BRIDGE WATCH
Sutton Bridge
The Group whose aims are
'Good Governance' and 'Community Spirit'
in Sutton Bridge, Lincolnshire
Menu:
Sutton Bridge Parish Council - Latest News
Notes on the Sutton Bridge Parish Council Meeting held at
The Curlew Centre on 26th May, 2013
Open Forum
Mr. Fenton stated that he had noted the Dodfrey’s Engineering had put in a planning application to extend their premises, he felt that this would increase the noise nuisance level not only to his own home but also those of his neighbours. He said that although the company had moved their equipment to another part of their building, the noise and vibrations were still apparent. Mr. Fenton also said that the caravan was still being illegally parked.
Mrs. Faires spoke of her dismay that the tulips on the East Bank had been cut down far too early by the grass cutter, thus spoiling the bulbs for another good display next year and asked if it would it not have been possible to delay the final cut for another month.
Mr. Jackson spoke of the recent Extraordinary Parish Meeting when it was intimated there would be a further Public Meeting and when would this be?
Mr. Blundell spoke eloquently about the flawed planning application by PREL. He said that, like everybody in the room, he had spent much time going through the PREL EIA with a fine toothcomb and was astonished to find that there was no reference to the danger of explosions and/or fire hazards. He was even more amazed to note that Mr. Fidler had ruled the danger out as being ‘not a material consideration’. We have this in writing.
Then he realised with horror that there was a distinct pattern in the position of the so-called Planning Committee. Anything that campaigners might consider to be important on the general grounds of environmental pollution was deemed to be ‘not a material consideration’. For example
Fire & explosions - not a material planning consideration
Danger to cockle beds from emissions fallout - not a material planning consideration
Danger to crops from toxin fallout entering the food chain - not a material planning consideration
Toxins etc entering the food chain through fish stock in the Wash - not a material planning consideration
Potential traffic chaos - not a material planning consideration
Deterioration of living conditions for Sutton Bridge residents - not a material planning consideration
Effect on wildlife in general - not a material planning consideration
Noise & light pollution - not a material planning consideration
Depletion of the world's forests - not a material planning consideration
Etcetera, etcetera - not a material planning consideration
He pointed out that Fidler & Co will say that the Planning Committee was in business simply to make a decision about a building... They were not concerned with what it's used for, what the consequences of its operation might be or any effects on the local population. [This contrasts with the PC's own later correct rejection of the planned extension to Dodfrey’s Engineering which did take into account consequences and effects...]
The simple question that ought to be asked of some legal mind or the other is: since all this is contrary to the current Local Plan are SHDC legally correct to go against their own Local Plan? Otherwise, what's the point of having a Local Plan?
BUSINESS TO BE TRANSACTED
Cllr. John Grimwood was re-elected as Chairman and signed the declaration of acceptance.
Cllr. M. Booth was re-elected as vice-chairman.
Apologies for absence had been received from Cllr. S. Booth and C. Brewis who, as on a previous occasion, had stated he would be arriving late.
POLICE MATTERS: The PCSO Officer present stated they were aware of the caravan and were taking the necessary action.
- The matter of the Rave(s) was also in hand.
- It had been reported that vehicles were not stopping at the zebra crossing by the school and they are pushing for a solution but they need support from the public who should report the licence plate numbers of vehicles that fail to stop.
DISTRICT COUNCILLORS REPORTS: A copy of District Councillor M. Booth’s report was handed out, main points as follows:
- SHDC has agreed to fit new gates to the Lime street playing field.
- The next SBMAG meeting will be on 10th June at the Curlew Centre at 6.30 pm.
- The County Councillors’ Budgets had provided funding for LIVES, and the Long Sutton & District Civic Society/SB Art Group’s exhibition at the Curlew Centre May Bank Holiday weekend, as well as the Rose Garden at the top of Railway Lane.
- He had enquired from Cllr. Worth at SHDC what the container behind the industrial units contained and is still awaiting a reply.
A copy of Cllr. Brewis’ report can be obtained from the Clerk at the PC Office.
