YATES and LOCAL GOVERNMENT STANDARDS PANEL

[2011] WASAT 195

YATES and LOCAL GOVERNMENT STANDARDS PANEL [2011] WASAT 195

Last Update :08/12/2011

Jurisdiction:	STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL	Citation No:	[2011] WASAT 195
Published:
Act:	LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 1995 (WA)
Case No:	DR:218/2011	Heard:	25 OCTOBER 2010
Coram:	JUDGE D R PARRY (DEPUTY PRESIDENT)	Delivered:	02/12/2011
No Pages:	15	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Finding of minor breach and imposition of public censure affirmed
Category:	B

Parties & CatchwordsOrders
Summary


Judgment

JURISDICTION : STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL STREAM : DEVELOPMENT & RESOURCES ACT : LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 1995 (WA) CITATION : YATES and LOCAL GOVERNMENT STANDARDS PANEL [2011] WASAT 195 MEMBER : JUDGE D R PARRY (DEPUTY PRESIDENT) HEARD : 25 OCTOBER 2010 DELIVERED : 2 DECEMBER 2011 FILE NO/S : DR 218 of 2011 BETWEEN : DONALD YATES

Applicant

AND

LOCAL GOVERNMENT STANDARDS PANEL
Respondent

ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Intervener

Catchwords:

Local government - Regulation of councillors - Councillor had proximity interest in relation to recoding application - Councillor sent email to fellow councillors in relation to recoding application - Whether councillor made improper use of his office as a council member to gain an advantage for applicant for recoding

(Page 2)

Legislation:

Local Government (Rules of Conduct) Regulations 2007 (WA), reg 7(1), reg 7(1)(a)
Local Government Act 1995 (WA), s 5.60, s 5.60B(1), s 5.65, s 5.65(1), s 5.67, s 5.68, s 5.69, s 5.104(1), s 5.105(1), s 5.105(1)(a), s 5.110(5), s 5.110(6), s 5.110(6)(b)(i), s 5.125(1)
State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA), s 25(2)

Result:

Finding of minor breach and imposition of public censure affirmed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant : Self-represented
Respondent : Mr I Repper
Intervener : Mr I Repper

Solicitors:

Applicant : N/A
Respondent : State Solicitor's Office
Intervener : State Solicitor's Office

Case(s) referred to in decision(s):

Mazza and Local Government Standards Panel [2009] WASAT 165
Re and Local Government Standards Panel [2011] WASAT 108
Treby and Local Government Standards Panel [2010] WASAT 81

(Page 3)

REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL:

Summary of Tribunal's decision

1 While Mr Donald Yates was a council member of the Town of Bassendean, his next­door neighbour applied to the Town for a recoding of her property. Under the Local Government Act 1995 (WA), Mr Yates had a 'proximity interest' in relation to the recoding application and was therefore precluded from participating in the decision­making processes of the Council in relation to that matter. Nevertheless, Mr Yates sent an email to seven of his fellow councillors and to the Chief Executive Officer of the Town in relation to the application shortly before the Council's consideration of the matter.

2 The Local Government Standards Panel found that, in sending the email, Mr Yates committed a breach of reg 7(1)(a) of the Local Government (Rules of Conduct) Regulations2007 (WA) which states that a council member must not make 'improper use of the person's office as a council member … to gain directly or indirectly an advantage for … any … person'. The Panel ordered that Mr Yates be publicly censured. Mr Yates sought review of the decision by the Tribunal.

3 The Tribunal found that, in sending the email, Mr Yates made 'use of [his] office as a council member', as he sent the email in his capacity as a member of the Council and its recipients could only realistically have viewed it as having been sent to them by Mr Yates in that capacity. The Tribunal also found that Mr Yates' use of his office as a council member was 'improper', because he sought to lobby or influence and to put pressure on his fellow councillors in relation to the recoding application when he was precluded from participating in the Council's decision­making processes in relation to it.

4 The Tribunal therefore found that Mr Yates committed a breach of the regulation. The Tribunal also determined that a high degree of public admonition is warranted for the breach, because it involved serious impropriety. The Tribunal, therefore, affirmed the decision of the Local Government Standards Panel that a notice of public censure is to be published in two newspapers.

