Minutes:
A complaint was submitted by Mr Eaton, the Complainant, regarding the conduct of Councillor Christopher Newbury, the Subject Member, of Wiltshire Council. The complaint related to the alleged actions of the Subject Member at a Strategic Planning Committee meeting on 2 March 2023, where he was said to have participated in the discussion of a planning application after he had declared that one of the landowners for the application was a friend of his.
The Complainant believes that, through these actions, the Subject Member
breached the following sections of the Code:
• Impartiality of the officers of the council
However, as set out in the report, the Sub-Committee also considered the following:
I register and disclose my interests.
Preamble
The Sub-Committee was satisfied the initial tests of the assessment criteria had been met, in that the Subject Member was and remains a member of Wiltshire 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 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 complaint and supporting information, the response of the Subject Member, and the report of the Monitoring Officer.
The Sub-Committee also considered the written statements of the Subject Member and the Complainant, who were not present at the meeting.
Discussion
The Complaint relates to a meeting of the Council’s Strategic Planning Committee on 2 March 2023. The complainant alleges that partway through the discussion of a planning application, the Subject Member declared that he was a friend of one of the landowners and would withdraw from the debate, but then continued to comment and whisper to other participants.
The Subject Member in his response stated that he discovered the name of the landowner having checked online during the meeting.
The Subject Member explained that he told the Chairman of his acquaintance with the landowner in the interests of transparency, however, he did not consider that the friendship was such that it required him to withdraw from the meeting during consideration of the application.
The Subject Member confirms that he did discuss the application further during the meeting as he had not withdrawn, or offered to withdraw, from the meeting.
As part of the further information provided by the Subject Member, he advised that following the meeting, through additional research using the Land Registry, he established that the land was misreported on the application form and does not in fact belong to the friend.
Conclusion
The Sub-Committee noted it had viewed the recording of the Strategic Planning Committee meeting and agreed that the Subject Member had asked for it to be minuted that one of the landowners was a friend of his. The Subject Member had stated that, if he had intended to vote in favour of the application, he would have withdrawn, but as he was speaking against the application, he did not feel he needed to withdraw.
The Sub-Committee felt that a level of confusion may have arisen due to comments made by the meeting Chairman in relation to the Subject Member needing to withdraw from the meeting to attend a medical appointment. It was further noted that the Subject Member was not challenged at the meeting on his declaration.
The Sub-Committee considered the information provided under paragraphs 24 and 25 of the report setting out guidance on the code of conduct in relation to declaring an interest where a matter either directly relates to or merely affects a close associate. The Sub-Committee noted the Subject Member’s statement that he did not consider the friend in question to represent a “close associate”.
The Sub-Committee noted the Subject Member’s statement that, having looked into the matter following receipt of the complaint, he had established that the land in question had in fact been sold by the friend some years ago. The Sub-Committee also noted the Complainant’s statement that they were prepared to withdraw the complaint if this change of ownership was correct. The Sub-Committee agreed that the allegations still required consideration because the Subject Member had believed the land to be owned by their friend at the time of the Strategic Planning Committee meeting.
The Sub-Committee agreed that on the basis of the information available, if proven, the alleged actions of the Subject Member were unlikely to represent a breach of the relevant Code of Conduct.
The Sub-Committee therefore resolved to take no further action in respect of the complaint.
It was therefore,
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.