Hearing decision - Full decision notice NT05.2024-25

Summary of Allegation

The complainant, Councillor Liam Bones, alleges that the Subject Member, Councillor Jane Shaw:

1. During her speech at the full Council meeting held on 21 November 2024 when she moved an amendment to a Motion concerning the Cullercoats boat park, Cllr Shaw referred to her personal experiences as a local resident overlooking the boat park, saying: - “For the last 11 years, I have lived in a house that overlooks the
   Cullercoats boat park. Because of Cullercoats’ history as a fishing village, I love having a view of the boat park and let me be clear, I’d be the first to object to the park being closed or, even worse, built upon.”

   In addition, she said: - “I hope for many years to continue to look out on Cullercoats boat park as I fill the kettle for my morning coffee, a boat park that contains more seagoing boats than weeds and discarded wheels.”

2. By making the comments above Councillor Shaw indicated that her residence was in close proximity to the boat park (a registrable interest) and her personal views influenced her participation in the debate and her decision to move the amendment.
    
3. That Councillor Shaw’s comments made during her speech constituted a breach of Part 1 – ‘General Conduct’ of the Authority’s Code of Conduct for Members and Co-opted Members (‘the Code of
   Conduct’) and in particular Paragraph 6.1 ‘Use of Position’ which states that a member ‘must not use, or attempt to use, your position improperly to the advantage or disadvantage of yourself or anyone
   else’.
    
4. That Councillor Shaw’s comments made during her speech highlighted how her amendment to the Motion was influenced by her personal experiences as a resident overlooking the boat park. By emphasising her enjoyment of the boat park and its future management, she used her position as a Councillor to secure an outcome that aligned with her personal preferences and thus to her own advantage as a nearby resident of the boat park.
    
5. That Councillor Shaw’s comments also amounted to a breach of Paragraph 9.1 of the Code of Conduct ‘You must register and disclose your interests’. The Code of Conduct states that members need to register their interests so that the public, officers and fellow members know which of their interests might give rise to a conflict of interest. This includes providing disclosure of Disclosable Pecuniary Interests (DPIs) such as any beneficial interest that a member has in land or property situated in the Borough.
    
6. That Councillor Shaw prior to the debate on the motion concerning Cullercoats boat park failed to disclose her residence and ownership of a property overlooking the boat park and that her failure to do so
   not only amounted a to a breach of the Code of Conduct but also potentially to an offence under section 34 of the Localism Act 2011.
    
7. That Councillor Shaw’s speech during her moving of the amendment to the Motion suggested a strong personal bias in the matter being debated and therefore she should have declared an interest in the matter and not taken part in the debate.
    
8. Councillor Shaw’s failure to declare an interest prior to the debate on the Motion concerning Cullercoats boat park undermined transparency and public confidence in the Council’s decisionmaking processes and had the potential to bring the Authority into disrepute contrary to Paragraph 5.1 of the Code of Conduct which states that as a member ‘You must not do anything to bring your role or the Authority into disrepute’.

Relevant Paragraph(s) of the Code of Conduct for Elected Members and Co-opted Members

The relevant paragraphs of the Code are:

a) Part 1 Paragraph 5.1 of the Code – Disrepute

As a member:

You must not do anything to bring your role or the Authority into disrepute.

b) Part 1 Paragraph 6.1 of the Code – Use of Position

As a member:

You must not use, or attempt to use, your position improperly to the advantage or disadvantage of yourself or anyone else.

c) Part 1 Paragraphs 9.1 of the Code – Interests

As a member

You must register and disclose your interests

Preliminary Issues

Attendance

Councillor Shaw was in attendance throughout the hearing and was supported by Councillor John O’Shea.

Exclusion of the press and public

Consideration was given as to whether a resolution to exclude the press and the public from the hearing was required.

Neither Councillor Shaw nor the Independent Investigator, Ms Wenham requested that the hearing, or parts of the hearing, be dealt with in private.