Finance: Included in this report was the cost of £535 for the repairs at the pedestrian gate of the Memorial Park.
- The cost of the survey for the proposed new Burial Ground had also been paid.
- Over £6,000 had been received from Allotment rents.
Correspondence:
- The request from an allotment tenant for repair to fencing and gates had been received. However such repairs are not the responsibility of the PC and the tenant to be advised accordingly.
Highways & Footpaths:
- A collapsed drain near the Constitutional Club had been reported to the authorities, and although it had been considered an emergency, nothing had been done.
Reports from Working Parties & Committees:
- There is no money available to fence off the area once occupied by the now demolished Youth Club building
- The Japanese Knotweed requires spraying again and the regular licensed sprayer will be contacted.
- The children’s swings in the Memorial Park have been vandalised.
- The proposed Burial Ground was to be discussed in Closed Session.
- Farmers Market - now to be removed from the agenda.
- Parish Newsletter – It was agreed that this should be produced as quickly as possible as there are many important and urgent matters that need to be brought to the attention of all parishioners especially the Incinerator threat and the proposal for another power station larger than and next to the existing one. Because Mr. Brandon-King was on holiday the other three members of the sub-committee had been unable to proceed. Mr. Brandon-King was away so frequently and difficult to contact, that Mr. Brian Collins-McDougal be a co-opted member of this committee to format the newsletter ready for printing. Mr. Brandon-King was away so frequently and difficult to contact that Cllr Giles suggested he be removed from the sub-committee; he might be replaced by a parishioner who had said he would be willing to serve. When Standing Orders were suspended she asked Mr. Brian Collins-McDougal if he would be willing to be a co-opted member of this committee. He said he would.
As the items covering reports from Working Parties & Committees, and Reports from Outside Bodies Representatives take too much time and seldom have any reports made, that in future these items will be reduced to allow only those who have reports to make.
Update on the PREL planning application:
It was agreed to submit a formal complaint via the formal complaints procedure concerning the flaws to the planning process in relation to application ref H18-0723-12 (PREL).
Cllr. Mrs. Giles had researched and contacted four specialist legal advisers and although had received very little if any information from three of them, one company had submitted a detailed itemised summary of what costs would be involved, and this was below the £10,000 bench mark. This company also offered a free 4 hour consultation to the PC in order to ascertain if there was a case for the PC to follow.
Cllr. M. Booth was reluctant to commit the sum of money (£10,000) earmarked for matters relating to this planning application towards the funding of independent legal advice, preferring to wait until after the all other formal avenues had been explored.
The Clerk reported on the advice from NALC (see From the Gallery) and offered a warning about possible costs.
Cllrs. Mrs. Giles, Mrs. Hills and Mrs. Rowe each emphasised the urgency of this matter (as well as most of those present in the public gallery) with time being of the essence.
Standing Orders were removed for Craig Jackson to address the meeting and he explained that both himself and Paul Espin had made official complaints to South Holland District Council regarding their failure to disclose key information from Natural England (NE), the failure to observe the Bio-diversity Action Plan (BAP) requirements which NE referred to in their correspondence which insisted on a marine life survey being completed before the application was determined by the authority. NE is a Government body and statutory consultee for planning applications of this kind.
He pointed that the Environmental Impact Assessment was seriously flawed in that it did not meet the planning guidance, omitted key receptors in the emissions modelling, failed to deliver on its promises and bore little relation to the application that was finally passed.
He also pointed out that BATI was not eligible for legal aid and had already made enquiries regarding pro-bono Judicial Review and was awaiting a response, but this was a lottery on whether they would be eligible.
With regard to legal services, he stated that the offer of significantly discounted legal services made to the PC, in legal terms at the prices outlined by the Clerk, was a bargain.
After much deliberation it was agreed that three councillors (Mrs. Giles, Mrs. Hills and Croxford) attend the proffered four hour free consultation. It had also been suggested that one member of the public also be allowed to attend the said consultation, which Cllr Preston thought might be useful but Cllr. Croxford proposed that only PC councillors should attend and Cllr Preston supported him. There was no discussion about this.
