Information on Investigations

Which Sector? > Local Authorities > Highland Council > LA/H/580

Final Letter Web Version

Complaint no. LA/H/580 concerning an alleged contravention of the Councillors' Code of Conduct by Councillor Andrew Millar of The Highland Council

1. Complaint number LA/H/580 alleged a contravention of the Councillors' Code of Conduct ("the Code") by Councillor Andrew Millar ("the respondent").

2. It was alleged that the respondent had contravened the Code, in particular, the key principle of Integrity contained in section 2.1, paragraphs 3.8, 3.9, 3.10, 3.13, 3.20 in section 3 relating to General Conduct, paragraphs 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, 5.4, 5.11, 5.13, 5.16, 5.18 relating to Declaration of Interests, paragraph 6.3 relating to Lobbying and Access to Councillors and paragraphs 7.2, 7.3, 7.4, 7.5, 7.7, 7.8, 7.9, 7.10 and 7.11 relating to Taking Decisions on Individual Applications.

3. The person complaining ("the complainant"), alleged that Councillor Andrew Millar had acted in favour of a building firm who were applicants for planning permission for a development at Viewfield Road, Portree. The development site is situated on a hillside directly above a house owned by the complainant's father. The complainant also alleged that, despite being a close friend of the applicants, the respondent had not declared an interest in their application and had participated in meetings relating to the application. In so doing, it is alleged that the respondent had breached the key principle of Integrity contained in section 2.1 and provisions in sections 3, 5, 6 and 7 of the Code relating to General Conduct, Declaration of Interests, Lobbying and Access to Councillors and Taking Decisions on Individual Applications.

4. Regarding the complaint that the respondent acted in favour of the developers and against the wider community interest, this related to the allegation that the respondent influenced the non-referral of the application for the road to the Trunk Roads Authority. It was also alleged that he was behind a 'volte face' when a decision was taken not to require a further detailed submission relating to the road construction. I did not consider this has been established. On the contrary, the Area Planning Officer had confirmed that the decision relating to the non-referral to the Trunk Roads Authority was entirely based on his own judgement and interpretation of the relevant government circular and provisions of the Local Plan. Likewise, the decision not to require a further detailed submission from the developers' engineers was taken by Council officers from different departments following discussions on site with each other and the developers' consultant engineers. When the Area Committee considered these matters in the course of dealing with the application for the road access, they took a corporate decision, and I did not consider there is evidence that the respondent acted in favour of the developers.

5. Turning to the complaint that there is a close friendship between the respondent and the developers which should have prevented him from participating in meetings on the planning application, the complainant alleged that the respondent and the developers all live in or around Portree and their friendship is well known in the community. However, this was a generalisation and, when asked about his own knowledge of their degree of friendship, it was to the effect that he had seen the respondent standing at a bar with one of the developers about five years ago. Likewise, the boxing match at which they had been seen was either five years ago according to the complainant or 12 years ago according to the respondent. Whichever of these timescales is correct, it was certainly not within the timescale of the relevant planning application.

6. The respondent's position was that he is not a close friend of the developers and in a small place like Portree it is difficult for a councillor not to know, and be known by, many people. He did not refute that he may sometimes have found himself in a hotel bar at the same time as the developers, but he did not intentionally go out to meet them. Councillor Millar explained the two occasions in recent years when he has visited the developers' premises; one was in connection with repair work which he required and another in regard to seeing the developer's son about a disc of a local radio show. Notwithstanding their responsibilities to the Council, it is necessary and desirable for councillors to be able to go about their normal, daily business in relation to other matters; they cannot be required to cut themselves off from their communities. Having considered the allegations made in this case, I did not consider any evidence has been provided which would indicate that the respondent's visits to the developers' premises had any ulterior purpose.

7. The complainant was understandably concerned about the effects of work which had been carried out at the housing site, and clearly there were many difficult issues which required to be resolved in regard to the application. However, while the complainant's concerns might be understandable, I did not consider there was evidence that Councillor Andrew Millar had breached the provisions of the Code of Conduct as alleged by him in the complaint.

8. Having considered the information that arose from my investigation, I concluded that, Councillor Andrew Millar had not contravened the Councillors' Code of Conduct.

D Stuart Allan,
Chief Investigating Officer.
Forsyth House
Innova Campus
Rosyth Europarc
Rosyth
Fife
KY11 2UU
31 October 2007