Information on Investigations

Which Sector? > Local Authorities > Glasgow > LA/G/115 and 122

Note of Decision Web Version

Concerning alleged contraventions of the Councillors' Code of Conduct by Councillors Susan Baird, Shaukat Butt, Elizabeth Cameron, James Coleman, Jon Findlay, Deirdre Gaughan, Alexander Glass, Charles Gordon, Robert MacBean, Jean McFadden, Euan McLeod, Catherine McMaster, James McNally, Hanzala Malik, Robert Marshall, Alexander Mosson, Kirsteen Mosson, William O'Rourke, Steven Purcell, George Redmond, George Ryan, Elaine Smith, David Stevenson, William Timoney, and James Todd of Glasgow City Council

1. Complaint number LA/G/115 has been lodged by the first complainant who alleges a contravention of the Councillors' Code of Conduct ("Code") by Councillors Susan Baird, Shaukatt Butt, Elizabeth Cameron, James Coleman, Jon Findlay, Deirdre Gaughan, Alexander Glass, Charles Gordon, Robert MacBean, Jean McFadden, Euan McLeod, Catherine McMaster, James McNally, Hanzala Malik, Robert Marshall, Alexander Mosson, Kirsteen Mosson, William O'Rourke, Steven Purcell, George Redmond, George Ryan, Elaine Smith, David Stevenson, William Timoney and James Todd ("the respondents"). The respondents are elected members of Glasgow City Council ("the Council") and are members of the Development and Regeneration Services (Development Applications) Sub-Committee.

2. Complaint number LA/G/122 has been lodged by the second complainant who alleges the same contravention of the Code and involves respondents above.

3. It is alleged that, when sitting as members of the Development and Regeneration Services (Development Applications) Sub-Committee, the respondents who are all members of the Labour Group on Glasgow City Council, are voting in accordance with political loyalty rather than exercising their individual judgement on planning applications and that the respondents have contravened the provisions contained within sections 6 and 7 of the Code which advise councillors on lobbying and on dealing with planning applications.

4. The first complaint related to an application for planning permission for a housing and restaurant development on a vacant site adjacent to 12 Gibson Street, Glasgow. The second complaint related to an application for planning permission for a residential development on a vacant site adjacent to 96 Great George Street, Glasgow.

5. The Development and Regeneration Services (Development Applications) Sub-Committee comprises 30 members under the convenership of Councillor Robert MacBean. The Sub-Committee membership reflects the political structure of the Council, and comprises 25 Labour, 2 Scottish Nationalist, and one each from the Conservative, Liberal Democrat, and Scottish Socialist parties.

6. Both complainants allege that when voting as members of the Development and Regeneration Services (Development Applications) Sub-Committee, the respondents, who are all members of the Labour Group on Glasgow City Council, show a degree of unity that implies they are voting in accordance with political loyalty rather than exercising their individual judgement on planning applications. The complainants speculate that whipping may be applied to ensure that the Labour Group vote consistently.

7. In raising this issue the complainants rely upon their interpretation of voting within the Development and Regeneration Services (Development Applications) Sub-Committee as recorded in the minutes. The minutes do not however show how individual members voted or the reasoning which they have applied. The interpretation derived from the minutes is therefore speculative and this is acknowledged by both respondents. I shall deal firstly with the two applications cited by the complainants as illustrating their allegation, and then consider the wider issue of voting within the Sub-Committee as revealed by the minutes.
8. In regard to the consideration of the Gibson Street application on 22 June 2004 the motion to grant was in accordance with the Director's recommendation and Council planning policy. The motion was proposed and seconded by two Labour members, and an amendment to continue for a hearing was proposed by the Conservative member and seconded by one of the SNP members. 11 members voted for the motion, and two for the amendment.

9. In regard to the consideration of the Great George Street application on 10 August 2004 the motion to grant was again in accordance with the Director's recommendation and Council planning policy. The motion was proposed and seconded by two Labour members, and the amendment was moved and seconded by the Liberal Democrat and Scottish Socialist Party members respectively. 13 members voted for the motion and two for the amendment.

10. No evidence has been adduced to indicate a political influence in these decisions, and although it can reasonably be implied that the Labour Group members voted on both occasions in favour of the motion this does not in itself lead to a conclusion that they had not exercised their own judgement on the matter, and I find accordingly. Indeed given the fact that on both occasions amendments were proposed and seconded by opposition members it could be said that political considerations might have a bearing. In the absence of evidence to support the assertion of political unity what can be said with certainty is that the decision of the Sub-Committee in both cases reflected the considered professional opinion of the Director as detailed in his comprehensive reports. In addition the concerns of the objectors were addressed by the Director and measures taken to meet them by the attachment of stringent planning conditions.

11. Greater weight would be attached to the complainants' contention of political influence if a significant degree of consistency in voting could be demonstrated over a series of meetings. The second complainant provided further examples which she felt demonstrated a consistent pattern of voting by members of the Labour Group. In order to test this theory I examined the minutes of the meetings of the Sub-Committee from 20 May 2003 to 21 December 2004.

12. An analysis of these meetings shows that over 900 applications were considered during this period, and that voting took place on only 37 occasions. On 36 occasions the motion was proposed and seconded by Labour members, the exception being a motion proposed by the Scottish Socialist Party member and seconded by a Labour member. I understand from the Monitoring Officer that it is a convention that the Convenor will take the lead in proposing motions, and as the overwhelming majority of members on the Sub-Committee are also members of the Labour Group it is unsurprising that these motions, usually in accordance with the Director's recommendation, should be seconded routinely by a Labour member.

13. Amendments were proposed and seconded on 18 occasions by members of the opposing parties, but significantly dissent within Labour Councillors is shown by the 11 occasions on which the amendment was both proposed and seconded by members of the Labour Group, and the 8 remaining occasions when amendments were proposed or seconded by Labour councillors. The conclusion therefore is that on just over 50% of voting occasions Labour councillors took a dissenting view to other members of their own political group.

14. Given the predominance of the Labour Group on the Sub-Committee, and the tendency to follow the Director's recommendations, it appears unremarkable that members of the largest party vote along similar lines. It is noteworthy that on seven occasions the amendment was carried and this in itself indicates that the expression of counter-views are by no means token in nature.

15. The suspicions of the complainants are countered both by the statistical evidence and the clear statement in the response of Councillor Jean McFadden. As Convener of the Labour Group, she states categorically that quasi-judicial matters are not discussed at meetings of the Labour Group or its Executive, and hat no whipping is applied to planning issues. Councillor McFadden also makes the point that most decisions coming before the Development and Regeneration (Development Applications) Sub-Committee are decided unanimously without going to a vote, and this can be interpreted as indicating that dissent within the Sub-Committee as a whole is an exception.

16. On the basis of the evidence available to me I have concluded that political considerations, or loyalty to a political group, did not influence the voting in relation to the two specific planning applications cited, or, indeed, to the consideration of planning applications as a whole over the period reviewed.

17. The complainants have expressed concern as to the method by which letters of objection and other representations are brought to the attention of the Sub- Committee. This is a procedural matter for the Council who are required to ensure that the substantive content of objections is articulated to the Council while at the same time have to take into account the practicalities involved in the dissemination of original documents. While the practice differs across Scotland it is common for planning officers to summarise the objections (or other representations) received and in these cases there was no evidence that the Director's report did not contain a proper and reasonable articulation of the objections lodged.

18. In relation to complaint numbers LA/G/115 and LA/G/122, I have come to the conclusion that, having regard to the findings in section 5 of this Note of Decision, the Councillors who are the subject of these complaints have not contravened the Councillors' Code of Conduct.

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