Information on Investigations

Which Sector? > Local Authorities > Falkirk > LA/Fa/219

Note Of Decision Web Version

Complaint no. LA/Fa/219 concerning an alleged contravention of the Councillors' Code of Conduct by Councillor David Alexander of Falkirk Council

1. Complaint number LA/Fa/219 alleged a contravention of the Councillors' Code of Conduct ("the Code") by Councillor David Alexander ("the respondent").

2. It was alleged that the respondent had contravened the Code, in particular, the key principles in section 2 of the Code relating to Duty, Integrity, Objectivity, Accountability and Stewardship, Openness, Leadership and Respect.

3. The person complaining ("the complainant"), the Secretary of Denny and District Community Council, alleged that the respondent gave active encouragement to a member of the Community Council to set up a group as a counter balance to the Community Council and that, by doing so, he sought to politicise the activities of the Community Council. He also alleged that, for overt political advantage, the respondent refused to allow the Community Council to discharge its role as a consultative body by not allowing a member of the Community Council to be heard by the full Council at its meeting on 2 March 2005 to explain the Community Council's objections to the proposed relocation of Denny High School.

4. The allegation that Councillor Alexander sought to politicise the activities of the Community Council was based on his response to an email from a member of his party in which he (Councillor Alexander) said that it would be a very good idea if they could get together various groups who were interested in greater participation in local decision taking, as a counter balance to the Community Council. I considered Councillor Alexander's statement to be no more than an expression of support for an idea put forward by a political colleague and I found that his action represented his legitimate participation in local politics.

5. The remaining part of the complaint related to the right of the Community Council to be consulted about the planning application in respect of Denny High School and its right to have a deputation heard by the meeting of the full Council on 2 March 2005. The requirements on a local authority to consult with Community Councils on planning applications are laid down in Planning Advice Note 47 ("PAN 47"). If a Community Council wishes to be consulted on a planning application it is required to seek formal consultation within seven working days of the issuing date of the weekly list of planning applications. Where consultation is to take place a Community Council should be given a minimum of 14 days to submit its comments.

6. The Council does not have a consultation scheme as such for Community Councils but every Community Council receives a copy of the weekly list of planning applications issued by the Development Services Department. A Community Council can request to be formally consulted on any application in which it is interested. In addition the Development Services Department will consult with a Community Council if it is aware that the Community Council has had a prior involvement in any particular matter or if the planning application is deemed to be a major one or controversial. I find that the arrangements which Falkirk Council has for consulting with Community Councils are in accordance with the requirements laid down in PAN 47.

7. The Monitoring Officer had advised that Denny Community Council was consulted about the planning application for Denny High School on 26 October 2004 by way of a standard consultation letter and a set of plans. The Community Council did not respond to the outline planning application but two representatives of the Community Council attended the site visit in respect of the application on 6 April 2005 and both were permitted to address members of the Committee on the Community Council's objections to the application. As the same group of Committee members attended the formal meeting of the Regulatory Committee which immediately followed the site visit, they were aware of the nature of the Community Council's objections to the application when it came before the meeting for consideration. I found that the Community Council was not denied its right to be consulted regarding the planning application and that the Council's action in relation to that part of the process was in accordance with the requirements laid down in PAN 47.

8. The Convener of the Community Council made inquiries of the Council's Democratic Services Manager in November 2004 in connection with the Community Council's wish to address the Education and Leisure Committee on their decision to relocate Denny High School and was given advice on how to submit a formal request to the Committee. However, no formal request was received. Accordingly, I found that the Community Council did not avail itself of the facility to request to be heard by the Education and Leisure Committee.

9. The Convener of the Community Council did submit a request to address the meeting of the Council which took place on 2 March 2005. The request was considered by the meeting and a motion by Councillor Alexander that the deputation be not heard was carried by 15 votes to 13. In this regard I found that, in refusing to allow the deputation to be heard, the Council acted within the discretion afforded to it by the terms of its Standing Orders. I also found that the decision not to hear the representatives from the Community Council was not taken solely by Councillor Alexander, as inferred by the complaint, but by a majority of the members present when the vote was taken.

10. Having considered the information that arose from my investigation, I concluded that, Councillor David Alexander had not contravened the Councillors' Code of Conduct.

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