Information on Investigations

Which Sector? > Local Authorities > Edinburgh Council > LA/E/370

Note Of Decision Web Version

Complaint no. LA/E/370 concerning an alleged contravention of the Councillors' Code of Conduct by Councillor Ian Perry of City of Edinburgh Council

1. Complaint number LA/E/370 alleged a contravention of the Councillors' Code of Conduct ("the Code") by Councillor Ian Perry ("the respondent").

2. It was alleged that the respondent had contravened the Code, in particular, paragraphs 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, and 5.4 of the Code which deal with Declaration of Interests, paragraph 5.5 of the Code which deals with Interests which Require Declaration, paragraphs 5.9, 5.10, and 5.11 of the Code which deal with Your Non-Financial Interests and paragraphs 5.16, 5.17 and 5.18 of the Code which deal with Effect of Declaration.

3. The person complaining, ("the complainant") Mr A, alleged that at two meetings of the Craigmillar Partnership Board which were held on 31 August and 2 November both 2005, the respondent, who is a member of the Board, failed to declare an interest, namely his Chairmanship of the EDI/Parc Board, and further, that, as the members of the Craigmillar Partnership Board were discussing the future of the Castlebrae Business Centre, the respondent failed to reveal the true intentions of EDI/Parc which were to acquire half of that building.

4. The Council reappointed the respondent to the Boards of the Craigmillar Partnership and the EDI Group on 22 May 2003 following the Council elections. The Council did not appoint Councillor Perry to the Board of Parc Craigmillar Ltd (formally known as Craigmillar Joint Venture Company). The Board of the EDI Group appointed him to that position.

5. The Craigmillar Partnership is an independent company limited by guarantee. It is one of a number of Social Inclusion Partnerships established both in Edinburgh and elsewhere in Scotland under Scottish Executive Initiative to address deprivation, with funding from Community Scotland. SIPs are broadly based partnerships which comprise the Council, other public agencies and the local community and business sectors. The complainant is a member of the Board of the Craigmillar Partnership. The respondent accepts that he did not declare an interest at the Craigmillar Partnership Board meetings on 31 August and 2 November both 2005.

6. I was satisfied that Councillor Perry's role as Chair of Parc was fully known to the members of the Craigmillar Partnership Board and the others who attend its meetings as observers and advisers. There appeared to be a standing agenda item, to which the respondent made a major contribution, to report on Parc's activities. The Boards of the Craigmillar Partnership, EDI and Parc should have complementary roles in the regeneration of Craigmillar and it should be a positive advantage that there is a senior member of the Council involved in all three.

7. The complainant and other community representatives in Craigmillar appeared to have concerns about Parc's plans for the redevelopment of Craigmillar being based on an urban design framework which the complainant considered would lead to "massive private housing development". It may have been the position that the complainant and others favoured a regeneration programme for Craigmillar which they perceived would place more emphasis on community facilities. However, I was satisfied that the future plans, such as they are, for the Castlebrae Business Centre did not create an interest of a type which it was necessary for the respondent to declare at the meetings of the Craigmillar Partnership Board on 31 August and 2 November, both 2005.

8. Having considered the information that arose from my investigation, I concluded that, Councillor Ian Perry had not contravened the Councillors' Code of Conduct.

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

2 March 2006