Information on Investigations

Which Sector? > Local Authorities > Stirling Council > LA/S/28

Note of Decision - Case No. LA/S/28

Concerning an alleged contravention of The Councillors' Code of Practice by Councillor Margaret Brisley of Stirling Council

1. Complaint number LA/S/28 alleges a contravention of the Councillors' Code of Conduct ("the Code"). The Code was issued by the Scottish Ministers in terms of section 1 of the Ethical Standards in Public Life etc. (Scotland) Act 2000 ("the 2000 Act") and came into effect on 1 May 2003.

2. The person complaining is Mr A ("the complainant") and he has alleged a contravention of the Code by Councillor Margaret Brisley ("the respondent"). The Councillor is an elected member of Stirling Council ("the Council").

3. For the purpose of this investigation, a number of persons were interviewed.

4. The complainant alleges that at a meeting of Bannockburn & District Community Council held in October 2003, Councillor Brisley commented on a planning application submitted by the complainant to Stirling Council in a manner that was prejudicial to its consideration. The complainant also alleges that the respondent has a pecuniary interest in a nearby property which would prohibit her from passing comment on the application.

5. The complainant alleges that Councillor Brisley has breached the provisions relating to planning which are contained within section 7 of the Code.

6. The respondent has signed a declaration of acceptance of the office of councillor under the Local Authorities (Councillors) (Declaration of Acceptance of Office) (Scotland) Order 1990, as amended, in terms of which councillors undertake to meet the requirements of the Councillors' Code of Conduct.

7. Councillor Brisley is not a member of either Bannockburn & District Community Council or Stirling Council Planning Panel. The Planning Panel is, in effect, a Committee of Stirling Council that has been set up to deal with planning matters, including the determination of planning applications.

8. On 24 September 2003 the complainant submitted an application for listed building consent and detailed planning consent to Stirling Council in regard to the disused church premises within the local area which he proposed to convert to residential use. Previous applications in relation to the same property had been considered by the Planning Panel on 4 March 2003, but withdrawn voluntarily by the complainant.

9. Notification of the September 2003 application was sent by Stirling Council to Bannockburn & District Community Council who were thus given an opportunity to comment. It is normal practice for Councillor Brisley to attend meetings of the Community Council. Her role there is to advise generally on Stirling Council policy, and to enable the views of the Community Council to be reflected within the local authority.

10. The complainant's planning application was raised at the meeting of Bannockburn & District Community Council held on 2 October 2003. This meeting was sparsely attended due to an impending election and no Minute was prepared due to an administrative oversight. The respondent however does not dispute that she attended the meeting and reminded the Community Council that when an earlier application had been made by the complainant they had expressed concerns over access and on-street parking. These comments reflected the letters of objection that had been received by Stirling Council. The absence of a written record hampers investigation but the respondent states that she expressed support in principle for the application, subject only to reservations in regard to amenity and road safety.

11. The proposed development was again considered at the Community Council meeting on 4 December 2003 when plans were viewed and the parking options discussed. Councillor Brisley is minuted on this occasion as requesting that construction be minimised to cause less inconvenience. There was apparently no significant objection and the Community Council made no representation to the Planning Panel on the application.

12. The complainant did not attend either meeting of the Community Council.

13. On 9 December 2003 the planning application was considered by Stirling Council Planning Panel. They had before them a report prepared by the Planning Department which was in favour of granting the application. Councillor Brisley was in attendance and invited to speak by the Chair, Councillor Charles McKean. The respondent is minuted as stating that she supported the application in principle but expressed reservations about community safety aspects in regard to the road layout. Detailed planning permission was granted subject to conditions, including one requiring the complainant to provide evidence that all of the land was within the applicant's control before any work on the development could commence.

14. No contact had been made by Councillor Brisley with the Chair of the Panel prior to the meeting on 9 December. Neither the Chair of the Planning Panel, nor the Director of Planning considered Councillor Brisley's submission to be exceptional or inappropriate, and the conditions applied were considered to be legitimate planning conditions.

15. Section 7 of the Code refers primarily to the role of councillors in making decisions on planning applications. The intention is to ensure that development decisions are properly taken and that the parties involved in the process are dealt with fairly. The provisions in section 7 quite properly place constraints on the actions of councillors who are involved in the decision-making process. Councillors should not seek to pressure planning officers to provide a particular recommendation on a planning application and should not organise support or opposition, lobby other councillors or act as an advocate for a particular recommendation.

16. In relation to the allegation of commenting inappropriately on the planning application I have come to the conclusion that Councillor Brisley was acting within the permitted scope of her role and responsibilities as an elected member and has not contravened the Councillors' Code of Conduct and I find to that effect.

17. The allegation that Councillor Brisley had a pecuniary interest in the application is founded upon her ownership of a flat in Bannockburn. This property is situated about 300 yards distant from the premises to which the application relates and on the opposite side of the road. The respondent has registered her ownership of this property in her statutory registration of interests. The complainant's suggestion that the respondent sought to oppose his application to preserve the availability of on-street parking for her property is tenuous and I do not consider it to be sufficient to require her to declare an interest and not to make comments on the planning application which she was invited to do by the Chair of the Panel.

18. In relation to the allegation of failing to declare a pecuniary interest I have concluded that Councillor Brisley has not contravened the Councillors' Code of Conduct in terms of this complaint and I find accordingly.

D Stuart Allan,
Chief Investigating Officer.
Forsyth House
Innova Campus
Rosyth Europarc
Rosyth
Fife
KY11 2UU
25 August 2004