Councillor Shaw in Form D – ‘Arrangements for the Standards Committee Hearing’ which she provided to the Monitoring Officer in response to question 9 – ‘Do you want any part of the hearing to be held in private?’ answered ‘No’ (page 77 of the papers).

Councillor Shaw informed the Sub-Committee that she did not want her home address to be referred to during the hearing if the press and public were not to be excluded from the hearing. Ms Wenham expressed a similar concern and pointed out that Councillor Shaw’s address had been redacted from her report.

An assurance was given by the member of the press in attendance to the Sub-Committee that if Councillor Shaw’s address appeared anywhere else in the agenda papers that he was provided with he would not disclose this in any report of the hearing.

The ‘Procedure for Standards Hearings’ appearing at Appendix 4 of the ‘ Arrangements for Dealing with Allegations of Breaches of the Code of Conduct for Members and Co-opted Members’ (page 36 of the papers) states that that Standards hearings of this nature will be open to the public unless there is confidential or exempt information under Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972 that is likely to be disclosed. There is clearly ‘exempt’ information in that the hearing papers contain information
relating to individuals. In that regard, after considering paragraph 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972, the Sub-Committee concluded that the public interest would be better served by the hearing being dealt with in open rather than in private session. There was therefore no resolution passed by the Sub-Committee excluding the press and public from the hearing.

Local Resolution

The Arrangements for Dealing with Allegations of Breaches of the Code of Conduct for Members and Co-opted Members is clear that if there is evidence of a failure to comply with the Code of Conduct, there may still be an opportunity for a local resolution and avoid the need for a hearing. However, any local resolution is conditional on the Complainant, in this instance Councillor Bones, being satisfied with the outcome proposed by the Monitoring Officer in the local resolution.

The Monitoring Officer in March 2026 suggested a local resolution of his complaint to Councillor Bones in the following terms: -

1. Councillor Shaw undertakes to seek advice and guidance from the Monitoring Officer (or one of his team) or Democratic Support Officers prior to any Authority meetings if there is any possibility that Councillor Shaw may have a registerable or non-registerable interest in any item of business to be discussed at such meetings: and
    
2. That Councillor Shaw agrees to undertake training within the next 4 weeks on Part 2 of the Code of Conduct for Members and Co-opted Members of the Authority – Registration of Interests.

The Monitoring Officer, in accordance with the Arrangements, consulted with the then Chair of the Standards Committee (Councillor Frank Lott) and Kerry Roffe as an Independent Person. Both agreed that the local resolution as proposed by the Monitoring Officer would be an appropriate disposal of the complaint.

Councillor Shaw agreed to take the steps set out in the proposed local resolution.

Councillor Bones informed the Monitoring Officer that he was prepared to agree to his complaint being resolved by way of local resolution but that the Monitoring Officer’s proposed local resolution was insufficient and indicated that he would agree to a local resolution on the basis that Councillor Shaw provide a “clear and unreserved apology to the fishermen concerned, delivered publicly at Full Council”.

As the local resolution proposed by Councillor Bones was not that proposed by the Monitoring Officer, the matter has proceeded to this Standards Sub-Committee hearing.

Hearing

The Sub-Committee heard from Verina Wenham, the Independent Investigator, who presented her comprehensive report with appendices (pages 79 to 167 of the papers) and explained her findings.

There were no questions of Ms Wenham by any Member of the Sub-Committee, Ms Roffe or Councillor Shaw.

The Sub-Committee had read the statement submitted by Councillor Shaw in response to Ms Wenham’s report and her findings. (pages 71-72 of the papers)

Findings of Fact

References in brackets to paragraph numbers refer to paragraphs in Ms Wenham’s report considered by the Sub-Committee.

