At the October 2025 Conduct and Discipline Panel meeting four Licentiate members were found to have breached the Code of Professional Conduct.

All four cases related to APC submissions and in all cases the members were found to have not taken sufficient care in the preparation of their submissions. One member received a reprimand reflecting the high level of similarity in their APC submission compared to a colleague at the same employer. It was recommended that they had a 12-month delay in making a resubmission and that they should be included in CPD monitoring a year after they had become chartered. The three remaining members received no sanction given the relatively low levels of plagiarism identified and that all members had reflected and learnt from the experience. However, it was recommended that all three members had a 12-month delay in making a resubmission and that they should be included in CPD monitoring a year after they had become chartered. It was recommend that advice be provided to the employers of two of the members in relation to their role in supporting their colleagues when applying for Chartered Membership.

If Members have any queries concerning the Code of Professional Conduct they should contact Institute’s Complaints Investigator, by e mail: conduct@rtpi.org.uk.

At the May meeting of the RTPI’s Conduct and Discipline Panel seven members were found to have to have breached the RTPI Code of Professional Conduct.

Two cases related to members who had submitted their APCs and where plagiarism had been found in all or some of the elements of their submission. A range of issues were found within these cases including:

· The work completed may not have been their own (for example, a case study had been included in a previous submission by another member)

· The Professional Experience Statement had been copied from a previous candidate working within the same organisation

· The SWOT within the PDP had been copied from a previous candidate working within the same organisation, or someone known through other routes

· The PDP Objectives and Goals had been copied from a previous candidate working within the same organisation, or from a template provided by an employer

· That there was a lack of care taken to ensure that submissions were carefully checked and that draft documents were not submitted

The Panel found that there had been a lack of due care in the preparation of the APCs, but that there was no evidence of dishonesty. In both cases, the Panel did not impose a sanction and agreed not to name the members involved. They did however recommend to the Membership Applications Investigations Panel that all candidates should reflect on this process and that there should be a delay of six months before any fresh APC submission could be made. The Panel also noted that the reason that a higher sanction was not imposed was because the plagiarism was limited and still reflected the members’ personal circumstances. Had the plagiarism been more widespread and/or misleading, the Panel may have imposed some other sanction.

The Panel also found that Mr Chi Kwan David Lee had failed to respond to numerous requests to provide his CPD and PII monitoring information. Mr Lee has been suspended for 6 months and if he fails to provide the required information during that period his membership will be terminated.

Four further members were found to have breached the Code with regard to their planning practice. In the first case, the Panel found that a consultant member had failed to identify a conflict of interest and had acted for an objector to a planning application and then for the developer at the subsequent appeal. The member apologised for the failure to identify the conflict, had put procedures in place to identify potential conflicts and had refunded the fees charged. The Panel agreed to warn the member as to their future conduct without naming them in this published report.

In the second case, a consultant planner had failed to issue proper terms of engagement to the client, had not responded to the client over protracted periods and therefore that there was a lack of care when dealing with the client, had lied about progress on the commission both to the client and the local planning authority and had acted disingenuously in submitting a planning application which was lacking very basic information. The Panel noted that there was a significant impact on the client but also that the member had recognised the error, had apologised to the clients and had been experiencing difficult family circumstances. The Panel agreed to reprimand the member without naming them in this report.

In the third case, a member working for a local authority was found to have breached the Code by requesting that an email to a colleague concerning a planning application be deleted so as to avoid it

being disclosed in a Freedom of Information request. Other aspects of the complaint were not upheld however this matter was considered a breach of the Code with regard to a lack of integrity. The Panel agreed to warn the member as to their future conduct without naming them in the published report of the decision.

In the fourth case, a Licentiate member was found to have included misleading information about the provision of affordable homes in a flyer distributed to members of the public. The panel agreed that it was important that those acting for developers and landowners need to be careful about how information is presented, ensure it is accurate and not misleading. The Panel agreed not to award a sanction but to advise the member to take greater care in future to ensure that all documentation adequately and accurately reflected the development proposed.

