Information on Investigations

Which Sector? > Local Authorities > Renfrewshire Council > LA/R/617

Note of Decision Web Version

Complaint no. LA/R/617 concerning an alleged contravention of the Councillors' Code of Conduct by Councillor Iain Nicolson and Councillor Allan Noon of Renfrewshire Council

1. Complaint number LA/R/617 alleged a contravention of the Councillors' Code of Conduct ("the Code") by Councillors Iain Nicolson and Allan Noon ("the respondents").

2. It was alleged that the respondents had contravened the Code, in particular, section 5 relating to Declaration of Interests, section 6 relating to Lobbying and Access to Councillors and section 7 regarding Taking Decisions on Individual Applications.

3. After the May 2007 elections, the SNP formed a coalition administration with the Scottish Liberal Democrats on the Council. Councillor Nicolson was appointed Convener of the Planning and Policy Development Board and Councillor Noon was appointed Convener of the General Management and Finance Policy Board.

4. The person complaining ("the complainant") alleged that in 2005 Councillor Nicolson and Councillor Noon had publicly supported local groups in opposition to the sale of land at Manse Crescent, Houston. Yet in June 2007, following the elections, they made an about-turn and supported the sale. The complainant alleged it was contrary to the Council's planning rules for councillors on the Planning Committee to take sides prior to the full Planning Policy Board meeting, and then to vote the other way. Furthermore, he said it is forbidden for any Councillor who sits on or convenes a Council Board to discuss or decide on an application in advance of its going to the Policy Board. In the complainant's view, Councillors Nicolson and Noon had broken these rules as they were privy to confidential information and had assisted both of these local bodies in their efforts against disposal of the land.

5. Such actions, if upheld, could involve breaches of the Councillors' Code of Conduct relating to section 5 relating to Declarations of Interests, section 6 relating to Lobbying and Access to Councillors and section 7 relating to Taking Decisions on Individual Applications. On examination of the information, however, I did not consider there was any evidence of a breach of the Code of Conduct. It appeared, rather, that the complaint was based on a misconception about the nature of the matters which were under consideration at the various Committee meetings and about the provisions of the Code of Conduct.

6. It may disconcert constituents when councillors change their views on an issue and vote differently from how they did on a previous occasion. That is what happened here, but it did not follow that the actions of Councillors Nicolson and Noon were in breach of the Code. They had indeed met with local groups and had opposed the proposed sale of land in 2005; but when it came back to their respective Policy Boards on 5 and 6 June 2007 they took a different decision, as they were entitled to do. There is nothing to debar the respondents and councillors generally, from having a change of mind and in doing so they may well take into account changing circumstances.

7. It was clear from the records at the Board meetings that it was not a planning application that was before the Policy Boards. What was under consideration, both in 2005 and in 2007, was a proposal to sell land for eventual development and a design brief showing a possible site layout and housing mix. The Council and its Committees were never at any time dealing with a planning application, nor were they taking decisions on an individual application of a regulatory nature as envisaged under section 7 of the Code of Conduct.

8. The Code of Conduct and the Standards Commission Guidance indicate that the provisions in section 7 are intended to deal with the handling of individual applications and should not be seen as limiting councillors from discussing or debating matters of policy or strategy. Section 7 applies to planning applications and to a number of other applications of a quasi-judicial or regulatory nature (for example, licensing applications) where the issuing of a statutory approval or consent is involved. In these circumstances, the provisions of section 7 of the Code did not apply to the matter under consideration in this case and therefore there could be no breach of any parts of that section. Aside from the Code, the Council's Monitoring Officer confirmed that there were no other planning rules within the Council itself which were applicable in this case.

9. The sale of the land was, therefore, a matter on which the respondents were free to take a decision according to the information available to them at the relevant meetings. One matter which had altered by June 2007 was that one of the local groups interest in taking steps under the Land Reform Act (to purchase the ground for community use) had changed and the group's appeal to be allowed to purchase the land had been abandoned. In view of that, Councillors Nicolson and Noon, as councillors of the new administration, were dealing with somewhat different circumstances. I did not consider that there was a lack of impartiality on their part, or that their previous support for the local group amounted to an interest which required to be declared. I considered that they were entitled to participate in the meetings of 5 and 6 June 2007 respectively and that there was no contravention by the respondents under sections 5 or 6 of the Councillors' Code of Conduct. The complainant had questioned why the local group were excluded from the meeting of 6 June 2007 during the item relating to the sale of the land. I took the view there was nothing untoward in this. This is a normal, recognised and entirely competent procedure where items are being considered which may contain commercially sensitive information, such as price negotiations or offers to purchase and where it is considered to exclude the public from meetings in the wider public interest.

10. Having considered the information that arose from my investigation, I concluded that Councillor Iain Nicolson and Councillor Allan Noon had not contravened the Councillors' Code of Conduct.

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