Conflict Of Interest

[SC_Red]

just to clear this up as I have no idea.

How does conflict of interest work?

Did Sean Beynon offer up his support of city as a potential conflict?

Did he withdraw from the meeting himself or was it decided by others that he couldn't be trusted to give a fair decision?

Was he asked if he is personally in favour or against a move from Ashton gate?

I am just curious as to weather he said "I can't be on this committee because I support City" or whether he said "I support City so you need to decide if I sit on this". And if so then who decided?

[BCAGFC]

This would be my interpretation., this is a situation I find myself in at the moment.

I am an administrator of a local Bristol Pool League, I also play within said league.

As a member of the league committee I have power to vote on things (eg: disputes/rules etc, etc)

We have a situation at the moment where there is a dispute within the division that I play in, the result of the dispute will have an effect on my teams potential promotion/prize money winning prospects.

As I have a potential 'conflict of interest', our league rules state that I cannot vote on the situation.

I have no problem with this and completely agree that my team and I have the potential to benefit from the result going a certain way.

Mr Rayner obviously didn't think as clearly/fairly as I did.

BCAGFC

[bristolcitysweden]

just to clear this up as I have no idea.

How does conflict of interest work?

Did Sean Beynon offer up his support of city as a potential conflict?

Did he withdraw from the meeting himself or was it decided by others that he couldn't be trusted to give a fair decision?

Was he asked if he is personally in favour or against a move from Ashton gate?

I am just curious as to weather he said "I can't be on this committee because I support City" or whether he said "I support City so you need to decide if I sit on this". And if so then who decided?

I don't know for sure but I believe it's your own judgement and decision. In a case like this you step down to protect the political system from any justified accusation of not being morally correct although legally perfectly all right.

Mr. Benyon stepping down made it obvious for Mr. Rayner and Mr. Levy what decision they should have taken.

[howey_ducky]

i'm sure that in each of these types of situation diligence is taken to establish whether there will be any conflict of interest. It would make sense that those people put forward to hold such meetings are researched to make sure this type of calamity we have experienced doesn't happen. Or does that make more sense than bristol city council can muster?

[Nibor]

See the code of conduct:

http://www.bristol.gov.uk/ccm/cms-service/stream/asset/?asset_id=18958067

Responsibility lies with the councillor to declare an interest and decide whether it is conflicting.

[cider head]

It's a strange one this, just because you are a Bristol City fan with a season ticket does not always make you a supporter of a new stadium (as some have posted in the past to stay at AG) he could well have been a City fan and voted against as much as for,

so who decided why he had to step a side? him? or the council?

[howey_ducky]

it is a very good question, does he ever come on here and post? could he answer? who's decision was it for him to not chair the meeting?

i suspect tha if the council made the decision, we shall never know the answer.

[bristolcitysweden]

It's a strange one this, just because you are a Bristol City fan with a season ticket does not always make you a supporter of a new stadium (as some have posted in the past to stay at AG) he could well have been a City fan and voted against as much as for,

so who decided why he had to step a side? him? or the council?

I believe Mr. Benyon stepped down so that there should be no questioning of the approval because he is a City fan.

[howey_ducky]

I believe Mr. Benyon stepped down so that there should be no questioning of the approval because he was a City fan.

source?

[bristolcitysweden]

source?

The only source for me believing is myself.

Unless my wife says it was here idea of course.

[tompo]

If this goes to appeal, the appeal will be determined by a Planning Inspector.

Most Inspectors either work for local planning authorities before beoming Inspectors or for a private planning practice.

To maintain their impartiality, they cannot decide cases in LPA areas where they live or have worked before. In some cases they may be precluded if they have been involved in a contentious case in a particular area.

They are also precluded if the comapny acting for the appellant is one they have previously worked for or they know the appellant's agent.

[bristolcitysweden]

If this goes to appeal, the appeal will be determined by a Planning Inspector.

Most Inspectors either work for local planning authorities before beoming Inspectors or for a private planning practice.

To maintain their impartiality, they cannot decide cases in LPA areas where they live or have worked before. In some cases they may be precluded if they have been involved in a contentious case in a particular area.

