Meeting documents

1

DECLARATION OF INTEREST

No declaration of interest submitted by either a Member or Officer in respect of any item on the Agenda.

2

COMPLAINT AGAINST A COMMUNITY COUNCILLOR

Submitted and noted for information purposes only - a Report from the Public Services Ombudsman for Wales (the "Ombudsman") concerning an alleged breach of the Members' Code of Conduct by Councillor Barrie Durkin, (Llanfairmathafarneithaf Community Council).

The Committee noted that in accordance with Section 69(4) of Part III of the Local Government Act 2000 the Ombudsman had concluded that no action needed to be taken in respect of the matters investigated.

3

COMPLAINT AGAINST A COUNTY COUNCILLOR

The Chair reported on the role of the Standards Committee at the Hearing.  The Committee would be to determine, in the first instance, whether or not to take any action following the Ombudsman's determination, as a response to a complaint he had received from Mr and Mrs Wood, that Councillor R.Ll.Hughes had failed to declare an interest at a meeting of the Planning Committee held on 3 December 2003 thereby breaking the Code of Conduct. Secondly, should the Committee resolve to take action, then the Committee would also need to decide on the appropriate action.

The Chair further reported that the Monitoring Officer had, on 9th February 2006, received a written request from Solicitors acting on behalf of Mr and Mrs Wood seeking permission to appear before the Committee so as to present verbal evidence in respect of any proposed sanction to be imposed on Councillor Hughes. As the Committee are authorised to either accept or refuse such a request, the Committee had met prior to the meeting to consider the request and had resolved to refuse the

request on the following grounds:-

That the complainants had been given and had taken the opportunity to submit written representations and that any verbal evidence given at the Hearing would have to be restricted to the matters raised as part of their written evidence.  In addition, Councillor Hughes would be allowed to address the Committee to present his case but no other party would be afforded the same opportunity.  The Chair wished to reassure the complainants however that their written

representations would be given full and fair consideration by the Committee.

As part of the papers submitted to the Committee, the following had been included:

Ÿ

A report by the Council's Monitoring Officer;

Ÿ

A copy of the Ombudsman's Report;

Ÿ

Relevant extract from Code of Conduct for Local Authority Members;

Ÿ

Determinations of the Standards Committee under Regulation 9;

Ÿ

Written Representations by Cllr Hughes;

Ÿ

Statement by Dewi Francis Jones (Planning Control Manager);

Ÿ

Correspondence in respect of the Planning Application;

Ÿ

Cllr Hughes' attendance at Training Events;

Ÿ

Planning Statistics;

Ÿ

Extract of Planning Minutes/ Voting Procedures;

Ÿ

Letter from Cllr J.A. Edwards (Vice Chairman Planning Committee);

The Chair proceeded to outline the procedure for the Hearing and invited the Monitoring Officer to present her report to the Committee.

The Monitoring Officer reported that on or about the 8th March 2005 Mr and Mrs Wood lodged a complaint against Cllr Robert Lloyd Hughes with the Public Services Ombudsman for Wales ("the Ombudsman") alleging that Cllr Hughes had breached the Members' Code of Conduct by failing to declare an interest in a planning application, made by Mr and Mrs Wood, when the application came to be considered by the Council's Planning and Orders Committee on the 3rd December 2003. At the relevant time Cllr Hughes was Chair of the Committee.   Mr and Mrs Wood alleged that the Councillor's personal interest arose from his friendship with Mr and Mrs Walton, who were objectors to the planning application.

Pursuant to section 69 of Part III of the Local Government Act 2000 the Ombudsman accepted the complaint and instructed his Officer to conduct an investigation. The parties were notified of the outcome of that investigation in the Ombudsman's report of 8th November 2005.

The Ombudsman concluded, on the evidence, that the Councillor was:-

Ÿ

aware of Mr and Mrs Walton's objection to the proposed development and

Ÿ

the level of association between the Councillor and the Waltons was such that, at the relevant time, the Councillor : "should reasonably have regarded them as friends for the purpose of making a declaration of interest under the Code of Conduct" and

Ÿ

when the Councillor voted on the application to which Mr and Mrs Walton had objected "he could reasonably be regarded as participating in a decision which benefited his friends."

As a result of the findings the Ombudsman concluded that Cllr Hughes had breached paragraphs 5.1.3.1 and 5.1.3.2 of the Council's Code of Conduct "by failing to declare a personal interest and failing to withdraw from the Planning Committee on the 3rd December 2003, in respect of the consideration of Mr and Mrs Wood's planning application regarding the Mill."

Councillor Hughes had accepted the Ombudsman's findings and it would therefore be for the Committee to decide what mitigating and/or aggravating features it took into account and what weight should be attributed to each feature. In addition to written representations by Councillor Hughes, the Committee were asked to consider additional papers circulated at the meeting, consisting of a petition signed by 20 County Council Members in support of Councillor Hughes as well as comments by Mr and Mrs Wood's Solicitor dated 9 February 2006 and enclosure.

The Monitoring Officer drew attention to the three possible decisions available to the committee viz. :-

Ÿ

no action needed to be taken against the Councillor;

or

Ÿ

the Councillor be censured;

or

Ÿ

the Councillor be suspended, or partially suspended, from being a Member of the County Council for a period not exceeding six months;

The Chair thanked the Monitoring Officer for her report and invited any questions. There being no questions raised, the Chair invited Mr Lloyd Williams, Solicitor for Councillor Hughes, to make representations on behalf of his client.

