Minutes:
The Investigating Officer, Roger Greene, introduced his report by highlighting the key points within the report.
A Code of Conduct complaint against Cllr N Ireland had been submitted to Dorset Council by Mrs Bray in respect of a Western and Southern Planning Committee meeting held in October 2019.
The facts of the complaint were not disputed by Cllr N Ireland, who accepted that he sent an email to all members of the committee supporting the position of an objector who wanted the Western & Southern Planning Committee to refuse a planning application.
Cllr N Ireland had confirmed to the Investigating Officer that he considered that he could send the email to all members of the committee as he knew that he would not be attending the committee on the day that the planning application was under consideration. However the Investigating Officer, advised the sub-committee that he considered that this course of action was not correct under the Members’ Code of Conduct based on the general principles of the Code, including openness, honesty and integrity which apply to all conduct cases. The Investigating Officer had written to Cllr N Ireland during the investigation to clarify this point.
In this case the planning application in question had been approved by the planning committee. Therefore, if the sub-committee found Cllr N Ireland to be in breach of the Code of Conduct the breach was mitigated as it did not make any difference to the application decision.
Mrs Bray, the complainant, considered that it was inappropriate to use social media to try to influence the decision of a planning committee.
The Investigating Officer explained that a member of a planning committee must always be careful not to predetermine or lobby other members of the committee. Dorset councillors were required to comply with the Code of Conduct which included other protocols relating to member conduct. The Investigating Officer read the relevant section of the Protocol for Members and Officers on Planning Procedures highlighting that:
Members must not make up their minds in advance of meetings;
They can hold a strong view but if their mind is not open they must not debate or vote;
Lobbying is part of the process but members must take care to ensure lobbying does not call into question the integrity and fairness of the planning process or an individual councillor;
Members of the planning committee should take care about expressing an opinion which could indicate they had made up their mind. They should instead give procedural advice including contacting the case officer.
In response to the Chairman, Mrs Bray, the complainant, confirmed that she had nothing to add.
Cllr B Trite asked the Investigating Officer if his view that a breach of the code had taken place would be different if Cllr N Ireland had said from the outset that he was predetermined on the application and would not be taking part in the meeting, e.g. if he had clearly divorced himself from the committee from the outset.
In response the Investigating Officer stated that Cllr N
Ireland was a member of the planning committee and predetermination meant that
he could not take part in the debate or decision. He had looked at the facts
and in his view the email sent by Cllr N Ireland was attempting to unfairly
influence fellow members of the planning committee and that was likely to be
the public perception.
Cllr Biggs made the point that the public expected councillors to be open minded and that he believed the whole of the Code of Conduct applied, including the 7 general principles.
In response to the Chairman, the Independent Person confirmed that she had no questions for the Investigating Officer.
Cllr N Ireland was given the opportunity to address the sub-committee and he highlighted that other councillors sent in statements about planning applications, who didn’t attend planning committee meetings and their statement was read out by an officer at the meeting.
Cllr N Ireland also explained that the report did not specify how he had supposedly broken the Code of Conduct and that in all of the steps that he had taken in relation to the matter he had been open and honest. Cllr N Ireland provided some personal history to the matter, explaining that swimming was his sport, that he swam competitively whilst at university and later in life his children joined local swimming clubs and that he also competed in water polo. He knew many people did use the facility, which although was not in his ward was used by his constituents.
Cllr N Ireland clarified that by sending the email he was representing the views of his constituents. If he had attended the meeting, he confirmed that he would have declared predetermination but he was out of the country on the day of the planning committee. He added that the committee had received other lobbying emails and that the Code of Conduct did not prohibit members from lobbying. He explained that he was trying to persuade the committee on behalf of his constituents. Cllr N Ireland stated that he had no regrets over his actions and that he would take the same action again in order to represent his constituents in respect of future planning applications
The Investigating Officer confirmed that he had no questions for Cllr N Ireland.
The Independent Person confirmed that she had no questions for Cllr N Ireland.
Cllr B Trite asked whether Cllr N Ireland disputed any of the social media evidence.
In response Cllr Ireland stated that he did not dispute it, as was a matter public knowledge and record. He believed that his views would be known and that he was being open and honest about his views and his position. He also stated that he was representing his constituents and that being on a planning committee did not stop him from lobbying, it advised against it, but it did not prevent him from doing it.
Cllr R Biggs asked if he had attended Code of Conduct training.
Cllr N Ireland confirmed that it was a requirement for planning committee members to attend training on the Code of Conduct. Cllr N Ireland also stated that he had checked the Code of Conduct before he had sent the email and specifically checked what ‘should not’ meant. The words meant that you probably shouldn’t do it, but it didn’t stop you from doing it. Cllr Ireland reiterated that other ward members had their statements read out at planning committees without being present.
Cllr R Biggs highlighted that Cllr N Ireland was not the ward member for the planning application in question and raised the issue of whether it was correct for Cllr N Ireland to believe that he was the ward member because his ward was affected. The Chairman asked if the council had a definition of ‘ward councillor’ and the Deputy Monitoring Officer agreed to look in the Constitution whilst the meeting continued.
In conclusion the Investigating Officer accepted that he and Cllr N Ireland would not agree on the issue of predetermination. He accepted that there was an element of openness in the actions of Cllr N Ireland but considered, overall that there had been a breach. Based on the facts presented he did not believe that Cllr N Ireland had followed the correct procedures.
In response to the question on the definition of a ward councillor the Deputy Monitoring Officer confirmed that ward members were members representing their wards or wards that were affected and in relation to planning, ward members who were not members of the planning committee could make representations on applications in their ward.
At 10.22am the members of the sub-committee went into private session to consider the decision.
After deliberations the sub-committee returned to the meeting and the Chairman announced the following decision:
Decision
Having heard all of the views today and having read all of the papers and taken into account the views of the Independent Person, the sub-committee has made a unanimous decision to agree with the recommendations of the Investigating Officer and find that there has been a breach of the code, in particular the principles of public life. Councillors can have opinions and can express views but the way it has been done calls into question the integrity of the councillor, the planning process and the planning committee.
The sub-committee therefore requires an apology from Cllr N Ireland at the next planning committee.
In accordance with our complaints process there is no right of appeal.
End 11.11am