They are also precluded if the comapny acting for the appellant is one they have previously worked for or they know the appellant's agent.

Tompo, does that mean if Sainsburys appeal it will be for the Planning Inspector to decide if the council will stand up for their decision in court?

[Kid in the Riot]

See the code of conduct:

http://www.bristol.g...set_id=18958067

Responsibility lies with the councillor to declare an interest and decide whether it is conflicting.

Probably worth adding what you put in the other thread as well Nibor:

That's the code of conduct you must couch your complain in terms of.

Under Section 8 paragraph a) sub-section iii) Councillor Simon Rayner had an interest in the business of the planning application since his employers were likely to be involved in alternative developments as proposed by one of the lead protagonists.

That interest went undeclared breaching Section 9.

Under section 10 it is likely that a member of the public would view such an interest as likely to prejudice judgement in the matter.

Councillor Rayner did not withdraw from the meeting as required by Section 12 paragraph a) and in fact chaired the meeting improperly influencing the decision made breaching paragraph c).

At the very least Councillor Rayner breached the overall principles of public life by placing himself in a position where his honesty and integrity were questionable.

It should be noted that Councillor Benyon withdrew from the meeting citing merely being a fan of the football club as an interest, with no potential for personal gain or gain of his employers other than enjoyment of watching a successful Bristol football team.

[tompo]

Tompo, does that mean if Sainsburys appeal it will be for the Planning Inspector to decide if the council will stand up for their decision in court?

Now this is the funny thing.

Both the council and Sainsburys/City will have to put a case to the Inspector as to why the appeal should be allowed and planning permisssion granted or the appeal dismissed.

Sainsburys/City will no doubt employ an agent(s) to prepare and put the case on their behalf. The Council's case will be prepared by Planning Officers. The Council may use a lawyer or similar to actually speak on their behalf.

This is the best bit.

Remember that Planning Officers recommended that the planning application be approved. So in effect, they will be preparing a case against something they actually supported.

The members of the Planning Committee meanwhile will probably be keeping their heads well down below the parapet.

The Inspector will base his/her decision on the planning merits of the case put before them. They will listen to the arguments put by both sides. There will also probably be an opportunity for some third parties, for and against, to speak. No doubt the Inspector will be made aware of the background to the appeal and the fact that the Council's Planning Officerss recommended approval.

If successful, I would not be surprised if Sainsburys/City applied for costs against the council. If so, that will be another matter for the Inspector to decide. Normally parties to an appeal are expected to meet their own costs, However, an award can be made if one party can demonstrate that the other party acted unreasonably and forced the other party to waste or uncur unnecessary expense.

[bristolcitysweden]

Now this is the funny thing.

Both the council and Sainsburys/City will have to put a case to the Inspector as to why the appeal should be allowed and planning permisssion granted or the appeal dismissed.

Sainsburys/City will no doubt employ an agent(s) to prepare and put the case on their behalf. The Council's case will be prepared by Planning Officers. The Council may use a lawyer or similar to actually speak on their behalf.

This is the best bit.

Remember that Planning Officers recommended that the planning application be approved. So in effect, they will be preparing a case against something they actually supported.

The members of the Planning Committee meanwhile will probably be keeping their heads well down below the parapet.

The Inspector will base his/her decision on the planning merits of the case put before them. They will listen to the arguments put by both sides. There will also probably be an opportunity for some third parties, for and against, to speak. No doubt the Inspector will be made aware of the background to the appeal and the fact that the Council's Planning Officerss recommended approval.

If successful, I would not be surprised if Sainsburys/City applied for costs against the council. If so, that will be another matter for the Inspector to decide. Normally parties to an appeal are expected to meet their own costs, However, an award can be made if one party can demonstrate that the other party acted unreasonably and forced the other party to waste or uncur unnecessary expense.

I think Mrs. Willcox at the meeting made it perfectly clear for the members of the Committee that they have to speak for themselves should there be an appeal. The officers can only assist them but not speak for them. This will be nothing but a farce. I feel sorry for them.

[BCAGFC]

So how can the Planning Officers make a case against themselves as they have already recommended approval?.

