To consider the report.
Minutes:
The Chair introduced all parties relevant to the complaint.
The Deputy Monitoring Officer advised the sub-committee that the Subject Member, Councillor P Yeo was not in attendance at the meeting and asked that the sub-committee consider if they wished to continue the hearing in his absence. Reference was made to Local Government Association (LGA) guidance on code of conduct complaints, which stated that if a subject member was unable to attend the hearing on a specified date, the sub-committee could agree to hold the hearing on a different date, provided they were satisfied that the Subject Member had given an acceptable reason. Where an acceptable reason was not given or no reply provided within a specified time, the hearing should proceed and the sub-committee should consider the report in the Subject Members’ absence. The Deputy Monitoring Officer confirmed that the Subject Member had been made aware of the hearing date on 23 June 2026. On 24 July 2026, the Subject Member had requested the hearing to be postponed due to work commitments and personal circumstances. The Deputy Monitoring Officer had responded to the Subject Member on 29 July 2026 to confirm that the sub-committee were minded, after discussion, to proceed with the hearing date. The sub-committee felt the Subject Member had been provided with sufficient time to make other arrangements or provide earlier notification that he was unable to attend. In response to a question, it was confirmed that an email had been received at 12.35pm today advising that the Subject Member would not be in attendance due to work commitments and personal circumstances.
The sub-committee agreed that the hearing would continue.
M Dolley, Investigating Officer presented her report in respect of complaints made against Shaftesbury Town Council Councillor Yeo (the Subject Member) by Shaftesbury Town Council Councillor Hollingshead (the Complainant).
The Investigating Officer provided detail of the complaints received which alleged a breach of paragraphs 5 (disrepute), 6 (use of position) and 9 (registration and declaration of specified interests) of the Shaftesbury Town Council code of conduct. The complaints had been investigated in accordance with Dorset Council’s arrangements for dealing with Code of Conduct complaints.
To investigate the complaints, the Investigating Officer had taken into consideration the following evidence:
· The complaints and various screenshots that accompanied them
· Shaftesbury Town Council Code of Conduct and Standing Orders
· Agendas and minutes of the two relevant town council meetings
· The notice given by the Subject Member to Dorset Council’s Monitoring Officer of the interests required to be registered under s.30 of the Localism Act 2011
· Various emails as referred to in the report
· The guidance issued by the Local Government Association which supported the model code of conduct on which the town council’s code was closely modelled and Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights
· Interviews with the complainant and the subject member (statements contained within the report) and further statements made by the Subject Member.
The complaints were set out in full in the report and the Investigating Officer took the sub-committee through the main points arising.
The complaints related to Shaftesbury Town Council meetings held on 17 December 2024 and 11 March 2025 and the discussions that took place in relation to aspects of the development by the town council of a parcel of land at Mampitts Lane, Shaftesbury, using developer funding contributions made in connection with residential and associated development of that part of the town.
The Investigating Officer noted that the complaints as originally made, referred to breaches of the code relating to a failure to disclose a pecuniary interest. It was noted that Dorset Council could not investigate a complaint relating to a disclosable pecuniary interest due to s34 of the Localism Act 2011. The matter had been referred to the Monitoring Officer who, in consultation with the Independent Person, had decided that the investigation should proceed on the basis of a possible breach of the code relating to the disclosure of a registrable other interest.
The findings section of the report set out the interests registered by the Subject Member when elected to the town council and described the relevant provisions of Chapter 7 of the Localism Act 2011. In addition, it referred to the code and the ancillary provisions in the town council’s standing orders related to the disclosure of interests and the obtaining of dispensations and to the Nolan Principles of Public Life relating to integrity and openness. The remainder of the section gave a detailed account of the discussion of the Mampitts Lane project at the two town council meetings that gave rise to the complaints and a description of the extensive correspondence that took place between the Subject Member, the town clerk at the time and Dorset Council’s Monitoring Officer, about the registration and declaration of interests.
The Investigating Officer provided an overview of the conclusions set out in the report, which included her comments on the comments made by the Subject Member, both in response to the draft report and on the statement submitted by him in advance of this meeting. The Investigating Officer had concluded that the Subject Member had brought Shaftesbury Town Council into disrepute and was therefore in breach of paragraph 5 of the town council’s code of conduct. In respect of the other aspects of the complaints, the Investigating Officer had concluded that the Subject Member had not acted in breach of paragraph 6 of the town council’s code of conduct. In respect of the complaint relating to paragraph 9 of the town council code of conduct, the Investigating Officer had concluded that the Subject Member’s conduct amounted to a breach of paragraph 9 of the town council’s code of conduct and provided her reasoning for this conclusion.
The Investigating Officer confirmed that she had taken the Subject Member’s Article 10 enhanced protection of freedom of expression into account in reaching her conclusions noting the right was subject to formalities, conditions and restrictions as prescribed by law and necessary in a democratic society for the protection of the reputation or rights of others. The Investigating Officer acknowledged the case law referred to in the Subject Member’s responses and referred to the case of Dennehy where the Council’s finding of breach was effectively upheld. [R (Dennehy) v London Borough of Ealing 2013 EWHC 4102 (Admin)]. Despite a broad interpretation of “political speech” the Investigating Officer did not consider the Subject Member’s comments during the town council meetings were political or acceptable and remained of the view that in finding breach, the Subject Member’s right to freedom of expression would not be unlawfully interfered with.
The Chair asked the Investigating Officer is she was calling any witnesses.
In response, the Investigating Officer asked the Complainant that if, having seen the report and the comments made on behalf of the Subject Member about the report, he wished to change or clarify anything in the statement made when he was interviewed by the Investigating Officer. The Complainant confirmed that there was no reason for him to alter or change anything that he was aware of. He noted that if there was any error or discrepancy, this could be flagged with him.
The Chair opened the meeting up for questions.
In response to a question from R Bryan, the Investigating Officer stated that, as far as she was aware, no dispensation had been sought from the Subject Member.
In response to a question from R Bryan, the Investigating Officer provided her understanding on the role of the community trust, which had changed to a charitable incorporated organisation, as referred to in the report.
In response to a question from A Todd, the Complainant noted the issues that the town council had had and the numerous challenges, including the Mampitts community hub which had been the major focus of the Subject Member’s debate at full council meetings. He noted that the majority of councillors followed the code of conduct and that he found it abnormal that councillors didn’t follow rules when they were clearly set out and also mapped out by both the previous and current town clerks and monitoring officer. In response to a follow-up question from A Todd, the Complainant confirmed that each May, the code of conduct was passed round for councillors to sign as well as the Dorset Association of Parish and Town Councils statement of values. In addition, a statement of the code of conduct and Nolan Principles was included on agenda packs and stated by chairs at the beginning of meetings.
In response to a question from B Ezzard, the Complainant noted that he was not aware of the Subject Member making an apology at any time to anyone.
The Investigating Officer referred the sub-committee to statements made by the Subject Member, included in the report, and noted her recollection that the Subject Member had reiterated in these that he had done nothing wrong.
In response to a question from R Bryan, the Complainant noted that he was not aware that a dispensation had been sought in respect of the matters referred to in the complaints or at any other time, and that the most action taken by the Subject Member was to declare that he was a director trustee, as at the time.
The Independent Person confirmed that he had no questions at this point.
In response to a question from A Todd, the Deputy Monitoring Officer provided detail of a deviation in wording from the Local Government Association (LGA) Model Code of Conduct within the Shaftesbury Town Council code of conduct relating to the section on declarations of interest. The slightly different wording included in the Shaftesbury Town Council code of conduct had led to some comments and responses made on behalf of the Subject Member. The LGA model wording required Other Registrable Interests to be declared and a councillor to leave for debate and vote unless they had a dispensation to stay and take part for agenda items which directly related to or which affected their Other Registrable Interests. The Shaftesbury Town Council Code required only for Other Registrable Interests to be declared and for the councillor to leave unless they had a dispensation for agenda items which directly related to their Other Registrable Interests. The wider context of the Code still applied, which required councillors to consider declaring interests, including where they had a greater interest than a member of the public.
In response to a question from A Todd, the Deputy Monitoring Officer noted that due to the Subject Member’s position as a trustee, he was required to prioritise his duties to the trust, whose purpose was to promote, develop and manage a hall or hub for the community. This conflict with his councillor duties was referred to in the investigation report, and the Investigating Officer’s reference to progress in one project meaning that the other project would not progress. This could have been resolved by seeking a dispensation. For each occasion where there was an item on an agenda relating to the Mampitts project, it would be for the Subject Member to make a decision as to whether he had a sufficient interest to declare and what action to take.
