Information on Investigations

Which Sector? > Local Authorities > Shetland Island > LA/IS/106

Note of Decision Web Version

Complaint no. LA/SI/106 concerning an alleged contravention of the Councillors' Code of Conduct by Councillor Florence Grains of Shetland Islands Council

1. Complaint number LA/SI/106 alleged a contravention of the Councillors' Code of Conduct ("the Code") by Councillor Florence Grains ("the respondent").

2. It was alleged that the respondent had contravened the Code, in particular, the key principle of Honesty set out in section 2, the provisions relating to Declaration of Interests in section 5, and the provisions relating to Planning Applications in section 7.

3. The person complaining ("the complainant") alleged that during the consideration of a planning application the respondent failed to declare an interest as a relation of one of the applicants, took part in the consideration of the issue, and spoke persuasively in support of the application.

4. The complainant became aware of a planning application for the erection of a dwelling house on land overlooked by a house in which he had an interest. He made representation to the Planning Sub-Committee on the basis that the proposed development lay on land that was not zoned for housing and would thus breach policies within the Structure Plan and Local Plan.

5. The application was considered by the Planning Sub-Committee of which the respondent is a member. The respondent was aware that her son was married to the aunt of one of the applicants but did not consider this connection to be sufficiently close as to raise a declarable interest. She spoke in support of the application, proposed a site visit, and argued that the zoning boundary was inappropriate in relation to the proposed development site and justified departure from strict observance of policy. Her motion to grant the application was upheld by the majority vote.

6. The crux of the complaint was whether the respondent had satisfied the objective test as to declaration of interest. There was no suggestion that the applicants had contacted Councillor Grains prior to submitting the application or sought her support.

7. The Code does not require the declaration of an interest arising from relationship and it does not necessarily follow that a family link will inevitably influence a councillor's consideration of an issue. The relationship between the respondent and the applicants was distant and not cemented by close social or family ties. It was not sufficiently close to require her to declare an interest.

8. There is no doubt that the respondent took an active role in the consideration of the application. It is relevant to note however that the motions raised by Councillor Grains received support from other Sub-Committee members and did not rely upon her vote alone. The motion to grant the application was based on proper planning considerations and endorsed by the majority vote.

9. The complainant referred to the robust contribution made by Councillor Grains at the various meetings at which the application was considered. Persuasive argument is integral to the democratic process and I did not consider that this was a matter that could be considered by the Code. I found that in this case the respondent acted reasonably and properly in supporting the grant of planning permission.

10. Having considered all the information I concluded that Councillor Grains had not contravened the Councillors' Code of Conduct.

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