaint); and (b) that between 7 July 2005 and 30 November 2005 the second respondent made use of free car parking facilities at Westerton Library, Bearsden and thus acted in a manner which could lead members of the public to believe that preferential treatment was being sought (the fourth complaint).

7. In the absence of such evidence I could only treat this complaint as an assertion on the part of the complainant. It was pertinent however to examine the contextual evidence in the form of the correspondence between the first respondent and the complainant, and the manner in which the complainant's concerns were passed to the planning officer by the first respondent.

8. In this regard I noted the unequivocal terms of a letter in which the first respondent set out the conditions under which she would agree to meet with the complainant. The first respondent clearly set out her position as to not being compromised into prejudging the application and I found that this statement was totally consistent with her refutation of the complaint. Likewise her two e-mails to the planning officer reflected the representations put by her constituents and could not be construed as indicating a voting intention.

9. At the meeting of the Planning Board to consider the Annan Drive application the first respondent sought to ensure that an expert flooding report obtained by the residents would be taken into consideration but did not in any inappropriate way attempt to influence other members.

10. Accordingly I considered that the first respondent acted properly regarding the planning application relating to Annan Drive and that there was no evidence to substantiate the complainant's assertion that Councillor Callison pre-judged the planning application.

11. Second Complaint. In regard to the allegation that the first respondent voted in accordance with a political instruction on the Annan Park planning application, I noted that this relied solely upon a telephone conversation during which the first respondent was alleged to have spontaneously volunteered this information. Given that the complainant had already raised the issue of pre-judgement, such additional statement on the part of the first respondent appears unlikely. In this case however there was corroborative evidence of a witness whose recall of the overheard telephone conversation was in accordance with the account given by the complainant.

12. The first respondent denied this aspect of the complaint and I noted the confusion as to whether it was contained within one, or more than one, telephone conversations. The evidence of Councillor McNaughton, as Chair of the Planning Board, showed a clear understanding of the absolute bar on political influence in the consideration of planning applications and of the clear distinction that is applied between planning policy and quasi-judicial decision-making on applications. Councillor McNaughton's position was reflected in the first respondent's correspondence and reiterated at interview, and also confirmed by the Liberal Democrat whip, Councillor Moody.

13. Had political direction indeed been applied it might be expected that this would have been demonstrated by the distribution of votes for or against the Annan Drive planning application. Although a roll-call vote was not taken, the recall of the Chair, the Monitoring Officer, and the first respondent, indicated that there was no political consistency in the voting distribution.

14. There was a conflict of evidence as to the verbal exchange between the first respondent and the complainant. The absence of any overt indication of the application of a political whip led me to favour the evidence of the first respondent, however, and I therefore found that the first respondent did not vote in accordance with a political direction.

15. Third Complaint. This complaint regarding the second respondent centred on the affordable housing policy adopted by the Council and the response to representations from a significant number of residents of Bearsden. While the extent of their concerns was evident from the number of representations received in respect of the development proposals for Annan Drive and similar sites, I noted that the Council engaged in an extensive programme of public consultation and publicity, including a public inquiry process, prior to implementing the finalised Local Plan.

16. The complainant's reference to the apparent exclusion of Cluny Park, which lies within the second respondent's ward, from the development partnership was speculative. Having examined the planning status and ownership of Cluny Park I was satisfied that it is neither zoned for development or within the Council's ownership. As such it has not been included within the development partnership. No evidence was found to suggest that the second respondent inappropriately influenced this situation. The rejection of a planning application was entirely in accordance with the Local Plan and the planning officer's recommendation, and confirmed by public local inquiry.

17. While it is inevitable that disagreements will arise over matters of policy, particularly when they involve issues of a sensitive nature such as development on open space, this is an integral part of local government. In this case a democratic process of consultation and decision-making was undertaken prior to the adoption of the Local Plan and I had no evidence that the Council as a whole, or the second respondent in particular, in any way departed from proper process.

18. The two petitions sent to the Council in January 2004 and February 2005 raised concerns about the development proposals within Bearsden and the possible adverse impact on local amenity and services. I noted that the petitions did not name any individual member, and were prompted by specific development issues rather than breaches of the Code. They post-dated the Local Plan process however and in effect were an attempt to re-open the debate on the Council's housing policy.

19. Council procedure, as contained within Standing Orders, provides for such petitions to be referred to the appropriate Committee, and this was followed in the case of the January 2004 petition. The later petition, organised by the complainant, repeated the concerns. The content of these petitions did not fall within the scope of the Code but I observed that the procedure adopted was in accordance with Standing Orders, and the subsequent decision of the Development and Environment Committee on 2 March 2004 was consistent with the local planning process.

20. I did not consider that the issues raised within this allegation constituted breaches of the key principles of Accountability and Stewardship, or Leadership, on the part of the second respondent, and I found accordingly.

21. Fourth Complaint. In regard to the second respondent's use of the public car park at Westerton Library I found that the premises were owned by the Council, that while unregulated by any statutory provision, parking was set aside for the use of library patrons and signposted accordingly, and that use by others would be inappropriate. I also noted that the second respondent admitted that he had used the car park on occasions other than as a customer of the library and that he accepted that he was the owner of the car shown in the photographs produced by the complainant and purporting to have been taken on 7 July 2005 and 30 November 2005.

22. At this juncture however the precise circumstances of the car being parked at Westerton Library were a matter of conjecture, albeit it could be construed as inappropriate. I noted however the absence of any mark by which the second respondent's car could be identified as belonging to an elected member and the lack of a regulatory framework to limit parking. The second respondent accepted that his use of the car park for non-Council duties was inappropriate and gave an assurance that there would be no recurrence. Whilst the respondent's occasional use of the car park might well be regarded as inappropriate, in the absence of any regulatory framework I did not consider this could reasonably be taken to amount to a breach of the Code and I found accordingly.

23. Having considered the information that arose from my investigation, I concluded that, Councillors Fiona Callison and John Morrison had not contravened the Councillors' Code of Conduct.

D Stuart Allan,
Chief Investigating Officer.
Forsyth House
Innova Campus
Rosyth Europarc
Rosyth
Fife
KY11 2UU
14 July 2006