The RTPI Conduct and Discipline Panel has found six members to have breached the RTPI Code of Professional Conduct at its recent Panel meeting.

In the first case, the Panel found that Mr Mark Harvey, of the Isle of Skye, had been found guilty of serious sex offences and had been sentenced to ten years in prison.  Mr Harvey had resigned his RTPI membership but was a member when the Institute became aware of the court decision.  The Panel agreed that, had Mr Harvey still been a member, his membership would have been terminated and to name him in the published report of the decision.

The Panel also found that five members who had submitted their Assessment of Professional Competence had plagiarised elements of their submission.  A range of issues were found within these cases including:

• The work completed may not have been their own (for example, a case study had been included in a previous submission by another member)
• The Professional Experience Statement had been copied from a previous candidate working within the same organisation
• The SWOT within the PDP had been copied from a previous candidate working within the same organisation, or someone known through other routes
• The PDP Objectives and Goals had been copied from a previous candidate working within the same organisation, or from a template provided by an employer

The Panel found that these submissions had been copied from other members’ submissions, and that there had been a lack of due care in the preparation of the APCs, but that there was no evidence of dishonesty.  In four cases, the Panel did not impose a sanction, and in one case issued a warning as to the member’s future conduct.  In all cases it was agreed not to name the members involved. The Panel also noted that the reason that a higher sanction was not imposed was because the plagiarism was limited and still reflected the members’ personal circumstances. Had the plagiarism been more widespread and/or misleading, the Panel may have imposed some other sanction.

The RTPI Conduct and Discipline Panel has found three members to have breached the RTPI Code of Professional Conduct at its recent Panel meeting.

In the first case, the Panel found that a member had provided misleading information within a prior approval submission to a local authority and had failed to identify errors in the drawings and reports submitted.  The member had failed to properly review those documents or acknowledge inaccuracies within them, and had failed to take responsibility for the submission of misleading information or to review their practice. Overall the standards the Panel would expect to demonstrate competency, and a member acting conscientiously and responsibly, had not been met and therefore they had failed in their professional responsibilities. The Panel agreed to warn the member without naming them in this published report.

The Panel also considered two cases where suspected plagiarism had been identified within the Professional Development Plan (PDP) element of the Assessment of Professional Competence submitted by two Licentiate members.  The Panel found that these submissions had been copied from other member’s submissions, and that there had been a lack of due care in the preparation of the PDPs, but that there was no evidence of dishonesty.  The Panel did not impose a sanction, but made a recommendation that the members should submit a completely fresh PDP after a six-month period of reflection on their personal development needs. The Panel also noted that the reason that a higher sanction was not imposed was because the plagiarism was limited and still reflected the members’ personal circumstances. Had the plagiarism been more widespread and/or misleading it may have imposed some other sanction.

The RTPI Conduct and Discipline Panel has found three members to have breached the RTPI Code of Professional Conduct at its recent Panel meeting.

In the first case, the Panel found that Mr Thijs Bax had failed to provide an adequate service to the complainant when they were facing enforcement action from the local authority.  In particular, he had failed to identify clearly the dates when development had been substantially complete, and had advised his clients to apply for Lawful Development Certificates when they had no chance of success.  Mr Bax had therefore failed to advise his clients appropriately and then presented a confusing and ill-conceived case. The Panel agreed to reprimand Mr Bax and to name him in this published report.

In the second case, a Head of Planning at a local authority was found to have provided insufficient oversight and support to a junior officer which resulted in a Committee Report containing substantial errors, a failure to address key policies and a failure to report consultation responses properly.  In failing to provide the appropriate level of oversight they did not act with due care and diligence and failed to meet their responsibilities to their employer and more junior staff.  As a result, the Panel agreed to warn the member as to their future conduct without naming them in the published report of the decision.

