Information on Investigations

Which Sector? > Local Authorities > Scottish Borders Council > LA/SB/202

Note of Decision Web Version

Complaint number LA/SB/202 concerning an alleged contravention of the Councillors' Code of Conduct by Councillor Carolyn Riddell Carre of Scottish Borders Council

1. Complaint number LA/SB/202 alleged a contravention of the Councillors' Code of Conduct ("the Code") by Councillor Carolyn Riddell-Carre ("the respondent").

2. It was alleged that the respondent had contravened the Code, in particular, the provisions relating to Dealing with Planning Applications set out in paragraphs 7.2 and 7.3 of the Code.

3. The person complaining alleged that during the consideration of a planning application for a house on a smallholding the respondent described the proposed development site in a manner which was offensive and unfair to the complainant.

4. The complaint centred on the comment made by the respondent at the meeting of Eildon Area Committee on 21 March 2005 when Councillor Riddell-Carre described the complainant's proposed development site as resembling 'a tinkers' encampment'.

5. Section 7 of the Code provides guidance to councillors on dealing with planning applications. The intention is to ensure that parties involved in the development process are dealt with fairly. Councillors are enjoined to avoid giving any suspicion or appearance of improper conduct.

6. The complainant agreed that the respondent acted properly prior to the meeting on 21 March 2005. On at least one occasion she had advised him to reapply after the rejection of his initial application for planning permission. The requirement to maintain an impartial stance on a pending application prevented the respondent from saying otherwise or indicating overt support. The complainant had also approached the respondent in her social work capacity and sought her support for loan funding for the project. Had the respondent engaged in discussion on this issue it might well have created a declarable interest which would have excluded her from participating in the determination of the planning application.

7. In examining the remarks made by the respondent at the meeting on 21 March 2005 it is appropriate to consider the context in which they were made. The Committee members had been provided with copies of the letters of objection, several of which made reference to the condition of the site and the removal of established trees and hedging by the complainant. In addition slides of the site had been shown to the Committee from which its general appearance was evident. In stating that the site had not been treated with respect the respondent was referring to the visual impact of the site, and her reference to 'a tinkers' encampment' placed emphasis on this in a descriptive manner rather than indicating a prejudice towards the complainant or a wider minority group.

8. This remark was subjective and might have been better expressed by more precise specification of the unsightly aspects of the site. There is no doubt that the terminology applied was an emphatic expression of the respondent's assessment of the appearance of the smallholding, but it also potentially strayed from consideration of the site itself to convey a negative impression of the applicant.

9. The Ettrick and Lauderdale Local Plan requires that developments should have no adverse effect on countryside amenity, landscape or nature conservation, and, as this was one of the points underlying the recommendation to refuse the application, comment on the appearance and visual impact of the site was relevant.

10. The terminology applied did surprise the Chair, Councillor Moore, and the local member Councillor Houston speaks of being 'slightly stunned'. Nevertheless no member of the Committee sought to intervene and Councillor Moore did not feel that it was of such a nature as to require any censure. The complainant took a different view however and felt that it was personally offensive such that he left the room.

11. The decision to refuse the application in accordance with the recommendation contained in Mr Frater's report was taken unanimously. The decision was adequately founded on that basis and it would not have been materially influenced by the descriptive terminology used by the respondent, which was not such as could reasonably be regarded as in breach of the Code of Conduct.

12. The complainant suggested that the reference to 'tinkers' was in itself offensive to travellers, and that it was particularly inappropriate for the respondent, in her social work role, to comment in this manner. It is incumbent upon elected members to have regard to the manner in which their public comments may be reported, perceived and interpreted by third parties. The key principle of Leadership places a duty on councillors to maintain and strengthen the public's confidence in the integrity of the Council in conducting public business, and pejorative comments which appear to be critical of a particular sector of the community may not be helpful in developing social cohesion.

13. Having considered the information arising from my investigation, I concluded that Councillor Carolyn Riddell-Carre had not contravened the Councillors' Code of Conduct.

D Stuart Allan,
Chief Investigating Officer.
Forsyth House
Innova Campus
Rosyth Europarc
Rosyth
Fife
KY11 2UU
25 July 2005