Agenda, decisions and draft minutes

To elect a Chairman for this meeting only.

Resolved:

To elect Councillor Howard Greenman as Chairman for this meeting only.

To receive any declarations of disclosable interests or dispensations granted by the Standards Committee.

There were no declarations.

To note the procedure and assessment criteria for the meeting.

The procedure and assessment criteria for the meeting were noted.

To consider passing the following resolution:

To agree that in accordance with Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972 to exclude the public from the meeting for the business specified in Item Number 5  because it is likely that if members of the public were present there would be disclosure to them of exempt information as defined in paragraph 1 of Part I of Schedule 12A to the Act and the public interest in withholding the information outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information to the public.

Paragraph 1 - information relating to an individual

Resolved:

To agree that in accordance with Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972 to exclude the public from the meeting for the business specified in Agenda Item Number 4 onwards because it is likely that if members of the public were present there would be disclosure to them of exempt information as defined in paragraph 1 of Part I of Schedule 12A to the Act and the public interest in withholding the information outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information to the public.

Paragraph 1 - information relating to an individual

Preamble

A complaint had been submitted by Mr and Mrs D’Arcy-Irvine, regarding the conduct of Cllr Peter Cliffe-Roberts, Enford Parish Council. 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 Enford Parish 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 was 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 a Representative of the Monitoring Officer to take no further action, and the complainants’ request for a review and supporting documentation. The Sub-Committee also considered a verbal statement from the complainants and a written statement from the Subject Member, who was not in attendance.

Conclusion

The complaint involved a long running dispute between the complainants and the Parish Council, of which Mr D’Arcy-Irvine is also a member, regarding location of the boundary between the parish hall and the complainants’ property, and the actions of the Subject Member as part of that dispute. The dispute stretched across many years, and in particular many of the points of complaint arose anew in 2017 onwards, and there had been many exchanges of correspondence between solicitors for the various parties involved.

The initial assessment has noted that under the assessment criteria matters could only be subject to complaint if that complaint was made within 20 days from when the complainants were aware or ought to have become aware of the matters in question, and had not considered points before that date. The Sub-Committee accepted that point. They  were also of the opinion that the decision of the various parties to engage solicitors in communication with one another regarding the dispute did not preclude the submission of a Code of Conduct complaint at an earlier stage., Notwithstanding this however, the Sub-Committee noted the long running background to the dispute, and the alleged actions of the Subject Member and the others subject to the complaint, within the period since May considered by the initial assessment.

The Sub-Committee, on the balance of the information as provided, accepted the reasoning of the initial assessment decision that the concerns raised in the complaint related to the dispute between the parish council as a body and the complainants, which the Complainants then sought to frame as a Code of Conduct complaint against individual councillors, including the Subject Member, who is currently serving as Chairman. They also accepted the analysis that the alleged actions of individual members of that council as part of that dispute, including the Subject Member, would not, if proven,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 52.

Preamble

A complaint had been submitted by Mr and Mrs D’Arcy-Irvine, regarding the conduct of Cllr Mark HIskett, Enford Parish Council. 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 Enford Parish 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 was 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 a Representative of the Monitoring Officer to take no further action, and the complainants’ request for a review and supporting documentation. The Sub-Committee also considered a verbal statement from the complainants and a written statement from the Subject Member, who was not in attendance.

Conclusion

The complaint involved a long running dispute between the complainants and the Parish Council, of which Mr D’Arcy-Irvine is also a member, regarding location of the boundary between the parish hall and the complainants’ property, and the actions of the Subject Member as part of that dispute. The dispute stretched across many years, and in particular many of the points of complaint arose anew in 2017 onwards, and there had been many exchanges of correspondence between solicitors for the various parties involved.

The initial assessment has noted that under the assessment criteria matters could only be subject to complaint if that complaint was made within 20 days from when the complainants were aware or ought to have become aware of the matters in question, and had not considered points before that date. The Sub-Committee accepted that point. They  were also of the opinion that the decision of the various parties to engage solicitors in communication with one another regarding the dispute did not preclude the submission of a Code of Conduct complaint at an earlier stage., Notwithstanding this however, the Sub-Committee noted the long running background to the dispute, and the alleged actions of the Subject Member and the others subject to the complaint, within the period since May considered by the initial assessment.

The Sub-Committee, on the balance of the information as provided, accepted the reasoning of the initial assessment decision that the concerns raised in the complaint related to the dispute between the parish council as a body and the complainants, which the Complainants then sought to frame as a Code of Conduct complaint against individual councillors, including the Subject Member, who is currently serving as Chairman. They also accepted the analysis that the alleged actions of individual members of that council as part of that dispute, including the Subject Member, would not, if  ...  view the full minutes text for item 53.

Preamble

A complaint had been submitted by Mr and Mrs D’Arcy-Irvine, regarding the conduct of Cllr Richard Roberts, Enford Parish Council.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 Enford Parish 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 was 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 a Representative of the Monitoring Officer to take no further action, and the complainants’ request for a review and supporting documentation. The Sub-Committee also considered a verbal statement from the complainants and a written statement from the Subject Member, who was not in attendance.

Conclusion

The complaint involved a long running dispute between the complainants and the Parish Council, of which Mr D’Arcy-Irvine is also a member, regarding location of the boundary between the parish hall and the complainants’ property, and the actions of the Subject Member as part of that dispute. The dispute stretched across many years, and in particular many of the points of complaint arose anew in 2017 onwards, and there had been many exchanges of correspondence between solicitors for the various parties involved.

The initial assessment has noted that under the assessment criteria matters could only be subject to complaint if that complaint was made within 20 days from when the complainants were aware or ought to have become aware of the matters in question, and had not considered points before that date. The Sub-Committee accepted that point. They  were also of the opinion that the decision of the various parties to engage solicitors in communication with one another regarding the dispute did not preclude the submission of a Code of Conduct complaint at an earlier stage., Notwithstanding this however, the Sub-Committee noted the long running background to the dispute, and the alleged actions of the Subject Member and the others subject to the complaint, within the period since May considered by the initial assessment.

The Sub-Committee, on the balance of the information as provided, accepted the reasoning of the initial assessment decision that the concerns raised in the complaint related to the dispute between the parish council as a body and the complainants, which the Complainants then sought to frame as a Code of Conduct complaint against individual councillors, including the Subject Member, who is currently serving as Chairman. They also accepted the analysis that the alleged actions of individual members of that council as part of that dispute, including the Subject Member, would not, if proven, rise  ...  view the full minutes text for item 54.