Surely the Planning Inspectorate will look un-favourably at that?.

The only possible way the Planning Officers can get out of it is if they do another report changing their views, in which case the Inspectorate should note/say that they didn't do their job properly in the first place.

BCAGFC

[BCAGFC]

This is where we will have a real problem proving things...

From the 'normal' public viewpoint, Mr Rayner had/has a massive 'conflict or interest' as his employers have worked closely & together with the main objectors (Red Trousers) on many, many previous occasions and so there could and probably would be massive potential for them to do the same again.

But the law doesn't look at it that way, Mr Rayner's employers would have to be actually physically bidding for the AG site to be declared as a 'conflict of interest' and even then he could probably argue that it is not him personally who is bidding for the site.

Wrong in 99% of peoples eyes but not in law.

BCAGFC

[bristolcitysweden]

I've had a couple of emails on this subject from within the Council.

One was from a Councillor called Negus - he can be ignored, he's not worth bothering with.

But I had a very concise email from the Chief Exec, Jan Ormondroyd who set out the interpretation of the code of conduct and the planning code from the Councils perspective. Whilst I don't necessarily agree with their interpretation or their conclusion, it seems to me that, like most law concerning planning, it is not an exact science. It seems to me that they are basing their conclusion that Rayner had no conflict of interests on the premise that his employers had no interest in the planning application being heard - I'm not sure how they obtained that infomation. I would challenge the bit where it's stated "I have no information to support an allegation that the Sainsbury decision would have any impact--real probable or possible on AlexFrench." Anyway, this is a copy of what she said;

You make an allegation that Cllr Rayner had a conflict of interests. I

do not understand the basis of your allegation: on the basis of the law

and my understanding of the factual matrix there is no conflict

Members are required to comply with the Code of Conduct. The Bristol

Code follows the model code exactly

In considering whether there has been a breach of the code in respect

of interests it is necessary to consider the terms of the Code. This is

the hyperlink to the full Code:

http://www.bristol.g...-councillors.en

And this is the Planning Code

http://www.bristol.g...ning-matters.en

For there to be a prejudicial interest there has first to be a personal

interest. I refer you to para 8 of the Code:

8(1) You have a personal interest in any business of your authority

where ......

a) it relates to or is likely to affect..............

iv) any person or body who employs ...you

Cllr Rayner is employed by Alex French. So the question now is: was the

Sainsbury decision likely to affect Alex French.

"Likely" is ambiguous between: probably that so and so as against there

is a significant and real possibility that so and so. The best

interpretation of "likely" in the clause is the second so the question

now becomes: is there a significant and real possibility that the

Sainsbury decision would affect Alex French

I have no information to support an allegation that the Sainsbury

decision would have any impact--real probable or possible on Alex

French. Therefore my conclusion is that there was no personal interest

in the application created by his employment. And if there is no

personal interest then there can be no prejudicial interest

But for completeness: A prejudicial interest is created if where a

personal interest of a councillor is such that a member of the public

with knowledge of the relevant facts would reasonably regard as so

significant that it is likely to prejudice the councillor's judgement of

the public interest. And the balance is between respecting the

reasonable and acknowledging the reality of the unreasonable

The Committee took a lawful decision after considering the report and

hearing all the submissions and the advice from officers. I have seen

correspondence which has praised the way the meeting was handled and the

clarity of thinking of the members involved, and on the other hand, I

have seen correspondence such as yours. The point here is: there are

contrary perceptions and views of the meeting

Planning matters are non-executive functions and are therefore not the

responsibility of the Cabinet.

If the applicant believes that the decision was flawed then of course

they may chose to lodge an appeal.

Regards

Jan Ormondroyd

Chief Executive

I agree with his interpretation. Section 10. (2) (b) makes this perfectly clear but I find it inappropriate and morally wrong of Raymer and Levy not to step down when Benyon did. I would like Mr. Ormondroyds comment on that.

[tompo]

So how can the Planning Officers make a case against themselves as they have already recommended approval?.

Surely the Planning Inspectorate will look un-favourably at that?.

The only possible way the Planning Officers can get out of it is if they do another report changing their views, in which case the Inspectorate should note/say that they didn't do their job properly in the first place.

