Meeting documents
Standards Committee
Thursday, 30th November, 2006
Appendix 2
Investigation Report
Complaint regarding Councillor Jonathan Gay
In this report, any reference to Councillor Gay is to Councillor Jonathan Gay. Councillor Phyllis Gay will be referred to specifically.
1. The Allegation
The details of the allegation by the complainant, Peter Jovcic-Sas are contained in the email from him dated 5 May 2006 to the Standards Board and another dated 20 May 2006 to Eva Antao. Further details of the complaint are also set out in the note of the telephone call I had with the complainant on 8 September 2006 and a further email from the complainant to me dated 19 September 2006.
Councillor Jonathan Gay's mother is Councillor Phyllis Gay, who is a member of Development Control Committee B. The committee has considered a planning application which relates to land adjoining 57 Manor Park in Writhlington, which is in the Radstock area. The complainant alleges that Councillor Jonathan Gay has a personal interest in his mother's family home at 2 Manor Terrace which is also in Writhlington. The complainant believes that the proximity of Councillor Phyllis Gay's house to the proposed development would affect the value of her property which would have an affect on any interest Councillor Jonathan Gay has in that property. The complainant believes that as a result, Councillor Jonathan Gay should not have attended or spoken at the meetings of Development Control Committee B at which the planning application in relation to the land adjoining 57 Manor Park was being considered. The complainant considers that Councillor Jonathan Gay should have declared a personal interest in the house and should not have participated in any of the meetings.
The complainant also alleges that Councillor Jonathan Gay would have known about the interest that his mother, Councillor Phyllis Gay, has in the house. Accordingly the complainant considers that Councillor Jonathan Gay should have reported his mother because she did not declare her interest in the house prior to her consideration of the planning application as a member of the Development Control Committee B.
The complainant also alleges that the minutes of the meetings are not accurate as they do not show Councillor Jonathan Gay's attendance at the meeting of 24 April 2006 and do not note the objections put forward by him.
2. The Code of Conduct
The provisions of the Council's Code of Conduct for members which are relevant to this allegation are as follows:-
Paragraph 7 - a member must, if he becomes aware of any conduct by another member which he reasonably believes involves a failure to comply with the authority's code of conduct, make a written allegation to that effect to the Standards Board for England as soon as it is practicable for him to do so.
Paragraph 9(1) - a member with a personal interest in a matter who attends a meeting of the authority at which the matter is considered must disclose to that meeting the existence and nature of that interest at the commencement of that consideration, or when the interest becomes apparent.
Paragraph 10(1) - ... a member with personal interest in a matter also has a prejudicial interest in that matter if the interest is one which a member of the public with a knowledge of the relevant facts would reasonably regard as so significant that it is likely to prejudice the member's judgement of the public interest.
Paragraph 12(1) ... a member with a prejudicial interest in any matter must:
a) withdraw from the room or chamber where a meeting is being held whenever it becomes apparent that the matter is being considered at that meeting, unless he has obtained a dispensation from the authority's Standards Committee;
b) ...; and
c) not seek improperly to influence the decision about that matter.
3. Councillor Jonathan Gay's initial response to notification of the allegation
Councillor Jonathan Gay was first notified of the allegation in writing on 17 August 2006. He wrote to me on 21 August 2006 denying that he had breached the Code of Conduct. He said that he did not believe that Councillor Phyllis Gay's interest in the house was a personal interest in relation to the planning application adjacent to 57 Manor Park. He said that Councillor Phyllis Gay had no connection to the land owner or developer. He further stated that the development would have no or minimal impact on any property value that she may hold and that the property was of a sufficient distance away not to have an impact on her property. He noted that most of the members of the Development Control Committee were aware of the location of Councillor Phyllis Gay's house. Accordingly, if he was found to have breached the Code then the other members would have been in breach as well. He believed that this complaint was politically motivated.
4. Relevant information, advice and explanations
Councillor Jonathan Gay has no interest registered in the register of members' interests in respect of 2 Manor Terrace.
