Information on Investigations

Which Sector? > Local Authorities > Renfrewshire Council > LA/R/620

Note of Decision Web Version

Complaint no. LA/R/620 concerning an alleged contravention of the Councillors' Code of Conduct by Councillor Iain Nicolson of Renfrewshire Council

1. Complaint number LA/R/620 alleged a contravention of the Councillors' Code of Conduct ("the Code") by Councillor Iain Nicolson ("the respondent").

2. It was alleged that the respondent hadcontravened the Code, in particular, key principles of Duty, Openness and Leadership in section 2; provisions of 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.

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.

4. The person complaining ("the complainant") allegedthat at a Policy Board meeting on 24 May 2005 Councillor Nicolson moved that land at Manse Crescent, Houston, be not declared surplus; but on 5 June 2007 he moved on the same item that the matter be progressed. The complainant alleged that, in doing so, Councillor Nicolson failed to declare an interest and should have made known to the Committee that he had previously held meetings with members of the public and given an opinion on the matter. The complainant also alleged that this was in direct violation of Planning Policy guidelines which make it clear that members must not give a preference either for or against an application going to the Policy Board. He further considered that Councillor Nicolson breached key principles of Duty, Openness and Leadership.

5. Such actions, if upheld, could involve breaches of the key principles and of 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 a councillor changes his or her views on an issue and votes differently from how they did on a previous occasion. That is what happened here, but it did not follow that the actions of Councillor Nicolson were in breach of the Code. He had indeed met with local groups and had opposed the proposed sale of land in 2005, but when it came back to the Policy Board on 5 June 2007 he took a different decision, as he was entitled to do. There is nothing to debar the respondent, and councillors generally, from having a change of mind and in doing so they may well take into account changing circumstances.

7. It is 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 applicationof 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 (eg 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 respondent was free to take a decision according to the information available to him 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, Councillor Nicolson, as a councillor of the new administration, was dealing with somewhat different circumstances. He was entitled to review the matter as things stood at 5 June 2007 and to reach a different decision. I did not consider that he was in breach of the key principles of Duty, Openness and Leadership, nor did I consider that his previous support for the local group amounted to an interest which required to be declared under sections 5 or 6 of the Code. As the Policy Board was not considering a planning application, there was likewise no contravention by the respondent under section 7 of the Code of Conduct.

10. Having considered the information that arose from my investigation, I concluded that Councillor Iain Nicolson hadnot 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