Cllr. Mrs. Rowe proposed that part of the sum of money from the said £10,000 be used to fund information leaflets in order to keep parishioners fully updated on this planning application. It was agreed that such information should also be placed in the parish newsletter and that it is published as soon as possible. Cllr Booth stressed that any leaflet should not contain what he called propaganda.
If the free consultation proves that the PC have a case, then a public meeting will be called as soon as possible.
There are no plans to reinstate the bottle, can and glass recycling facilities in the Memorial Park car park as all residents have a recycling collection on a weekly basis.
The cost of providing free ‘dog poo bags’ is to be investigated.
There will be a ‘No Ball Games’ sign and a ‘5mph Advisory Speed Limit’ sign placed in the Memorial Park car park.
Regarding the ‘Rave’ events held at the Hydraulic House adjacent to the Churchgate area, although the matter has been reported to the police, they cannot make them turn the music off. The matter will no w be taken up with the new Police Commissioner.
It had been reported to the SBPC that the planters on the traffic islands near the swing bridge were to be removed, but as they have been there for a number of years the PC consider they are not a hazard. Cllr. Mrs. Rowe requested that the PC write to Lincs CC requesting that the planters remain in situ.
Members of the Army Display Team are to be allowed to sleep overnight in the Memorial Park on 15th June in order to provide site security.
It was agreed to all a bouncy castle to be put up behind the Curlew Centre on 1st June in support of a pre-school nursery fundraising day.
At the Chairman’s Discretion
- Cllr. Mrs. Grimwood had received a complaint from a parishioner that grass cuttings were scattered all over the road and footpaths when the grass verges were being cut.
- Cllr. Mrs. Rowe asked if EDF would be advertising their plans.
- Cllr. Mrs. Giles requested that the toilet facilities in the Curlew Centre were kept open while the building was being used for public events.
***********************************
NOTES FROM THE PUBLIC GALLERY:
- When the public left the meeting at 9.15 pm Cllr. Brewis had not yet made an appearance.
- One has to wonder exactly why Cllr. Croxford proposed that Craig Jackson should not be allowed to attend the free four-hour legal consultation re the PREL ‘debate’ and insisted that only PC councillors should attend. Cllr. Mrs. Preston expressed the view that anybody who might prove useful to the discussion should go and then voted with Cllr. Croxford.
- Re the PREL deliberations the following arises:-
Exactly how are the PC representatives going to use the four hours’ free consultation? They will need to be very sharp.
Cllr. Mrs. Giles presented a comprehensive paper containing a mix of things which, it’s feared, would not impress a legal mind. The mix of things seemed to fall by memory into two broad categories:-
- 1. Things which Cllr. Gambba-Jones & Fidler, according to their own lights, would describe as not being of ‘material consideration’
- 2. Things which contribute to what is described by campaigners as a ‘flawed consultation process’
The NALC advice about grounds for a Judicial Review, which the Clerk read out during the meeting, provides a sound legal-minded and logical framework by which to consider the case.
The Decision re PREL can only be challenged on the grounds of (1) irrationality (2) illegality and/or (3) procedural impropriety. The NALC conclusion was that there was not enough information for further advice to be offered.
It has to be borne in mind that Cllr. Gambba-Jones pointed out that they were only granting an application for a building. All other considerations were therefore immaterial.
***********************************
The following is the substance of an email subsequently sent to the Clerk for onward transmission to Councllors. Only John Grimwood and Jenny Rowe have replied
It seems totally irrational to campaigners and some members of the Parish Council that objections on grounds of health, emissions, explosions, toxins in wheat, cockle beds & fish stock, traffic jams and general environmental pollution should have been excluded from discussion.
On the other hand, if ‘planning’ was just about granting permission for a building there is nothing irrational about the decision. It makes complete sense from the so-called Planners’ point of view. It’s why they did not appear to be listening to complainants.
