Information on Investigations

Which Sector? > Local Authorities > Midlothian Council > LA/Mi/651

Note of Decision Web Version

Complaint no. LA/Mi/651 concerning an alleged contravention of the Councillors' Code of Conduct by Councillor Lisa Beattie of Midlothian Council

1. Complaint number LA/Mi/651 alleged a contravention of the Councillors' Code of Conduct (“the Code”) by Councillor Lisa Beattie (“the respondent”).

2. It was alleged that the respondent had contravened the Code, in particular, the provisions of section 7 on Dealing With Planning Applications.

3. The person complaining (“the complainant”) alleged that the respondent breached the terms of section 7 of the Code by suggesting that Mayfield Community Council submit an objection to a pending planning application; and that this action constituted an interest that should have been declared at the subsequent meetings of the Planning Committee at which the application was considered.

4. The issue to be examined in this case was whether the respondent, as a member of the Planning Committee, went beyond the constraints of the Councillors' Code of Conduct by contributing to a discussion at a community council meeting of a pending planning application.

5. The complainant based his allegation on the minute of the meeting of Mayfield Community Council, held on 5 September 2007, when a discussion took place in relation to a pending planning application. As the application related to a property within their geographic area, the Community Council was a statutory consultee. The respondent was present at the meeting in her capacity as ward councillor, but she was not herself a member of the Community Council. The complainant was not present. The minute of the meeting appeared to imply that the respondent suggested that the Community Council should submit a letter of objection to the Planning Committee.

6. The minute of the Community Council meeting was not a verbatim record. In regard to the contribution of the respondent it was capable of differing interpretation. While the complainant pointed to the statement that ‘Councillor Beattie suggested to put in an objection' as indicating that she was encouraging such a course of action, this was countered by the respondent who stated that she merely responded to a request from the Chair as to the time limit for the submission of representations. The Chairman of the meeting supported the respondent in this. I noted also that the terms of the letter submitted by the Community Council to the planning officer reflected the concerns of the neighbouring proprietors, these objections having already been incorporated in the report before the Planning Committee at their meeting on 14 August when they first considered the application.

7. Section 7 of the Code provides guidance on dealing with planning applications. Paragraph 7.8 specifically prohibits councillors from organising support or opposition, or acting as an advocate to promote a particular recommendation on a planning application. As a statutory consultee the Community Council was entitled to submit a letter of objection to the Planning Committee. Their decision to do so was influenced by the representations of neighbouring proprietors whose amenity would have been adversely affected by the proposed development, and strengthened by the observations of a member of the Community Council. No evidence was adduced to show that the respondent took any part in the discussion until she was asked for her advice as to the time limit for the submission of objections. I found that this action did not amount to organising or promoting opposition to the planning application as set out in paragraph 7.8.

8. Paragraph 7.9 of the Code requires councillors who respond to lobbying by advocating a particular course of action prior to the meeting at which the application will be determined, to declare an interest and withdraw from the meeting. In this case the respondent had been approached by the neighbouring proprietors at her constituency surgery and was aware of their concerns regarding the development. She had not however voiced an opinion and there was no evidence that her attendance at the Community Council meeting, which the neighbours addressed, was orchestrated or intended to give an impression that the respondent was opposed to the planning application. I did not consider that the respondent's advice to the Community Council, or her readiness to note the concerns of neighbours who were themselves objectors to the proposal, could be regarded as advocating a course of action. Neither could it be regarded as constituting an interest which required to be declared at the meeting of the Planning Committee. Accordingly I found that the respondent had not breached the terms of paragraph 7.9.

9. Paragraph 7.10 of the Code requires councillors to remain impartial, and prohibits them from making public statements which might imply prejudgment of the decision. Within the context of this complaint it was relevant to note that the planning application was already being considered by the Planning Committee, having come before that body on 14 August 2007 when both the respondent and complainant had contributed to the debate. Their respective positions were already therefore a matter of public record. Having examined the minutes of all three minutes of the Planning Committee meetings at which the application was considered, together with the original notes from which the minutes were prepared, I could see nothing unusual in the contributions of either the respondent or complainant. I did not consider that the respondent's advice to the Community Council in regard to the submission of an intended letter of objection, the contents of which she was unaware, could be regarded as significantly strengthening the argument against the application, which was already ongoing. The ambiguous wording of the Community Council minute was unfortunate but did not give grounds to show prejudgment on the part of the respondent. The decision to submit such a letter, and its precise terms, were matters for the Community Council alone. I did not consider that the respondent breached the terms of paragraph 7.10, and I found accordingly.

10. The issues of whether the Community Council was quorate when the decision was taken to submit a letter of objection, and the Planning Committee's procedural correctness in taking cognisance of the letter when the application was already under consideration, were matters which fell outwith my jurisdiction. It was not therefore proper for me to consider or comment on this matter.

11. Having considered the information that arose from my investigation, I concluded that Councillor Lisa Beattie had not contravened the Councillors' Code of Conduct.

D Stuart Allan

Chief Investigating Officer

Forsyth House

Innova Campus

Rosyth Europarc

Rosyth

KY11 2UU

25 February 2008