Introduction

5 Between December 2008 and October 2011, Mr Donald Yates was a council member of the Town of Bassendean (Town or Council). This proceeding involves an application brought by Mr Yates, pursuant to

(Page 4)

s 5.125(1) of the Local Government Act 1995 (WA) (LGAct), for review of the decision of the Local Government Standards Panel (Panel) that MrYates committed a 'minor breach' under s5.105(1)(a) of the LGAct and that he be publicly censured under s5.110(6)(b)(i) of the LGAct. Section5.105(1)(a) of the LGAct states that ' [a] council member commits a minor breach if he or she contravenes … a rule of conduct under section5.104(1) …'. Section5.104(1) of the LGAct enables the making of regulations prescribing rules 'to be known as the rules of conduct for council members, that council members are required to observe'. Regulation7(1)(a) of the Local Government (Rules of Conduct) Regulations2007 (WA) (ConductRegulations), which was made pursuant to s5.104(1) of the LGAct, states as follows:
A person who is a council member must not make improper use of the person’s office as a council member -

(a) to gain directly or indirectly an advantage for the person or any other person; …

6 The Panel made the following finding of minor breach in relation to MrYates:

That on 9 March 2010 you committed a breach of regulation 7(1)(a) of the Local Government (Rules of Conduct) Regulations 2007 in that you made improper use of your office as a Council member to gain directly or indirectly an advantage for an immediate next-door neighbour, [M], when you sent an email to your fellow Town Councillors giving wrong advice to them, and inappropriately lobbying or attempting to influence and putting pressure on them, in relation to a request by [M] to the Town of Bassendean to have the R coding of her property at [address] increased from residential R25 to R40 (the matter) knowing that you had a proximity interest in the matter, and knowing that you were precluded from participating in the discussions and decision making procedure relating to the matter when it was before the Town's Council later on that day.
(The name of MrYates' neighbour has been anonymised and her address not reproduced).

7 After giving MrYates an opportunity, pursuant to s5.110(5) of the LGAct, to make submissions about how the minor breach should be dealt with under s5.110(6) of the LGAct, the Panel determined that the breach is to be dealt with by ordering that MrYates be publicly censured as specified in the order under s5.110(6)(b)(i) of the LGAct. The notice of public censure set out in the Panel's order recounts its finding of minor breach. The order requires the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the Town to arrange for the notice of public censure to be published in The West Australian and the Eastern Suburbs Reporter. At the (Page 5)

commencement of the proceeding the Tribunal stayed the order for the publication of the notice of public censure, pursuant to s25(2) of the State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA), until further order.

Background

8 Mr Yates' next door neighbour, M, lodged an application with the Town to recode her property from R25 to R40 under the local planning scheme. Section 5.60 of the LG Act states that a person has 'an interest' in a matter if he or she has either a 'direct or indirect financial interest' or 'a proximity interest' in the matter. Under s 5.60B(1) of the LG Act, a person has a 'proximity interest' in a matter if the matter concerns 'a proposed change to a planning scheme affecting land that adjoins the person's land' or 'a proposed change to the zoning or use of land that adjoins the person's land'. Relevantly, therefore, Mr Yates had a 'proximity interest' in relation to M's recoding application.

9 Section 5.65(1) of the LG Act makes it a criminal offence for a council member who has an 'interest' in a matter to be discussed at a council or committee meeting that would be attended by the member not to disclose the nature of the interest to the CEO before the meeting or at the meeting immediately before the matter is discussed. Section 5.67 of the LG Act makes it a criminal offence for a council member who makes a disclosure under s 5.65 to preside at the part of the meeting relating to the matter or participate in, or be present during, any discussion or decision-making procedure relating to the matter, unless the disclosing member is allowed to do so under s 5.68 or s 5.69 of the LG Act. Mr Yates did not seek, and was not allowed, to participate in, or be present during, any discussion or decision-making procedure relating to the recoding application, pursuant to s 5.68 or s 5.69 of the LG Act.

10 M's recoding application was first considered by the Council at its ordinary meeting on 19 January 2010. Before the recoding application was considered, Mr Yates disclosed that he had a proximity interest in the matter and left the meeting while the matter was discussed and voted on. The Council resolved to defer the matter 'until a recommendation is received from the Planning Commission'.