BCAGFC

No doubt the appellants will make the fact that PO's recommended approval of the scheme a cornerstone of their case and any reports/documents in relation to that fact will form a significant part of their statement of case.

At the end of the day it will be up to the appellants to put as much evidence as they can to support their case to the Inspector who will base his decision on the planning issues put before him.

Its not unusual for PO's to recommend one thing and the elected officers do something else. I've known this happen at some LPA's and the PO's have actually refused to prepare a statement and left it for the elected officers to do.

This whole thing makes a mockery of this Coalition Governments plan to decentralise decision making processes and do everything locally.

[BCAGFC]

No doubt the appellants will make the fact that PO's recommended approval of the scheme a cornerstone of their case and any reports/documents in relation to that fact will form a significant part of their statement of case.

At the end of the day it will be up to the appellants to put as much evidence as they can to support their case to the Inspector who will base his decision on the planning issues put before him.

Its not unusual for PO's to recommend one thing and the elected officers do something else. I've known this happen at some LPA's and the PO's have actually refused to prepare a statement and left it for the elected officers to do.

This whole thing makes a mockery of this Coalition Governments plan to decentralise decision making processes and do everything locally.

Decisions happen like this all the time because the elected officers are not professsionals and act on impulse/disagree with the POs/have their own agenda.

As I have said before, the Lib-Dems used their own personal opinions/views to refuse the application when in fact they should have been voting on what was actually in the application.

Most of them probably never even read the document and just voted with their heads............let us hope they roll at some stage in the future.

BCAGFC

[Kid in the Riot]

For there to be a prejudicial interest there has first to be a personal

interest. I refer you to para 8 of the Code:

8(1) You have a personal interest in any business of your authority

where ......

a) it relates to or is likely to affect..............

iv) any person or body who employs ...you

Cllr Rayner is employed by Alex French. So the question now is: was the

Sainsbury decision likely to affect Alex French.

"Likely" is ambiguous between: probably that so and so as against there

is a significant and real possibility that so and so. The best

interpretation of "likely" in the clause is the second so the question

now becomes: is there a significant and real possibility that the

Sainsbury decision would affect Alex French

I have no information to support an allegation that the Sainsbury

decision would have any impact--real probable or possible on Alex

French. Therefore my conclusion is that there was no personal interest

in the application created by his employment. And if there is no

personal interest then there can be no prejudicial interest

But for completeness: A prejudicial interest is created if where a

personal interest of a councillor is such that a member of the public

with knowledge of the relevant facts would reasonably regard as so

significant that it is likely to prejudice the councillor's judgement of

the public interest. And the balance is between respecting the

reasonable and acknowledging the reality of the unreasonable

The Committee took a lawful decision after considering the report and

hearing all the submissions and the advice from officers. I have seen

correspondence which has praised the way the meeting was handled and the

clarity of thinking of the members involved, and on the other hand, I

have seen correspondence such as yours. The point here is: there are

contrary perceptions and views of the meeting

Planning matters are non-executive functions and are therefore not the

responsibility of the Cabinet.

If the applicant believes that the decision was flawed then of course

they may chose to lodge an appeal.

Regards

Jan Ormondroyd

Chief Executive

I'm not sure I accept what is being said here, especially the bits in bold.

'so the question now becomes: is there a significant and real possibility that the Sainsbury decision would affect Alex French?'

Isn't the answer to this YES? If the application was refused (as it was) then that decision was upheld at appeal then it would pave the way for a company such as Alex French (a big player in the local area) to potentially become involved in a scheme on the site? This could be a 'real possibility' could it not given the track record of dealing with other similar schemes in Bristol?

I think the second paragraph in bold is fairly irrelevant, it doesn't matter if Jan Ormondroyd has any 'information to support an allegation' or not. What we are arguing is that Cllr Rayner himself should've declared an interest in the application and we (Ole) have provided the relevant facts. That brings us nicely onto the next paragraph which states 'A prejudicial interest is created if where a personal interest of a councillor is such that a member of the public with knowledge of the relevant facts would reasonably regard as so significant that it is likely to prejudice the councillor's judgement of the public interest.' And the answer to this question, bish bosh, is YES. Yes, we do Councillor.