In the third case, a consultant member had referred to neighbours objecting to a development as NIMBYs and bigots in a public response to their objections.  The Panel noted that the comments were made on one occasion and that the member had admitted that it had been an error of judgement to do so but found that those comments were intemperate and unprofessional and therefore the member had breached the Code of Professional Conduct. The Panel agreed to warn the member as to their future conduct without naming them in the published report of the decision.

Ms Paula Onyia has had her membership of the Institute terminated.  Ms Onyia, a Licentiate member who has never been employed by the Institute, has been misrepresenting herself as “International Lead for the RTPI”.  The RTPI wrote to Ms Onyia requiring her to cease using this designation and, due to the potential impact on the reputation of the profession and the Institute, issued a Precautionary Suspension.  Ms Onyia has since continued to use the designation and failed to engage with the Institute’s disciplinary procedures.  As a result the Conduct and Discipline Panel found that Ms Onyia had failed to act with honesty and integrity, and had sought to mislead with regards to her position.

In a second complaint against Mr Mark Strawbridge and Studio Charrette, the Conduct and Discipline Panel has found that Mr Strawbridge has again breached the Code of Professional Conduct.  Mr Strawbridge was the only Director of Studio Charrette who was a member of the Institute and therefore was responsible for ensuring that the work of the company met the requirements of the Code of Professional Conduct.  The Panel found that the company only issued Terms and Conditions for their appointment after the client had agreed to retain them and paid the fees required.  Evidence was also provided that additional invoices for fees above the original quote were issued without being agreed in advance and that there was a lack of timely communications with the client.  Mr Strawbridge’s membership had already been suspended for a previous breach of the Code and the Panel agreed to extend that suspension until the end of May 2025.  Mr Strawbridge has subsequently resigned from membership of the Institute.

Following an appeal against the decision of the Conduct and Discipline Panel, Mr Mark Strawbridge has been found to have breached clauses 19 and 21 of the Code of Professional Conduct 2023 and has had his chartered membership of the Institute suspended until 28^th February 2025.  

Mr Mark Strawbridge was a Director of Studio Charrette planning consultancy, and the only Director with membership of the RTPI.  As a result responsibility lay with Mr Strawbridge to ensure that the work of the company met the requirements of the Code of Professional Conduct.   Those responsibilities included ensuring that the quality of work carried out by consultants was appropriate, that full and detailed terms of engagement were issued to all clients, that all advertising was appropriate and correct and that the correct RTPI logos were used in company material.  Whilst it did not fall to Mr Strawbridge to carry out all of the actions required to meet these requirements, there was an obligation as an employer or manager to take reasonable steps to ensure compliance with the Code.  The Appeal Committee found that Mr Strawbridge failed to discharge an appropriate level of responsibility for managing or supervising those who did undertake these activities and therefore Mr Strawbridge had breached clause 21) of the Code.

Whilst detailed pro forma Terms and Conditions were provided to the client and forwarded to the RTPI, there was no documentation provided to the RTPI that set out clearly the work to be undertaken at a specified cost and there was evidence that the client had not fully understood what services he was receiving.  The Appeal Committee noted that the normal company procedure was to discuss a project and to create a consultant’s pro forma dealing with the scope of work to be undertaken and the fees payable for it, however there was no evidence that this is what happened in the complainant’s case. As a result the Appeal Committee concluded that there was a breach of clause 15) of the Code. Mr Strawbridge was not personally responsible for issuing this documentation, but the failing is an example of a breach of clause 21) of the Code.

The Appeal Committee also found that Studio Charrette was responsible for the work undertaken and therefore needed to hold appropriate levels of Professional Indemnity Insurance, which was not held at the time the work was undertaken for the complainant.  This therefore is a breach of clause 19) of the Code, for which Mr Strawbridge was personally responsible. 

The Appeal Committee also found that advertising for Studio Charrette wrongly included referring to consultants as members of the RTPI, and that these errors were corrected once they had been raised.  However, it also found that as a Director of the company there remained a responsibility upon Mr Strawbridge to ensure that all advertising was correct, and that this responsibility was not discharged.

The decision to suspend Mr Strawbridge’s membership took into account the RTPI’s published Sanctions Guidance and a previous finding of a breach of the Code.

