Standards for England email about missing councillor in Martin Morton complaint
Standards for England email about missing councillor in Martin Morton complaint
I realise as this is over two years ago this is probably regarded now as ancient history, but as far as I remember the name of the former councillor that was missing from the complaint of Martin Morton that Wirral Council incorrectly sent to Standards for England has not before been made public. Here’s an email from Standards for England that states who it was and refers to how they initially reached a decision on one councillor because with regards to the information sent by Wirral Council that they “were not provided with evidence to show that the complainant had made a complaint about her”.
from: Lori Holden “Lori.Holden@standardsforengland.gov.uk”
to: “john.brace@gmail.com”
date: 7 July 2011 11:02
subject: RE: complaint referred to Standards Board for England by Metropolitan Borough of Wirral with regards to Cllr Bridson, Cllr Williams, Cllr Roberts and Cllr McLaughlin made by Mr. Morton
Hi John,
Thanks again for you latest email. As previously confirmed, Standards for England received a referral from Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council’s Standards Committee’s Initial Assessment Panel relating to Councillors Moira McLaughlin, Denise Roberts, Pat Williams and Ann Bridson on April 1, 2011.
Standards for England made a decision, in accordance with section 58(2) of the Local Government Act 2000, as amended, that no further action be taken on the allegation in relation to all four councillors based on the information provided to us by the local authority.
However, with regards to Councillor Ann Bridson, we stated that we reached our decision of no further action on the basis that we were not provided with evidence to show that the complainant had made a complaint about her.
In relation to the referral we received on June 14, I have been advised that initial assessment of this complaint is still in progress. I would advise contacting me again by mid-week next week for an update and, if I hear of any developments in the meantime, I will let you know.
Hope this helps.
Kind regards,
Lori
If you click on any of these buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people. Thanks:
Cllr Denise Roberts: Using the justification of HS4, states that the environment around the home has a major impact on resident’s quality of life and it is important that new housing blends in well with that already built and creates a safe external environment.
However the backs of the houses will replace the boundary wall that housing will contrive and this will create a lattice, effecting a fundamental change to the area.
The proposed development does not sit happily with the pattern of existing homes and a large built wall will remove another green area in an established neighbourhood and change the nature of a simple municipal area of Wirral. Members I urge you to reject this application.
Cllr David Elderton: Thank you.
Cllr Bernie Mooney (Chair): Members of the Committee and to make representations by councillors on the Planning Committee at the site visit with me.
Cllr Denise Roberts: Chair, thank you Chair, although it was impossible to attend myself, I did actually go round yesterday and I’m just a little bit disappointed with officers actually actually granting this for approval, ermm, the reasons repeated in HS10 are that undue noise and disturbance that you know and loss of privacy and I just can’t see how on their own what somebody in a garden isn’t going to be undue noise and loss of privacy and I believe it would be an over development in that site.
Cllr Bernie Mooney: Steve.
Cllr Steve Foulkes: Chair, obviously errm, I have known the area since I’ve been extremely careful not to preempt any decision making process, errm and I can see that when actually we gained access to the property that the inviting nature of the rear garden.
Cllr Bernie Mooney (Chair): Because you know, because, because the petitioner didn’t want to speak, errm, and so errm, that would mean that so… deny the ward councillor so if you would like to, if you would like to introduce yourself Denise, please.
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak. I would also like to thank a number of committee members that took the time to attend Tuesday’s site visit. As ward councillor, I take an interest in this planning application and asked for it to be taken out of delegation so you could be made aware of Member’s concerns and objections.
The proposed development for two dormer bungalows is squeezed into a decreasing garden, it’s incongruous with this built-up environment because of a mature residential barrier of houses with interlocking gardens. Supplementary planning guidance has been outlined states that all new housing developments should be set out with a private rear garden, interlocked with other rear gardens.