To save a lot of wasted breath, whenever an objection is voiced now the test question that it's worth asking is—Would the Planners reject it on the grounds that, in their judgement, it’s ‘not a material consideration’?
The question that arises is— Were SHDC legally within their rights when they decided to exclude all environmental considerations from their discussion? After all, this goes completely against the current Local Plan which puts protection of the environment at the top of the agenda.
The fore-going is intended to address the issues of (1) irrationality and (2) illegality.
In terms of (3) procedural impropriety, in attempting to get round complaints and objections (which in their mind were to be described as not being ‘of material consideration’) as expeditiously as possible, the Chair was simply being ham-fisted in his haste to conclude discussion of what to him, in taking the Fidler/Jackson line, was irrelevant to the straightforward application for the erection of a building for a ‘power station’. This is why the 'debate' seemed so barren.
What seems like ‘procedural impropriety’ to campaigners might just be construed as the Fidler-Jackson-Gambba-Jones Axis' cack-handed way of circumventing what they considered to be irrelevancies. If SHDC were legally correct in excluding all environmental considerations from the ‘debate’ then the process was not particularly ‘flawed’—just a rather inept piece of theatre.
This does all raise the issue of why SHDC were in such unseemly haste to get the application dealt with as soon as possible. That is no doubt immaterial.
If there’s no legal case to make regarding the SHDC decision, then campaigners’ only chance now is to direct their objections to the Environment Agency in the strongest terms. This should begin now.
NOTE RE THE CURRENT LOCAL PLAN (2006)
In fact, the whole Planning Committee approach is totally contrary to the principles of the SHDC Local Plan the Core Principle of which is that ‘...the environment should be considered throughout the Development Plan process...’ ‘...We want to preserve the quality of life within the District and to maintain a sustainable environment for residents and visitors to the District in the Future...’ The Local Plan includes statements like ‘...the quality of life for residents [should be] unimpaired or enhanced....’ ‘South Holland’s essential character and main environmental assets are not damaged...’ (SG 1). It proposes that any ‘...development is acceptable in terms of traffic generation and road safety in the surrounding area...’(SG2); that ‘...the need for the development in [a particular] location outweighs its impact and no other site or solution exists to accommodate the proposed development...’(SG4) and that ‘...Planning permission will only be permitted for development proposals which do not cause unacceptable levels of pollution of the surrounding area by noise, light, toxic or offensive odour, airborne pollutants or by the release of waste products...’ (SG13)
The simple question for a legal mind to answer is: Were the planners legally within their rights to exclude the environmental objections from campaigners? If the answer is ‘Yes’, disgraceful though it might be, then there’s no case.
(THE ORIGINAL BRIDGE WATCH WEBSITE ARTICLE IS DETAILED BELOW)
Sutton Bridge Parish Council
The majority of the current Parish Council consists of Councillors who were elected with one clear mandate: to get rid of the Bridge Road Enhancement Scheme. That has been their purpose since May 2007 when they were elected.
In January 2009 a compromise agreement was reached with Lincolnshire County Council Highways Department (LCCHD) to carry out certain alterations that it was hoped would meet some of the demands of Sutton Bridge Parish Council without returning Bridge Road to the race track it was previously.
The LCCHD naturally wanted to make sure that all the residents of Sutton Bridge were in agreement with the proposed changes. So, together with the Town Clerk, a member of the Highways Department drew up a detailed survey to be carried out among residents of Sutton Bridge. Although this was an item on the Agenda for the April 28th 2009 Meeting, the survey was not in fact discussed. Cllr Brewis produced a leaflet that he said had been drawn up in consultation with Mr Paul Coathup of the LCCHD. It was approved of by Cllr Dewsberry, who later confirmed his agreement. Mr Coathup subsequently denied his involvement in the production of the leaflet.
The leaflet that was distributed to most, but not all, households in Sutton Bridge was a truncated version of the original document; it simply demanded a single YES/NO decision from recipients. This didn’t allow for people to discriminate between the things they favoured being altered and those they wanted to remain as they were.