The RTPI Conduct and Discipline Panel has found two members to have breached the RTPI Code of Professional Conduct at its recent Panel meeting.

In the first case, the complainant alleged that the member had not properly identified a potential conflict of interest when an agricultural consultant was appointed, nor disclosed this possible conflict to their client.  In a separate complaint to their professional institute, the agricultural consultant had been found to have acted incorrectly.  The Panel found that the member should have taken a more active role in ensuring that no conflict of interest existed in the appointment of the consultant and should have taken a more cautious approach to the appointment once it had been identified that they had undertaken work for the complainant/neighbour less than a year earlier. The Panel agreed to warn the member without naming them in this published report.

In the second case, a member at a local authority had provided conflicting advice on heritage matters to the case officer on a series of planning applications for housing development on the same site.  The complainant was the applicant and owner of the site.  All three email responses to the planning applications stated that they provided the member’s formal consultation response and therefore all emails should have been readily available to review irrespective of whether the planning application was formally determined. The Panel found that the provision of a positive response to the second application reflected a lack of care in undertaking the work, although the Panel noted that this was probably due to the high workload held, the lack of additional staff within the team, and the need to triage applications in order that time could be allocated to schemes with a greater heritage impact.  The member should have properly reviewed the previous responses to the two previous schemes prior to providing the third set of comments, which were contrary to those given on the second application, but where the development was substantially the same.  Where the member had changed their views these should have been explained fully in the consultation response. The Panel noted that the provision of contradictory statements without any material changes to the application or new information to explain reaching a different view has impacted the applicant. As a result, the Panel agreed to warn the member as to their future conduct without naming them in the published report of the decision.

The RTPI Conduct and Discipline Panel has found a member to have breached the RTPI Code of Professional Conduct at its recent Panel meeting.

The complainant alleged that the member had not declared an interest when considering a planning application for a new petrol filling station, had failed to properly assess the proposal by considering the relevant policies within the Local Plan, and had not reported objections fully within the Planning Committee report. 

The Panel found that within the Committee Report key policies were not addressed, consultation responses were not adequately summarised or reported and that it contained other errors.  The Panel noted that the member did seek advice from colleagues and that this was the first major planning application that they had dealt with on behalf of a local planning authority, although more generally the member did have sufficient experience that would have placed expectations of them being able to complete the assessment to an appropriate standard. It was also noted that they took on the application after the previous case officer had taken sick leave, but that this did not remove the responsibility to carry out a competent assessment of the application.  The Panel also found that there was no conflict of interest as the member had discussed their previous experience of promoting petrol filling stations with their managers and had no association with the applicant. 

The Panel agreed to warn the member as to their future conduct without naming them in the published report of the decision.

The RTPI Conduct and Discipline Panel has found a consultant member to have breached the RTPI Code of Professional Conduct at its recent Panel meeting.

The complainant, a local authority councillor, alleged that the member had sent bullying and harassing emails in order to get the councillor to remove posts on their social media pages which advised their constituents of a planning application that the member had submitted.  The member argued that this had generated inappropriate comments that were not adequately managed and had complained to the Leader of the Council. 

The Panel found that it was not unreasonable for the councillor to post information on their social media sites to inform constituents of relevant planning applications within the ward, and it was also appropriate for the member to ask for them to be removed or amended. However the subsequent correspondence, and in particular the email to the Leader of the Council, used intemperate language and went beyond what would be a professional approach and therefore prejudiced their professional status or the reputation of the RTPI. The Panel found no evidence of bullying or harassment.

The Panel agreed to warn the member as to their future conduct without naming them in the published report of the decision.

Following an appeal against the decision of the Conduct and Discipline Panel, a member has been found to have breached clause 23 of the Code of Professional Conduct and has been warned as to their future conduct without being named in the published report.  

