Comment: Code of Conduct questions

The last Parish council meeting alarmed several of those who attended. The “ambush” proposal to change the CDC’s terms of reference and the question of whether the SWG had evaluated Gravel Hill as a potential housing site both generated heated discussion.

The space of a few days to reflect on what happened has raised the question of how the meeting was conducted. Did the discussion and vote which resulted in Cllr David Hall resigning as Chair of CDC take place in accordance with the Parish Council’s newly adopted Code of Conduct?

The Code of Conduct was agreed by Chilbolton Parish Council at its Annual Parish Meeting on 19 May 2025. It followed a request for advice from TVBC’s monitoring officer on the implications of pecuniary interest for discussions and decisions at its committees. CPC’s new Code of Conduct mirrors Test Valley Borough Council’s Code of Conduct.

At the same meeting where the Code of Conduct was adopted, Cllr Tony Ewer was appointed Vice-Chair of CPC. At the time he said “I assure you I won’t get involved in any discussions about property”.

Cllr Ewer had declared an interest in one of the proposed downsize properties and in one of the self-build properties five times at Parish Council meetings. At this week’s meeting, when declarations were requested, he said “ones already recorded”.

The changes to the terms of reference (TOR) for the CDC agreed last Monday, specifically focus it on delivering the 25 proposed homes referred to in the pre-application to TVBC - affordable, downsize and self-build.

During the discussion Cllr Ewer made statements supporting the changes to the TOR including “Since December, everything has assumed that the site would be the chosen location” and “Your terms of reference don’t even mention the pre-app. When TVBC report back, CDC will review it”.

When the vote on the changes was taken, Cllr Ewer voted in favour of them, with the vote being carried four to three.

CPC’s Code of Conduct is clear on how the issue of a pecuniary interest should be dealt with:

4.5 Unless a dispensation has been granted in respect of a matter in which you have a disclosable pecuniary interest, you may not:

• participate in any discussion related to that matter;
• vote on that matter; or
• discharge any function related to that matter.

4.6 As soon as it becomes apparent that you have such an interest you must withdraw from the room where the meeting considering the business is being held, and must not seek improperly to influence a decision about that business.

Aside from Cllr Ewer’s assurance that he wouldn’t be involved in “discussions about property”, it is unclear how he was able to participate in decisions that materially affect the homes in which he has an interest.

Does the Parish Council believe that Cllr Ewer’s interest in a self-build home would not benefit him financially? Do they believe that it is a pecuniary interest, but have granted him a dispensation? Or was this an oversight on the day?

If this was an oversight, shouldn’t the Parish Council revisit the issue of CDC’s terms of reference at a future meeting?