Information on Investigations

Which Sector? > Local Authorities > Falkirk > LA/Fa/143

Note Of Decision Web Version

Complaint no. LA/Fa/143 concerning an alleged contravention of the Councillors' Code of Conduct by Councillor John Constable of Falkirk Council

1. Complaint number LA/Fa/143 alleged a contravention of the Councillors' Code of Conduct ("the Code") by Councillor John Constable ("the respondent").

2. It was alleged that the respondent had contravened the Code, in particular, paragraphs 7.2 and 7.7 on conduct relating to a Councillor's involvement in Taking Decisions on Individual Applications.

3. The person complaining ("the complainant") alleged that, Councillor Constable in his capacity as Convener of the Regulatory Committee (which deals with planning applications), intervened in the consideration of a planning application which the complainant had submitted to Falkirk Council, and prevented it from reaching the Committee. He further alleged that, at a meeting with Council officers on 29 July 2004, the Development Control Officer who was present admitted that Councillor Constable had instructed that his planning application should be refused.

4. There was a fundamental disagreement between the parties as to what was said at the meeting in July 2004. The substantive issue, however, was not what was said but the actual nature of Councillor Constable's involvement in the processing of the complainant's application.

5. Under arrangements approved by the Council the Director of Development Services has delegated authority to determine planning applications, unless certain conditions apply. The Director confirmed that none of the stipulated conditions applied to this application and that she dealt with the application under her delegated powers.

6. In her report on the application she stated that the proposed development was contrary to the Council's planning policies for the area and for this, and other reasons she refused the application.

7. At interview she confirmed that none of the conditions which require an application to be referred to the Regulatory Committee applied in this case. She indicated that there had been no pressure from Councillor Constable to determine the application either way and that, regardless of what his views had been, she would not have recommended the application for approval.

8. In support of his complaint the complainant submitted copies of correspondence which had been exchanged between Councillor Constable and officers of the Planning Department and alleged that these provided evidence of improper intervention in the planning process by Councillor Constable. Examination of the correspondence showed that, while Councillor Constable took an interest in the progress of the application (as he does with many applications) he did not intervene or act improperly in its processing.

9. Having considered the information available I found that Councillor Constable did not intervene to prevent the complainant's application from going to the Regulatory Committee and did not instruct that the application be refused. Accordingly I concluded that Councillor John Constable had not contravened the Councillors' Code of Conduct.

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