Information on Investigations

Which Sector? > Local Authorities > North Lanarkshire > LA/NL/551

Notice of Decision Web Version

Complaint no. LA/NL/551 concerning an alleged contravention of the Councillors' Code of Conduct by Councillor Samuel Love of North Lanarkshire Council

1. Complaint number LA/NL/551 alleged a contravention of the Councillors' Code of Conduct ("the Code") by Councillor Samuel Love ("the respondent").

2. It was alleged that the respondent had contravened the Code, in particular, the provisions set out in section 3 on Relations with Council Employees and Conduct in the Chamber or in Committee; and set out in section 7 on Dealing With Planning Applications.

3. The person complaining ("the complainant") alleged that an internal investigation having been carried out by the Council into allegations of corruption against Council members or employees, the respondent, without verifying the accuracy of the information:

a) reported the circumstances to Strathclyde Police; and

b) disclosed details of the allegations to the press;

and that these actions exposed the complainant's firm to police investigation and damaged the reputation of the company and the Council.

The complainant also alleged that in raising suggestions of corrupt practice the respondent showed disrespect to Council employees and failed to observe the distinction in roles between members and officers.

Finally the complainant alleged that in seeking to influence the Planning and Environment Committee in their consideration of planning applications submitted by the complainant's company, the respondent acted in a manner that gave rise to suspicion of unfairness.

4. The complainant managed a company engaged in the construction and sale of houses in Wishaw and the surrounding area. Since December 1996 the firm had submitted 73 planning applications to the Council.

5. In 2002 the company was approached by the owner of a house situated at Coltness, Wishaw who sought to sell his property for possible development. The company agreed to purchase the site which at that time comprised two cottages, three outbuildings, and an area of woodland.

6. The company made informal enquiry of the Council Planning Department who advised that an application for three houses might be acceptable. No formal application was registered until 1 October 2002 when the company sought outline permission for ten houses. The case officer recommended approval subject to conditions which included the management and retention of woodland, and that the total development should not exceed nine houses. On 19 February 2003 this application came before the Planning and Environment Committee and permission was granted in accordance with the recommendation.

7. On 1 April 2003 the company registered a detailed application for the erection of ten houses and, as this represented an expansion of the original outline permission, it fell to be treated as a new application. The planning officer recommended approval subject to conditions similar to those applied to the previous outline application. The application came before the Planning and Environment Committee on 4 February 2004 and was granted in accordance with the report.

8. In the autumn of 2005 the firm contacted the Planning Department to seek their views on a proposal to construct a further three houses on land at the south end of the site. By adjustments to the existing site plan, the developers were able to create sufficient area to meet the Council's space criteria and on 3 and 9 November 2005 three separate applications were registered for permission to erect three houses. These applications were considered at the meeting of the Planning and Environment Committee on 12 July 2006.

9. The respondent, as the local Councillor, was alerted to issues which were giving rise to concerns by the local community as to the manner in which the Coltness housing site was being developed. These centred on the restriction of access to a right of way and the removal of, or damage to, trees which were a significant feature of this woodland site. In an attempt to resolve these concerns the respondent quite properly contacted the Planning Department to ascertain the legal position, and whether the developers were complying with conditions attached to the grant of planning permission. The respondent compiled a file of relevant papers from which he became concerned that the extent of the permitted development had grown to a total of thirteen houses, significantly exceeding the three dwellings originally indicated by the planners. The respondent was unable to determine how this had occurred and, again quite properly, asked the Council's Chief Executive to investigate the circumstances. On the information available to me I am satisfied that the respondent made no direct allegation of impropriety or corrupt practice against any elected member, Council officer, or third party. The file supplied by the respondent to the Chief Executive, and subsequently examined by the Head of Central Services, likewise contained no suggestion of impropriety and when read as a whole simply provided a history of the site, successive planning applications, and issues relating to the management of the site.