While the proposed dwelling will have interlocking gardens, the access road will require probably an area of an existing interlocking garden, if you take out a bit you have a security problem. UDP policies HS4 and HS10 on new housing and backland developments state that planning proposals should not result in a detrimental change to the character of the area, nor should there be a loss of privacy or a separate enclosure affecting the enjoyment of residents.
Means and justification in HS10 also state that the existence of large gardens does not necessarily form the scope for development and the size and appearance of gardens will be of great importance to the character of an neighbourhood.
Matthew Davies: It’s been referred to the character, the garden faces the properties fronting Noctorum Avenue are hardly ever after this point, and as such adding an RSA? can be obtained within an … one and can be provided for ordinary dwellings as are the parking provision.
The property’s key density of thirty dwellings per a hectare is relatively low commensurate with the density on Hadley Avenue and Winston Drive in certain key instances and the bungalow in my view improves the area given its responsibility and impact on character.
In terms of amenity there’s a good separation distance between the rear of the property currently and Winston Drive. It’s indicated that they would separate the part in my view to prevent overbearing produced on this land, whilst good separation distance will also be achievable and unavoidable of itself avoiding the ability indeed for that property on the … to be alleviated. Plans would be required to support a third party’s application.
Considering highway safety, access to both the two dwellings and the road has already has a number of access points. It is therefore to be noted that there are no highway concerns.
The Head of ??? takes ??? for ?????tation, so there’s no objections to the development so the planning conditions have been imposed and have adequately taken place according to my view.
Overall the building is considered to comply with UDP policy HS10 and HS4 and is recommended for approval subject to the conditions as …. and objections in the report. It fits the requirements for planning reasons such as open space, landscaping and amenity of the neighbours.
Cllr Bernie Mooney (Chair): Thank you. Errm, would the representative of the people you address with no time limit be here?
Cllr Denise Roberts: I’m here, Chair.
Cllr Bernie Mooney (Chair): Would you like to come forward?
Most of the meeting was about the twelve week consultation on the closure of Moreton Day Centre (which runs until the 5th June 2013).
Please accept YouTube cookies to play this video. By accepting you will be accessing content from YouTube, a service provided by an external third party.
If you accept this notice, your choice will be saved and the page will refresh.
However once again, filming of this meeting was not allowed as the Chair said he had had “representations that one of the Members would not like to be filmed” and “until there was a policy please turn off the camera until we do get a policy, thank you.” For those who don’t know Members means councillors.
I then asked which councillor it was (as I could’ve quite easily moved the camera to point away from them).
Me: “Can I just ask which Member that was?”
Cllr Simon Mountney (Chair), who looked very uncomfortable at me having asked the question, answered with the politician’s answer of “Errm, you can ask, I think if the Member wishes to indicate then they can, if they don’t then they don’t.”
At this point Cllr Bernie Mooney looks straight at the camera (make of that what you will).
So what is the policy on filming meetings? Well, there’s the policy “Lights, Camera, Action” agreed unanimously by 64 councillors in December 2011. As it’s short it’s below:-
Council:
(1) Welcomes public engagement in the democratic process. Council notes the growing use of blogs and microblogs by members of the public and notes that many sites now also include video and audio recorded at Council meetings.
(2) Reaffirms its commitment, made last year by the previous Conservative Liberal Democrat administration, to ensure that any member of the public who wishes to film or broadcast from a public Council meeting is encouraged to do so.
(3) However, Council is concerned to protect the rights of members of the public, petitioners and others who are not elected members and may interact with the Council and its committees. Council asks the Director of Law HR and Asset Management to ensure that the Chairs of committees are appropriately briefed.
(4) Council would not wish to see proper debate constrained in any way by the presence of cameras or audio equipment and therefore asks the Director of Law, HR and Asset Management to clarify in writing for members the position on qualified privilege which may go some way to allay fears about unfounded legal actions arising from detailed recordings of proceedings.
