A Case of Misconduct or not in Stretton Parish Council?

A Case of Misconduct in Stretton Parish Council

A resident of Stretton, Mr. Hawkes, has raised concerns about the conduct of Cllr Greg Harker, the Chairman of Stretton Parish Council. The dispute centers around an email sent by Cllr Harker to Rutland County Council's Planning Department in support of a planning application.

Mr. Hawkes alleges that Cllr Harker breached the Parish Council's code of conduct by representing the Council's support for the planning application without proper authorisation. This claim is based on the content of the email, which suggests that Cllr Harker was acting on behalf of the Parish Council, the Community Hub, and the Parochial Church Council.

The Assistant Monitoring Officer for Rutland County Council conducted an investigation into Mr. Hawkes' complaint. As part of this investigation, the Monitoring Officer sought the opinion of Gordon Grimes, an independent conduct person.

Mr. Grimes concluded that Cllr Harker's email "certainly gave the impression that Cllr Harker is acting on behalf of 3 agencies." While Grimes acknowledged that it was difficult to definitively determine whether Cllr Harker was acting in a personal capacity or on behalf of the Parish Council, he suggested that if the latter were the case, a breach of the Members' Code of Conduct would have occurred.

Despite these findings, the Assistant Monitoring Officer concluded that there was no basis for further action against Cllr Harker. This decision has led Mr. Hawkes to question the reasoning behind the conclusion.

From: Planning <planning@rutland.gov.uk>

Sent: 18 Mar 2024 12:31:08

To: IDOXDMS@Rutland.gov.uk

Cc:

Subject: FW: Planning Application 2024/0163/FUL

Attachments:

From: Greg Harker

Sent: Monday, March 18, 2024 10:45 AM

To: Planning <planning@rutland.gov.uk>

Cc: John Leefe ;

Subject: [EXTERNAL] Planning Application 2024/0163/FUL

Warning: This email originates outside of Rutland County Council.

Do NOT click on links or attachments unless you recognise the sender and know the content is safe.

Please report any issues or concerns to the IT Service Desk.

Hi Claire,

Thank you for the call back. We discussed the proposed fee for this planning application and you asked me to write to explain the involvement of the three agencies requesting/needing external storage at t Nicholas Church.

The application was made by the Parochial Church Council (PCC) - our reasoning was that the land belongs to the church and, if we gain planning permission, we will need to apply to the Diocese for a Faculty. The PCC has traditionally has some storage within the church but with the modernisation (toilet, kitchen) that space has now gone and the PCC need some external storage.

The Community Hub at Stretton is now well established in St Nicholas Church. The hub is used for Parish Council meetings, community events (coffee mornings, charity events, table tennis, concerts, private and public events) and as a polling station. A large amount of equipment has been acquired by the hub (50+ chairs, tables, crockery, decorations, cleaning equipment, table tennis table etc) and has to be stored within the church. The Hub committee wish to declutter the church hall and set up the Hub for individual events.

This furniture/ equipment also impacts on the PCC setting up for large church events (marriages, funerals). An external storage facility close to the church is therefore very highly desirable, if not essential.

The Parish Council has a range of emergency equipment. Currently this is held in various locations around the village (Generator, radios, sandbags, hi-viz jackets, snow shovels, flood signs, bollards etc) and, with the advent of the Community Hub in the refurbished church, there is now an obvious place as an emergency shelter and coordination

centre. 

It makes sense for the emergency equipment to be gathered together close to the coordination and refuge centre. Therefore, the parish council has at least a one-third interest in the proposed external storage at the church/hub.

Therefore, to answer your question, the parish council needs and supports the planning application, but it is made by the PCC on behalf of all three agencies. In view of the delay and our wish to get things moving, as agreed, I shall pay the requested fee up front, but I should be grateful if you would give consideration as to whether the fee could be reduced in this case because of the parish council interest.

Could you also please add me to the contact list (Agent) acting on behalf of the PCC, Hub and Parish Council. 

My details are:

Greg Harker

Pantiles, Manor Road,

Stretton, LE 15 7QZ

Many thanks

Greg Harker

Mr Hawkes believes Cllr Harker breached the code of conduct by sending the email.

The assistant monitoring officer conducted an investigation. As part of her investigation she asked the opinion of Gordon Grimes who is an independent conduct person here in Rutland. 

Mr Hawkes obtained emails using FOI because he is not happy with the Assistant Monitoring Officers Conclusion.