11 M wrote to the Town expressing her 'wish for Council to have the opportunity to immediately reconsider favourably my request for rezoning from R25 to R40'. The proposed reconsideration and the Town's officer's report in relation to it appeared in the agenda for the ordinary meeting of the Council to be held on 9 March 2010. M's application was not

(Page 6)

supported by the Town's planning staff for reasons given in the officer's report.

12 At 2.18 pm on 9 March 2010, prior to the ordinary meeting of the Council scheduled to be held that evening, Mr Yates sent an email to seven of his fellow councillors and the CEO of the Town from his personal email address (not his Council email address). The 'subject' of the email was 'Local planning and related matters'. Mr Yates' email of 9 March 2010 stated as follows:

In the Local Planning Manual guidelines as issued by the WA Planning Commission (Mar 2010), on page 41, section 4.5.9 it says ….

'If the local government does not make a determination on an application within the prescribed period, usually 60 days …, it is deemed to have been refused. The local government can still make a decision but deemed refusal provides an avenue for review by the State Administrative Tribunal.'

In the case of the deferral motion passed related to [M's] property of [address], to a higher R40 coding on January 19 2010, it means that before the next scheduled ordinary council meeting on March 23 2010, she may startappeal proceedings against the Town of Bassendean, no doubt at considerable cost to the Town.

If the same deferral action had been suggested against [W] and the [K] family, then there could have been multiple SAT appeals that the Town might have to fund, in some attempt to delay the inevitable.

A way forward

The Council has the opportunity to pass the re-presented motion related to [M's] property for her immediate and long term security, at the March 9 2010 council meeting, demonstrating awareness of the WAPC's Development Policy 1.6 of January 2006 and multiple other State Government policies related to higher TOD densities around commuter railway stations.

Sincerely
Don

Donald YATES
Councillor of Bassendean
[telephone]
(Emphasis original. The names of Mr Yates' neighbour and other people he referred to have been anonymised and M's address and Mr Yates' telephone number have not been reproduced).

(Page 7)

13 At the ordinary meeting of the Council held on the evening of 9 March 2010, Mr Yates disclosed that he had a proximity interest in relation to M's recoding application and left the meeting while the matter was discussed and voted on.

Issues for determination

14 It is common ground in this proceeding that, at all material times:

(1) Mr Yates was a council member of the Town;

(2) Mr Yates had a proximity interest in relation to M's recoding application;

(3) Mr Yates sent the email dated 9March2010 set out earlier to seven of his fellow councillors and to the CEO of the Town; and

(4) The email sought to gain an advantage to M in relation to the recoding application.

15 The following four issues arise for determination in this proceeding:

(1) Whether, by sending the email dated 9 March 2010, MrYates made 'use of [his] office as a council member' within the meaning of reg7(1) of the Conduct Regulations.

(2) If the answer to issue (1) is 'yes', whether MrYates' use of his office as a council member was 'improper' within the meaning of reg7(1) of the Conduct Regulations.

(3) Whether Mr Yates gave incorrect advice to his fellow councillors that the applicant for recoding had a right to seek review of the deemed refusal of the application before SAT.

(4) If Mr Yates committed a minor breach, how should the breach be dealt with under s5.110(6) of the LGAct?

Did Mr Yates make 'use of [his] office as a council member' by sending the email dated 9 March 2010?

16 Mr Yates argued that, because he sent the email on 9 March 2010 from his personal email address, rather than from the email address provided to him as a councillor of the Town, he did not make 'use of [his]

(Page 8)

office as a council member' within the meaning of reg 7(1) of the Conduct Regulations. However, as the Tribunal found in Re and Local Government Standards Panel [2011] WASAT 108 (Re) at [28], the fact that a councillor sends an email from his or her personal email address does not necessarily mean that, in sending the email, he or she was not making use of his or her office as a council member. In Re Deputy President Judge Sharp found, at [29], that notwithstanding that Cr Re sent an email from her personal email address, in the circumstances of that case:
It is at least unrealistic for the applicant to believe that the recipients of her email would see her in any role other than that of their local councillor.

17 As Mr I Repper, who appeared on behalf of the Panel and the Attorney General, submitted, the email sent by Mr Yates on 9 March 2010 was 'even more clearly the use of his office as a councillor than was the email by Cr Re'.