Only one leaflet was delivered per household, so residents living in the same household who disagreed with each other could not vote unless they photocopied the leaflet. Because there were no numbers on the leaflet, photocopying could have been done by anyone at any time, including people not on the electoral register.
Other discrepancies were:
- there was no indication of who would collect and adjudicate the returns
- the returns were to be posted in un-named local businesses or the PC Office
- the leaflet purported to come from Sutton Bridge Parish Council, when in fact, it was allegedly drawn up, distributed and paid for by one councillor without the foreknowledge or agreement of the full Council
- the deadline of May 10th gave between 3-7days for returns, in contrast with the July 3rd deadline required by LCCHD
- the cost to the Parish of the alterations (£20,000) was not mentioned
None of the above arrangements were discussed by the Parish Council: the document was presented as a fait accompli.
This document was delivered with a ‘short newsletter’ from Messrs Brewis and Booth.
When the count took place (in the Church, not the Parish Council Office), the clerk was not present, nor was there an official adjudicator. One member of the public was present – a member of Bridge Watch. It was decided that some votes were ineligible because they were ‘duplicated’ (see above!).
Those on the Council in favour of scrapping the scheme completely claimed that the result of this vote was a victory. They frequently quote the fact that there was a 90% majority in favour of the amendments.
How do they arrive at this figure?
Around 360 people voted in favour of change and 30 people opposed it. So 90% represents the proportion of the people who actually voted for change. LCCHD required a majority of the residents to be in favour of the amendments before they took action. 360 out of 3000 shows a mere 10% of the residents in favour of a change, which was seen as a victory even though so few people had expressed an opinion.
(In view of this it is inevitable to wonder on what basis LCCHD can possibly now be intent on wasting £45,000 on amendments that only 10% of the residents have voted for.)
In an article on May 7th 2009 in the Spalding Guardian: ‘Views Sought on £40,000 Scheme’, Cllr Dewsberry said that he had authorised the shortened version because the original document was too long for ‘our parishioners to read …’ and that they would probably ‘chuck it in the bin.’
Is this democracy?
In the absence of the Clerk on August 18th , there was an additional meeting of the Parish Council called to discuss a letter from the LCCHD asking specific questions in order for the Department to be able answer residents’ concerns. The Standards Committee was of the opinion that this whole episode was 'unfortunate'...
As stated on the Home Page, it was this series of events that first drew Bridge Watch’s attention to what appeared to be happening within the Parish Council. Since May 2009 Bridge Watch members have attended every meeting and, using their right to ask questions during the Open Forum that precedes each meeting, have attempted to draw attention to what they understand to be some of the failings of the Parish Council.
Among them:
- The Parish Council operates with a certain lack of transparency and is seemingly incapable of having an informed discussion on any issue.
- The attitude of the Parish Council has prevented any reasonable discussion of the safety problems of Bridge Road. They have shown scant regard for issues to do with safety or making it a pleasant thoroughfare for ordinary users. The kind of often ill-tempered exchanges that have taken place over the issues are pretty typical of the way the Parish Council operates in the name of ‘democracy’.
- They are currently seeking to hive off part of Memorial Park, to add to the church cemetery space when there are other options, one of which is to use the front of the church grounds for graves.
- They ordered, without proper investigation, the indiscriminate spraying of the Arnie Broughton Walk Nature Reserve with weed killer which has created enormous damage to trees, vegetation and wildlife habitat. A specialist firm may now have to be brought in to deal with the toxic waste.
- A PREL document relating to the Incinerator Complex (so-called ‘Energy Park’), got a rubber stamp without discussion at the Parish Council meeting in November 2009. It turned out that the Councillors who were supposed to consider the document were able to make no comment and had no objections. At the Parish Council meeting in January, representatives of PREL were asked a series of searching questions and Councillor Rowe proposed that the Council make a Holding Objection pending receipt of further information. This was agreed.
