Information on Investigations

Which Sector? > Local Authorities > Stirling Council > LA/S/885

Note of Decision Web Version

Complaint no. LA/S/885 concerning an alleged contravention of the Councillors’ Code of Conduct by Councillor Graham Reed of Stirling Council

1. Complaint number LA/S/885 alleged a contravention of the Councillors’ Code of Conduct (“the Code”) by Councillor Graham Reed (the respondent).

2. It was alleged that the respondent had contravened the Code, in particular the Key Principles of Accountability and Stewardship and Openness in section 2, and the provisions relating to Taking Decisions on Individual Applications set out in paragraph 7.2 of the Councillors’ Code of Conduct.

3. The person complaining (“the complainant”) alleged there was a lack of transparency and procedural irregularities on the part of Councillor Reed and other members of the Planning Panel which resulted in a decision being made in favour of a planning application.

4. The complaint largely centred on the consideration given to amended plans which were lodged with the planning officer on 4 June 2009, the day on which the application was dealt with by the Planning Panel.  While I could appreciate that objectors would be less prepared for this than either planning officers or Planning Panel members, nevertheless I was satisfied that the revisions to the plans were indeed relatively minor and were aimed at mitigating some of the objections to the application.  The planning officer has confirmed that he explained the position regarding the revisions. Councillor Reed has said that he found them easy to digest, as also did Councillor Brisley.  There was no request by anyone present, neither the objectors nor Councillor Owens the local member who had referred the application, nor other Panel members.  In light of the foregoing, I did not consider that Councillor Reed, as Chair, could reasonably have been expected to adjourn the meeting. 

5. It appeared to me that the Planning Panel had been fully informed of the details of the application through the material provided to them by planning officers.  The Panel had undertaken a site inspection during which they spent a considerable time acquainting themselves with the application site, the layout of the existing houses in the neighbouring cul-de-sac and they sought to clarify issues raised concerning overlooking and matters of private ownership.  On these matters, they were entitled to take the advice of their professional officers.  The Planning Panel also arranged to conduct a Hearing at which the objectors, the local member and applicant could be heard.  When they came to make a decision, there was nothing unusual in their decision-making process.  When Councillor Brisley moved for approval, there was no dissent.  A consensus decision on planning applications is not at all unusual and that is what occurred on this occasion.

6. I did not see any action by the respondent, Councillor Graham Reed, or indeed by any other member of the Planning Panel which amounted to lack of transparency, or openness or accountability.  I did not consider that any of the Key Principles in the Councillors' Code of Conduct had been breached, nor was there evidence of any failure of duty to ensure that the decision on the planning application was properly taken or unfairness in the process.

7. Having considered the information that arose from my investigation, I concluded that Councillor Graham Reed had not contravened the Councillors’ Code of Conduct.

D Stuart Allan

Chief Investigating Officer

44 Drumsheugh Gardens

Edinburgh

EH3 7SW

25 November 2009