Minutes:
Complaints were submitted by Jon Sloan and Matthew Bell, the Complainants, regarding the conduct of Councillors Alexandra Boyd, Gail Moore, and Alan Crossley, the Subject Members, of Wilton Town council. The complaint related to disclosure of interests and associated actions, and in one case an allegation of trespass.
Preamble
The Sub-Committee considered the initial tests of the assessment criteria and if these had been met, including that the Subject Members were and remain members of Wilton Town Council and that a copy of the relevant Code of Conduct was provided for the assessment.
The Sub-Committee then had to decide whether the alleged behaviour would, if proven, amount to a breach of the Code of Conduct. If the Sub-Committee concluded that the alleged behaviour would amount to a breach, then it would have to go on to decide whether it was appropriate under the assessment criteria to refer the matter for investigation.
In reaching its decision, the Sub-Committee took into account the original complaints and supporting information, the response of the Subject Members, and the report of the Monitoring Officer.
The Sub-Committee also considered a written statement from the Complaint for COC141392 provided at the Assessment Sub-Committee meeting on 29 September 2022. None of the parties were in attendance.
Discussion
The Subject Members contended that the distance of their properties from the development, or in one case that they rent rather than own the property, was such that they did not have disclosable interests in the manner alleged.
In relation to COC141392, the Subject Member had offered an apology for his actions, which had been accepted by the Complainant.
Conclusion
In this case the Subject Members’ own homes or reside on an estate which included a number of planning applications from the developers of the estate.
The Sub-Committee did not consider that the evidence submitted as to the interests of the Subject Members, if proven, would amount to a breach of the Code. Nor would further investigation likely uncover any additional information which would affect that view, and accordingly there was no public interest in the complaint being considered further.
Simply residing on an estate which was subject to or part of a planning application could not, in the view of the Sub-Committee, be taken as forming a matter which ‘directly relates’ to an interest, in this case the homes of the Subject Members.
The guidance to the Code provided advice on disclosure and withdrawing in the event of an interest, but given the scale of an estate or ward, it would not be a reasonable interpretation of the Code, and the need for a direct relationship, to apply such a standard without indication of a deeper impact upon the Subject Members above those of others, than had been suggested or alleged within the complaint.
It should be further noted that Town Councils are consultees and not decision makers in respect of planning applications, with their representations considered by the local planning authority along with any other representations received.
Whilst it may generally be advisable for non-pecuniary interests of such a limited connection to be disclosed in the interests of transparency, a failure to do so would not amount to a breach and in this case the Subject Members had in any case taken the further step of requesting and being granted dispensations to contribute to discussions and decision making, which is a legitimate approach for councils to consider.
Other aspects of the allegations related purely to procedural or operational matters of the Town Council as a body. The granting of dispensations was a power of the Town Council and not within the jurisdiction of the Standards regime. Likewise, the method or procedure by which the Town Council made representations on a planning application was a matter for the Town Council, and as such also not within jurisdiction of the Standards regime. It was therefore not possible for these allegations to be capable of breaching the Code.
In respect of the allegation of trespass and associated poor behaviour, it was detailed in the report that an apology had been made by the Subject Member which had been accepted by the Complainant.
As such, in accordance with the assessment criteria, there was no public interest in progressing the matter further and the matter had been resolved through informal resolution, though the Sub-Committee noted the acceptance that the actions had been unwise and emphasised the need to be particularly careful when interacting with people who may be vulnerable.
IP Comment
A point was raised in relation to the guidance on the WTC Code in relation to whether something impacts a member (or their close relative) to a greater extent than the majority of the ward affected’ and how this should be interpreted in parishes without wards
At the conclusion of discussion, 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.