Information on Investigations

Which Sector? > Local Authorities > Angus > LA/An/832,834,840

Note of Decision Web Version

Complaint nos. LA/An/832, 834 and 840 concerning an alleged contravention of the Councillors’ Code of Conduct by Councillor Robert Myles of Angus Council

1. Complaint numbers 832, 834 and 840 were made by three separate complainants who were objectors to a planning application which was under consideration for enforcement action.  They alleged a contravention of the Councillors’ Code of Conduct (“the Code”) by Councillor Robert Myles (“the respondent”) who is an Independent member of Angus Council.  He is also Leader of the Council which is run by a coalition group, the Angus Alliance.

2. Part of the background to the complaint concerned the current composition of the Development Standards Committee and the Civic Licensing Committee.  Following a meeting of Angus Council on 6 November 2008 which considered revisions to Standing Orders, these two Committees have been left with fewer members than provided for under Standing Orders.  Councillor Helen Oswald was a member of the Development Standards Committee until November 2008 when, along with other SNP members, she ceased to sit on that Committee.  She has been the leader of the SNP group on the Council since March 2009. The Development Standards Committee currently has 8 members with 5 vacancies and there are no SNP members serving on the Committee.  This has been a matter of ongoing public comment in press reports. 

3. The complainants alleged that at the Development Standards Committee meeting on 27 January 2009, Councillor Myles launched an attack on Councillor Oswald which they described as politically motivated points scoring; a verbal, vicious and political attack; and an outrageous verbal attack which was politically motivated.  The complainants alleged that Councillor Myles breached paragraph 2.1 of the Code and showed lack of respect for Councillor Oswald and for themselves as objectors; that he breached paragraph 3.14 relating to Conduct in the Chamber; and that, by showing opposition to anything Councillor Oswald proposed, he could be deemed to have shown that he had a personal interest in the planning application which was under consideration and breached paragraph 7.11 Taking Decisions on Individual Applications. 

4. At its meeting on 27 January 2009, the Development Standards Committee considered a planning report by the Director of Infrastructure Services in which he recommended that the Committee should not take enforcement action in respect of unauthorised changes that had been made to a house being built on land in Carnoustie. The complainants live adjacent to the development and were objectors to the proposal. Councillor Oswald, who is a local member, had agreed to speak in their support at the meeting.   

5. Descriptions of the meeting varied, but on the whole the information provided by witnesses confirmed that Councillor Myles made public comments at the point in the proceedings when Councillor Oswald requested permission to address the Development Standards Committee. Councillor Myles, himself, confirmed that his intervention related to the composition of the Committee and concerned the potential for Councillor Oswald to be a sitting member rather than appearing before it as local member (which she was allowed to do under the arrangements followed by the Council). None of the Council members or officers who were interviewed considered that Councillor Myles' actions or behaviour were very much different from his normal conduct, or that his intervention had a significant impact on the proceedings.  The information provided suggests that it did not last long and did not appear to prevent either the objectors or Councillor Oswald from making their presentations.  Although the complainants felt that other Committee members were also affected by it, and as a result did not give full attention to the presentations, the evidence provided by witnesses did not support this.   From the available evidence, I did not consider that Councillor Myles set out to disrupt the Committee, or that his actions had any major impact on the conduct of its business.  I did not consider that there was an intention on his part to show disrespect to Councillor Oswald or the objectors; nor did I consider there was evidence that he, or other Committee members, would simply oppose anything that might have been put forward by Councillor Oswald.  Indeed, the Clerk's notes showed that there was discussion of a number of points followed by a vote. 

6. Having considered the complaints made, I did not find that Councillor Robert Myles showed disrespect to Councillor Helen Oswald or the complainants; nor did I consider that he could be deemed to have had an interest in the application under discussion. I found, therefore, that Councillor Myles did not contravene paragraphs 2.1, 3.14 or 7.11 of the Councillors' Code of Conduct.

7. As previously stated, Councillor Oswald has not sat on the Development Standards Committee since November 2008 and was free to ask to address the Committee on behalf of the objectors.  However, during the investigation, some doubt arose about whether this was permissible under Standing Orders where a Committee is required to act quasi-judicially.

8. I would observe that it is of paramount importance that planning applications are dealt with - and are seen to be dealt with - fairly by elected members.  Where councillors who are not members of the decision-making committee wish to make representations, they should do so strictly in terms of procedures agreed by the local authority.  I suggested that the Council may wish to review their current arrangements on deputations and local members' participation specifically in relation to quasi-judicial or regulatory matters, including the extent to which local members (who are not committee members) should be permitted to make a contribution (particularly having regard to the terms of the current Standing Orders) and, if that is agreed, whether they should remain in the room after they have addressed the committee on the application in question.  Having said that, it was not surprising in this case that the complainants, who were attending the meeting in their capacity as objectors, felt unnerved by what occurred.  More often than not, the matters which are being discussed by the Development Standards Committee are of significant importance either to applicants or objectors who are mostly unused to the political thrust of Council meetings.  Councillors would do well to remember that it can be stressful enough for members of the public to appear and make their presentations before the Committee.  When an unexpected turn of events occurs, such as happened in this case, it was perfectly natural that the complainants' confidence would be affected, not just in regard to making their speeches, but also their confidence in the proceedings themselves.  I understood the point which was made by witnesses who commented that the Development Standards Committee was not the appropriate place for comments such as those made by Councillor Myles on this occasion.  One of the complainants has said that where there is a problem, councillors should discuss it elsewhere and it is up to them to get their house in order.  Councillors stand for election in order to go into public service.  They would do well to listen and be mindful of just how it looks to the public when they are apparently unable to resolve vital issues such as how the Council's committees are administered.  

9. Notwithstanding, having considered the information that arose from my investigation, I concluded that Councillor Robert Myles had not contravened the Councillors’ Code of Conduct.

D Stuart Allan

Chief Investigating Officer

Forsyth House

Innova Campus

Rosyth Europarc

Rosyth

KY11 2UU

6 August 2009