18 Mr Yates plainly sent the email on 9 March 2010 in his capacity as a member of the Council, rather than in a personal capacity removed from his office as a council member. The recipients of the email could also only realistically have viewed it as having been sent to them by Mr Yates as a member of the Council. The email was sent to Mr Yates' fellow councillors and the CEO of the Town about a matter that was shortly to be considered by the Council. Mr Yates purported to give advice to his fellow councillors to save money for the Town by avoiding planning review proceedings. He also purported to give advice to his fellow councillors in relation to appropriate strategic planning by the Council. Significantly, also, Mr Yates signed and sent the email in his capacity as 'Councillor of Bassendean'.

19 By sending the email dated 9 March 2010, therefore, Mr Yates made 'use of [his] office as a council member' within the meaning of reg 7(1) of the Conduct Regulations.

Was Mr Yates' use of his office as a council member 'improper'?

20 In Treby and Local Government Standards Panel [2010] WASAT 81 (Treby), Deputy President Judge Pritchard considered the meaning of the word 'improper' in reg 7(1) of the Conduct Regulations, at [26] - [33], as follows:

26 The word 'improper' is used in reg 7(1)(b) as an adjective to describe the use of a councillor's office. The term 'improper' is not defined in the LG Act or the Regulations, and the regulation has

(Page 9)

not been the subject of any judicial determination in Western Australia.
27 According to the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, the meaning of 'improper' includes 'unsuitable' and 'inappropriate'. It is clear that the meaning of the word 'improper' cannot be considered in isolation, but rather will take its flavour from the surrounding context, which includes an assessment of what is involved in role of a councillor ...

28 The meaning of the word 'improper' in the context of provisions similar to reg 7(1)(b) was considered in Chew v The Queen (1992) 173 CLR 626 (Chew), R v Byrnes (1995) 183 CLR 501 (Byrnes) and Doyle v AustralianSecurities and InvestmentsCommission (2005) 227 CLR 18 (Doyle). In Chew and Byrnes the Court considered s 229(4) of the Companies (South Australia) Code while in Doyle the Court construed s 232(6) of the Corporations Law (Cth). Each provision prohibited an officer or employee of a corporation from making improper use of his or her position as such an officer or employee, to gain, directly or indirectly, an advantage for himself or for any other person or to cause detriment to the corporation. Although s 229(4) created a criminal offence, and s 232(6) is a civil penalty provision, the observations of the Court are highly relevant to the construction and application of reg 7(1)(b), given the similarity between its terms and s 229(4) and s 232(6). In view of these authorities, the following conclusions can be drawn in relation to the meaning and application of the term 'improper use of the person's office' within the context of reg 7(1)(b) of the Regulations.

29 First, impropriety consists in a breach of the standards of conduct that would be expected of a person in the position of the [councillor] by reasonable persons with knowledge of the duties, powers and authority of his position as a councillor and the circumstances of the case: Chew at 634 (Mason CJ, Brennan, Gaudron and McHugh JJ) and at 647 (Toohey J); Byrnes at 514 ­ 515 (Brennan, Deane, Toohey and Gaudron JJ); Doyle at [35] (the Court).

30 Secondly, impropriety does not depend on a councillor's consciousness of impropriety. It is to be judged objectively and does not involve an element of intent: Chew at 640 ­ 641 (Dawson J); Byrnes at 514 ­ 515 (Brennan, Deane, Toohey and Gaudron JJ) and at 521 (McHugh J).

31 Thirdly, impropriety may arise in a number of ways. It may consist of an abuse of power, that is, if a councillor uses his or her position in a way that is inconsistent with the discharge of the duties arising from that office or employment: cf Byrnes at 521 (McHugh J). Alternatively, impropriety will arise from the doing of an act which

(Page 10)

a councillor knows or ought to know that he has no authority to do: cf Byrnes at 514 ­ 515 (Brennan, Deane, Toohey and Gaudron JJ); Doyle at [37] (the Court).
32 Fourthly, in the case of impropriety arising from an abuse of power, a councillor's alleged knowledge or means of knowledge of the circumstances in which the power is exercised and his purpose or intention in exercising the power will be important factors in determining whether the power has been abused: Chew at 640 ­ 641 (Dawson J); Byrnes at 514 ­ 515 (Brennan, Deane, Toohey and Gaudron JJ) and at 521 (McHugh J).

33 Fifthly, a councillor's use of his or her office can be improper even though it is for the purpose or with the intention of benefiting the Council: Chew at 634 (Mason CJ, Brennan, Gaudron and McHugh JJ); Byrnes at 521 ­ 522 (McHugh J).

