Information on Investigations

Which Sector? > Local Authorities > Falkirk > LA/Fa/976,977,978

Note Of Decision Web Version

Complaints nos. LA/Fa/976, 977 and 978 concerning alleged contraventions of the Councillors’ Code of Conduct by Councillor David Alexander and Councillor John Constable of Falkirk Council

1. Complaints LA/Fa/976, LA/Fa/977, and LA/Fa/978 alleged effectively the same contraventions of the Councillors’ Code of Conduct (“the Code”) by Councillor David Alexander (“the first respondent”), and Councillor John Constable (“the second respondent”).  The first respondent was alleged to have breached the key principles set out in section 2 of the Code relating to Duty, Selflessness, Objectivity, Accountability and Stewardship, Honesty and Respect.  The second respondent was alleged to have breached the provisions set out in section 7 of the Code relating to Taking Decisions on Individual Applications.

2. Complaint number LA/Fa/976 was lodged by Councillor William Buchanan, the first complainant, who is the current Convener of Falkirk Council’s Planning Committee. This complaint was a counter complaint as it followed a complaint in relation to the same issues by Councillor Constable about Councillor Buchanan. (Note of Decision LA/Fa/972). Complaints numbers LA/Fa/977 and LA/Fa/978 were lodged by the second and third complainants, two directors of a property development company which had submitted a planning application to the Council.

3. The complainants alleged that with regard to Councillor Alexander, in the mistaken belief that the Council’s Planning Committee had, on 27 January 2010, dealt with the planning application submitted by the second and third complainants, he had made disrespectful remarks about the first complainant, Councillor Buchanan, who, as Convener of the Planning Committee, had used his casting vote in favour of granting the application which had been considered on that date.

4. With regard to Councillor Constable, the complainants alleged that at the meeting of the Council’s Planning Committee on 27 January 2010, Councillor Constable, who is a member of that Committee, had dealt with a planning application in the mistaken belief  that it was an application which had been submitted by the second and third complainants, and when, according to the complainants, he had a declarable interest in the application with which he believed that he was dealing which should have caused him to leave the meeting room until consideration of it had been concluded.

5. With regard to the complaints against the first respondent, Councillor Alexander, I found that he was clearly of the view that the first complainant, because of his relationship with the second and third complainants, had a declarable interest which would have prevented him from dealing with any planning application which might be lodged by them or their company.  Councillor Buchanan did not dispute this, as it was a view with which he agreed.

6. Councillor Alexander’s alleged disrespectful remarks about Councillor Buchanan had been heard by Councillors Nicol and Patrick and had been relayed to Councillor Buchanan by Councillor Nicol. I found that there was a significant difference between the recollection of Councillor Nicol as to what he heard, and Councillor Alexander’s recollection of the words which he had used.  Councillor Patrick’s rather vague recollection of events did not, in my view, provide corroboration of either party’s version.  I suspected that Councillor Alexander’s remarks had not been as innocuous as he claimed, and had no reason to believe that Councillor Nicol relayed to Councillor Buchanan a completely different version of what Councillor Alexander had said.  Councillor Alexander pointed out however that some of his remarks had been overheard, and that his conversation with Councillors Nicol and Patrick was no more than an informal private conversation amongst Council colleagues.  Nevertheless paragraph 2.2 of the Code states “You should apply the principles of this Code to your informal dealings with the Council’s employees, party political groups and others, no less scrupulously than at formal meetings of the Council and its committees and sub-committees”.

7. However it must be remembered that the key principles of the Code provide a context for and underpin the Code and complaints of this nature should generally include an allegation of breach of one or more of the substantive sections of the Code (sections 3 to 7).  These complaints against the first respondent did not.

8. In all the circumstances I found that Councillor Alexander’s remarks, which may have been made jocularly or mischievously, and whatever the exact words used, had been injudicious, but not of a nature or to a degree which would constitute a breach of the key principle of the Code relating to Respect, or of any other part of the Councillors’ Code of Conduct.

9. With regard to Councillor Constable, the second respondent, I found that the complainants had to accept that their view that, at the Council’s Planning Committee meeting on 27 January 2010, Councillor Constable believed that he was dealing with a planning application lodged by the second and third complainants, when he was in fact dealing with a planning application by another applicant (and that he passed on this mistaken belief to Councillor Alexander) was no more than conjecture on their part.  They were unable to point to any piece of evidence which supported their view and indeed, the available evidence supported the view that Councillor Constable was well aware of the identity of the planning application with which he was dealing. 

10. I found that the second respondent was a very experienced councillor with many years of service as both a member and Convener of the Planning Committee, and noted that he was adamant that he knew which application he was dealing with on 27 January 2010, having received the relevant planning report on 25 November 2009, attended the initial Planning Committee meeting on 2 December 2009 and received the supplementary planning report on 29 January 2010.  Accordingly, I was entirely satisfied that Councillor Constable was not acting under any mistaken belief as to the identity of the planning application with which he was dealing on 27 January 2010, and had not breached any part of section 7 of the Councillors’ Code of Conduct.

11. Councillor Constable was also firmly of the view that, even if he had been dealing with a planning application submitted by the second and third complainants, he would have been entitled so to do as he did not have a declarable interest in respect of their company or its directors.  In order for me to reach a conclusion in respect of these complaints against Councillor Constable, it was not necessary for me to form a view as to whether or not I agreed with him, and indeed, in all the circumstances, I considered that it would have been inappropriate for me to do so at that time.

12. Having considered the information that arose from my investigation, I concluded that Councillor David Alexander and Councillor John Constable had not contravened the Councillors’ Code of Conduct.

D Stuart Allan

Chief Investigating Officer

44 Drumsheugh Gardens

Edinburgh

EH3 7SW

31 August 2010