The Sub-Committee, following careful consideration of the papers and the presentation made to it by Ms Wenham and the observations of Ms Roffe, and the statement submitted by Councillor Shaw finds the following:

Application of the Code

The Sub-Committee finds that: -

1. Councillor Shaw took part and engaged in the Full Council meeting on 21 November 2024 in her capacity as Councillor and was discussing Council business. It is indisputable that the complaint relates to the conduct of Councillor Shaw at a time when she was acting in her official capacity i.e. an elected member of the Authority. [paragraphs 22-23]

Debate at Full Council 21 November 2024

2. On 21 November 2024 Full Council considered Motion 4 (“the Motion”) which was moved by Councillor L Bartoli and seconded by Councillor C McGinty and related to the Cullercoats Boat Park. The Motion was entitled ‘Protecting our fishing heritage in Cullercoats’. [paragraph 7]

3. During the debate on the Motion Councillor Shaw proposed an amendment to the Motion which was seconded by Councillor W Samuel, and Councillor Shaw spoke to her amendment.

4. Councillor Shaw during her speech on the amendment said, amongst other things: -

“For the last 11 years, I have lived in a house that overlooks the Cullercoats boat park. Because of Cullercoats’ history as a fishing village, I love having a view of the boat park and let me be clear, I’d be the first to object to the park being closed or, even worse, built upon.”

In addition, she said: -

“I hope for many years to continue to look out on Cullercoats boat park as I fill the kettle for my morning coffee, a boat park that contains more seagoing boats than weeds and discarded wheels.”

5. Both Councillor Bones and Ms Wenham agree that what is set out in paragraph 4 above are accurate extracts of Councillor Shaw’s speech made at the Council meeting held on 21 November 2024 [paragraphs 12, 82 and Appendix B ‘Transcript of Cllr Shaw’s speeches’].

6. Councillor Shaw’s amendment is set out in full below: -

Council

• Acknowledges the vital role that our fishing community plays in North Tyneside’s economy, heritage, and culture. Our fishing industry is a living link to our maritime past and continues to provide employment, skill development, and community cohesion. It is an asset that the Authority is committed to preserving for future generations.
   
• Recognises the historical and economic significance of Cullercoats, as part of the Borough’s fishing and maritime heritage and the current coastal economy.
   
• Understands the mounting pressures on the fishing community, from economic challenges to regulatory
  requirements, outwith the purview of the Authority.
   
• Notes the strong support from the local community of Cullercoats and the wider community for the Fishing industry, heritage as demonstrated by a recently well-attended public meeting and a subsequent petition. It is essential that the Authority reflects takes into account this support these views in its decisions and actions.
   
• Acknowledges with thanks, the efforts currently being undertaken by the Strategic Property Unit to:
  • Improve the condition of the Cullercoats Boat Park, where of late the number of seaworthy vessels,
    parked in the yard, has decreased and the presence of discarded hardware, rubbish and old tractors has increased; causing the condition to become the subject of frequent complaints and concern expressed by residents and visitors.
     
  • Regularise the legal use of the Boat Park by requiring all vessels parked in it to be owned by persons who have individually agreed to the terms of and signed the most up to date licence offered by the Authority and paid the current fee set.

Council asks the Mayor to refer the following matters to the Strategic Property Group to consider:

• The granting of licenses at the boat park, duration of licenses, the number of licenses granted, capacity, terms and conditions of licenses, accepted uses of the boat park including maintenance.
   
• Work with boat owners to ensure that modifications to the seafront sustainable route do not unduly prevent legal transportation of vessels from the Boat Park to the sea. [paragraph 81].

7. Councillor Shaw’s amendment to the Motion, following debate, was put to the vote and was approved and therefore became the substantive Motion. The substantive Motion was then put to the vote and was approved by a majority vote. [paragraphs 84-85].

