The Committee is asked to note any apologies for absence and substitutions received from Members.

There were no apologies for absence on this occasion.

To confirm as a correct record, the minutes of the meeting of the Standards Committee, held on 16 July 2020.

It was moved and seconded and:-

RESOLVED that the minutes of the meeting of the Standards Committee, held on Thursday 16 July 2020, be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman, subject to an amendment to reflect the fact that Councillor Nick Turner  had been unable to join the meeting due to technical difficulties and that he wished to have his apologies noted. 

Councillors are invited to declare any Disclosable Pecuniary Interests or Personal Interest, and the nature of it, in relation to any item on the agenda.

There were none on this occasion.

Subject to providing two working days’ notice, a Member of the Committee may ask the Chairman of the Committee a question on any matter in relation to which the Council has powers or duties which affect the Tendring District and which falls within the terms of reference of the Committee.

There were none on this occasion.

To review the Council’s Members’ Planning Code/Protocol adopted in 2015 following the Local Government Association (LGA) Probity in Planning Guidance – Advice for councillors and officers making planning decisions issued in December 2019.

The Committee gave consideration to a detailed report of the Monitoring Officer (A.1) in relation to a review of the Council’s Members’ Planning Code/Protocol adopted in 2015 following the Local Government Association (LGA) Probity in Planning Guidance – Advice for councillors and officers making planning decisions issued in December 2019.

In December 2019, the LGA had issued its Probity in Planning Guidance – Advice for Councillors and Officers making planning decisions, which  was included as Appendix A to the Monitoring Officers report.  The Standards Committee had agreed previously through its work programme to review the Council’s Planning Protocol following the LGA publication.

It was reported that the LGA’s Guidance had been circulated to the members of the Planning Committee in 2020.   Those Members had also later been provided with a note on lobbying following a High Court decision involving the London Borough of Hackney, which had confirmed the Council’s Protocol was consistent with the practices established within the judgement, so long as it  was done openly.

The Committee was informed that Officers  had undertaken a review of the Council’s Planning Protocol following both the LGA’s Guidance and High Court decision, and it was considered that the recommended practice as set out within the advice and guidance issued by the LGA  was covered within the Council’s existing Protocol, Members’ Code of Conduct and working practices.  Consequently, no further changes  were suggested as a result of the LGA’s guidance however, it  was necessary to include additional wording within the Planning Protocol to cover situations when it  was not possible to undertake Site Visits and to clarify that this  did not impact upon the Planning Committee’s ability to determine planning applications. 

It  was also recommended that regular training should be carried out to ensure the principles of Probity in Planning  were known and fully understood by Councillors involved with planning decisions.  

The Committee was made aware that the LGA Guidance  stated that particular care needed to be taken in the use of social media by both Officers and Councillors, where it related to decision making functions.  The use of social media  was also an area which had been highlighted by the Local Government Ethical Standards Report published in 2019 and the LGA in its recent work to publish a Model Code of Conduct.  Any training delivered for Tendring District Councillors should therefore include a section on using social media. 

The Monitoring Officer confirmed that the Council’s Code of Conduct  was still robust.  She told the Committee that whilst undertaking the review a case had been considered at the High Court regarding lobbying of Members and it was confirmed that it  was appropriate for members of the Public to lobby Councillors on the Planning Committee.  The Council’s Code  had a protection in that it advised Councillors to let the individual know that they would look at the case with an open mind.  Case law had confirmed that it  was fine for Councillors to read any letters sent to members of the Planning Committee and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 12.

To undertake a review of the Complaints Procedure and recommend any changes to Full Council for adoption.

The Committee gave consideration to a report of the Monitoring Officer (A.2) in relation to undertakinga review of the Complaints Procedure and to recommend any changes to Full Council for adoption.

The Committee was aware that the Standards Framework included the Complaints Procedure (contained within the Members’ Constitution Booklet).  The Council’s statutory duty  was to promote and maintain high standards of conduct and building public confidence by demonstrating a commitment to maintaining positive behaviours in relation to all seven principles of public life.

The current Procedure, which was attached as Appendix A to the Monitoring Officer’s report,  had been initially adopted by full Council in November 2013 and subsequently amended in 2017 following a review and recommended changes from the Standards Committee.

Delegation was given to the Monitoring Officer throughout the Procedure to undertake key elements of the complaints process to maximise independence from the political process.

The Monitoring Officer explained that the Local Government Ombudsman had looked at  this Council’s (TDC’s) Complaints Procedure on a couple of occasions when a complainant who  had been dissatisfied with the outcome of a complaint had gone to the Ombudsman for a further review.  In all instances the Ombudsman had said that  TDC’s procedures  were robust and if followed correctly - they would not look into the  outcome of the complaint if the procedure has been correctly.  The aim was to make the Procedure as clear as possible to anyone using it.

Through a recent referral to Essex Police, regarding an alleged Disclosable Pecuniary Interest offence under the Localism Act 2011, the Monitoring Officer  had been requested to confirm the Legal Jurisdiction Criteria Test had been evaluated and met prior to referring the complaint to the Police.  The Monitoring Officer  had been requested to provide assurance that the following had been applied prior to further Police involvement:

(a)  The alleged conduct took place after the commencement of Section 34 of the Localism Act 2011.

(b)  The Subject Member was a member of the Council at the time of the alleged conduct.

(c)   The Subject Member was acting in an official capacity as a Councillor at the time of the alleged conduct.

(d)  The Subject Member was not acting as a member of another authority at the time of the alleged conduct.

(e)  If the facts are capable of establishment as a matter of evidence, the alleged conduct could be capable of a breach of the Code of Conduct.

(f)    That the complaint is not about dissatisfaction with the Council’s decisions, policies and priorities.

In the event, the above assurances  were given, the Police  would consider commencing a criminal investigation, if crucially part (e)  could be established regarding actual evidence, which the Monitoring Officer  might be asked to provide.

The test and evaluation  was undertaken implicitly by the Monitoring Officer however it  was not expressly referred to within the Complaints Procedure.  Consequently, it was being recommended that paragraph  4.5 of the Complaints Procedure  be amended to state:     

“If your complaint identifies criminal conduct  ...  view the full minutes text for item 13.

The Monitoring Officer will give an update on existing cases together with general details of new cases, if any

The Monitoring Officer circulated to the Committee the quarterly schedule, which gave an update on existing cases together with general details of new cases, without providing any names, and went through them with the Committee. There had been no requests for dispensations from Members.

The Committee noted the foregoing.

To give the Committee a presentation and guidance update on decisions and actions taken nationally.

The Monitoring Officer gave the Committee a presentation and guidance update on decisions and actions taken nationally.  All of those decisions were in the public domain and the Monitoring Officer went through each one in turn.

The Monitoring Officer also  informed the Committee that the Law Commission had put forward proposals for reforming the offence of misconduct in public office.

It was also noted that in respect of the LGA’s Model Code of Conduct, version 1  had been launched in early December, followed by version 2 in late December 2020 and that the LGA would be issuing guidance throughout 2021.  This  would be the subject of further consideration by the Committee through a separate piece of work in due course.

The Committee noted the foregoing.