Information on Investigations

Which Sector? > Local Authorities > Stirling Council > LA/S/667

Note of Decision Web Version

Complaint no. LA/S/667 concerning an alleged contravention of the Councillors’ Code of Conduct by (former) Provost Margaret Brisley of Stirling Council

1. Complaint number LA/S/667 alleged a contravention of the Councillors’ Code of Conduct (“the Code”) by (former) Provost Margaret Brisley (“the respondent”).

2. It was alleged that the respondent had contravened section 5 of the Code on Declaration of Interests, in particular, paragraph 5.13 which deals with the interests of other persons, and section 7 on Taking Decisions on Individual Applications, in particular paragraph 7.7 which relates to dealing with planning applications.

3. The person complaining (“the complainant”) (former) Depute Provost Gerard O’Brien, alleged that the respondent participated in the consideration of a planning application by Mr and Mrs M (in which they sought approval for the construction of a new dwelling house in the garden ground of their home) which was granted at the Stirling Council Planning Panel meeting held on 19 December 2007, whereas, because of her alleged close friendship with the applicants, she should have declared that close friendship as an interest, and, rather than taking part in the consideration of the application, should have left the meeting room until consideration of, and any voting on, the application had been concluded. The complainant also alleged that at an earlier stage in the planning process the respondent had sought to pressure the planning officer preparing the report on this planning application to provide a particular recommendation. In particular he alleged that the respondent had sought to pressure the planning officer who was recommending refusal of the application in his draft report to add a recommendation that the Planning Panel should conduct a site visit if the members were minded to approve the application.

4. The respondent denied having a close friendship with the planning applicants which should have caused her to declare an interest and not participate in the consideration of their planning application. Likewise, Mr and Mrs M denied having a close friendship with (former) Provost Brisley. They were two of her constituents who had what might be described as a “nodding acquaintanceship” with the respondent. The information provided by the complainant in support of this allegation was at best vague and was neither clarified nor strengthened at interview. Accordingly I was completely satisfied that there was no evidence of the respondent having had a close friendship with the planning applicants which should have caused her to declare an interest and refrain from participating in the consideration of their planning application. 

5. The complainant’s second allegation that (former) Provost Brisley had sought to pressure the planning officer to provide a particular recommendation on this planning application was also vigorously refuted by the respondent. Once again the respondent’s position was supported by the other evidence namely the account given by the planning officer. He explained that he had included the suggestion about a site visit in his draft report because he had considered that, should the Planning Panel be of a mind to approve the application and set aside the compelling planning policy reasons for refusal as recommended in his report, it would have been helpful for the Panel to visit the site as he had not considered the physical characteristics of the site suitable for a house development. Once again I had no difficulty in accepting the evidence of the respondent and the planning officer as opposed to the allegation put forward by the complainant. The planning officer had maintained his position throughout, namely recommending refusal of the application on planning policy grounds, and as the respondent pointed out if, as she had done, she had considered a site visit would have been appropriate in respect of this application then, once again as she had done, she merely had had to move, when the application had come before the Planning Panel meeting of 20 November 2007, that the Panel defer consideration of the application pending a site visit. I found no evidence that the respondent had sought to pressure the planning officer in this case.

6. In his first letter of complaint the complainant had also alleged a breach a paragraph 3.13 of the Code. This paragraph creates a requirement for councillors to record with the appropriate officer the details of any gifts or hospitality received. At interview the complainant was unable to explain why this allegation had been included in his letter and was unable to provide any evidence or information to support it.

7. Finally the complainant had also appeared to allege some form of irregularity in relation to this planning application never having appeared on the Council’s weekly planning schedule. In fact the application had appeared in the schedule dated 29 August 2007 and in terms of the Stirling Council planning arrangements had reappeared in the schedule dated 14 November 2007 as one of a number of recommendations which would have become formal decisions unless written comments had been received from councillors. Prior to 14 November 2007 the respondent had requested that the planning application be referred to the Planning Panel. I was advised by the Head of Planning and Regulation at the Council that there was nothing inappropriate about this sequence of events and it was, as had been asserted by the respondent in her written response, merely a method of saving time by not waiting for a planning application to appear again on a schedule before seeking a referral to the Planning Panel.

8. Having considered the information that arose from my investigation, I concluded that (former) Provost Margaret Brisley had not contravened the Councillors’ Code of Conduct.

D Stuart Allan

Chief Investigating Officer

Forsyth House

Innova Campus

Rosyth Europarc

Rosyth

KY11 2UU

31 March 2008