Information on Investigations

Which Sector? > Local Authorities > Highland Council > LA/H/393

Note of Decision Web Version

Complaint no. LA/H/393 concerning an alleged contravention of the Councillors' Code of Conduct by Councillor Clive Goodman of Highland Council

1. Complaint number LA/H/393 alleged a contravention of the Councillors' Code of Conduct ("the Code") by Councillor Clive Goodman ("the respondent").

2. It was alleged that the respondent had contravened the Code, in particular, paragraph 3.20 on Dealings with the Council and section 7 on Taking Decisions on Individual Applications.

3. The person complaining ("the complainant") alleged that, by remaining an active member of Inverness Planning Applications Committee during a period when he failed to apply for planning permission for raising the height of a wall at his own property, the respondent was guilty of impropriety and in contravention of the Code.

4. The fact that the respondent raised the wall to a height which required planning permission was not in dispute. Neither was the fact that the respondent remained an active member of the Inverness Planning Applications Committee from June 2005 until November 2005 (when the complainant complained to the Council) during which period the issue of planning permission remained unresolved. The matter at issue was whether in continuing to serve on the Planning Committee the respondent was in breach of the Code of Conduct.

5. The respondent explained that the matter remained unresolved between June 2005 (when it was first indicated to him that planning permission was required) and November 2005, while he considered the various options open to him. In addition holidays in the summer and in October intervened. He considered that the dilemma which he faced was whether he should capitulate to the complainant, and spend £130 on applying for planning permission, or whether he should reduce the height of the wall to a level which no longer required planning permission. At that point he decided to apply for planning permission and (in November 2005) he prepared a planning application with a view to submitting it after the holidays, meaning the Christmas/New Year holiday period. When the complainant raised the matter formally with the Council in November 2005 the respondent changed his mind and reduced the wall to a height which no longer required planning permission.

6. I regarded the respondent's explanation for the delay in applying for planning permission as less than wholly convincing. The options open to him were straightforward and I saw no reason why he could not have applied for planning permission in early course, after the need to do so was indicated to him by the Planning Department in June 2005. I considered that his position as a member of the Planning Applications Committee put an onus on him to deal expeditiously with matters regarding the need for planning permission for his own property. In my opinion, the fact that he initiated action to resolve the matter in November 2005 was, in significant measure, due to the fact that it was at that time that the complainant submitted a formal complaint to the Council. I found that the works carried out to raise the height of the wall at his home required the respondent to apply for planning permission and that the respondent delayed in doing so. I also found that by subsequently reducing the height of the wall the need to apply for planning permission was removed.

7. The issue to consider was whether, by remaining as an active member of the Inverness Planning Applications Committee, during the period when the matter of planning permission for his own property remained unresolved, the respondent breached the Councillors' Code of Conduct. Paragraph 7.3 of the Code refers to impropriety in relation to planning applications and states that to reduce the risk of planning decisions being legally challenged, in their dealings with planning applications councillors must not only avoid impropriety but must at all times avoid the appearance of improper conduct. I consider that the provisions of this paragraph apply to councillors when dealing with planning applications submitted by third parties. I do not consider that the provisions of this paragraph apply to the submission of planning applications by councillors for their own property where, clearly, they would require to declare an interest and withdraw from any decision making process at Committee.

8. Similarly I consider that the remaining provisions in section 7 of the Code relate to the conduct of councillors when dealing with planning applications submitted by third parties and not to the responsibility of councillors in relation to applying for planning permission for their own property. Accordingly, while I considered that it would have been advisable for the respondent to have dealt more expeditiously with the application for planning permission for the wall at his home, I found that there was nothing in the Code which precluded him from continuing to serve on the Inverness Planning Applications Committee during the period that the matter remained unresolved.

9. In relation to paragraph 3.20 of the Code on Dealings with the Council while the respondent was tardy in applying for planning permission for raising the height of his wall I found no evidence that he sought preferential treatment, as a councillor, either for delaying the submission of his application for planning permission or to avoid the need to seek planning permission.

10. Having considered the information that arose from my investigation, I concluded that Councillor Clive Goodman had not contravened the Councillors' Code of Conduct.

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