Information on Investigations

Which Sector? > Local Authorities > Highland Council > LA/H/331

Note of Decision Web Version

Complaint no. LA/H/331 concerning an alleged contravention of the Councillors' Code of Conduct by Councillor Margaret MacLennan of The Highland Council

1. Complaint number LA/H/331 alleged a contravention of the Councillors' Code of Conduct ("the Code") by Councillor Margaret MacLennan ("the respondent"). The complaint alleged a breach of rules set out in section 3 concerning Gifts and Hospitality, and section 7 relating to Taking Decisions on Individual Applications.

2. The complainant alleged that the respondent accepted hospitality at a hotel when there was a planning application lodged with the Council for an extension to the hotel; but that she later denied having been at the hotel. The complainant also alleged that the respondent's rejection of a site visit, and her support for the planning application without referring to objections, suggested a lack of impartiality and gave an impression of bias. Also that the respondent's support for the hotel extension was inconsistent with her previous support for traffic measures at a nearby school, and required her judgement and motive to be questioned.

3. In November 2004 the respondent, Councillor MacLennan, received an invitation to attend a 20th anniversary reception at a local hotel which was to be held on 15 January 2005. Councillor MacLennan said she judged it appropriate to attend. She saw it as an event where a local business was celebrating a particular milestone and where many people within the community were present. Meanwhile, in late December 2004, a planning application for an extension to the hotel was lodged. When Councillor MacLennan attended the reception on 15 January, she was unaware of this and said the application was not mentioned or discussed during the reception. When the complainant's husband telephoned her in connection with the planning application, Councillor MacLennan openly stated to him that she had attended a reception at the hotel. The complainant said that later, in April 2005, Councillor MacLennan stated during a telephone conversation that she had never been near the hotel for years. Councillor MacLennan did not remember the terms of the telephone call clearly; but she said that having already openly said to the complainant's husband that she had attended the reception, she would have had no motive for saying otherwise.

4. Paragraph 3.7(b) of the Code of Conduct permits the acceptance of normal hospitality associated with a councillor's duties and which would reasonably be regarded as appropriate. Councillor MacLennan's decision to attend was not inappropriate, being both a local resident and local member for the area. Paragraph 3.9 of the Code provides that councillors must not accept a gift or hospitality from any individual or organisation who is an applicant awaiting a decision from the Council. In this case, there was no planning application existing when Councillor MacLennan accepted the invitation, and as she was unaware that a planning application had later been lodged, I did not find there was a breach of the Code on her part in attending the reception.

5. Councillor MacLennan did not record her acceptance of the invitation in her Register of Interests because she regarded the reception as a community event covered by paragraph 3.7(b) of the Code and was unaware of a planning application being lodged. In these circumstances, I did not regard Councillor MacLennan's failure to record the hospitality as a breach of the Code of Conduct. Nonetheless, the events in this case demonstrate the importance which councillors should attach to transparency in such matters. They are advised to err on the side of caution in deciding whether to record for public inspection acceptance of gifts and hospitality. The situation changed somewhat after a planning application was lodged. In these circumstances Councillor MacLennan should have considered recording the hospitality when she became aware of the application. Councillor MacLennan has stated that she will be more likely to consider the necessity of making an entry in the Register, and I emphasise the importance of this.

6. With regard to the planning application, Councillor MacLennan gave reasons why she supported the application when it was considered at Committee. These were based on the planning officer's appraisal and the planning documents. There appeared to be consensus for approval among members of the Committee and no general support for a site visit. All members are aware of the objections and there is no particular onus on a local member to rehearse all the objections to a planning application during the Committee meeting. Councillor MacLennan's efforts to secure safety measures at the nearby school would not necessarily preclude her from supporting other developments in the same area. I did not consider there was evidence that Councillor MacLennan's support for the application was the result of bias or any undue lack of impartiality, or that she had breached any provisions in section 7 of the Code of Conduct relating to dealing with individual applications.

7. Having considered the information that arose from my investigation, I concluded that Councillor Margaret MacLennan had not contravened the Councillors' Code of Conduct.

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