The Ombudsman received a complaint that a Member (“the Member”) of Flintshire County Council (“the Council”) had breached the Code of Conduct.
It was alleged that the Member’s conduct during the time leading up to the Council’s vote on its Local Development Plan (“LDP”) was disrespectful and disparaging towards Council officers; that the Member attempted to improperly influence the vote of other members of the Council and failed to disclose a personal and prejudicial interest in the LDP.
It was further alleged that the Member failed to declare a personal and prejudicial interest during a Council meeting on 24 January 2023, when the Council voted to approve its LDP.
Information was obtained from the Council. Witnesses, including the Complainant, were interviewed. Information was obtained from the Member, who was also interviewed.
The Ombudsman found that the Member’s conduct in the time leading up to the Council’s vote on its LDP did not amount to a breach of the Code.
The Ombudsman found that the Member had declared a personal interest relating to the LDP during the meeting on 24 January 2023. However, he had failed to appropriately declare a prejudicial interest. It was found that his conduct was therefore suggestive of a breach of the Code.
In considering whether the Member’s failure to appropriately declare a personal and prejudicial interest in the LDP merited further action, consideration was given to advice the Member had been provided by the Monitoring Officer, as well as the Member’s refusal to accept the advice, which was an aggravating factor.
It was also considered that the member was a relatively new member of the Council at the time of events and that, whilst his failure to declare a prejudicial interest was considered a serious breach of the Code, it was noted that his involvement in the meeting did not impact the Council’s ultimate decision on the LDP.
It was noted that the Member subsequently applied to the Standards Committee for dispensation in relation to the relevant planning application, demonstrating an improved awareness of his obligations under the Code, and subsequent appropriate conduct in relation to interests, likely following the clear advice received from the Monitoring Officer.
For these reasons, the Ombudsman determined that no action needed to be taken in respect of the matters investigated. However, the Member was advised to reflect carefully on the Code and the Ombudsman’s guidance, to strengthen his understanding of the standards of behaviour expected of elected members when personal and prejudicial interests apply. It was also recommended that the Member receives refresher training on his duties under the Code, to ensure that he is clear when both personal and prejudicial interests arise and his obligations under the Code in such situations.