URL: https://meetings.fdean.gov.uk/ieDecisionDetails.aspx?ID=1500

Decision Maker: Standards Panel

Outcome:

Is Key Decision?: No

Is Callable In?: No

Purpose:

Content: Complaint 1 Para 11(a) – Agree Para 11(b) – Agree Para 11 (c) – Agree Para 11(d) – Agree Para 11 (e) – Agree   As to the Subject Member’s conduct towards the Complainant: The Panel accepts that there was a difficult relationship between the Subject Member and the Complainant and that there may have been problematic behaviour on both sides.  The Panel also notes the Subject Member’s explanation for his conduct. These will all be considered as mitigating factors. ·         The Panel cannot, however, ignore the large number of witnesses who corroborate the findings of fact at 11(a)-(e). On that basis, the Panel finds that, on the balance of probabilities, the evidence supports the Investigator’s findings of fact at 11(a)-(e). On the basis of those findings of fact, the Panel agrees with and upholds the Investigator’s first conclusion in respect of Complaint One.  As to the Subject Member’s conduct in respect of the enforcement case at Big Meadow Farm: ·         The Panel notes that the Subject Member had two conversations with the Head of Paid Services regarding the Red Marley enforcement case. The Panel have no reason to dispute that Councillor Burford was asked to give a view on the case by the then Head of Paid Services, and, during that conversation, the Subject Member indicated that he thought the case was essentially sound.  The Subject Member made the Head of Paid Services aware of his interest in the case at this time. The Subject Member subsequently became aware of further information which caused him to doubt whether the enforcement case was sound. He conveyed this information to the Head of Paid Services informally. ·         The Panel is of the view that, having acknowledged that he had an interest in the case, the Subject Member should not have engaged with the head of Paid Services informally.  That behaviour was inappropriate. The Panel, therefore, finds that the Investigator’s finding of fact at 11(f) is correct on the balance of probabilities and, accordingly, agrees with and upholds the Investigators’ second conclusion in respect of Complaint One.   As to the Subject Member’s conduct in respect of the enforcement matters involving other candidates in his district:   The Panel notes a degree of agreement in the evidence on the following points:   a)    The Subject Member became aware, during the election campaign, of allegations of breaches of planning control against two other candidates. b)    The Subject Member did not make this knowledge public or inform officers during the campaign. c)    The Subject Member made officers aware, informally, once the campaign had concluded.   ·         The Panel note that any political advantage or disadvantage that could flow from this, was mitigated or eliminated by the election being over and the panel find the Subject Member was correct to wait until after the election.  The Subject Member did not, therefore, act inappropriately.  The Panel does not, consequently, agree with or uphold the Investigator’s third conclusion in respect of Complaint One.   Complaints 2/3 The Panel finds that the Subject Member must have been aware of the relevant proposal and therefore the Panel agrees with the investigators finding of fact at (12)(b).   ·         Given that he was aware that, at the time, the investigation had not reached the point of scheduling the first interview, the Subject Member, should have been aware that it was unlikely that the investigation would be concluded before the Scrutiny Committee began considering the DMIP. ·         The Subject Member accepted that he did not declare an interest at the meeting of 20 July 2023.   The Panel, therefore, on the balance of probabilities, agrees with the Investigator’s finding of fact at paragraphs 12(b)-(d).   On the basis of these findings of fact, the Panel agrees with and upholds the Investigator’s first conclusion in respect of Complaints Two and Three.   In respect of the investigators second conclusion, the Panel notes that: (a)   The subject member’s defence in respect of Complaint One was based substantially on criticism of the planning officers (b)  There was clearly an opportunity to induce such criticism through the scrutiny comm’s consideration of the DMIP (c)   The subject Member, by the relevant time, knew that complaint 1 had been made, did not recluse himself from chairing the  Scrutiny Committee, but sought to hasten the programme,   Given these points the Standards Panel agree with the investigators second conclusion in respect of Complaints 2 and 3.     Resolved,the Standards Panel recommends to Full Council, that;   1.    The Member is issued with a formal censure (i.e. the issue of an unfavourable opinion or judgement or reprimand) by motion of: the Subject Member not be allowed to be a Chair or Vice Chair of any committee for three years. 2.    Publish the findings in respect of the Member’s conduct in such manner as considered appropriate. Agreed by assent.   REPORT HPS.157 PRESENTED TO FULL COUNCIL ON THURSDAY 11 DECEMBER 2025. DOCUMENTS FOR FINAL DECISION ATTACHED.

Date of Decision: November 4, 2025