Earlier this month, it was reported that a Wokingham Borough Councillor was found in breach of the Council’s code of conduct. Wayne Smith, councillor for Hurst ward since 2012, was required to undergo training to avoid finding himself in the same position again.
What had he done wrong? Had he embezzled funds, used his position to favour a friend or family member, or taken money from a foreign government, for example? No, nothing like that. In fact he had... Well, here’s the problem. It’s not really clear what his offence was.
Charges
So let’s try and get at the facts of what happened regarding Wayne Smith. Two charges seem to have been brought against him, according to Bracknell News (9th January), which referenced a report by WBC’s Head of Legal Services regarding Cllr Smith’s participation in a February 2024 WBC Planning Committee meeting. Mr Neil Allen’s report found first that he should have declared an interest as a member of the Hurst Parish Council, on the basis that he’d chaired a meeting of the Parish Council that objected ‘unanimously’ to a planning application in Hurst, to be discussed by the Borough Council Planning Committee. Cllr Smith then forwarded to WBC the Parish Council’s letter of objection. The implication was that he had ‘an interest’ in getting the Planning Committee to reject the planning application. In addition, the report found that Cllr Smith should have declared an interest in the outcome as a member of the Protect Hurst Action Group, an online residents’ campaign association.
What actually happened at the WBC Planning Committee meeting? The council’s video, at the point where the Chair calls for members’ declaration of interest, shows Wayne Smith mentioning his interest in application 230074 (23 dwellings on land adjacent to School Road and Orchard Road, Hurst), though he did not specify what it was. He stated that he had not made up his mind on the application. He then took a major part in the committee’s discussion of that planning application, raising various issues with it, and finally proposed that it be refused. His motion was carried 5-4 by the Planning Committee.
Complaints
However, there were subsequent complaints from a resident that Cllr Smith shouldn’t have taken part in the Planning Committee decision on this application. Following the matter up, WBC’s Monitoring and Governance officer began a case against him, handing over to an investigating officer from the Council’s legal team, who is said to have produced a 128-page
report, no less. This went to a Council Standards Committee Hearings Panel, which summoned the Councillor to appear before it on 7th January. The panel found that he should have declared an interest in the outcome of the planning application, as he was a member of Hurst Parish Council which had objected to it. But as regards the PHAG online membership, it decided that ‘Cllr Smith’s actions did not constitute a breach of the Council code of conduct’.
More questions than answers
These are the facts of what happened as far as they've been made public. Unfortunately, they raise more questions than they offer answers.
First of all, did Wayne Smith as Parish Council Chair actually take a position on the planning application, showing he’d made his decision on it in advance despite his claim to the Planning Committee that he had not done so? By reporting the decision as ‘unanimous’, the news media suggests the Parish Council meeting held a vote on the planning application, in which Wayne Smith took a decision to participate along with all other members present. In fact there was no vote. Hurst Parish Council followed their regular procedure: a Parish Councillor (who is a planning barrister) had been charged with studying and taking a view on the application, and at the meeting she recommended rejection. As Parish Council Chair, Cllr Smith then apparently asked other members: “Are you happy with this decision?”, and there was no disagreement. He seems to have been acting in his role as Chair to determine the wishes of the other members of the Parish Council.
A point noted by the Investigating Officer, and appearing to count against him, was that Cllr Smith himself then sent the Parish Council’s objection to WBC. However, the Parish Council secretary happened to be off sick. Hurst Parish Council guidance says that in this instance the Chair should deputise for the secretary and send correspondence, which was what Wayne Smith did. In fact, Mr Allen’s report noted that this was the Parish Council’s standard practice. Then the question is why this point was ever added to the charges brought against the Councillor.
Not an issue
The Hearings Panel found that by being a member of PHAG, Wayne Smith did not breach of the Council code of conduct. Nevertheless it recommended that the Standards Committee
‘implement training on registration relating to membership of local campaign and Facebook groups and other social media’. Why so, if councillors don’t breach the code of conduct by belonging to them? As was pointed out to the Panel, councillors are even recommended by WBC to take part in local social media groups. This shouldn't have been an issue for the Hearings Panel, therefore.
Not clarified
Now we get to a particularly murky part of the whole business. Point 4 of the Hearings Panel’s ruling excuses Cllr Smith from a ‘deliberate or knowing breach’ of the code of conduct, saying he ‘sought legal advice relating to his participation' in the Parish Council meeting. This is a very interesting choice of wording. Did he merely ‘seek’ advice, or did he get advice? My understanding is that he actually obtained it, not only from an independent qualified lawyer, but also from a senior legal officer at WBC, and the advice was that he could participate in the Planning Committee notwithstanding his Parish Council role. If this is true, it would cast the matter in a very different light: what would then be at issue would no longer be Wayne Smith’s actions, but the quality of advice and support he and other Councillors can expect from Council Officers. I don't know the true position, but it's something you might think the Hearings Panel would've wanted to clarify.
Storm in a teacup?
One way or another, this case is riddled with things that make little sense. Yes, it could be dismissed as a storm in a teacup, or as sheer bungling by officials having to be seen to do something in reaction to a resident complaint, but not making a very coherent job of it.
But I’m not so sure. Let’s come back to the action recommended by the Standards Committee panel, not only of Cllr Smith, but of all councillors. Councillors should be trained, the panel says, in ‘registering for membership’ of social media sites, in particular those of campaigns. That has implications for local campaign groups such as ours, because it casts a long shadow on councillors’ freedom to support what residents’ groups call for. To take this particular case: if Cllr Smith had not robustly opposed that Hurst planning application, it would probably have passed. Councillors like him may now feel intimidated, should they wish to speak out on the major issue that is causing so much disquiet among residents all across the borough – there is too much new housing for our infrastructure and services to cope.
So is this where the underlying agenda peeps out? Is it seen in certain quarters as a problem for councillors to get involved with residents taking a stand against housing development?
If that is what is going on, SOLVE and other campaign groups like ours need to take notice.
Silencing councillors because they’ve tried to meet residents’ concerns is dangerous. It threatens to have a chilling effect on freedom of opinion, and thus on local democracy.
Pat Phillipps
Comentarios