21 Having regard to the context that Mr Yates had a proximity interest in relation to the recoding application and therefore that he would have committed a criminal offence by not having disclosed the nature of his interest or by having participated in, or been present during, any discussion or decision-making procedure relating to the matter, it was plainly 'improper' for Mr Yates to send the email of 9 March 2010 to his fellow councillors seeking to lobby or influence them in relation to the matter, and, indeed, seeking to put pressure on them by raising the prospect of 'considerable cost to the Town' of defending a review application, in relation to the matter. As Mr Repper submitted:

In circumstances where the LG Act prescribes that it is unlawful for a local government member to participate in or vote in relation to a matter, which would be improper as well as unlawful, it would also be improper for a councillor to attempt to lobby or influence his fellow councillors outside a council meeting in relation to that matter. A reasonable person with knowledge of the duties of a council member would consider that it is improper for a person who cannot participate in the decision-making process to attempt to lobby or influence fellow councillors in relation to the matter.

22 As Judge Pritchard observed in Treby at [30], 'impropriety does not depend on a councillor's consciousness of impropriety'. Judged objectively, Mr Yates' email attempting to lobby or influence the outcome of deliberations that he was precluded, on pain of committing a criminal offence, from participating in, was clearly improper. Furthermore, as her Honour said in Treby at [33], 'a councillor's use of his or her office can be improper even though it is for the purpose or with the intention of benefiting the Council'.

(Page 11)

23 Mr Yates made essentially two submissions in relation to this issue. First, he submitted that 'it is the role of a councillor to represent the interests of electors, ratepayers and residents of the district, provide leadership and guidance to the community in the district, and participate in the council's decision making process at council and committee meetings'. However, in the circumstances of this case, Mr Yates was precluded by law from participating in the decision­making process and it was, therefore, improper for him to seek to influence that process.

24 Secondly, Mr Yates submitted that, in sending the email on 9 March 2010, he was not, in fact, 'acting on behalf of one constituent [but rather] was acting on behalf of the whole community … because it was a community interest … of a number of people living in Success Hill in proximity to the Success Hill Railway Station' that he was promoting in the email. Mr Yates considered that there should be an increase in residential densities in proximity to the Success Hill Railway Station, consistently with State Government policies.

25 However, it is clear from the email that it was sent primarily to influence the outcome of the Council's deliberation that evening in relation to M's recoding application. The email was not a general submission, unrelated to the matter in which Mr Yates had a proximity interest, concerning strategic planning by the Council.

26 It follows that Mr Yates' use of his office as a council member by sending the email of 9 March 2010 was 'improper' within the meaning of reg 7(1) of the Conduct Regulations.

Did Mr Yates give incorrect advice to his fellow councillors?

27 It is not strictly necessary to address this issue in order to find that Mr Yates committed a minor breach. However, the Panel's decision included a finding that Mr Yates' email involved 'giving wrong advice' to his fellow councillors and this finding was contested on review.

28 Mr Yates told the Tribunal that it was his 'understanding' that the Western Australian Planning Commission's Development Control Policy1.6 - Planning to Support Transit Use and Transit Oriented Development (DC 1.6) conferred a right on M to seek review by the Tribunal of the deemed refusal of a recoding application. However, putting aside the fact that DC 1.6 is a non­statutory policy document rather than legislation that could confer a right to seek review before the Tribunal, Mr Yates was unable to point to any provision of DC 1.6 suggesting a right of review in relation to an actual or deemed decision

(Page 12)

concerning recoding or rezoning generally. Mr Yates also submitted that he 'honestly and reasonably believed the application was one which fell within s 4.5.9 of the Commission's Local Planning Manual (March 2010) which Mr Yates referred to in the email of 9 March 2010. However, again putting aside the fact that the Local Planning Manual is not legislation that could confer a right to seek review by the Tribunal, when s 4.5.9 is read in the context of the provisions which precede and follow it, it is clear that it is referring to an application for development approval, rather than a recoding or rezoning application.

29 There is no right to seek review in Western Australia of a decision of a local government to support, not support, or fail to consider, an application to recode or rezone land. The advice that Mr Yates gave to his fellow councillors that M had a right to seek review of the deemed refusal of the recoding application was incorrect.

