In a confusing decision at Knowle today, Newton Poppleford councillor Graham Salter was found guilty of a breach of the councillors’ code of conduct.

After deliberating for over two and a half hours, a majority verdict of an EDDC Standards Sub-committee (Cllrs Godbeer (Chair),Bond and Newth) ruled that Cllr Salter should not have spoken and voted at two parish planning meetings (May 13th and June 24th 2013) concerning Clinton Devon Estates’ (CDE) controversial King Alfred Way (KAW) application .

The grounds were that a “reasonable member of the public with a knowledge of the facts” would conclude that the proximity of Cllr Salter’s house to the KAW site meant he had a personal interest that must “have prejudiced his judgement”.

But the ruling seemed strangely at odds with  the subcommittee’s acknowledgement that he had publicly declared a personal interest, and with their conclusion that he had acted “only in the public interest” (thereby apparently agreeing with his statement  that he was representing the many residents who oppose the building of 40 houses on prime agricultural land, in the AONB, outside the built-up perimeter of the village).

Does this mean that the supposed opinion of a theoretical man or woman “on the Clapham omnibus” weighs more heavily in code of conduct considerations than the support of informed locals?

Cllr Salter commented after the decision that it would not affect his view of his role as a councillor. He added that he saw the complaint against him as part of a concerted campaign to silence his opposition to the CDE project.

Two other complaints were made against Councillor Salter at the same time as this one, and are thought to be from a single source,. Both have already been dismissed. One alleged that he had an undeclared Pecuniary Interest, and was sent to the police, who discounted it; the other, sent to the Standards Committee, complained that he bullied fellow councillors, but was similarly found to be groundless.

When asked by Cllr Susie Bond, “Why did you become a councillor?”, Cllr Salter, replied that he had been to a Newton Poppleford parish meeting where SHLA (Strategic Housing Land Allocation) figures were mentioned, and he noticed the figures were incorrect. Soon afterwards, a vacancy occurred, and villagers encouraged him to apply. “I went on the council to represent villagers’ views”, he said.

Cllr Chris Cole, the complainant, who has strongly supported the KAW application, did not attend today’s hearing.

At the time of “going to press” no sanctions had been decided, though “councillor training” for Cllr Salter seems most likely.

For background to this case, see AREAS Newton Poppleford, or LINKS for Sidmouth Independent News archive.