News

The complainant alleged that Councillor Peter Smith misused his position as a councillor by allowing others to store items in the Spitfire Leisuredrome, without the council’s consent.

It was alleged that Councillor Smith’s actions jeopardised the council’s insurance policy and increased its liability for community charge on the building.

The building had stopped being used and started to become derelict three to four years previously. It is understood Councillor Smith continued informally to look after the building and oversee its security and the council received empty rate relief on the building.

Some items related to the building’s maintenance and Councillor Smith’s own fundraising activities together with others left by community groups who had used the Leisuredrome previously remained in the building.

The officer considered that council members were aware that Councillor Smith’s and some community groups’ belongings had been in the Leisuredrome for a number of years and had made no adverse comment.

Councillor Smith agreed that he had stored some belongings in the Leisuredrome for a member of the public. The ethical standards officer considered that Councillor Smith acted in good faith with regards to this arrangement and did not have an improper motive.

In April 2007 the council discovered items belonging to a commercial company in the Leisuredrome.

Although Councillor Smith said he did not make any arrangements with the commercial company, the ethical standards officer did not accept this and considered that Councillor Smith had made the arrangements and was present when the goods were delivered.

The ethical standards officer considered that Councillor Smith had failed to comply with the Code in that he used his position improperly for the purpose of securing an advantage for another person.

However, he found no evidence that Councillor Smith was paid for his services or the use of the Leisuredrome and he did not consider that Councillor Smith benefited from the arrangement or that he had any underhand intent or improper motive.

The ethical standards officer found that in the circumstances of the case, no further action was necessary.