In response to a question from A Todd, the Deputy Monitoring Officer confirmed that the duty to disclose an interest or seek a dispensation was a decision for the councillor. The councillor could take advice from the Monitoring Officer but there could be no instruction, direction or order from the Monitoring Officer.
In response to a question from A Todd relating to a position where there was a direct conflict, the Deputy Monitoring Officer confirmed that on matters related to the trust, as a trustee, this would take precedence for the Subject Member, as he owed a duty to the trust that he chaired.
In response to a question from A Todd, the Independent Person confirmed that a councillor’s first duty was to their role as a councillor, in this case to Shaftesbury Town Council, and should operate in accordance with standing orders that apply to the position.
The Chair adjourned the meeting at 2.44pm. Members of the sub-committee, the Deputy Monitoring Officer, the Independent Person and the Senior Democratic and Governance Officer left the room in order for the sub-committee to make a decision on breach in private.
(During the deliberation, the Deputy Monitoring Officer provided the sub-committee with the following information:
A recap of the Code of Conduct wording for paragraph 5; disrepute and recap of the main points of LGA guidance on that paragraph.
A recap of Article 10 European Convention on Human Rights, which protect rights to freedom of expression and information, the right to hold opinions, receive and impart information and ideas. It protects popular and unpopular expression including speech, what is said and the form it is expressed in. These rights are enhanced for elected politicians and acceptable levels of criticism are higher for elected politicians. This is not an absolute freedom of expression and restrictions may be imposed to ensure conduct of public life and debate do not fall below a standard that would endanger public confidence in democracy. In the political context, a degree of the immoderate, offensive, shocking, disturbing, exaggerated, provocative, polemical, colourful, emotive, non-rational and aggressive language, misrepresentation or untruth, that would not be acceptable outside that context, is tolerated. Hate speech is not protected, including against personal characteristics. And the enhanced protection does not cover gratuitous personal comment or indulging in offensive abuse. Consideration of Article 10 rights is case specific. Finding of breach or the imposing of a sanction must be sufficiently important to justify limiting a councillors protected right to freedom of expression. It must be proportionate to the aim of protecting the council or other councillors.
Article 10 case law
· Councillor deliberately misrepresented motivation and intentions of other councillors. Councillor entitled to the enhanced protection which outweighed the need to protect the reputation of other councillors (Robinson)
· Offensive comments about a sector of the community. Committee were entitled to find a failure to treat with respect and that conduct had brought council and office of councillor into disrepute. Breach of Art 10 justified (Dennehy)
· Posted sarcastic and mocking comments about running a council and other councillors on his blog – breach of Art 10 disproportionate (Calver)
· Threatened managers saying a number had been dispensed with and more to go, tried to interfere with housing allocation decision making. Bullying and failure to show respect to others. A finding of code breach attracted Art 10 protection but it was necessary interference (Heesom)
A recap of the Code of Conduct wording for Paragraph 6; Not use or attempt to use position improperly to the advantage or disadvantage of councillor or anyone else.
A recap of the Shaftesbury Town Council Code of Conduct wording for Paragraph 9 Appendix B 6; matter directly relating to an Other Registrable Interest and recap of the main points of LGA guidance on that paragraph. The example of RSPB membership was drawn to the sub-committee’s attention. Matters at council meetings were unlikely to directly relate to that interest, but they may directly relate if a councillor was actively campaigning on the specific issue being discussed in a council meeting.)
The meeting was reconvened at 5.44pm.
The Chair provided the decision of the sub-committee:
Shortly in
advance of this hearing the Subject Member confirmed that he would not be
attending the hearing due to work and other personal commitments. The Sub-committee considered whether to
proceed with the hearing. The Subject
Member had been supplied in advance with details of the hearing, that it could
proceed and reach an outcome in his absence. The Sub-Committee considered
advice from the Deputy Monitoring Officer and concluded to continue with the
hearing in the Subject Members absence as the Subject Member had not provided
an acceptable reason for non-attendance.
Having heard the
views of everyone present and considered the contents of the report and
presentation by the Investigating Officer and views of the Independent Person
and after lengthy deliberation, the Sub-committee has made a unanimous decision
about each of the complaints as follows:
1.