Mr Lloyd Williams drew attention to the fact that Councillor Hughes had submitted his representations and annexes on 3rd February as requested by the Solicitor to the Monitoring Officer so as to allow the Committee time to prepare for the Hearing.  He had been surprised therefore to receive additional papers submitted by the complainants on 9th February, which they had presented  in response to and having received Councillor Hughes' representations. In response to the additional written response received by the complainants, Mr Lloyd Williams had prepared papers for consideration by the Committee consisting of a copy of the original plan included as part of the planning application and an amended plan submitted to the Planning Appeal together with a copy of the Planning Inspector's Decision Notice. These papers were distributed to Members of the Standards Committee, the Monitoring Officer and to the complainant and their legal advisor.

In presenting additional representations, Mr Lloyd Williams wished to make it clear that Councillor Hughes accepted the findings of the Ombudsman and wished to apologise unreservedly that his failure to declare an interest had led to a complaint being made to the Ombudsman and ultimately the matter having to be considered by the Standards Committee.

Councillor Hughes drew the Committee's attention to the fact that he was conscious of his knowledge of and relationship with Mr and Mrs Walton but had come to the conclusion that there was no need for him to declare an interest as the relationship had dwindled over the years and there was no question of any financial interest being involved. He believed the decision he was making at the time was correct but in retrospect realised he should have sought the advice of the Council's Planning Solicitor. He regretted not having done so.

In considering the Planning application in question, the Planning and Highways Officers'  advice was that the application should be refused, primarily as the highway network serving the site was substandard. By the time the application had been submitted for Appeal, the applicants had amended the plan from a Highways perspective and matters had been agreed with the Highway Authority resulting in them withdrawing their objection to the application. (Para.12 of the Appeal Decision Notice refers). The issue of costs of the appeal raised by the complainants in their correspondence of 9 February was a matter which would have been considered on the appeal itself by the Planning Inspector and was not a matter for the Standards Committee.

Mr Lloyd Williams drew attention to the fact that the complainants are seeking to hold Councillor Hughes responsible for the fact that they were not granted the planning permission they sought and have now raised the issue of losses which they maintain flow from his omission. Whilst any claim for losses may be a matter for consideration, the relative strength or weaknesses of such a claim should be borne in mind before deciding how much weight should be attached to any claim.

Mr Lloyd Williams reiterated the fact that Councillor Hughes was before the Committee for failing to declare a personal interest and failing to withdraw from the 3rd December 2003 Planning Committee. He emphasised that Councillor Hughes did not use a casting vote at the Hearing to  determine the Planning Application.  Councillor Hughes had followed the professional officer's advice ,supported the professional officer's recommendation to refuse the application and voted accordingly.

Attention was drawn to paragraph 64 of the Ombudsman's report  which states:

"I have no reason to doubt that Councillor Hughes is a diligent local Councillor who takes his public duties and obligations seriously. The issue in this case is whether Councillor Hughes committed an error of judgement in this matter by not declaring an interest."

Councillor Hughes has never denied the existence of his friendship with Mr and Mrs Walton, however, it is the degree and subsequent interpretation of that relationship which has been in question. The Ombudsman had accepted Councillor Hughes had made an error of judgement. Councillor Hughes emphasised this was not deliberate on his part, it was a decision he had taken and now had to accept that it was an incorrect decision.

Written testament supplied by a senior professional officer from the Planning Department, the Vice Chairman of the Planning Committee and the 20 Councillors who had signed the petition show support for and evidence the way in which Councillor Hughes conducts himself and deals with Council business.

It was with great sorrow and concern that Councillor Hughes found himself before the Standards Committee. He maintained he had neither conferred favours nor disadvantaged any person in his capacity as a County Councillor. Integrity and reputation are qualities he holds dear. He had taken stock of the situation, and confirmed this matter had been a valuable, albeit difficult learning experience for him. He had, through the process, become more aware of his responsibilities and duties and wished to assure the committee he would be able to deal with similar situations

differently in future.

Mr Lloyd Williams reminded the Committee that the Monitoring Officer in her report had stated that "the Committee is not fettered in the exercise of its discretion, its decision is still governed by general principles of reasonableness and proportionality." He concluded by asking the Committee to look at all the representations and to exercise leniency towards his client.

Councillor Hughes responded to questions of clarity from a Member of the Standards Committee regarding the voting procedure at Planning Committees. Councillor Hughes responded to a question regarding his "degree of friendship" with Mr and Mrs Walton and as to when he felt it would be appropriate form him to declare an interest by stating he believed that having a close association on a regular basis with someone would have warranted him declaring an interest. His friendship with the Waltons had dwindled over the years and he was not in constant contact with them at that time. He had therefore concluded, albeit unwisely, that he did not need to declare an interest.

Having received the Monitoring Officer's report and heard submissions by Mr Lloyd Williams on behalf of Councillor Hughes, the Committee retired to private session to consider their decision.

The Committee returned to Public Session and announced their decision  as follows:

Having considered all the evidence and representations made to it by Councillor Robert Lloyd Hughes, the Committee is of the unanimous view that the sanction of a public censure is appropriate in this instance.

The reasons for the Committee's decision are:-

Ÿ

The Committee have accepted that Councillor Hughes' failure to declare an interest was a genuine albeit serious error of judgement;

Ÿ

The Committee have taken into account his previous exemplary record particularly as Chair of the Planning and Orders Committee;

Ÿ

The Committee have accepted that the error of judgement was underpinned by his desire, as chair of the Planning Committee, to support the professional recommendations of the Planning Officers;

Ÿ

The Committee also noted and accepted that Councillor Robert Lloyd Hughes has expressed contrition over this error of judgement.

DR GWYNETH ROBERTS

CHAIR