A complaint was made against the member which was investigated and during the course of that investigation additional information was requested from the member.  The Panel felt that the response was not as helpful as it could be and was rude and unprofessional towards the Panel and Institute staff. In addition, the member had failed to retain emails and other documents supporting their responses.  The member appealed against the Panel’s decision to issue a warning without naming them in the published report.

Like the Conduct and Discipline Panel, the Appeal Committee found no breach of the Code with regard to the original complaint.  With regard to the retention of documents, the Committee agreed that the member was operating at their own risk and therefore no breach of the Code was found but some clear advice was given that records should be kept for at least 7 years as litigation can take place up to six years after a commission. 

The Appeal Committee also found that the approach towards the complaint and the language used towards the Conduct and Discipline Panel, other professionals and Institute staff was rude and inappropriate and as a result was unprofessional and in breach of clause 23 of the Code of Professional Conduct 2016.   The member was reminded that the Code of Professional Conduct is an essential element of maintaining public trust in the planning profession and courtesy to this process is an important element of professionalism.  They were also advised to ensure that all of their correspondence uses language that reflects a professional approach to the subject irrespective of whether there is agreement with the subject matter.

Conduct and Discipline Panel Decision

The RTPI Conduct and Discipline Panel has found Mr Peter Lee, formerly of Hart District Council, to have breached the RTPI Code of Professional Conduct at its recent Panel meeting.

Mr Lee had admitted that he had issued replacement decision notices to correct errors in the originals issued and evidence had been provided that he was aware that neither he nor the local authority had the power to do so.  However, he continued to do so despite being reminded of this, without informing his manager or others within the local authority and this demonstrated a lack of honesty or integrity in his actions.  The Panel also found that Mr Lee had not taken due care by issuing incorrect decision notices, and that he showed a lack of insight into the ramifications of his actions both for his employer and for the profession as a whole. 

The Panel agreed to terminate Mr Lee’s membership and to name him in the published report of the decision.

Conduct and Discipline Panel Decisions

The RTPI Conduct and Discipline Panel has found a senior private sector planner based in the North East region to have breached the RTPI Code of Professional Conduct at its recent Panel meeting. The member had recently resigned from the Institute however as a complaint had already been made about their conduct the Panel were required by the Institute’s Complaints Procedures to decide the complaint as if they were still a member.

The consultant planner had admitted forging planning decisions in three local authority areas in the northeast of England and had accepted a police caution as a result of these offences. It was noted that the member did not gain any financial benefit from their actions.  In the early stages of the local authority investigation they had attempted to mislead, had deflected questions and attempted to blame others for their actions. The Panel found that the member was in a position of leadership and should have demonstrated the highest standards of professional behaviour but that the actions were the most severe case of a breach of faith of a Chartered Town Planner and agreed that were the planner still a member of the Institute, they would have terminated their membership.  The Panel felt that as there was evidence that the member was a vulnerable person due to current health issues, there were exceptional circumstances that warranted not naming the member.

In a separate complaint a consultant member was also found to have breached the Code by not identifying a potential conflict of interest at an early stage. The failure to alert other members of staff to an ongoing client relationship resulted in a breach of clauses 6 and 7 of the Code (2016 version).  The member was warned as to their future conduct without naming them in the published report of the decision.

If Members have any queries concerning the Code of Professional Conduct they should contact Institute’s Complaints Investigator, by e mail: conduct@rtpi.org.uk.

The RTPI Conduct and Discipline Panel has found a member of the Institute to be in breach of the RTPI Code of Professional Conduct at its recent Panel meeting.

The member had repeatedly used bullying and threatening language in correspondence with Institute staff which it was agreed was not appropriate for a professional.  As the correspondence had remained within the Institute it had not damaged the reputation of the Institute, but it had damaged the member’s professional status.  This was therefore a breach of Clause 23) of the Code of Professional Conduct which requires that: “Members are expected at all times to conduct themselves in a manner that does not prejudice their professional status or the reputation of the Chartered Institute”.   The member was reprimanded but without being named in the published report of the decision and asked to consider their written communication, language used and behaviour towards the Institute.