How should the breach be dealt with?

30 It follows from the Tribunal's findings in relation to the earlier issues that the Panel's finding of a minor breach in the terms set out in the introduction above should be affirmed. Although I questioned during the hearing whether the email of 9 March 2010 involved 'putting pressure on [the councillors]', as found by the Panel, on reflection, the email clearly sought to put pressure on the councillors by suggesting that if they did not approve the recoding application, the Town would be forced to bear 'the considerable cost' of a review proceeding in the Tribunal which would only 'delay the inevitable'.

31 Section 5.110.6 of the LG Act states as follows:

The breach is to be dealt with by -

(a) dismissing the complaint;

(b) ordering that -

(i) the person against whom the complaint was made be publicly censured as specified in the order;

(ii) the person against whom the complaint was made apologise publicly as specified in the order; or

(iii) the person against whom the complaint was made undertake training as specified in the order;

or

(Page 13)

(c) ordering 2 or more of the sanctions described in paragraph (b).

32 Having regard to the Tribunal's earlier findings, it would be inappropriate to dismiss the complaint. It is not apposite to order an apology. As Mr Yates is no longer a councillor, it would not be appropriate to order that he undertake training.

33 As Deputy President Judge Pritchard said in Mazza and Local Government Standards Panel [2009] WASAT 165 at [107]:

A public censure of the kind ordered by the respondent is a significant sanction. It involves a high degree of public admonition of the conduct of the applicant.

34 The Tribunal considers that a high degree of public admonition, in the form of the notice of public censure to be published in The West Australian and the Eastern Suburbs Reporter as ordered by the Panel, is warranted in the circumstances of this case. MrYates made improper use of his office as a council member by giving wrong advice and inappropriately lobbying or attempting to influence and putting pressure on his fellow councillors in relation to a matter in respect of which he had a proximity interest. While the breach that has been found is a 'minorbreach' for the purposes of the LGAct, it involves serious impropriety. Mr Yates sought to influence the outcome of deliberations in which he was precluded from participating. The public censure imposed by the Panel is an appropriate outcome in the circumstances of this case.

Conclusion

35 By sending the email on 9 March 2010 to his fellow councillors, Mr Yates committed a breach of reg 7(1)(a) of the Conduct Regulations, and thus a minor breach under s 5.105(1) of the LG Act. The minor breach is as found by the Panel. The public censure ordered by the Panel is an appropriate outcome in the circumstances of this case.

Orders

36 The Tribunal makes the following orders:

1. The application for review is dismissed.

2. The decision made by the respondent that the applicant committed a breach of reg 7(1)(a) of the Local Government (Rules of Conduct) Regulations2007 (WA) and that he be publicly censured is affirmed.

(Page 14)

3. Within the period of 29 days to 43 days from the day of this order, the Chief Executive Officer of the Town of Bassendean must arrange for the following Notice of Public Censure to be published, in no less than 10 point print:
(a) as a one­column or a two­column display advertisement in the first 15 pages of The West Australian newspaper; and

(b) as a one­column or a two­column display advertisement in the first 15 pages of the Eastern Suburbs Reporter newspaper.

(Page 15)

NOTICE OF PUBLIC CENSURE


The Local Government Standards Panel (the Panel) has made a finding that on 9 March 2010 COUNCILLOR DONALD YATES, a member of the Council of the Town of Bassendean, committed a breach of regulation 7(1)(a) of the Local Government (Rules of Conduct) Regulations 2007 in that he made improper use of his office as a Council member to gain directly or indirectly an advantage for an immediate next-door neighbour when he sent an email to his fellow Town Councillors giving wrong advice to them, and inappropriately lobbying or attempting to influence and putting pressure on them, in relation to a request by the neighbour to the Town of Bassendean to have the R coding of the neighbour's property in Thompson Road, Bassendean increased from residential R25 to R40 (the matter), knowing that he had a proximity interest in that matter, and knowing that he was precluded from participating in the discussions and the decision making procedure relating to that matter when it was before the Town's Council later on that date.
The Panel censures Councillor Yates for this breach of regulation 7(1)(a).

LOCAL GOVERNMENT
STANDARDS PANEL

I certify that this and the preceding [36] paragraphs comprise the reasons for decision of the State Administrative Tribunal.

___________________________________

JUDGE D R PARRY, DEPUTY PRESIDENT