Issue - meetings

A complaint had been made by Harriet James (the complainant) against Cllr Christopher Newbury (the subject member), a member of Wiltshire Council. The complaint related to a meeting of the Western Area Planning Committee, of which the subject member is chairman, on 25 July 2018. It was alleged that the subject member breached the code in that he failed to promote high standards of conduct or demonstrate leadership or accountability in not declaring his membership of the Warminster Area Board, or status as an elected member for part of Warminster, where an application before the committee was located, and that he did not provide reasons for not voting on the application.

The complaint had received an initial assessment by the deputy monitoring officer, who had concluded none of the allegations, if proven, would amount to a breach of the relevant code of conduct. The complainant then requested a review of that initial assessment decision.

After opening the meeting and detailing the procedure the review sub-committee formally excluded any press or public, and then received a verbal statement from the complainant in support of their complaint. The sub-committee then retired to consider the complaint and the reasons for review.

Preamble

The Sub-Committee were satisfied that the initial tests of the Assessment Criteria had been met, being that the member was and remains a member of Wiltshire Council, that the conduct related to their conduct as a member of that council, and that a copy of the relevant Code of Conduct was provided for the assessment.

The Sub-Committee therefore had to decide whether the alleged behaviour would, if proven, amount to a breach of that Code of Conduct. Further, if it was felt it would be a breach, whether it still appropriate under the assessment criteria to refer the matter for investigation.

In reaching its decision, the Sub-Committee took into account the complaint and supporting documentation, the response of the Subject Member, the initial assessment of the Deputy Monitoring Officer to take no further action, and the complainant’s request for a review. The Sub-Committee also considered a verbal statement from the Complainant and a written statement from Subject Member, who was not in attendance. The Sub-Committee took into account that the complainant did not agree with the summary of their complaint in the initial assessment decision notice, clarifying instead that she had complained that the Subject Member did not declare that he was ‘a’ local member or a member of the Area Board, not that he did not declare that he was the councillor for ‘the’ part of Warminster in which the application was situated.

Conclusion

The complaint involved consideration of and voting involving a planning application which was determined by the Western Area Planning Committee, of which the Subject Member is the Chairman. The planning application was local to Warminster, a part of which the Subject Member represents, and from the papers before the Review Sub-Committee it was clear the application involved significant local interest. The Subject Member did not vote  ...  view the full minutes text for item 10