[bristolcitysweden]

I'm not sure I accept what is being said here, especially the bits in bold.

'so the question now becomes: is there a significant and real possibility that the Sainsbury decision would affect Alex French?'

Isn't the answer to this YES? If the application was refused (as it was) then that decision was upheld at appeal then it would pave the way for a company such as Alex French (a big player in the local area) to potentially become involved in a scheme on the site? This could be a 'real possibility' could it not given the track record of dealing with other similar schemes in Bristol?

I think the second paragraph in bold is fairly irrelevant, it doesn't matter if Jan Ormondroyd has any 'information to support an allegation' or not. What we are arguing is that Cllr Rayner himself should've declared an interest in the application and we (Ole) have provided the relevant facts. That brings us nicely onto the next paragraph which states 'A prejudicial interest is created if where a personal interest of a councillor is such that a member of the public with knowledge of the relevant facts would reasonably regard as so significant that it is likely to prejudice the councillor's judgement of the public interest.' And the answer to this question, bish bosh, is YES. Yes, we do Councillor.

Even if there should be a "personal" interest it must also be a "prejudical interest" and it's not a prejudical interest in this case according to section 10:

(2) You do not have a prejudicial interest in any business of the authority

where that business-

(b) does not relate to the determining of any approval, consent,

licence, permission or registration in relation to you or any

person or body described in paragraph 8;

[Nibor]

Even if there should be a "personal" interest it must also be a "prejudical intersest" and it's not a prejudical interest in this case according to section 10.

(2) You do not have a prejudicial interest in any business of the authority

where that business-

(b) does not relate to the determining of any approval, consent,

licence, permission or registration in relation to you or any

person or body described in paragraph 8;

You're not reading this right.

He has an interest because under section 8 the business at hand is likely to effect his employer.

It is a prejudicial interest because a member of the public would reasonably regard this to affect judgement.

10.2 b) does not apply because the business IS about permission.

10.2 is basically excluding interests from being prejudiced where the nature of the business at hand means there is no benefit to be had (ie it's not financial or granting permission) or the business is too general to reasonably apply as it would exclude everyone.

If you get as far as section 10, the link in section 8 is already accepted.

[bristolcitysweden]

You're not reading this right.

He has an interest because under section 8 the business at hand is likely to effect his employer.

It is a prejudicial interest because a member of the public would reasonably regard this to affect judgement.

10.2 b) does not apply because the business IS about permission.

10.2 is basically excluding interests from being prejudiced where the nature of the business at hand means there is no benefit to be had (ie it's not financial or granting permission) or the business is too general to reasonably apply as it would exclude everyone.

If you get as far as section 10, the link in section 8 is already accepted.

I might be wrong but as I understand it

10.2 b) does apply because the business IS NOT ABOUT PERMISSION FOR HIS EMPLOYER

[Hartleysbeard]

A conflict of interest can be simply described thusly:

A person is interested in watching football matches yet said person supports Bristol Rovers.

[Kid in the Riot]

I might be wrong but as I understand it

10.2 b) does apply because the business IS NOT ABOUT PERMISSION FOR HIS EMPLOYER

That doesn't sound right to me. Clearly, you CAN have a conflict of interest without the scheme directly relating to one's employer.

[Nibor]

I might be wrong but as I understand it

10.2 b) does apply because the business IS NOT ABOUT PERMISSION FOR HIS EMPLOYER

It is poorly worded but the intent of this paragraph is only to exclude business which is not about permission. IE business which cannot be prejudiced because there is no benefit to an interest.

"In relation to" does not mean his employer has to be the applicant, to get this far it is accepted that they are related as described in section 8.

[bristolcitysweden]

It is poorly worded but the intent of this paragraph is only to exclude business which is not about permission. IE business which cannot be prejudiced because there is no benefit to an interest.

"In relation to" does not mean his employer has to be the applicant, to get this far it is accepted that they are related as described in section 8.

I believe you are right. Thank you for clarifying.

I now also understand that "Jan" is a woman's name in England so I appology for calling her him