Information on Investigations

Which Sector? > Local Authorities>Edinburgh Council> LA/E/643,644,645,646

Note of Decision Web Version

Complaints nos. LA/E/643,644,645,646 concerning an alleged contravention of the Councillors' Code of Conduct by Councillor Jim Lowrie of The City of Edinburgh Council

1. Complaints numbers LA/E/643,644,645,646 alleged a contravention of the Councillors' Code of Conduct (“the Code”) by Councillor Jim Lowrie (“the respondent”).

2. It was alleged that the respondent had contravened the Code, in particular, paragraph 7.10 on Dealing With Planning Applications.

3. The persons complaining (“the complainants”) made reference to comments attributed to Councillor Jim Lowrie in the Edinburgh Evening News dated 11 October 2007. The complainants individually and collectively alleged that the respondent had contravened the requirements of paragraph 7.10 in relation to the maintenance of objectivity prior to the consideration of a pending planning application. The respondent is the Convener of the Council's Planning Committee.

4. The respondent acknowledged that the comments attributed to him in the article published in the Edinburgh Evening News on Thursday 11 October 2007 were accurate. They formed part of a reasonably short article the focal point of which was the view expressed, not principally by the respondent, but by the former Convener of the Council's Planning Committee, Mr Trevor Davies, to the effect that the Council risked alienating potential developers if the Council failed to efficiently process planning applications or if ‘too much opposition' was encountered by applicants.

5. Towards the end of the article, the respondent was credited with the following specific comments:

"I really don't feel that we are that far behind Glasgow in terms of the speed of the planning process, but the problem in Edinburgh is the number of historic buildings and the need to address heritage concerns.

"However, we don't want to fall behind and it's very important we listen to organisations like the chamber.

"We have to get big developments like Caltongate up and running as soon as we can."

6. The central issue in this case was whether these comments could properly be construed as indicating a predisposition on the part of the respondent in relation to any particular planning application for development in the Caltongate, contrary to the requirement of impartiality imposed by paragraph 7.10 of the Code. In that context it was important to recognise that the Council had adopted a strategic policy framework for the redevelopment of the Caltongate area. It should also be borne in mind that, in his comments, the respondent did not refer to any single specific pending or prospective planning application.

Although the circumstances were of a significantly different scale, as I have previously indicated (see for instance LA/NL/167) merely holding a view in favour of development of a particular site does not explicitly or by implication mean that an individual councillor has reached a particular view on a specific application prior to the meeting of the planning committee when that application is considered.

7. In relation to the first of the three comments attributed to him, I had no difficulty in concluding that the respondent as Convener of the Planning Committee was entitled, if not duty bound, to keep under consideration the relative speed of dealing with planning applications within the Council, and to comment upon the efficiency of processing without fear of contravening section 7 of the Code. The likelihood that these remarks reflected a concern about the speed of processing, rather than the merits of any one application were supported by

(a) the preceding discussion amongst interested parties about the speed of the planning process in Edinburgh and

(b) the evidence of an ongoing ‘benchmarking' exercise with other Scottish Cities in relation to the relative speed of their respective planning processes to which I was directed by the Monitoring Officer in the course of the investigation

Equally I saw no difficulty in the respondent's exhortation to address the historical and heritage dimensions often prevalent in the consideration of planning applications in Edinburgh city centre.

8. The second remark also indicated a concern about maintaining a satisfactory rate of progress in the processing of applications generally, rather than in the merits of any particular proposal. In the context of the article (where reference had already been made to the concern of the Chamber of Commerce that the planning service be fully resourced so as to accelerate the rate of processing), I also thought it reasonable that the respondent should recognise the importance of listening to such organisations whose members are significant users of the planning service. The first and second remarks made by the respondent related to the operational framework within which all planning decisions are processed by the Council and did not touch on the merits of any single proposal. To that extent they were, in my view, strategic considerations and fell outwith the scope of section 7 which, of course, deals with the treatment of individual applications.

9. Having considered the information that arose from my investigation, I therefore concluded that, Councillor Jim Lowrie had not contravened the Councillors' Code of Conduct.

D Stuart Allan

Chief Investigating Officer

Forsyth House

Innova Campus

Rosyth Europarc

Rosyth

KY11 2UU

06 March 2008