ASSESSMENT DECISION NOTICE
NO BREACH OF THE CODE
Reference: / CCN014/14Complainant: / Mr and Mrs Lalupu
Subject Member: / Councillor Neil Burden, Cornwall Council
Person conducting
the Assessment: / Matthew Stokes, Corporate Governance, Property and Commercial Group Manager
Date of Assessment: / 8 July 2014
Complaint
On 8 July 2014 the Monitoring Officer considered a complaint from Mr and Mrs Lalupu concerning the alleged conduct of Councillor Neil Burden of Cornwall Council. A general summary of the complaint is set out below:
That the subject member failed to declare an interest in relation to a planning application (PA12/12067) that affected land owned by his wife and that he failed to advise the planning case officer of that interest.
The complaint, whilst not identifying specific provisions of the Code of Conduct, suggests that the complainant might reasonably consider the following provisions of the Code of Conduct of Cornwall Council to be engaged:
failure to treat others with respect
intimidating or attempting to intimidate others
conducted himself in a manner which is contrary to the Council’s duty to promote and maintain high standards of conduct
bringing his office or Council into disrepute
failure to register an interest
failure to declare an interest
Decision
No breach of the Code of Conduct of Cornwall Council is demonstrated on the part of the subject member.
Reasons for the Decision
In reaching this decision I have had regard to the documentation provided by the complainant, the views of the Independent Person, the submission from the subject member and documentation available on the Cornwall Council planning portal relating to planning application PA12/12067.
The subject member has a number of property interests noted on his register of interests and there is no demonstrable reason for me to doubt that the entries in that register are either incomplete or inaccurate. The complainant has certainly not provided any evidence to support such an argument.
The planning application around which the complaint is formulated was determined under delegated powers at officer level. It was not determined by Members at a Planning Committee. The obligation to declare interests, as opposed to registering them, only arises at meetings. Accordingly, there appears to have been no occasion on which the subject member would have been required to declare an interest under the Code of Conduct. The complainant has provided no information or evidence to demonstrate that there has been non-compliance with the interest declaration requirements of the Code of Conduct, particularly as there is no suggestion that the subject member attended any meetings in his official capacity relating to the subject planning application.
There is nothing in the Code of Conduct requiring the subject member, or indeed any other member, to notify anyone about any interest they may have in a planning application. There is no need for such a requirement in the Code as the other provisions of the Code provide adequate protection and guidance for members and those who might be prejudiced by non-compliance with the Code of Conduct.
It might have been desirable for the subject member to have notified the planning case officer of his interest, through his wife, in the subject planning application but that he didn’t does not amount to a breach of the Code of Conduct.
The Council’s Guidance for Members and Officers dealing with Planning Matters indicates that planning applications in which Members have an interest should be determined by Committee rather than under delegated powers. It does not say they must. The determination of the application was not under the control of the subject member and so is not a Code of Conduct issue.
Whilst the complainants have concerns as to how the planning application was handled by the Council I am not persuaded on the basis of the information available to me that those concerns properly fall to be determined under the Code of Conduct.
I am satisfied that this complaint can properly be determined on the information available without being referred for investigation.
What happens now?
This decision notice is sent to the complainant and the member against whom the allegation has been made.
Right of review
At the written request of the complainant, the Monitoring Officer can review and is able to change a decision not to refer an allegation for investigation or other action. To ensure impartiality in the conduct of the review different officers to those involved in the original decision will undertake the review.
We must receive a written request from the complainant to review this decision within 15 working days from the date of this notice, explaining in detail on what grounds the decision should be reviewed.
If we receive a request for a review, we will write to all the parties mentioned above, notifying them of the request to review the decision.
Additional help
If you need additional support in relation to this or future contact with us, please let us know as soon as possible. If you have difficulty reading this notice we can make reasonable adjustments to assist you, in line with the requirements of the Disability Discrimination Act 2000.
We can also help if English is not your first language.
Matthew Stokes
Corporate Governance, Property and Commercial Group Manager
On behalf of the Monitoring Officer
Date: 9 July 2014