- A recent development is the setting up of ‘panels’, like committees but without formal responsibility and not open to the public. The panels are not supposed to make decisions; the stated intention is that they will refer the results of their ‘thinking’ to Parish Council meetings for discussion. But the level of discussions at those meetings gives grounds for suspecting that whatever they say will no doubt just get rubber stamped. The secret panels will surely become the decision-making arm of the Parish Council.
Is this democracy?
It is the aim of Bridge Watch to encourage good governance in Sutton Bridge Parish Council. All Councillors should attend training sessions organised by SHDC on implementing the Code of Conduct.
By attending Parish Council Meetings, Bridge Watch is making sure that councillors are answerable for their actions to the electorate. Our questions have to be answered according to the Code of Conduct, which sets out the duties and responsibilities of councillors.
What happens if Parish Councillors infringe the Code of Conduct?
The monitoring of local government is complicated. The only body that escapes total scrutiny is the Parish Council. We can complain to the Standards Committee about individual councillors but not about the Parish Council. Experience shows that it is very difficult to present a case to the Standards Committee and have it accepted.
Time and again at Parish Council meetings we have been told to refer our dissatisfactions to the Standards Committee and have done with no success. Even the Local Government Ombudsman is unable
to intervene in Parish Council affairs – only the Courts. It is little wonder, then, the Sutton Bridge Parish Council feels, as one councillor has said on two occasions at Parish Council Meetings, "We can do what we like!"
What is needed is more vigilance, more residents taking an active interest in Parish Council Affairs – after all, their decisions affect us all.
Watch this Space!
A CODE OF CONDUCT
Introduction
By what yardstick is it possible to measure the behaviour of Parish Councils?
The South Holland District Council Code of Conduct is based on a national Code which was published in May 2007.
All Parish Councillors are given a copy of the local Code of Conduct on taking office and agree to abide by it. The SHDC Standards Committee Newsletter regularly points out that ‘unfortunately some members still fail to do so...’
The Code of Conduct is by no means rocket science: it simply notes the need for reasonable behaviour in dealing with other human beings, treating them with respect, and lays out rules for the avoidance of political chicanery.
The problem, of course, is in the interpretation of its detail. For instance, what specifically constitutes ‘bringing their office or authority into disrepute...’
Who assesses the decision-making capability of the Standards Committee?
An Assessment Sub-Committee (which considers complaints about councillors) comprises 3 members of the Standards Committee which must include one independent member who must also chair the meeting. The decision of the Assessment Sub-Committee can be appealed if it decides to take no further action in respect of a complaint. The appeal would be heard by an Assessment Review Sub-Committee which would again comprise 3 members (none of which must have served on the original Assessment Sub-Committee) and must again be chaired by an independent member. On the other hand, if an Assessment Sub-Committee refers a complaint for investigation the subject member who has been complained of has no right of appeal.
Bridge Watch believes that members of Sutton Bridge Parish Council have not necessarily followed to the letter the Code of Conduct which is supposed to have been in force since 2007. Anybody concerned with good governance should make themselves familiar with the detail of the Code in order to be able to challenge things quickly as soon as they happen.
Sutton Bridge Parish Council has been asked what mechanism it has in place to make sure that the Code of Conduct is adhered to during their meetings and in their relationship with the public.
Its members have a collective responsibility to make sure, both as individuals and as a body, that the Code of Conduct prevails. It is certainly not sufficient to comment, as the Chairman has done, "Take your complaint to the Standards Committee..." That is a total abrogation of responsibility.
Parish Councils Code of Conduct 2007
GENERAL REQUIREMENTS
- Members of the Parish Council are required to observe the authority’s code of conduct whenever they are acting in an official capacity: when they conduct the business of the authority, conduct the business of the office to which they are elected or appointed and/or act as a representative of the authority.
- Members of the Parish Council are in general required to treat others with respect, to promote equality by not discriminating unlawfully against any person, and not do anything which compromises or which is likely to compromise the impartiality of those who work for, or on behalf of, the authority.
- Members of the Parish Council are required not to disclose information given to them in confidence by anyone, or information acquired which they believe is of a confidential nature, without the consent of a person authorised to give it, or unless they are required by law to do so.