The RTPI Conduct and Discipline Panel has found a member of the Institute to have breached the RTPI Code of Professional Conduct at its recent Panel meeting.

Peter MacLeod, previously known as Kingsley Drinkwater, has been convicted of a serious criminal offence and has failed to hold Professional Indemnity Insurance for his planning consultancy services. As a result, the Panel found that Mr MacLeod had breached clause 19 of the Code which requires members to hold PII when they are engaged in professional practice, and clause 23 which requires members to conduct themselves in such a manner that does not prejudice their professional status or the reputation of the Chartered Institute. The Panel has terminated Mr MacLeod’s membership and he is no longer entitled to refer to himself as a Chartered Town Planner or use the post-nominals MRTPI.

The RTPI Conduct and Discipline Panel has found a member of the Institute to be in breach of the RTPI Code of Professional Conduct at its recent Panel meeting.

The member had started their own planning consultancy and took on unpaid work prior to obtaining Professional Indemnity Insurance (PII) for their activities.  The period without insurance was approximately two months.  As a result the Panel found the member had breached clause 19 of the Code which requires members to hold PII when they are engaged in professional practice, irrespective of whether they are being paid for their services.  The member was warned as to their future conduct without being named in the published report of the decision.

Following an appeal against the decision of the Conduct and Discipline Panel, Mr Philip Brown of Philip Brown Associates, based in Rugby, has been found to have breached clauses 4), 14) and 23) of the Code of Professional Conduct. 

Mr Brown commissioned an ecology assessment to support a planning application but then made significant changes to the report without making it clear which elements were his own, with the intention to mislead the local authority and others of the ecological appraisal of the proposed development. As a result there was evidence of plagiarism with improper accreditation of the material. By changing the report in the manner he had, the Appeal Committee found that Mr Brown had not acted with honesty and integrity, he had not discharged with due care and diligence his responsibilities to his client and others and in doing so had brought both the profession and reputation of the Institute into disrepute. 

Mr Brown’s membership of the Institute has been suspended until 31^st December 2022 and he has been asked to undertake training on professional ethics matters.

The RTPI Conduct and Discipline Panel has found three members of the Institute to be in breach of the RTPI Code of Professional Conduct at its recent Panel meetings.

In each of the decisions where a breach was found the Panel agreed that the members should not be named in the published report of the decisions.  These complaints were:

• A consultant member was found to have failed to respond to emails in a timely manner and to properly progress the scheme, and that they had failed to make clear the extent of the work that they were to undertake or to complete the work expected by the client. They were warned as to their future conduct. 
• A member who was working for a local authority was found to have not fully undertaken the necessary checks when signing off decisions and had not ensured that staff had carried out all the necessary stages required by the computer system. As a result decisions had been issued containing errors. The member was warned as to their future conduct.
• A student member had failed to progress the work commissioned by a client and had lied to managers concerning the work undertaken. The Panel were informed of a number of mitigating factors, and whilst the member had lost their job they retained the support of their ex-employer.  As a result the member was warned as to their future conduct. 

The Conduct and Discipline Panel has found that two members have breached the Code of Professional Conduct. 

The Panel found that the first member had repeatedly shown a lack of due care and diligence by relying on information provided by their client, which was material to the proposed development, and without checking that information against other sources that were readily available.  This included whether protected species were present on the site, the ownership of the land and the date that structures had been present and then removed. 

The second case involved a local authority planner who had failed to take due care when assessing the nature of a development proposal.  This had led to a failure to assess properly whether a development was a major or minor application, to undertake the appropriate consultation and publicity, and to assess the information that was required to meet local and national validation requirements.  The Panel accepted that there were mitigating circumstances which impacted the member.     

In both instances the Panel agreed to warn the member without naming them in the published report.

The May Conduct and Discipline Panel found Mr Gareth Rennie of Hafod Planning Consultants has breached the Code of Professional Conduct and has terminated his membership. The Panel found that Mr Rennie had failed to provide his client with a reasonable service, had failed to act with honesty and integrity in his attempt to cover up his lack of action and had continued to use the RTPI logo and his postnominals whilst he was suspended from membership. That suspension was a result of a similar breach of the Code. As a result Mr Rennie is no longer a Chartered Member of the Institute and cannot use the post-nominals MRTPI.

The Conduct and Discipline Panel has found that a member has breached the Code of Professional Conduct.

The complaint alleged that our member had failed to take due care when discharging their duty to their clients and others by writing to a planning committee with incorrect information. The member had failed to properly research an unusual and technical matter and in doing so provided, as a fact, incorrect information to the planning committee in order to gain planning permission for their client. This could have had a major effect on the neighbouring landowner. The Panel agreed that this had resulted in a breach of clause 14 of the Code which requires members to act with due care and diligence, and agreed to reprimand the member without naming them in this published report.

In addition, Mr Michael Firth of Newcastle has had his membership terminated for failing to provide his Continuing Professional Development record and Professional Development Plan. Mr Firth was suspended in August 2020 and was required to provide these documents during the six month suspension, however they were not submitted. As a result Mr Firth is no longer a Chartered Member of the Institute and cannot use the post-nominals MRTPI.

The RTPI Conduct and Discipline Panel has found four members of the Institute to be in breach of the RTPI Code of Professional Conduct at its recent Panel meetings.

• The Panel has found Mrs Gill Makin of GM Planning Services, based in Devon, to have breached the Code of Professional Conduct and suspended her membership for a year. Mrs Makin admitted falsifying an ecology report that she submitted with a planning application contrary to clause 4) of the Code with regards to acting with honesty.
  
  
• Following an appeal against the decision of the Conduct and Discipline Panel, Mr Peter Le Grys of Stanfords in Essex has been found to have breached clause 14) of the Code by not acting with due care and diligence when submitting material to a local planning authority. When submitting a planning application he made incorrect statements about connecting to the main sewer system, and then provided additional incorrect information about existing drainage fields.  Both the Panel and the Appeal Committee agreed that he should be reprimanded and named in the published report. 

Within the remaining complaints where a breach was found the Panel agreed that the members should not be named in the published report of the decisions.  These complaints were:

• A consultant member was found to have not acted with due care and had breached the data protection regulations. They had forwarded an email that contained private information – the name, address, telephone number and email address of an objector to a planning application – to their client. They were warned as to their future conduct.
  
  
• A member who was working for a local authority was found to have not properly declared, on the correct form, hospitality he had received from developers active in the area. As the member was in a senior position they should have been aware of the required procedures and the perception of impropriety in not following them. The member was warned as to their future conduct.

At the July 2025 Conduct and Discipline Panel meeting six members were found to have breached the Code of Professional Conduct.

Four cases related to APC submissions, and two of those members were found to have not taken sufficient care in the preparation of their submissions in that they had drawn from previous submissions, generally from those at the same employer. Both received no sanction, but it was recommended that they had a 12-month delay in making a resubmission and that they should be included in CPD monitoring a year after they had become chartered. Two members were found to have acted without integrity in addition to not taking sufficient care as they had denied that they had copied from a previous submission, however in both cases there was a high level of similarity and there could be no other explanation for the exact reproduction of the material. One member received a warning and one received a reprimand, with neither being named in the published report. In addition, it was recommended that both members had a 12-month delay in making a resubmission and that they should be included in CPD monitoring a year after they had become chartered.

In a further complaint, two members working for the same planning consultancy were found to have a conflict of interest in initially acting for objectors to a development proposal and then taking on the appeal against the refusal of planning permission. Whilst the work was undertaken by different members and there were some arrangements made to separate the work, there was evidence of liaison between them in that the second member was briefed by the first member of staff, therefore breaking any ethical barriers put in place.

A further two members were also found to have breached the Code but they have submitted appeals and therefore these matters will be reconsidered by an Appeal Committee.

If Members have any queries concerning the Code of Professional Conduct they should contact Institute’s Complaints Investigator, by e mail: conduct@rtpi.org.uk.