CONSIDERATIONDECISION NOTICE

NO BREACH OF THE CODE HAS BEEN FOUND

NO SANCTION

Reference: / 28475
Complainant: / Mr Martin John
Subject Member: / Councillor Candy, Deviock Parish Council
Person conducting
the Consideration: / Simon Mansell, Principal Legal Officer
Date of Consideration: / 28 February 2013

Summary of the allegations considered

The Complainant has alleged that at a meeting of Deviock Parish Council on 13October 2011 Councillor Candy as Chairman of Planning, lead and voted on a planning application of Mr John without declaring a personal or prejudicial interest in the matter and that he used his position improperly and influenced the decision of the Committee. Mr John, the Complainant, has alleged Councillor Candy has a close association with Mr and Mrs Mellor, who submitted the only objection to the planning application.

Decision

In reaching the decisions as set out below I have had full regard to the final Investigation Report into this matter prepared by the Investigating Officer, Karen North, and dated 19 December 2012, and consider that this matter can be considered on the facts as set out in this report without the need to refer to a panel.

It is considered that the findings of fact as set out in paragraphs 3.11 to 3.17 of the Investigation Report; in that:-

3.11 The Council adopted the Code of Conduct, including paragraph 12(2) on 13 September 2007.

3.12Councillor Candy signed to be bound by the Code of Conduct on the 10 May 2007.

3.13Councillor Candy signed his acceptance of office as Vice-Chairman of Deviock Parish Council on the 12 May 2011.

3.14Councillor Candy signed his Register of Members’ Interests form on the 30 May 2007.

3.15Councillor Candy attended the meeting of Deviock Parish Council held on the 13October 2011.

3.16Councillor Candy declared a personal and prejudicial interest in relation to items 10.4.1 and 12.1.1.

3.17In relation to item 7.1.1, PA11/06587 Councillor Candy seconded the proposal to object to the application.

are found, as they are fully supported by the evidence in the Investigating Officer’s report and in the appendices attached to that report. As a result of this there is no need for this matter to be referred to a panel of the Standards Committee members as it can be decided on the facts.

No Breaches of the Code of Conduct

In considering the allegation as made, the findings of the Investigating Officer,in that Councillor Candy did not breach:

  • Paragraph 6 of the Code of Conduct, using your position as a member improperly to confer on or secure for yourself or any other person an advantage of disadvantage;
  • Paragraph 9(1) of the Code of Conduct, of failing to declare a personal interest; and
  • Paragraph 12(1)(a) of the Code of Conduct, failing to withdraw from the room or chamber where a meeting considering the business in which you have a prejudicial interest is being discussed

are supported.

Reasons for the Decision

While the Complainant has stated that he believes that there is an association between Councillor Candy and Mr and Mrs Mellor who objected to the planning application there is insufficient information supplied by the Complainant to substantiate this and the Investigating Officer, in the course of the investigation, has not found a close association between Councillor Candy and the Mellors.

For breach of Paragraph 9(1) to occur it has to be shown that a close association exists between the subject member and the subject of the discussion, or those that are parties to the discussion. In the case of a planning application a close association with an objector of the application would qualify as something that should be raised as a personal interest. As no close association has been shown Councillor Candy need not have declared a personal interest so therefore there was no breach of Paragraph 9(1) of the Code of Conduct.

For breach of Paragraph 12(1)(a) to occur a member must remain in the room or chamber where a matter in which they have a prejudicial interest is under discussion. For a prejudicial interest to arise there first of all has to be a personal interest which becomes so significant that it is considered it would prejudice the views of the member. As no personal interest has arisen in this matter it therefore follows that there is no prejudicial interest and therefore no breach of Paragraph 12(1)(a) has been found.

In considering this matter I have also noted the Investigating Officer’s comments in that at a meeting on 13 October 2011, and on two other separate matters, Councillor Candy did declare an interest; so therefore knew of the need to declare an interest. Although it is not conclusive that no interest existed in relation to other matters, it does demonstrate that Councillor Candy would take the appropriate action when interests arose.

With regard to Paragraph 6 of the Code of Conduct; as Councillor Candy had no close association with the Mellors there was not an opportunity for him to use his position improperly to confer upon the Mellors, as the objectors to the application, an advantage; or on the applicants for the planning application, a disadvantage; so therefore there is no breach of Paragraph 6 of the Code.

In considering this matter I have had full regard to the views of the Independent Person who considers that no breach of the Code of Conduct has occurred.

What happens now?

This decision notice is sent to the Complainant, the member against whom the allegation has been made and the Clerk to Deviock Parish Council.

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.

SJR Mansell MBE

Principal Legal Officer

On behalf of the Monitoring Officer

Date:14 March 2013