- Members of the Parish Council are required not to prevent another person from gaining access to information to which that person is entitled by law.
- In their official capacity, or in any other circumstance, members of the Parish Council must not conduct themselves in a manner which could reasonably be regarded as bringing their office or authority into disrepute.
- In their official capacity, or in any other circumstance, members of the Parish Council must not use their position as members improperly to confer on or secure for themselves or any other person, an advantage or disadvantage.
- When using or authorising the use by others of the resources of the authority members of the Parish Council must act in accordance with the authority’s requirements and ensure that such resources are not used for political purposes unless that use could reasonably be regarded as likely to facilitate, or be conductive to, the discharge of the functions of the authority or of the office to which a member has been elected or appointed.
INTERESTS
Personal Interests
- Members of the Parish Council must regard themselves as having a personal interest in any matter ... if a decision upon it might reasonably be regarded as affecting to a greater extent than other council tax payers, ratepayers, or inhabitants of the authority’s area, the well-being or financial position of himself, a relative or any person with whom you have a close association... any employment or business carried on by such persons...
- A relative is defined as a spouse, partner, parent, parent-in-law, son, daughter, step-son, step-daughter, child of a partner, brother, sister, grandparent, grandchild, uncle, aunt, nephew, niece, or the spouse or partner of any of these.
- Members of Parish Councils 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.
Prejudicial Interests
- Members of the Parish Council with a personal interest in a matter also have a prejudicial interest in that matter if the interest is one which a member of the public with 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.
- Members of the Parish Council with a prejudicial interest in any matter must withdraw from the place 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 standards committee of the responsible authority...
- Members of the Parish Council must not seek improperly to influence a decision about any matter in which they have a prejudicial interest.
- A meeting is defined as any of the authority’s committees, sub-committees, joint committees or joint sub-committees.
THE REGISTER OF MEMBERS’ INTERESTS
- The Model Code of Conduct sets out in detail what members of Parish Councils are required to register in relation to financial and other interests.
- These include such things as the address or other description (sufficient to identify the location) of any land in which they have a beneficial interest and which is in the area of the authority... the address or other description (sufficient to identify the location) of any land where the landlord is the authority and the tenant is a firm in which he is a partner, a company of which he is a remunerated director... the address or other description (sufficient to identify the location) of any land in the authority’s area in which they have a licence (alone or jointly with others) to occupy for 28 days or longer...
- Members of Parish Councils are required to declare membership of, or position of general control or management in, any body to which they have been appointed or nominated by the authority as its representative.. in any public authority or body exercising functions of a public nature... in company, industrial and provident society, charity, or body directed to charitable purposes... in any body whose principal purposes include the influence of public opinion or policy; and in a trade union or professional association.
Registration of Gifts and Hospitality
- Members of Parish Councils must within 28 days of receiving any gift or hospitality over the value of £25, provide written notification to the monitoring officer of the responsible authority of the existence and nature of that gift or hospitality.
This is a digest of the Model Code of Conduct for Parish Councils. The full version may be seen by consulting:- www.sholland.gov.uk/council/democratic/policies/MembersCodeofConduct - Click on ‘Model Code of Conduct for Parish Councils’ at the foot of the Home Page
Notes
South Holland District Council Notes on a Code of Conduct spell out what is meant by ‘treating others with respect’:-
- Members of the Parish Council must treat others with respect by not doing anything which may cause their authority to breach any of the equality enactments (as defined in section 33 of the Equality Act 2006);
- Members of the Parish Council must not bully any person, intimidate or attempt to intimidate any person who is or is likely to be a complainant, a witness, or involved in the administration of any investigation or proceedings in relation to an allegation that any member has failed to comply with their authority’s code of conduct.
- Members of the Parish Council must not do anything which compromises or is likely to compromise the impartiality of those who work for, or on behalf of, their authority.
Reference:- www.sholland.gov.uk/council/democratic/meetings/standards click on ‘Members’ Code of Conduct’...