8. The substantive Motion was effectively asking the Mayor to refer specified matters to the Strategic Property Board to grant the fishermen longer licences, to permit them to carry out maintenance to vessels at the boat park and provide assurances about the nature of the sustainable route network in the area of the boat park. The Motion as amended did not require Full Council to make any actual decision regarding the boat park but rather, as stated, to refer matters concerning the boat park to the Strategic Property Board, which is an advisory body. [paragraphs 169-170]

9. It is clear that Councillor Shaw’s home is in close proximity to Cullercoats boat park. She herself said during her speech on 21 November 2024 that she lives in a property that “overlooks the Cullercoats boat park. ” [paragraph 82]

10. Whereas the Motion discussed at Council on 21 November 2024 could be said to have affected Councillor Shaw’s property, it did not directly relate to her property. That being the case, Councillor Shaw did not have a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest that she was required to disclose to Full Council before the debate on the Motion. [paragraph 143]

11. Given that Councillor Shaw did not have a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest to disclose, there could have been no potential offence committed by her under section 34 of the Localism Act 2011 in relation to her conduct at Council on 21 November 2024. [paragraph 146]

12. Northumbria Police, who were provided with details of the complaint, confirmed that there was no potential offence committed by Councillor Shaw under Section 34 of the Localism Act 2011 in relation to her conduct at Council on 21 November 2024. [paragraph 145]

13. However, as stated in paragraph 10 above, the Motion did affect Councillor Shaw’s home which is in close proximity to the boat park. Given its location, the Motion affected Councillor Shaw’s property more than other properties in the Borough and therefore affected her wellbeing to a greater extent than most inhabitants in the Borough. [paragraph 159]

14. The Motion (as amended) which is set out in full at paragraph 6 above did not require Full Council to take a decision on 21 November 2024 on the boat park, but rather, to agree to refer certain matters relating to the boat park to an advisory group i.e. the Strategic Property Group for its consideration. Therefore, the Motion was too remote to demonstrate that it would have any financial impact on Councillor Shaw’s property. [paragraph 167]

15. Given that Councillor Shaw’s property and wellbeing (but not her finances) were affected more than other inhabitants in the Borough, she did have a non-registerable personal interest that she should have declared at the Full Council meeting held on 21 November 2024. [paragraph 160]

16. Councillor Shaw in her statement to the Sub-Committee accepts that she had a non-registerable personal interest because of the close proximity of her home to the boat park which meant that her wellbeing was affected to greater extent than most inhabitants, and that she should have declared that interest to Council on 21 November 2024. [see pages 71-72 of the papers]

17. Had Councillor Shaw declared that she had a non-registerable personal interest in the Motion to Full Council, as she ought to have done, she would not have been required to leave the Council meeting because the criteria for ‘Non-Participation in Authority Business’ set out in paragraph 19 of the Code of Conduct was not met [paragraph 163].

18. Having regard to paragraph 19 of the Code of Conduct as referred to in paragraph 17 above, in light of Councillor Shaw’s non-registerable personal interest in the Motion, it is clear that even if that interest was
so significant that it was likely to prejudice her judgement of the public interest, it was not the case that Councillor Shaw’s interest would have either: -

• Affected her financial position or one of the persons or bodies referred to in paragraph 16 of the Code of Conduct (i.e. family member, close associate etc); or
   
• The matter concerned a request for any permission, licence, consent or registration sought by her or other persons/bodies referred to in paragraph 16 of the Code of Conduct.

which meant that Councillor Shaw was not required to leave the Council Meeting on 21 November 2024 and could therefore take part in the debate on the Motion, move an amendment to the Motion and vote on the matter. This is because second element of the criteria in paragraph 19 was not met i.e. Councillor Shaw’s financial position was not affected by the Motion. [paragraphs 163 to 167].

