Information on Investigations

Which Sector? > Local Authorities > North Ayrshire Council > LA/NA/364

Note of Decision Web Version

Complaint Number LA/NA/364 concerning an alleged contravention of the Councillors' Code of Conduct by Councillor Alan Munro of North Ayrshire Council

1. Complaint number LA/NA/364 alleged a contravention of the Councillors' Code of Conduct ("the Code") by Councillor Alan Munro ("the respondent").

2. It was alleged that the respondent had contravened the Code, in particular, the provisions regarding Declaration of Interests and Dealing with Planning Applications.

3. The person complaining ("the complainant") alleged that the respondent, being the owner of a site at Stevenston which he leased to BT Cellnet (formally mmO2 Ltd) and registered as an interest, such interest should have been declared prior to consideration of the planning application by mmO2Ltd in respect of a site to the north of 3 Kames Court, Irvine. The complainant also alleged that the input of the respondent during consideration of the application favoured the applicant and was a significant influence on the Committee in its decision to grant the application.

4. The complaint touched upon two distinct but related areas of the Code – the requirement to declare interests which might be seen to influence a member's decision-making and the requirement to demonstrate transparency in the consideration of individual applications.

5. The purpose of section 5 of the Code is to produce transparency in regard to interests which might influence, or be thought to influence, the actions of a councillor.

6. Paragraph 4.18 of the Code requires that interests in land be registered. The respondent complied with this requirement and his entry in the register was sufficient to identify the location and use of the land by BT Cellnet at Old Quarry Road, Stevenston.

7. The decision to declare an interest requires a personal judgement and an assessment against the objective test of whether a member of the public, acting reasonably, would think that the interest could influence the councillor's role. It is important to stress however that the requirement to declare an interest arises only when there is an apparent relationship between the item of business and the interest. In this case the respondent had a commercial relationship with BT Cellnet, the applicants for planning permission under their new style, mmO2 Ltd, but this would not necessarily in itself have barred him from participating in the consideration of the application. In particular there was no threat to the respondent's commercial arrangement with the applicants and no suggestion of any additional reward depending on the outcome of the application.

8. The respondent sought advice from the legal adviser to the Planning Committee prior to the first meeting at which the application by mmO2 Ltd was to be considered. He was advised that, as there was no link between that application and his ownership of the site in Stevenston and that its outcome could have no conceivable effect on the Stevenston lease or the rental derived from it, no declarable interest arose. The respondent proceeded on the basis of this advice which I judged to be wholly appropriate.

9. Section 7 of the Code refers specifically to the consideration of planning applications and places a duty on councillors to ensure that development decisions are properly taken and that the parties involved are dealt with fairly. Objectivity and impartiality are required to ensure that the decision-making process is properly applied and not subject to legal challenge. Councillors must not only avoid impropriety, but also avoid any occasion for suspicion and any appearance of improper conduct.

10. There is no doubt that the application by mmO2 Ltd had given rise to considerable local concern, and 147 representations were made to the Council, primarily on the grounds of possible public health risks associated with the proximity of the telecommunications mast to residential property and a primary school. Discussion took place at both meetings of the Planning Committee on this point, reference being made to the terms of Scottish Office PAN 62 and NPPG19 which advise that potential risks arising from emissions are not material planning considerations.

11. The complainant stated that the respondent's contribution to the meeting on 5 September 2005 was significant, but there was no evidence that the respondent improperly had any predisposed view that the application should be approved. Accordingly I considered that the respondent could be regarded as having acted quite properly in contributing to the Committee's consideration of the application.

12. Having considered the information that arose from my investigation, I concluded that, Councillor Alan Munro had not contravened the Councillors' Code of Conduct.

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