INVERCLYDE councillor Innes Nelson was suspended for one month by the Standards Commission at a hearing held in Greenock today.
This was for failing to declare an interest in a planning application for a development at the former IBM Site in Spango Valley, Greenock, which was considered by Inverclyde Council’s planning board at a meeting in March 2022.
Ashleigh Dunn, Standards Commission member and chair of the hearing panel, said: “The panel found that Cllr Nelson failed to declare an interest in the planning application and, instead, took part in the discussion and decision-making, despite the site that was the subject of the planning application being located near his property.”
The panel noted that it was not in dispute that, at the planning board meeting in question, Cllr Nelson proposed that permission be granted subject to the conditions recommended by officers, as outlined in the council’s report (which restricted the number of houses to be built on the site). He then voted in favour of granting the application, subject to the recommended conditions.
The panel acknowledged that, while it was the nearest property to the proposed development, Cllr Nelson’s farmhouse was still some distance from it. The panel further acknowledged that Cllr Nelson had supported the recommendation made by officers to grant the application at the meeting, albeit in an amended form with conditions on the number of properties to be built.
It nevertheless considered that, having applied the objective test, as required by the councillors’ code of conduct, Cllr Nelson should have reached the view that his connection to the planning application would reasonably be regarded as being so significant that it would be considered as being likely to affect his potential discussion and decision-making on the agenda item under consideration.
While the panel noted that it did not have sufficient evidence before it to confirm whether the outcome of the decision on the matter would have had an impact, either positive or negative, on Cllr Nelson’s property, it nevertheless considered that, given the proximity and the fact that it was an adjacent property separated only by the A78, a person with knowledge of these facts would reasonably consider that Cllr Nelson’s connection to the site would be sufficiently significant as to be likely to affect his discussion or decision-making.
The panel agreed, therefore, that Cllr Nelson should have declared an interest and withdrawn from the meeting.
In reaching its decision on sanction, the panel noted that Cllr Nelson had co-operated fully with the investigative and hearing processes, and had a previously unblemished record as a councillor.
It accepted that there was no evidence or suggestion that Cllr Nelson had tried to conceal his interest.
The panel was not satisfied that it had evidence before it that would lead it to conclude that Cllr Nelson’s interest had affected his discussion or decision-making, or that he had acted in anything other than good faith, when taking part in the decision-making.
It agreed, however, that it was necessary to impose a suspension in order to reflect the seriousness of the breach, to promote adherence to the code and to maintain and improve the public’s confidence that councillors will comply with the code and will be held accountable if they fail to do so.
Ms Dunn noted: “The panel emphasised that the requirement for councillors to declare interests is fundamental as it gives the public confidence that decisions are being made in the public interest, and not the personal interest of any councillor or their friends or family.”