The
Subject Member brought Shaftesbury Town Council into disrepute. This is evidenced by comments and behaviour
set out in investigating report paragraphs 14.4:
Accusations of a personal nature about councillors who had sat on the previous Mampitts Advisory Committee;
Interrupting Councillor Chase and stating that he did not have the integrity to
be Mayor;
Describing the procedure for the
construction of an advisory committee as shocking and a disgrace;
Continued interruptions and
muttering resulting in the Chair requesting him to stop and sit down;
Accusations of a lack of
integrity on the part of some of his fellow councillors that they had turned
the town council into a joke;
Report paragraph 15 interrupting
members of the public while they were speaking in public section;
Standing for the majority of the
meeting, huffing and with hands on hips resulting in a fellow councillor
commenting that he thought the subject member was trying to intimidate people;
Alleging councillors were trying
to frustrate a scheme that the residents wanted which was an absolute disgrace;
Spoke in a manner that was confrontational, aggressive and disrespectful;
Report paragraph 20.4
email from the Subject Member to the Town Clerk, copied to all
councillors, containing allegations of impropriety on the part of the Town
Clerk and some of his fellow councillors which was offensive in tone.
These comments and behaviours were made during public meetings, observed
by members of the public present. Comments were directed at councillors. Whilst
some comments did raise issues for debate, it is the manner of the Subject
Member’s behaviour and how questions were raised that the sub-committee
considers did not comply with standing orders or the code and could have been
raised in a compliant way.
The sub-committee noted the Subject Member’s behaviour was not a one off
outburst but a continued pattern of behaviour for which he received warnings
from the chair.
The sub-committee is satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the alleged
conduct actually occurred and exceeded the threshold for normal expected
political discourse.
The sub-committee is not aware of and the Subject Member has not provided an
explanation for his behaviour aside from referring to his Article 10 right to
freedom of expression.
The sub-committee have considered the Subject Member’s Article 10 rights and
consider that the finding of breach of code while it may infringe his Article
10 rights, is proportionate to the aim of protecting the reputation of the
council and other councillors and their ability to take part in political
debate. The sub-committee were particularly mindful that standing orders allow
councillors to express their opinions, give constructive criticism, challenge
and scrutinise. This can be done in a manner which does not disrupt meetings or
prevent the ability of other councillors to take part.
2. The
sub-committee accepted the investigating officers’ recommendation and find no
breach and no improper use of the Subject Member’s position and no evidence
that the Subject Member’s comments and involvement in the meetings was for his
personal gain or that of another.
3. The
sub-committee noted the difference between appendix b paragraph 8c in the
Shaftesbury Town Council Code of Conduct 14 May 2024 and the Local Government
Association Model Code wording which has made the consideration of the
complaint about an other registrable interest and
dispensation more complex than it would otherwise have been. The effect of the
difference results in Other Registrable Interests being disclosable in meetings
and requiring dispensation for agenda items which directly relate to an Other
Registrable Interest only under the Shaftesbury Town Council code whereas they
would have been disclosable and dispensation required for both directly related
matters and also those which simply effect an Other Registrable Interest under
the LGA model code.
While the sub-committee have
grave concerns about the involvement of the Subject Member in the discussion on
agenda items related to Shaftesbury Town Council Mampitts
project, due to the wording of the Shaftesbury Town Council code the
sub-committee have no option but to find the Subject Member did not fail to
disclose an Other Registrable Interest and did not require a dispensation to
take part in the meetings which are the subject of this complaint, as they did not
directly relate to the Subject Member’s Other Registrable Interest.
(Note - At this point in the meeting, the sub-committee would normally invite representations about aggravating or mitigating factors from the Investigating Officer and the Subject Member. However, as the Subject Member was not in attendance, the sub-committee moved to the matter of sanctions agreed)
The Chair set out the decision on sanctions agreed as follows:
Sanctions
The sub-committee decided that the sanctions set out below were an appropriate and proportionate response to the complaint.
1.
Recommend to Shaftesbury Town Council Town Clerk
that the Subject Member be removed from any outside bodies to which he has been
appointed by Shaftesbury Town Council until he has completed code of conduct
training
2. Instruct the Dorset Council Monitoring Officer to recommend to Shaftesbury Town Council Town Clerk to arrange code of conduct training for the Subject Member to be completed within 2 months of the date of this decision.
In accordance with the council’s Complaints Process for councillors there is no right of appeal of this decision.
The decision would be confirmed in writing and a decision notice posted on the council website.