10. When informed of the outcome of the scrutiny of the file, and the answers to specific supplementary questions, the respondent remained dissatisfied that the explanation was sufficient. While an inference might have reasonably been drawn that he suspected some form of impropriety had been involved, this allegation was not directly expressed, and the documents gathered by the respondent merely detailed the history of the development. It is pertinent to note that the respondent was not a member of the Planning and Environment Committee and accepted at interview that he was not fully acquainted with the planning process.

11. In opting to pursue further his concerns by referring the matter to the police the respondent was exercising the right of any individual to seek their assistance. Once again no specific allegation was made against any party and the information provided to the police appears to have been no different than that supplied by the respondent to the Chief Executive. It was a decision for the police as to whether the concerns were such as to warrant further investigation and where public authorities are concerned this will not be taken lightly. I noted that the decision to refer the matter for investigation was taken at senior level by the Divisional Commander, and endorsed by the Deputy Head of Strathclyde Police CID. While it might be judged that the respondent acted precipitately in taking his concerns to the police without direct evidence of wrongdoing, this would in many cases be an unrealistic expectation. I would not wish to deter elected members from their duty to scrutinise Council activities and I did not consider that the respondent acted outwith the principles of the Code in so doing. I found accordingly.

12. The complainant's belief that the respondent alerted the press to his concerns was speculative and adamantly denied by the respondent. The content of the press reports did not attribute the source to the respondent and one report categorically stated that he declined to comment. In any event the respondent would have been entitled to bring his generalised concerns to the attention of the press at any stage, and his actions, had he done so, would not have conflicted with the Code. I found accordingly.

13. While the respondent had not breached the Code in respect of the complainant's allegations I noted that his contacts with the Council planning officer during the course of the latter planning applications were critical of the applicant firm and sought enforcement of planning conditions. A Councillor must, however, be able to draw any failure relating to development control to the attention of planning officers for possible enforcement action. There was no evidence that the planners were influenced by such contact, but Councillors should be mindful of the terms of paragraph 7.7 of the Code which expressly prohibits pressurising planning officers to provide a particular recommendation on any planning application, planning agreement or taking enforcement action. The planning officer who dealt with these applications, was apparently contacted on numerous occasions by the respondent who raised concerns over the management of the site by the developers and expressed these in terms which were critical of the company and, by implication, planning officers. The planning officer's report was however confined to the applications and made no reference to the management of the site, or compliance with conditions applying to the previous grant of planning permission, which might have demonstrated influence by the respondent. While I noted that the respondent was vigorous in raising what he saw as development control failings with the Planning Department, I did not consider this could reasonably be taken to amount to an attempt to direct their operational role in terms of paragraphs 3.3 or 7.7 of the Code. I found accordingly.

14. The role of the respondent in addressing the Planning and Environment Committee on 12 July 2006 was that of the local Councillor rather than as a member of the Committee itself. As such he was not involved in the decision-making process and was not required to declare an interest, and was entitled to convey his support or opposition to the applications on which he wished to address the Committee. Section 7 of the Code is primarily addressed to members who deal with planning applications as members of the relevant decision-making committee and I found that the respondent had not breached paragraphs 7.2 and 7.3 which were cited by the complainant.

15. In general terms it is appropriate for Councillors who address such meetings as non-members of the decision-making body to ensure that their comments are factually accurate and confined to the application in hand, but issues such as relevancy are a matter for the chair to consider in the normal course of managing the meeting. In regard to the respondent's address the manuscript notes taken by the clerk did not disclose any allegations of impropriety against individuals, although they did raise issues of non-compliance with planning conditions against the developers (which might indeed be relevant to the consideration of a related application). I did not consider that the respondent's contribution was such as to prejudice the attitude of the Committee in their consideration of the applications. I also noted that the developers' representative was given an opportunity to respond to points made by the respondent and that the Committee members had been afforded the opportunity of a site visit to view the situation for themselves.

16. I noted that the complainant had received written confirmation from the Council Chief Executive that applications for planning permission would continue to be dealt with in accordance with normal practice and procedure. No evidence was adduced to show that the complainant's firm had been prejudiced in subsequent applications.

17. Having considered the information that arose from my investigation, I concluded that Councillor Samuel Love had not contravened the Councillors' Code of Conduct.

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