outline of procedure

The Chairman opened the meeting by introducing the Sub-Committee and the Officers present. He explained that the Sub-Committee would consider the report of the Investigating Officer in respect of an alleged breach of the Code of Conduct by three Members, at the relevant time, of Lynsted-with-Kingsdown Parish Council. He reminded the Sub-Committee that this was a hearing to be determined under the old procedure and would be resolved today.

declarations of interest

No interests were declared.

part b minutes for information

allegation concerning three members of lynsted-with-kingsdown parish council

The Monitoring Officer advised that Councillor Baxter had not wished to be present at the hearing and had been satisfied that he had had the opportunity to express his point of view with regard to the allegation. Mr English had also notified the Monitoring Officer that he was happy for the hearing to proceed in his absence. Councillor John Disney had recently passed away.

The Monitoring Officer explained that the procedure would be followed as set out in Annex A of the report.

The Chairman stated that the hearing would determine whether there had been a breach in the Code of Conduct by the three Councillors at that time, as detailed in the Investigation Officer's report.

The Investigation Officer introduced his report and explained that he had had co-operation from all three Councillors, Parish Clerks, other Parish Councillors and the complainant. He outlined the allegations in the report and explained that Councillors Baxter, Disney and English had failed to declare an interest at a meeting of Lynsted-with-Kingsdown Parish Council where there had been discussion on land adjacent to their properties being a potential site for affordable housing.

The Investigation Officer reported that the question of declaration of interest had been broached at that meeting but the Councillors had felt it not to be necessary. He explained that in hindsight they considered they should have and had sought advice from the Monitoring Officer as soon as possible after the meeting.

The Chairman asked whether there were any questions. Given the circumstances and agreement on facts, there were none. There were no witnesses to be called and he explained that the Sub-Committee would now consider their findings.

The Monitoring Officer confirmed that the Sub-Committee was now at Stage seven in Annex A of the report; 'determination of whether there was a failure to comply with the Code of Conduct'. He explained that the Investigation Officer's report had resolved that there were no disputes to any of the relevant facts of the case.

The Standards Hearing Sub-Committee adjourned to consider their decision at 10:10 am. Members of the Sub-Committee and the Monitoring Officer left the meeting and returned at 10:35 am, when the Sub-Committee reconvened.

The Chairman explained that the Sub-Committee had considered the evidence set out in the Investigation Officer's report. He confirmed that Lynsted-with-Kingsdown Parish Council were bound by the Code of Conduct which they had adopted in April 2002. The three Councillors had breached the Code of Conduct as they had not declared an interest.

The Monitoring Officer explained that the Sub-Committee was now at Stage nine in Annex A of the report: 'action consequent upon a failure to comply with the Code of Conduct'.

The Chairman brought the Sub-Committee's attention to the Summary in the report and questioned whether any of the sanctions were appropriate.

The Investigation Officer highlighted the four criteria in the report as guidance as to where it might be appropriate to not impose a sanction. He considered that the first listed criteria was not appropriate to this case but the following three were. He advised that sanctions could be imposed as a deterrent, but considered the remaining Parish Councillors were already well aware of the issues raised at the hearing and any appropriate action to take in similar circumstances in the future and a deterrent was not necessary in this case. The Investigation Officer reported that he did not consider a sanction to be appropriate.

The Monitoring Officer advised that the Sub-Committee needed to be satisfied with the Investigation Officer's summary that sanctions were not appropriate in this case.

The Standards Hearing Sub-Committee adjourned to consider whether sanctions were appropriate at 10:43 am. Members of the Sub-Committee, the Head of Legal and the Monitoring Officer left the meeting and returned at 11:01 am, when the Sub-Committee reconvened.

The Chairman summarised and thanked the Investigation Officer for his report and the Head of Legal and the Monitoring Officer for their advice.