I met with Councillor Jonathan Gay on 21 September 2006. He stated that he did not consider that he had an interest in the house of Councillor Phyllis Gay. He did live in the house until around 8 years ago. However he understands that when his parents do die, any money from their estate will be passed directly on to their grandchildren, being Councillor Jonathan Gay's nieces and nephews. Accordingly, as far as he is aware he has no beneficial interest in the house.
Furthermore Councillor Jonathan Gay did not consider that Councillor Phyllis Gay herself had any interest which needed to be declared in respect of the planning application. Firstly the development is too far away from the house to have any impact and so far as he is aware Councillor Phyllis Gay does not know the owners or the developers of the site. Her only connection with the development is through the residents who had contacted her to confirm their concerns about the development. Councillor Jonathan Gay understood that Planning Services had not sent out any neighbour consultation notice to Councillor Phyllis Gay therefore they must have felt that she lived far enough away from the development not to need to be consulted.
Councillors Jonathan and Phyllis Gay jointly represent the Radstock area. As Councillor Phyllis Gay was on the Development Control Committee which was hearing the application, he agreed with her that he would attend the meetings to relay the concerns of the residents who had spoken to them about the planning application. Councillor Jonathan Gay confirmed that he attended both committee meetings at which the application was considered and that he also attended the site visit. He arrived after the start of the first meeting on 5 April 2006 which is possibly why he is not listed as being in attendance.
Councillor Jonathan Gay confirmed that he spoke in objection to the planning application at both the meeting of 5 April 2006 and the meeting of 3 May 2006. He attended both meetings to represent local residents who had asked him to act on their behalf and the representations he made to the Development Control Committee were in order to voice the objections of the local residents.
He attended the site visit on 24 April 2006 and was entitled to do so as the Councillor for the local ward. He was there to represent his ward residents.
He stated that he did not believe that his mother had any interest to declare, and that the whole of the Development Control Committee were aware of the location of Councillor Phyllis Gay's house as they were talking about popping in for a coffee while they were on the site visit. The committee would have passed the house on their way to the site visit. Accordingly Councillor Jonathan Gay thinks that the complaint is politically motivated. His reasoning for this is based on the fact that he was the only one reported of the councillors who attended that day who all knew of Councillor Phyllis Gay's interest in her house. Councillor Jonathan Gay also sent to me an email which had been sent by the complainant to the Somerset Guardian. Councillor Gay believes that the complaint about him was made in order that the complainant could justify sending correspondence regarding the complaint to the local papers.
5. Relevant documents
A. Email from the complainant dated 5 May 2006 to the Standards Board
B. Email from the complainant dated 20 May 2006 to Eva Antao
C. Note of telephone call with the complainant on 8 September 2006
D. Email from the complainant dated 19 September 2006
F. Speakers list for meeting of Development Control Committee B on 5 April 2006
G. Minutes of meeting of Area B Development Control Committee on 5 April 2006
H. Decisions of meeting of Area B Development Control Committee on 5 April 2006
I. Site inspection report for meeting of Area B Development Control Committee on 3 May 2006
K. Speakers list for meeting of Development Control Committee B on 3 May 2006
L. Minutes of Development Control Committee B meeting on Wednesday 3 May 2006
M. Decision of meeting of Development Control Committee B on 3 May 2006.
O. Response to notification of complaint received from Councillor Phyllis Gay dated 23 August 2006
P. Note of interview with Councillor Phyllis Gay dated 13 September 2006
Q. Note of interview with Councillor Jonathan Gay dated 21 September 2006
R. Investigation report in respect of complaint regarding Councillor Phyllis Gay
6. Persons Interviewed
In the course of my investigation I spoke to Councillor Phyllis Gay and to Councillor Jonathan Gay. It was unfortunately not possible to speak to the clerk of the Development Committee who attended to note the meetings as the relevant clerk is on long term sick leave. I also invited the complainant for an interview to further discuss the complaint, but he indicated he had set out the substance of the matter and the relevant facts in previous correspondence. He confirmed that he would email me further information but did not require a meeting.
