Agenda item

Complaint in respect of District Councillor D Andrews

Minutes:

The Sub-Committee considered a report by the Monitoring Officer on eight complaints against Councillor D Andrews alleging that he had breached the Authority’s Code of Conduct.

 

The Sub-Committee noted the detail of each complaint and the evidence (and supplementary evidence where) provided by each complainant in support of their allegations.

 

The Monitoring Officer confirmed that, having consulted the Independent Person, he did not consider the complaints could be resolved informally.

 

The Monitoring Officer invited the Sub-Committee to consider each complaint individually against the (published) assessment criteria of the Authority’s Complaints Procedure.

 

The Sub-Committee retired to a separate room to consider each complaint.

 

In respect of seven of the eight complaints, the Sub-Committee, after careful consideration and based on the complaints assessment criteria and the evidence submitted (and having reviewed the webcast of the meeting identified) agreed that no further action be taken.

 

The Sub-Committee made the determinations to take no action following consultation with the Independent Person and for the following reasons:

 

(1)            in relation to the allegation that the councillor was in collusion with those making the application and/or that he had an interest, as supported by the assertion that a speaker referred to the Chairman as “Dave”, Members only heard the name “David” once and this was articulated by a proponent.  It was not repeated.  In these circumstances it was not considered necessary for the Chairman to have intervened to request the use of an appropriate title;

 

(2)            there was no evidence on the webcast to support the allegation that the Committee Chairman and proponent were chatting like old friends;

 

(3)            with regard to the change in the running order of agenda items, the Committee Chairman had acknowledged the impact this might have on objectors’ representations and had invited the Committee to make due allowance.  The objectors’ representative was dealt with as fairly as possible;

 

(4)            the Committee Chairman had exercised a second (casting) vote in respect of the second application – the vote was in favour of granting planning permission and supported the officer recommendation.  There was no convention that required the Chairman in the circumstances pertaining to this application to vote in a contrary manner;

 

(5)            the remarks made by the Committee Chairman after the decisions on the applications were noted by the Sub-Committee having reviewed the webcast.  The remarks were not considered to be inappropriate, rather they were polite, courteous and neutral in nature, and

 

(6)            with regard to the manner in which the applications were summed up, the webcast did not show any basis to criticise the Chairman on this aspect.

 

In relation to the complaint that formed Essential Reference Paper ‘F’ to the report, the Sub-Committee agreed to request the Monitoring Officer to obtain information on any connection between Councillor Andrews and Riversmead Housing Association.  In so doing, it agreed to defer consideration of this complaint.

 

           RESOLVED – that (A) in relation to the complaints that form Essential Reference Papers ‘A’ to ‘E’ and ‘G’ and ‘H’ to the report now submitted by the Monitoring Officer, no further action be taken for the reasons now detailed; and

 

(B)      consideration of the complaint at Essential Reference Paper ‘F’ to the Monitoring Officer’s report be deferred to a future meeting to allow that Officer to obtain information on any connection between Councillor Andrews and Riversmead Housing Association.

 

Supporting documents: