Agenda and minutes

Fiona Barber was confirmed as Chair for the meeting.

There were no apologies for absence.

Members will be asked to declare any interests they may have in the business to be discussed on the agenda.

There were no apologies for absence.

There were no items of urgent business.

Under the law, the Sub-Committee is entitled to consider certain items in private. Members of the public will be asked to leave the meeting when such items are discussed.

The Sub-Committee is recommended to consider the following reports in private on the grounds that they contain ‘exempt’ information as defined by the Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985, and consequently that the Sub-Committee makes the following resolution:-

“that the press and public be excluded during consideration of the following report in accordance with the provisions of Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, as amended, because it involves the likely disclosure of 'exempt' information, as defined in the Paragraphs detailed below of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Act and, taking all the circumstances into account, it is considered that the public interest in maintaining the information as exempt outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information”

Paragraph 1

Information relating to any individual

Paragraph 2

Information which is likely to reveal the identity of an individual.

Paragraph 7a

Information which is subject to any obligation of confidentiality.

Paragraph 7c

The deliberations of a standards committee or of a sub-committee of a standards committee established under the provisions of Part 3 of the Local Government Act 2000 in reaching any finding on a matter referred under the provisions of section 60(2) or (3), 64(2), 70(4) or (5).

The meeting moved into Private Session to consider firstly, whether the rest of the hearing should be in private or not and secondly whether the papers should retain confidentiality for the duration of the hearing.

The Monitoring Officer recommended that the meeting be conducted in public as there was no overwhelming reason why proceedings should be held in private. In relation to the papers which comprised the complaint it was advised those should retain their status of being private as they contained matters for which there would be a reasonable expectation of confidentiality, however the investigators report suitably anonymised could be made public following the meeting if findings were made on a breach of code of conduct and upheld by the Standards Committee due to convene after the hearing.

It was noted that the Complainant had been approached by the Monitoring Officer and had stated that they were comfortable for the meeting to be undertaken in Public Session in the knowledge that their names would be referred to.

The Sub-Committee addressed the Appellant, Councillor Kitterick, in which he had noted that he was comfortable to proceed in Public Session.

The Sub-Committee were agreed that the meeting should reconvene in public session for the purpose of openness and transparency and that the confidentiality of the papers should be retained until the outcome of the hearing.

RESOLVED:

1.    That the press and public be permitted to remain in the meeting for consideration of the complaint against a Councillor,

2.    That the papers for the meeting remain private as they are deemed to contain “exempt” information, in accordance with the provisions of Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, as amended and as defined in the Paragraph detailed below of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Act, and taking all circumstances into account, it was considered that the public interest in maintaining the information as exempt outweighed the public interest in disclosing the information.

Paragraph 1

Information relating to any individual

Paragraph 2

Information which is likely to reveal the identity of an individual

Paragraph 7a

Information which is subject to any obligation of confidentiality

Paragraph 7c

The deliberations of a standards committee or of a sub-committee of a standards committee established under the provisions of Part 3 of the Local Government Act 2000 in reaching any finding on a matter referred under the provisions of section 60(2) or (3), 70(4) or (5).

The Monitoring Officer submits the procedure to be followed during hearings of an investigator’s report regarding complaints against Councillors.

The Sub-Committee is asked to note the procedure.

RESUMED IN PUBLIC SESSION

The Monitoring Officer submitted and summarised the hearing panel procedure.

RESOLVED:

That the Hearing Panel Procedure be noted.

The Monitoring Officer submits a report submits a report to enable the Standards Hearing Sub-Committee to consider a complaint against a councillor following a decision of the Standards Advisory Board on 9 July 2025.

The Monitoring Officer submitted a report providing details of an investigation into a complaint against Councillor Kitterick made by Strategic Director for City Development and Neighbourhoods, Richard Sword, and of the Standards process so far leading to a Hearing Sub-Committee to take place.

The Investigator, Mr Alex Oram, introduced the report, setting out the nature of the complaint against Councillor Kitterick and the details of his investigations together with a view on whether the alleged conduct took place.

The report set out whether the conduct amounted to a breach of the code of conduct and the Investigator explained how he had reached his conclusions, establishing that Councillor Kitterick did act as alleged and within his councillor capacity and as such the code of conduct had been breached.

The Sub-Committee were invited to raise any questions on the facts outlined in the report. Members did not have any questions in regard to the report.

Councillor Kitterick was invited to raise any questions on the facts outlined in the report, during which, he highlighted the following points:

·       The briefing Microsoft Teams briefing invite where the alleged code breach occurred, the PowerPoint presentation and alternative forms of communication via email or interview following the briefing did not explicitly state that it was private and confidential. Councillor Kitterick raised concern that the balance of probability, being the standard of proof by which the alleged breach was being tested, was based on the recollection of the parties present; not substantive evidence, and that greater importance had been placed on the witness statement.

·       Councillor Kitterick believed that it was in the public interest that the contents of the briefing be disclosed to the public as he did not believe the public had been consulted widely enough on the topic.

·       Councillor Kitterick called into question the behaviour and recollection of the complainant and witnesses, in which they had stated that they were ‘surprised’ at him being unhappy with the briefing, when it was considered common knowledge that he often held strong concerns regarding National Designated Space Standards (NDSS).

·       Concern was raised regarding the changes in wording in the report, where ‘Chris presided over the worst housing delivery in city history’ to ‘worst Director of Housing’. Councillor Kitterick stated that he had not said ‘worst Director of Housing’ to his recollection and had there been contemporaneous notes taken at the time of, or after the meeting, it would have been considered a greater level of evidence.

·       Councillor Kitterick raised concern about the use of similar or same wording used by the complainant and witnesses involved in the complaint and further highlighted the insinuation of a mental health condition, which he clarified did not exist.

·       Attention was drawn to the wordings regarding the sizing of the units for the Yoho Building. The report stated that the units were ‘slightly smaller’ than the National Designated Space Standards. The units themselves were measured at 23 square-meters compared to the NDSS requirement of 37 square-meters, which Councillor Kitterick emphasised was not a  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.