Information on Investigations

Which Sector? > Local Authorities > Highland Council > LA/H/503

Note of Decision Web Version

Complaint no. LA/H/503 concerning an alleged contravention of the Councillors' Code of Conduct by Councillor Helen Carmichael of Highland Council

1. Complaint number LA/H/503 alleged a contravention of the Councillors' Code of Conduct ("the Code") by Councillor Helen Carmichael ("the respondent").

2. It was alleged that the respondent had contravened the Code, in particular, paragraph 1.1 of the Introduction to the Code (which advises councillors that the public has a high expectation of the way in which they should conduct themselves in undertaking their duties in the Council) and several of the key principles in section 2.

3. The complaint alleged that the respondent had made representations to Beauly Community Council regarding a planning application that was due to come before Highland Council and had influenced the Community Council to overturn a decision which it had taken earlier to object to Highland Council regarding the loss of tourist amenity which would arise from the proposed development.

4. The complainant stated that in forming his complaint he had referred to paragraph 1.1 of the Code and to several of the key principles in section 2. It was relevant to point out that paragraph 1.1 is part of the introduction to the Code and simply highlights the high public expectation on councillors when carrying out their duties in the Council. The paragraph does not lay down any specific rules of conduct which councillors should observe. In a similar way section 2 of the Code sets out the key principles on which the Code is based but it too does not identify any specific rules of conduct. It was more appropriate to consider the complainant's allegations against the specific provisions in section 7 of the Code and, in particular, paragraphs 7.8 and 7.9.

5. Paragraph 7.8 states that a councillor should not organise support or opposition, lobby other councillors or act as an advocate to promote a particular recommendation on a planning application, on a planning agreement or on taking enforcement action. Paragraph 7.9 states that a councillor who is a member of a committee which deals with planning applications, or who is to attend a meeting of the Council to consider planning applications, and wishes to respond to lobbying by constituents or others by openly advocating a particular course of action prior to the meeting, must declare an interest and not take part in any consideration of the application and must leave the meeting room until consideration of the matter is concluded.

6. The minutes of the meetings of Beauly Community Council held on 24 April, 29 May and 19 June 2006 showed that, while the respondent was present at all three meetings, she took no part in the discussion on the merits of the planning application referred to by the complainant or in the voting on the action which the Community Council should take thereon. The respondent spoke at the meeting on 29 May 2006 but this was simply to make it clear that her name, which had been cited in support of the complainant's campaign against the application without her knowledge or consent, could not be used in that way.

7. Based on the minutes of the Community Council and the evidence of the Chair I found that, except for making it clear that her name could not be used in relation to the complainant's campaign against the planning application, the respondent took no part in the Community Council's discussions on the merits of the planning application or how they should react to it. Consequently, I found that she had not breached paragraph 7.8 of the Code. I also found that, as the planning application was withdrawn and never came before any of the relevant committees of the Council, the issue of whether the respondent had breached paragraph 7.9 of the Code did not arise. For the avoidance of doubt I made it clear that, had the planning application come before a Planning Committee meeting of Highland Council at which the respondent was present, I would not have regarded her conduct at the meetings of the Community Council on 24 April, 29 May and 19 June 2006 as precluding her from participating in the discussion and vote on the application for the reason that, at these meetings, she did not respond to lobbying by constituents or others, or openly advocate a particular course of action in respect of the application.

8. In relation to complaint number LA/H/503, having considered the information that arose from my investigation, I concluded that Councillor Helen Carmichael had not contravened the Councillors' Code of Conduct.

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