Information on Investigations

Which Sector? > Local Authorities > Glasgow > LA/G/493

Note of Decision Web Version

Complaint no. LA/G/493 concerning an alleged contravention of the Councillors’ Code of Conduct by Councillor George Redmond of Glasgow City Council

1. Complaint number LA/G/493 alleged a contravention of the Councillors' Code of Conduct ("the Code") by Councillor George Redmond ("the respondent").

2. It was alleged that the respondent had contravened the Code, in particular, the provisions in paragraph 2.1 relating to Openness and Honesty and the provisions relating to General Conduct in section 3.

3. The person complaining ("the complainant") alleged that during the course of construction of an extension to an adjoining property (in which the respondent resides) his fence was damaged and that when he approached the respondent on different occasions, to express his concern about the size of the extension and other matters, the respondent reacted in an aggressive, threatening and intimidating manner towards him. He also alleged that the respondent was not open and honest with regard to the design of the proposed extension, that the builders working on the extension accessed his garden without his permission, that the works commenced without a planning application having been submitted and without a building warrant having been obtained.

4. There were two main aspects to the complaint. Firstly, that the extension to the adjoining property was commenced without a planning application having been submitted or a building warrant having been obtained and secondly, that the respondent acted in an aggressive, threatening and intimidating manner when the complainant approached him to express his concerns about certain aspects of the extension and about unauthorised access to his garden and damage to his fence.

5. The Monitoring Officer confirmed that construction of the extension had commenced without a planning application having been submitted to the Council and without a building warrant having been obtained. A retrospective planning application was submitted by the owner (the respondent's partner) and approved by the Council on 6 June 2006. The Monitoring Officer also stated that, as at 27 September 2006, Planning Department officers had not visited the site to ascertain whether the completed extension conformed to the planning application. While the complainant may have been of the opinion that the Planning Department had been less than rigorous in dealing with these issues, there was an absence of any material evidence that the respondent influenced, or attempted to influence, the manner in which the Planning Department had dealt with the planning application.

6. In considering the alleged conduct of the respondent I have had regard to the precise terms of the Code of Conduct. Paragraph 1.1 of the Code refers to the conduct of councillors in undertaking their duties in the Council and paragraph 2.2 refers to the requirement to apply the key principles upon which the Code is based to informal dealings with Council employees, party political groups and others as well as at formal meetings, but does not extend this requirement to private conduct. Section 3 of the Code requires the principles of good conduct to be observed in all situations where a member acts as a councillor, and refers specifically to conduct in the Council Chamber and in Committee (paragraph 3.14) but makes no reference to matters unconnected with the Council.

7. I found that while the respondent's alleged conduct was related to a matter which required the Council's approval, it occurred while he was acting as a private individual and not as a councillor. I concluded that the alleged misconduct by Councillor George Redmond was not related to his duties and responsibilities as a councillor and, accordingly, fell outwith the Code.

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