URL: https://democracy.lichfielddc.gov.uk/ieDecisionDetails.aspx?ID=839

Decision Maker: Sub-Committee - Member Standards (Assessment)

Outcome: Recommendations Approved

Is Key Decision?: No

Is Callable In?: No

Purpose:

Content: DECISION OF LICHFIELD DISTRICT COUNCIL’S ASSESSMENT SUB-COMMITTEE   08 JULY 2026   DECISION REGARDING A COMPLAINT AGAINST DISTRICT COUNCILLOR D. CROSS – LICHFIELD DISTRICT COUNCIL   Present:   District Councillors: Woodward (Chair), Ashton, Harvey-Coggins, Leung, Salter,   Officers: M Hooper (Monitoring Officer), C Lewis (Deputy Monitoring Officer), W Stevenson (Principal Governance Officer), L. Fowkes (External Investigating Officer - Monitoring Officer at South Staffordshire District Council)   Independent Person: J Jardine     Absent:   Subject Member: Cllr Cross   Cllr Cross had not notified any participant that he would not be attending the hearing. The Sub-Committee delayed the commencement of the hearing by 10 minutes to allow for late arrival. At 6:10 p.m. the Sub-Committee resolved to proceed in the absence of the Subject Councillor in accordance with paragraph 1(a)(i) of the Procedure for Assessment Sub-Committees, being satisfied that there was insufficient reason for failure to attend.   A further check of the premises was undertaken at 6:20 p.m. in the event that Cllr Cross had arrived after the commencement of the hearing. No attendance was recorded.     Hearing   The hearing took place in accordance with the District Council’s arrangements for dealing with Member Code of Conduct complaints.   The complaint before the Assessment Sub-Committee (‘the Sub-Committee’) related to a voicemail message left by Cllr Cross on the 7 September 2025. During the message Councillor Cross made statements concerning the complainant’s position as an elected councillor and a planning application submitted by the complainant.   The Sub-Committee considered:   the final Investigation Report prepared by the external investigating officer; the evidence presented at the meeting the views of the Independent Person; .       Decision The Sub-Committee carefully considered the Investigation Report, the evidence presented at the hearing and the views of the Independent Person. The Sub-Committee considered that although the voicemail arose against the background of a personal disagreement, statements expressly concerned the Complainant’s elected office and the determination of a planning application by the Council. The Sub-Committee therefore found that the conduct was sufficiently connected with Councillor Cross’s role as a councillor for the Code of Conduct to apply. The Sub-Committee found that the threat to have the Complainant removed from Council was disrespectful and intimidating. It amounted to bullying notwithstanding that Councillor Cross did not personally possess the power to remove an elected councillor from office. The Sub-Committee also found that the statement concerning the planning application conveyed a threat that Councillor Cross would use, or attempt to use, his position and influence as a councillor to interfere with the Council’s planning process and disadvantage the Complainant. The Sub-Committee considered that threats by an elected councillor to remove another councillor from office and interfere with a regulatory decision were capable of undermining public confidence in the proper use of elected office and in the impartiality of the Council’s decision-making arrangements. The conduct therefore also brought the office of councillor and the Council into disrepute. In reaching its decision, the Sub-Committee took account of both the words used and the manner in which they were delivered in the voicemail recording. The Sub-Committee duly found that, on the balance of probabilities, Councillor Cross had breached the Members' Code of Conduct. The Sub-Committee found that the conduct amounted to: a failure to treat another councillor with respect (paragraph 1.1);   bullying behaviour (paragraph 2.1);   conduct that could reasonably be regarded as bringing the role of councillor and the Council into disrepute (paragraph 5.1);   an attempt to use the position of councillor improperly to disadvantage another person (paragraph 6.1).   Sanctions The Sub-Committee considered the actions available and was mindful that any sanction imposed should be reasonable, proportionate and relevant to the subject member’s behaviour.  In reaching its decision the Committee noted that the subject member had accepted making the comments, acknowledged the findings of the investigation, offered to undergo training and offered an apology. Following its deliberations the Sub-Committee agreed the following sanctions: Censure the subject member.   Recommend that the subject member should be removed from Planning Committee and not be appointed to Planning Committee or other Committee/Sub-Committee exercising regulatory functions for the remainder of the municipal year.   Councillor Cross be requested to submit a written apology to the Complainant in a form approved by the Chair of the Assessment Sub-Committee.   Given the previous breach of the code of conduct by the subject member and failure of the Subject Member to amend his behaviour as a result of previous training, that the Monitoring Officer be asked to identify suitable targeted training/mentoring that deals directly with the four areas of the code that have been breached.  

Date of Decision: July 8, 2026