19. Whereas Councillor Shaw failed to declare a non-registerable personal interest in the Motion, given that she was entitled to remain in the Council Chamber and play a full part in the debate on the Motion, she could not have been said to have acted in a manner that brought her Authority or office into disrepute. [paragraphs 190-191]

20. Given that the nature of the Motion (as amended) and its limited impact on Councillor Shaw, and the fact that she could legitimately move the amendment to the Motion and take part in a debate for the reasons set out in paragraph 18 above, Councillor Shaw did not use her position as an elected member improperly. [paragraphs 184-186]

Findings as to whether there has been a failure to follow the Code of Conduct

The Sub-Committee, having read the papers, including the statement from Councillor Shaw, and having heard from Ms Wenham, the Independent Investigator, carefully considered whether one or more breaches of the Code of Conduct had occurred. In reaching its decision the Sub- Committee took account of the views of Kerry Roffe, the Independent Person, who was in attendance throughout the hearing and the Sub-
Committee’s deliberations.

Breaches

The Sub-Committee found that Councillor Shaw BREACHED the following paragraph of the Code of Conduct for Elected Members and Co-opted Members:

Part 1 Paragraph 9.1 of the Code – Interests

As a member:

You must register and disclose your interests.

Whereas Councillor Shaw did not fail to disclose a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest, she did fail to declare a non-registerable personal interest as defined in paragraph 15 of Part 3 of the Code of Conduct at the Council meeting held on 21 November 2024 in relation to the Motion for the reasons set out in paragraphs 155 to 159 of the Independent Investigator’s report.

No Breaches

The Sub-Committee found NO BREACH by Councillor Shaw of the following paragraphs of the Code of Conduct for Elected Members and Co-opted Members:

Part 1 Paragraph 5.1 – Disrepute

As a member:

You must not do anything to bring your role or the Authority into disrepute.

The Sub-Committee found that there was no breach of the paragraph of the Code of Conduct for the reasons set out in paragraph 19 above.

Part 1 Paragraph 6.1 – Use of Position

As a member:

You must not use, or attempt to use, your position improperly to the advantage or disadvantage of yourself or anyone else.

The Sub-Committee found that there was no breach of the paragraph of the Code of Conduct for the reasons set out in paragraph 20 above.

Ms Roffe agreed that there had been a breach of the Code of Conduct outlined above.

Sanctions

The Sub-Committee having regard to the ‘Procedure for Standards Hearings’ and the decisions available to it as set out in page 59 of the papers considered it appropriate to adopt the following finding: -

• That Councillor Shaw has failed to comply with the Code of Conduct, but that no action needs to be taken.

The Sub-Committee considered the finding to be the most appropriate to take having regard to the following: -

• Councillor Shaw fully accepts that she should have declared that she had a non-registerable personal interest in the Motion to Council on 21 November 2024 relating to Cullercoats boat park given the close proximity of her home to the boat park, and her acceptance that she should have gone further than referencing the proximity of her home to the boat park in her speech;
• Councillor Shaw’s agreement to consult the Monitoring Officer or one of his team before any Authority business in which she may have a non-registerable personal interest;
• Councillor Shaw did not have a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest to disclose in relation to the Motion;
• Councillor Shaw had included her home as a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest in her Register of Interests for both herself and her husband at the time of the Council Meeting;
• Had Councillor Shaw declared that she had a non-registerable personal interest in the Motion, as she ought to have done, she would not have been required to leave the meeting as the criteria for ‘Non- Participation in Authority Business’ included in the Code of Conduct was not met;
• Councillor Shaw’s speech on the Motion made it clear that her home overlooked the boat park and therefore was made known to Full Council and those watching the meeting;
• There was no attempt by Councillor Shaw to hide the fact that her home was in close proximity to the boat park from Full Council or the public;

Taking into account the above factors, the Sub-Committee is satisfied that the breach of the Code of Conduct by Councillor Shaw was of a minor nature, and therefore no sanction was required. The Sub-Committee is satisfied that its adopted findings are reasonable and proportionate in the circumstances.

Ms Roffe, the Independent Person, concurred with the Sub-Committee’s findings and the decision to impose no sanction.