Information on Investigations

Which Sector? > Local Authorities > East Dunbartonshire > LA/ED/896

Note Of Decision Web Version

Complaint no. LA/ED/896 concerning an alleged contravention of the Councillors’ Code of Conduct by Councillor Una Walker of East Dunbartonshire Council

1. Complaint number LA/ED/896 alleged a contravention of the Councillors’ Code of Conduct (“the Code”) by Councillor Una Walker (“the respondent”).

2. It was alleged that the respondent had contravened the Code, in particular, the provisions of paragraph 3.14 on Conduct in the Chamber or in Committee.

3. The person complaining (“the complainant”) alleged that following his presentation to a planning hearing at Milngavie Town Hall on 1 September 2009 the respondent questioned him in an aggressive manner, sought to discredit him, made a prolonged verbal attack on an unrelated matter, showed disrespect towards him as a member of the public, and gave an impression of bias towards the applicants.

4. I was required to consider the manner and intent of the respondent’s questioning of the complainant in relation to his presentation to the planning hearing.  To a large extent I was obliged to rely on the recollection and perception of the complainant and witnesses, together with the rough notes taken by officers present.  Inevitably these sources did not provide a comprehensive account of events and I was unwilling to base my decision on extrapolation or interpretation which went beyond the established facts.

5. I was satisfied that the Council had in place an appropriate procedure for the conduct of planning hearings and that this was followed on 1 September 2009.  The complainant had prepared a written paper which articulated his position as that of a representative of three Community Councils and several individuals, and made it clear that while objecting to the specific application they were supportive of the applicant as a local sporting club.  The presentation was appropriately and logically structured on material planning issues. 

6. It was also clear that the complainant had been questioned by at least seven councillors on matters which he had raised in his presentation and that his answers in so far as they were recorded in the notes taken by officers raised no additional matters.  In that context the introduction by the respondent of an apparent contradiction in the complainant’s approach to the provision of sports pitches was anomalous and deviated from the consideration of the application itself to an attempt to establish a motivation by the complainant for opposing the proposals.

7. It was unclear from the notes as to whether the respondent actually expressed her remarks as a question and if so how she intended to treat the response.  Rather it appeared to have been a statement, unrelated to the application under consideration, which the complainant was called upon to rebut.  I supported the intervention of the Chair, which might usefully have been made earlier, to establish the point that the respondent was attempting to make.  It was for the Chair to regulate the conduct of the meeting and in fairness it may have been difficult for him to know when and in what form the respondent would frame her question to the complainant, and importantly to assess its relevance to the application. In the event I did not think that the respondent achieved any useful purpose other than to confirm the respondent’s focus on the merits of the application. 

8. As regards the respondent’s manner and intent I was bound to say that this was a matter for individual perception.  The complainant and witnesses opposed to the application took the view that the respondent was aggressive in tone and referred to her persistence and body language.  The respondent denied this and the officers noted nothing remarkable in her approach.  Certainly the respondent’s comments related to an earlier exchange between herself and the complainant, (albeit copied by him to others), essentially as a private matter which bore no relationship to his representative role at the planning hearing.  The respondent was, in my view, ill-advised in taking this approach, and lacked the objectivity desirable for the consideration of planning decisions.  I was mindful however that while her exchange with the complainant may have seemed to be a major part of the Council’s response to his presentation, it was in fact only one of some fifteen points or questions raised by members and effectively came to an end with the Chair’s intervention.  I did not consider that the language employed by the respondent was inherently rude or disrespectful, and she did comply, perhaps belately, with the Chair’s direction.  On that basis I did not consider that the respondent’s conduct was such as to breach paragraph 3.14 of the Code and I found accordingly.

9. I also gave consideration as to whether the respondent demonstrated bias in favour of the application at the hearing, a matter which falls within the scope of paragraphs 7.2 and 7.3 of the Code.  Given that her recorded input to the hearing was restricted to her exchange with the complainant, the intent of which appeared to have little direct relevance to the application itself, I did not consider that there were sufficient grounds to suggest predetermination or bias.  The respondent had indeed exercised caution in attending a meeting of Baldernock Community Council which was to be addressed on the proposals by the applicants.  Councillor Walker stated that she made her decision to support the application on the basis of her own familiarity with the site, the representations and information provided at the hearing, and consideration of the planning report.  On the information presented to me I was unable to challenge this statement.

10. Having considered the information that arose from my investigation, I concluded that Councillor Una Walker had not contravened the Councillors’ Code of Conduct.

D Stuart Allan

Chief Investigating Officer

44 Drumsheugh Gardens

Edinburgh

EH3 7SW

12 February 2010