Information on Investigations

Which Sector? > Local Authorities > Fife > LA/Fi/79

Complaint no. LA/Fi/79

Concerning an alleged contravention of The Councillors' Code of Conduct by Councillor Marilyn Whitehead of Fife Council

1. Complaint number LA/Fi/79 alleged a contravention of the Councillors' Code of Conduct ("the Code") by Councillor Marilyn Whitehead ("the respondent").

2. It was alleged that the respondent had contravened the Code, in particular, section 2 relating to Duty and Selflessness; and section 7 relating to the responsibilities of councillors when taking decisions on planning applications.

3. The person complaining ("the complainant") complained about a planning application for the formation of seasonal workers' residential accommodation at farm buildings adjacent to a Fife village. The proposal, which was submitted to the Council in November 2003, included the conversion of existing buildings to form accommodation for 80 migrant workers.

4. The complainant's home adjoins the farm buildings and she was an objector to the planning application. She complained that during discussions at Community Council meetings, Councillor Whitehead was not impartial in her dealings on the planning application. The complainant instanced the fact that, when she raised a question about the legality of existing caravan accommodation owned by the applicant on a nearby site, Councillor Whitehead failed in her duty to act on her concerns or in the public interest. The complainant says that Councillor Whitehead only replied that she was sure the applicant 'would not do anything illegal'. The investigation showed that Councillor Whitehead had received no prior complaints about the issue and that the Community Council had already raised the question with the planning authority. It was, therefore, understandable why Councillor Whitehead herself took no action. Councillor Whitehead explained the context of her remark that the applicant would not do anything illegal. There was no evidence of a breach of duty under section 2 of the Code, nor that the Councillor intended support for the application or to gain any benefit for the applicant.

5. The complainant alleged that Councillor Whitehead has farming connections and that during discussions at Community Council meetings, the Councillor showed herself in favour of the application prior to its being determined by the planning committee. The investigation showed that Councillor Whitehead had given substantial consideration to the proposals, visited the site and obtained soundings through Community Council meetings. While the complainant did not agree with the decision which Councillor Whitehead subsequently took to approve the application, there was no evidence that considerations of personal relationships or other personal benefit led Councillor Whitehead towards a decision which was not taken in the public interest.

6. The complaint included the fact that, just prior to the planning committee meeting, Councillor Whitehead contacted the planning applicant to discuss an issue relating to the application; that at the Community Council meeting she had shown herself to be in favour of the application and, despite this, participated in the committee meeting at which the application was approved.

7. Councillor Whitehead stated that she had contacted the applicant to establish how many workers were already being accommodated in a cottage on the farm site. She viewed the enquiry she was making as a welfare matter, rather than a planning consideration. The evidence on this matter did not lead to a conclusion that Councillor Whitehead showed bias in favour of the applicant. However, the investigation recognised that the contact was unwise, as parties with a material interest in the application might see things in a different light. It is important that all those involved in the planning process should have confidence in the integrity of the decision-making process. Any direct contact with an applicant by a councillor should, in line with best practice, be avoided. Councillor Whitehead was advised that the Standards Commission's Note of Guidance dealing with Individual Applications should be rigourously applied to ensure that applications are not only dealt with fairly but, equally importantly, are seen to be dealt with fairly.

8. The remaining issue concerned the Community Council meeting which took place just before the planning committee meeting. The complainant said Councillor Whitehead indicated her approval of the application and asked Community Council members for support or backing for her decision; that she had not declared an interest in the application and had participated in the planning meeting. Evidence on what was said at the Community Council meeting was taken from the complainant, her neighbour and four members of the Community Council. Varying descriptions were given as to what Councillor Whitehead had said. While the complainant and her neighbour were convinced that Councillor Whitehead asked for support for her own decision on the application, the four members were clear that she had merely asked the Community Council for confirmation of their view. The investigation concluded that Councillor Whitehead did not breach section 7 of the Code of Conduct in dealing with the planning application and in subsequently participating in the planning committee meeting.

9. Having considered the information arising from my investigation, I concluded that, Councillor Marilyn Whitehead had not contravened the Councillors' Code of Conduct.

D Stuart Allan,
Chief Investigating Officer.
Forsyth House
Innova Campus
Rosyth Europarc
Rosyth
Fife
KY11 2UU
28 October 2004