By Graham Brown

THE PROVOST of Angus has been cleared of an improper conduct complaint lodged by political opponents.

Findings were released yesterday after an investigation into the second of three complaints against Mrs Ruth Leslie Melville since the turn of this year—including a previous “naughty girl” bottom-smacking accusation by a fellow female councillor which also saw the civic figurehead exonerated.

The latest case involved Mrs Leslie Melville’s handling of a planning application involving her son—a matter which remains the subject of proceedings by Angus Council planners.

The complaint against the Brechin Independent member of the rainbow Angus Alliance was made by SNP members Iain Gaul and Ralph Palmer, who claimed Mrs Leslie Melville’s declarations of interest in her son’s planning applications were misleading and lacking in transparency, and that a decision by her to rejoin the council’s development standards committee when the matter was recurring gave rise to the appearance of improper conduct and of having a family interest in the outcome.

They also alleged that she abused her position as provost to pressurise committee convener David Lumgair into stopping a proposed enforcement action in respect of the application-relating to a house at Caldhame Gardens in Brechin—and, by association, pressurised officers.

Messrs Gaul and Palmer suggested her conduct indicated at least two members of the Angus Alliance had been discussing planning items outwith committee and had agreed a course of action.

Standards Commission chief investigating officer Stuart Allan said it would be hard to argue that any breach of the councillors’ code of conduct had been committed by a member who “declared an interest in a planning application as concerning a relative and left the meeting without participating in the item.

“In the case of Councillor Leslie Melville, it would seem she consistently declared an interest when her son’s planning application, or enforcement action relating to that, appeared on an agenda of the development standards committee...

“In this connection, I have concluded that Councillor Leslie Melville acted entirely properly and within the terms of the code in making her declaration of interest and withdrawing from meetings.”

The chief officer added, “Planning officers have all indicated that they were under no pressure, direct or indirect, in regard to the handling of Councillor Leslie Melville’s son’s planning affairs...

“In matters such as that which are at the centre of this case (ie the provision of a turning head) they take particular account of the roads department’s views. It is the case that roads officers never required a turning head be provided at any of the houses, and planning officers acknowledged and accepted this.

“Indeed, planning officers had not changed their recommendation because it was consistent with their recommendation to approve the application for deletion of the condition relating to the turning head.

“However, it is understandable why committee members queried the request by officers to give advice in private, since this is apparently unusual in the development standards committee. Nonetheless, planning officers and the head of law and administration have explained why they wanted an opportunity to advise the committee on certain points in private,” added Mr Allan.

“I did not consider there was evidence of pressure on any officer or member by Councillor Ruth Leslie Melville.”

He considered remarks overheard in the gents’ toilet and reported in the investigation “were not indicative of any pressure on, or collusion or discussion with, Councillor Lumgair.”

“He has explained that, as convener, he would normally have moved the planning report. However, like other committee members, he was in favour of enforcement action being taken—and therefore could not move the report, which did not recommend enforcement,” said Mr Allan.

“Claims of alleged or perceived financial interest on the part of Councillor Leslie Melville in regard to her son’s planning affairs have been contended and without any evidence being provided in support.

“Nor did I see any error or breach on her part in her approach to declaring and participating in a decision on a separate planning application relating to an acquaintance, as raised by the complainants.

“There appeared to me no evidence as alleged in the complaint of breaches of the code of conduct by Councillor Ruth Leslie Melville.”