Agenda item

Preamble

A complaint had been submitted by Paul Jubbie, the Complainant, regarding the alleged conduct of Councillor Chris Beaver of Trowbridge Town Council, the Subject Member. The complaint was regarding alleged conflict between the Subject Members role as a councillor and employment as a planning consultant and agent, and the registration and declaration of pecuniary and other interests.

The complaint was initially assessed on 31 July 2021 where it was determined to refer the matter for investigation. Following that investigation, the Investigating Officer’s report concluded that the threshold for a breach of the Code of Conduct had not been reached in respect of alleged breaches of Part 1 and Part 2A of the Trowbridge Town Council Code of Conduct in relation to a meeting on 13 April 2021, in respect of any declarations in respect of registration and declaration of Beaumont (Bath) Ltd, or an email to a member of the public dated 9 May 2021 following a meeting.

The report concluded there may have been a breach in respect of Part 2A, in relation to the meeting of 21 May 2019 in that the Subject Member had a potential interest that may have activated a need to declare and refrain from participation due to apparent bias. However, for reasons further set out in that report, due to the historical nature of the complaint, the difficulty in drawing the line in respect of such interests, and the Subject Member demonstrating a conscious commitment to comply with the Code of Conduct in respect of interests, the report concluded that it was not in the public interest to take the matter further.  

In consultation with an Independent Person, the Monitoring Officer considered the report and determined to recommend to the Sub-Committee that no further action be taken in respect of the complaint, although he recommended including an advisory note regarding one aspect of the complaint as part of the decision. 

In reaching its decision, the Sub-Committee took into account the Investigating Officer’s report and supporting documentation, which included the original complaint, the response of the Subject Member, the initial assessment decision, other evidence provided during the investigation, and the decision notice of the Monitoring Officer to take no further action.

The Sub-Committee also considered a written statement from the Subject Member, who was not in attendance, and a verbal statement from the Complainant, who was in attendance. The verbal statement and accompanying documentation were provided.

Discussion

As noted above the complaint involved a series of alleged actions by the Subject Member involving his employment as a planning consultant and agent and alleged conflict with his role on the Town Council, and the registration and declaration of his pecuniary and other interests at council meetings and elsewhere.

The Subject Member contended throughout that there was no conflict of interest in their actions, with any planning work undertaken legitimately through correct processes, and that they were entitled to defend the reputation of their business interests and that the complaints were politically motivated and vexatious. He disputed the conclusion of the Investigating Officer that there had been any apparent bias in relation to the meeting on 21 May 2019, allegation iv, as there had been no live instruction relating to the site under discussion.

The Complainant considered that the evidence did not support a finding of no breach in relation to any allegation. He highlighted the use of a personal or business email in general for council purposes and that the Subject Member had been acting in his capacity as a councillor at several instances alleged, and in so doing breached the Code. He considered the Subject Member had had an active business interest at the same time as acting as a councillor.

Some of the allegations had related to a potential disclosable pecuniary interest. On that basis, and although the allegations were quite historic, the Sub-Committee had considered in July 2021 that it was in the public interest that the matter be investigated given the seriousness of such an allegation and concurrent presence of a more recent allegation which it had likewise determined should be investigated.

However, it was relevant that both under the arrangements for dealing with Code of Conduct complaints and in respect of the Localism Act 2011, such historic allegations would not, absent other justifying reasoning, normally be considered for investigation by the Sub-Committee. Accordingly, depending on the conclusion reached, the historic nature of the incidents was also relevant when considering what actions, if any, would be in the public interest should a breach be identified as probable or simply potential.

Conclusion

On balance the Sub-Committee agreed with the recommendation of the Monitoring Officer that it was not in the public interest to take any further action in respect of the complaint.

Although there may have been later developments, at the time of the earliest allegation a disclosable pecuniary interest had not existed, and so there was no possibility of participation being contrary to the Localism Act. Participation in later meetings had been in a personal or business capacity, and appropriate declarations had been made.

However, it was noted that the nature of the Subject Member’s business, whilst also offering potential insight into planning issues, was such that actual and potential conflicts had and would continue to arise in relation to that business and his role as a Town Councillor. This required careful and continued consideration in the registration and declarations of interests, and other appropriate action such as withdrawing in his capacity as a councillor. It also required a responsibility to avoid both actual bias and predetermination, and any apparent bias. This was where a fair minded and informed observer, having considered the facts, could reasonably conclude there was a real possibility of bias.

From the Investigating Officer’s report, it was clear that the Subject Member took such a responsibility seriously, by seeking advice, making declarations, and maintaining his register of interests. Notwithstanding the Investigating Officer’s conclusion that there was a possibility a technical breach may have occurred in respect to a potential interest which might give rise to apparent bias at the meeting on 21 May 2019, it was acknowledged this was not a simple assessment for a Member to make, and the Subject Member’s general conduct in respect of registration and declaration of interests indicated a commitment to appropriately separating his professional and council roles.

For that reason, and for the reasons set out by the Investigating Officer accepted by the Monitoring Officer and in particular the very historic nature of the allegation, the Sub-Committee was satisfied to uphold the recommendation to take no further action, and not to convene a Hearing Sub-Committee.

Nevertheless, the Sub-Committee, like the Monitoring Officer, was concerned the Subject Member’s use of a personal or business email for council purposes had undermined any genuine attempts to be clear about the capacity in which he was acting, particularly where council, personal and business interests could or might be perceived to intersect. As the Monitoring Officer put it:

Care should be taken when councillors write correspondence that they do not commingle personal, business and council matters as this can be unnecessarily confusing for members of the public. The Town Council should be encouraged to create council email addresses for councillors to use for all formal council correspondence. This will provide clarity for residents and be a helpful reminder to councillors to maintain a clear delineation between council business and other matters that are personal or business related.

Additionally, the Sub-Committee noted that given his potentially conflicting roles as planning agent and town councillor, instances would likely arise again in future where the relationship between those roles was challenged.

Whilst the Subject Member naturally sought to and had a right to defend his personal and business conduct, the email on 9 May 2021 in response to such a challenge about his professional and business roles, whatever its provenance and motivation, had in places been inappropriate. Given the use of a business email for council use, and reference to acting in that council capacity in responding to the issues raised, the tone and content could be argued to approach the level of a breach of the Code of Conduct as it was not purely a professional business matter, as the Subject Member’s responses had confirmed. Although the Sub-Committee did not consider that level had been reached on this occasion, the potential for confusion about the role in which the Subject Member was acting, and the significance of planning matters, meant a more respectful discourse from all parties should be adhered to wherever possible.

In summary, the Sub-Committee was satisfied with the recommendation of the Monitoring Officer that no further action be taken in respect of the complaint, and that the Investigation conducted into the complaint was sound. It therefore concluded the matter on the basis of no further action, but felt it important to set out comments on aspects of the complaint and decision as detailed above.

Therefore, it was,

Resolved:

In accordance with the approved arrangements for resolving standards complaints adopted by Council on 9 July 2019, which came into effect on 1 January 2020, and after hearing from the Independent Person, the Assessment Sub-Committee determined to take no further action in respect of the complaint.