No action for breaking council code of conduct
Royal Borough: Cllr will not face sanctions for bringing council into disrepute
A Conservative councillor for the Royal Borough has unanimously been found in breach of the council’s code of conduct by a sub-committee.
However, the cabinet member will not face sanctions for this breach following a sub-committee meeting on Wednesday, August 17.
Cllr Ross McWilliams (Con, Cox Green) was found to have breached paragraph 5.1 of the code of conduct by ‘bringing his role and local authority into disrepute’ following an infamous planning panel meeting in November last year.
The lead member for digital connectivity, housing opportunity and sport and leisure was cleared of two other complaints, namely a breach of requirement to disclose interests and ‘using his position improperly to the advantage of himself and others’.
The member standards subcommittee was required to assess the complaints in relation to Cllr McWilliams’ conduct before and during the Maidenhead development management committee on November 17, 2021.
An independent individual was appointed to compile a report into the allegations after 20 complaints were submitted to the council.
This report found the Tory councillor had brought the Royal Borough into disrepute by failing ‘to make an appropriate statement of clarification at the meeting’ before voting in favour of an 80-home application in Ray Mill Road East, despite ‘firm advice’ from the council’s monitoring officer less than a week prior.
On Friday, August 19, a decision notice regarding the complaints was published by the Royal Borough following the sub-committee two days earlier.
Cllrs David Coppinger (Con, Bray) and Lynne Jones (OWRA, Old Windsor) assessed the complaints alongside David Comben, an independent person appointed by the council.
Cllr McWilliams attended the hearing, where he said he had ‘general support for affordable housing, but not for the specific planning application’ on social media, according to Friday’s decision notice.
He added that the ‘council constitution did not preclude him from being the cabinet member with responsibility for affordable housing and also taking decisions’ as a member of the planning panel.
On the issue of the monitoring officer’s advice, Cllr McWilliams commented ‘that if the monitoring officer saw fit only to give advice rather than make a ruling, it was ipso facto plain that the situation was not improper’.
Concluding, Cllr McWilliams said he had acted in accordance with the law and the constitution, and that a ‘fair-minded and informed observer would [not] consider that there was a ‘real possibility’ that there was bias’.
Upon deliberation, the subcommittee commented that ‘there had been no element of deceit on the part of Cllr McWilliams’.
However, it considered that disregarding the monitoring officer’s advice against participation in the meeting was ‘unwise’.
Furthermore, the sub-committee noted that ‘a member of the public aware of the fact that this advice had been given would have a reasonable expectation that this advice would be acted upon’, and that Cllr McWilliams risked bringing the council into disrepute by ‘failing to act on the advice’.
Moreover, it considered the fact that Cllr McWilliams ‘should have been aware that his actions and behaviour are subject to greater scrutiny than that of ordinary members of the public’ when deciding whether to ‘disregard the advice of the monitoring officer’.
Before coming to a conclusion, the sub-committee ‘placed significant weight’ on statements made in an Advertiser article following his resignation from the planning panel.
Following his resignation, which was based partly on ‘the reputation and perceived integrity of RBWM’s planning process’, Cllr McWilliams told the Advertiser that he deeply regretted ‘any resident losing faith in the planning process, especially if my actions had anything to do with that’.
“However, there is clearly an issue of optics that should not be casually dismissed,” he added at the time.
Cllrs Coppinger, Jones and Mr Comben unanimously agreed that Cllr McWilliams had breached the council’s code of conduct by bringing it into disrepute.
However, as the other complaints had been dismissed, and the lead member’s actions were ‘likely a result of his passion and enthusiasm for the expansion of affordable housing provision in the borough (rather than intentional deceit)’, the panel deemed 'it would not be appropriate to impose a sanction’.