(5) Council further asks the Director of Law, HR and Asset Management to draw up a protocol on the use of material designed to prevent any abuse of material which could be harmful to councillors who are legitimately engaged in the processes of democracy.
(6) In the meantime, the Director of Law, HR and Asset Management is asked to re-circulate the original guidance he produced when the issue first arose.
There’s then the amended motion (recording and filming within Council meetings) decided last December agreed by 42 councillors:
(1) Council notes that the Administration has not banned the public from being able to attend and film at meetings.
(2) The issue of filming is under review. The Acting Director of Law, Human Resources & Asset Management has been asked to look at how a balance can be struck between maintaining openness and transparency and addressing concerns among some members about what safeguards can be put in place on how video recordings might be used.
(3) Council notes that the wider issue of the Council streaming its committee meetings is being considered by the cross-party members Equipment Steering Group.
(4) Council asks for the outcome of the review to be presented to the Licensing, Health and Safety and General Purposes Committee for detailed consideration.
On point (4) there have been not just one but two meetings of the Licensing, Health and Safety and General Purposes Committee since last December, at neither one has a “review” been on the agenda.
There are also two Standards Committee decisions on this matter (all of which were agreed by Council without any amendment):
So the agreed policy (as outlined) is filming is allowed, the proposed review (which never seems to happen) is merely a smokescreen to ban filming yet the public are told Wirral Council has no policy.
OPENNESS
Holders of public office should be as open as possible about all the decisions and actions that they take. They should give reasons for their decisions and restrict information only when the wider public interest clearly demands.
There’s also some other fine words on the same page about how councillors should “promote and support these principles” (one of which is openness) “by leadership and example”.
However why would a councillor not want what they say at a public meeting on tape?
Well that was revealed shortly after filming stopped.
Cllr Denise Roberts declared a prejudicial interest in item 2 on the agenda as she’s a trustee of Arch initiatives whose funding is to be cut by £327,000. However Cllr Roberts didn’t leave the room as required during item 2.
Cllr Bernie Mooney declared an interest as an employee of Age UK (in the report linked to above they’re down under their previous name of Age Concern). The report detailed the fact that they needed to reduce grant funding by a further £173,000, Age Concern is currently in receipt of six amounts (£128,602.00 (Core costs), £134,569.00 for Advocacy and info, £33,339.00 for carer support and further amounts for two Day Centres and the Older Peoples Parliament).
Cllr Mooney lists her occupation as advice officer at Age UK. So did she declare a prejudicial interest in this agenda item and leave the room as any cuts to funding could affect her day job or at the very least that of her colleagues? No she didn’t leave the room while it was discussed. She declared an interest and then when the item came round for debate said her employer had an advocate paid for through the grant with two temporary ones, but talked about the growing need for these services.
So what does the current Councillors Code of Conduct state about this?
3. As a public figure, your public role may, at times, overlap with your personal and/or professional life and interests however when performing your public role as a member, DO act solely in terms of the public interest and DO NOT act in a manner to gain financial or other material benefits for yourself, your family, your friends, your employer or in relation to your business interests.
6. At a meeting where such issues arise, DO declare any personal and/or professional interests relating to your public duties and DO take steps to resolve any conflicts arising in a way that protects the public interest.
7. Certain types of decisions, including those relating to a permission, licence, consent or registration for yourself, your friends, your family members, your employer or your business interests, are so closely tied to your personal and/or professional life that your ability to make a decision in an impartial manner in your
role as a member may be called into question and in turn raise issues about the validity of the decision of the authority. DO NOT become involved in these decisions any more than a member of the public in the same personal and/or
professional position as yourself is able to be and DO NOT vote in relation to such matters. (Further clarification is provided in Schedule 2 of this Code).
9. Where you disclose a disclosable pecuniary interest, you must withdraw from the meeting room, including from the public gallery, during the whole consideration of any item of business in which you have an interest, except where you are permitted to remain as a result of a grant of a dispensation.