7. Findings of fact
I attach a copy of the investigation into the complaint that Councilllor Phyllis Gay herself had a prejudicial interest in the planning application due to the beneficial interest she has in her property at 2 Manor Terrace. The report considers in detail whether the proximity of Councillor Phyllis Gay's house to the development to declare an interest in the proposed development. That investigation concludes that Councillor Phyllis Gay had no personal or prejudicial interest in the planning application regarding the site adjacent to 57 Manor Park.
Furthermore, it does not appear that Councillor Jonathan Gay has any interest in the house of Councillor Phyllis Gay. The complainant had assumed that Councillor Jonathan Gay was to inherit part of the property from his parents but this was denied by Councillor Jonathan Gay. Even if Councillor Jonathan Gay did stand to inherit part of Councillor Phyllis Gay's interest in the house, my report into the complaint against Councillor Phyllis Gay found that the development did not impact sufficiently on the property to require its declaration as a personal interest.
Councillor Jonathan Gay was, along with at least some other members of the Development Control Committee, aware of the proximity of his mother's house to the new development. However he did not at the time and still does not believe that his mother had any interest which was required to be declared. He believed the development would have a minimum impact on any property value due to the distance between it and the development site.
The minutes of the meeting of 5 April 2006 do not reflect Councillor Jonathan Gay's attendance at the meeting. It has not been possible to obtain an explanation by the clerk of the committee as to why Councillor Jonathan Gay's name was omitted, as the clerk is on long term sick leave. However, it does appear that the omission was an oversight due to Councillor Jonathan Gay's late arrival at the meeting. I find no evidence, nor have been given any basis on which to believe, that the omission of his name was anything but an administrative oversight and unrelated to any interest that the complainant might allege that he holds.
8. Conclusion
In order for Councillor Jonathan Gay to have a personal interest it would have to be shown that the planning application related to a property in which Councillor Jonathan Gay required to register a beneficial interest. This has not been shown. I do not believe that Councillor Jonathan Gay has a beneficial interest in his mother's property. Even if he did have such a beneficial interest it is unlikely to relate to the planning application due to the distance of the house from the proposed development and the negligible impact the development would have on the house itself. Furthermore, I do not find that Councillor Jonathan Gay might reasonably be regarded as being affected to a greater extent than other council tax payers, rate payers or inhabitants of the authority's area due to proximity of the development to his mother's house.
Even if the Standards Committee were to find that Councillor Jonathan Gay has a personal interest, I do not believe he had any prejudicial interest in the planning application. It is unlikely that any member of the public who knew that Councillor Jonathan Gay's mother owned a house which was located just under 100 yards from the development would think such a fact so significant as to be likely to prejudice Councillor Jonathan Gay's judgement of the public interest. Moreover it is relevant to note that he was not a member of the decision making body.
I found in the attached investigation report that Councillor Phyllis Gay had no personal interest in the planning application. As such, there was no breach by Councillor Jonathan Gay of any requirement to make a written allegation of any failure by his mother to declare such an interest. It is likely that a number of the committee members were aware of Councillor Phyllis Gay's interest in the house. These members would also have received training on the Code of Conduct and should have been more acutely aware than any member of the public of whether Councillor Phyllis Gay's ownership of her house would have been likely to prejudice her judgement of the public interest. The fact that no other member of the committee felt it necessary to raise the issue of any interest she may have supports my conclusion that no such interest needed to be declared.
I do find that the minutes of the first meeting of 5 April 2006 are not accurate in that Councillor Jonathan Gay did attend and speak at the meeting although his attendance is not recorded.
9. Recommendations
I would recommend that the meetings of 5 April 2006 are amended to show Councillor Jonathan Gay's attendance at that meeting.
Debbie Incledon
Senior Legal Advisor
31st October 2006