From: Gordon Grimes

Sent: Monday, May 27, 2024 11:18 AM

To: Monitoring Officer <monitoringofficer@Rutland.gov.uk>

Subject: Re: FW: [EXTERNAL] Re: Complaint update

Warning: This email originates outside of Rutland County Council.

Do NOT click on links or attachments unless you recognise the sender and know the content is safe.

Please report any issues or concerns to the IT Service Desk.

Thanks Sarah for letting me see this case. My apologies for the delay in responding to you. 

Having looked at all of the information that you have provided, Cllr Harker certainly did represent that the

Parish Council supported the planning application. Reading the letter, it certainly gives the impression

that Cllr Harker is acting on behalf of 3 agencies particularly as he stated

'Could you also please add me to the contact list (Agent) acting on behalf of the PCC, Hub and Parish

Council. My details are ...........'

I do think that it is difficult to conclude that Cllr Harker was acting in a personal capacity but I'm happy to discuss this further with you. If it is determined that he was acting as a member then I would certainly be of the opinion that there was a breach of the Members' Code of Conduct.

As stated above, happy to discuss further with you.

Kind regards 

Gordon

From: Sarah Khawaja <SKhawaja@rutland.gov.uk>

Date: 25 June 2024 at 14:32:26 BST

To: Kevin Hawkes <kevin@kchengineering.co.uk>

Cc: Monitoring Officer <monitoringofficer@rutland.gov.uk>

Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: Your Complaint

Dear Mr Hawkes,

I apologise for the delay in responding to you.

I have had the opportunity to speak to the planning technician and the Independent Person.

There are two elements to your complaint, which relates to Cllr Harker's support for a planning application.

The Planning Application

An application for permission to install a storage shed was made to Rutland County Council by the St Nicholas Church Hub.  The application was determined by officers using their delegated powers and was refused.

Stretton Parish Council

Stretton Parish Council had decided not to comment on the application as so many of their members had conflicts of interests due to their  involvement with the Hub.

Your complaint:

You alleged that Cllr Harker had committed fraud in that he had misrepresented the Council's stance in relation to the application, to secure a waiver of the fee.  Secondly, you alleged that he had misrepresented the position of Stretton Parish Council by claiming that the Parish Council supported the application when in fact the Council had decided not to comment on the application due to too many members having conflicts of interest.  

Supporting evidence

1.    An email was sent by Mr Harker to the planning department and refers to a telephone conversation with a planning technician named, 'Claire'.  In the letter Mr Harker says that the Parish Council, 'needs and supports' the planning application.  This statement is clearly untrue as referred to above as the Parish Council had determined not to offer a view on the application.  The purpose of the email was to secure a waiver of the fee.  The request was unsuccessful but nonetheless the false statement was made.  

For this to be a matter for the Monitoring Officer to consider, it must relate to Mr Harker's conduct as a councillor.  In considering in what capacity the email was sent I considered the following:

• Mr Harker has signed the letter in his own name and provides his home address.
• Mr Harker has sent the email from his personal email (as confirmed by the planning technician as it was redacted online)
•  There is no reference to Mr Harker being a councillor.

I consulted with the Independent Person on this point, and we were in agreement that there is nothing in the email that would suggest that Mr Harker is acting in his capacity as a councillor and therefore nothing which brings it within the remit of the Monitoring Officer.  

2.    The representation in support of the planning application

Mr Harker submitted his representation online.  There is a drop down option in the online portal, which enables those making the representation to indicate their status.  There is the option to select, 'councillor', which Mr Harker did.  In practice, planning officers are only concerned with whether representations are made by RCC Councillors.  In the opening sentence of the representation Mr Harker declares that despite being a councillor he makes the representation in his personal capacity.  In those circumstances it is difficult to suggest that Mr Harker has made the representation in his capacity as a councillor.  

Conclusion

There is a clear misstatement in the email to the planning dept in which Mr Harker is seeking to persuade them to waive the application fee but this was not made in his capacity as a councillor.  Therefore, as stated above, this conduct is not within the remit of the Monitoring Officer.

In the representation regarding the planning application, Mr Harker clearly states that he makes it in his personal capacity.

There is no basis for the Monitoring Officer to take any further action in relation to your complaint.

Yours sincerely,

Sarah Khawaja, Solicitor | Head of Legal and Democratic Services (Deputy Monitoring Officer)

(she/her)

Rutland County Council

Catmose, Oakham, Rutland LE15 6HP

Telephone: 01572 827347

skhawaja@rutland.gov.uk

www.rutland.gov.uk

Mr Hawkes questions how the assistant monitoring officer came to her conclusion?