A Forest of Dean councillor should be censured for their conduct and barred from chairing committees for three years, a standards panel has recommended.

Cllr Philip Burford, the Independent member for Hartpury and Redmarley, had three complaints against him upheld .

The specific nature of the complaints remain a secret for now as the press and public were excluded for most of the hearing.

However, the standards panel reconvened in public to air their findings.

Cllr Burford was found in breach of the code of conduct for not treating others with respect, failing to declare an interest and failing to act in accordance with the public trust placed in him.

And for using his position to exert influence on an officer or attempt to undermine their impartiality in a planning enforcement case.

He was also found in breach for attempting to use his position improperly to confer on or secure for himself an advantage as chairman of the overview and scrutiny committee.

Gilmour Frew, who chaired the panel, asked Cllr Burford, who was assisted by fellow Independent Councillor Simon Phelps (Westbury-on-Severn) and Reform UK councillor Stuart Graham (Cinderford East), if he wished that the public and press be excluded.

However, Cllr Burford replied saying he believed the hearing should go ahead in public.

“It is my long held view that whatever happens within a council should not be private, it should not be secret, it should not be conducted behind closed doors,” he said.

“I’m quite happy to defend my position in public. I would hope that the panel would accept that view.”

The independent investigator said she was happy either way and the independent person said they should seek to have the hearing in public but some consideration should be given to the witnesses who may be called.

However, barrister Sam Fowles told the meeting that the hearing would “likely to concern personal information belonging to living individuals”.

“This is a substantial report put together by the independent investigator,” he said.

“It concerns the personal data of a substantial number of individuals, some of whom are complainants, some of whom are witnesses.”

Panel member Simon Newsam agreed that the hearing should not be held in public.

“There is potential for sensitive personal data here,” he said.

The rest of the panel agreed. And they proceeded to exclude the public.

While the press and public were excluded, six councillors, who were not part of the panel, remained in the public gallery to listen and observe the hearing.

The public was allowed to return more than five hours later to hear the panel’s findings.

The chairman said the panel accepted that there was a “difficult relationship” between Cllr Burford and the complainant.

“There may have been problematic behaviour on both sides,” Mr Frew said.

“The panel also notes the subject member’s explanation for his conduct. These will all be considered as mitigating factors.”

However, he said the panel could not ignore the “large number of witnesses who corroborate the findings of fact”.

“On that basis the panel finds, on the balance of probabilities, the evidence supports the investigator’s findings of facts.”

“The panel agrees with and upholds the investigator’s first conclusion in respect to complaint one and therefore the panel finds the subject member has breached the code of conduct.”

Cllr Burford was asked if he had a view on which sanctions, if any, the panel should consider recommending to full council for his breaches of the code of conduct.

Regarding two of the complaints, he felt senior officers failed to discharge a duty of care to him.

“It would only have taken a monitoring officer to suggest I shouldn’t chair that meeting and I wouldn’t have done,” he said.

“It would have only taken the chief executive or head of paid service to suggest that and I wouldn’t have done.

“With regard to the first complaint about failing to treat a planning officer with respect, this is a two way street.

“I thought I was extremely tolerant of his behaviour over a number of years. The fact he was keeping a file on my activities for eight years should be testament to that.

“The very fact that he was going to senior officers during that entire period and they were not coming to me with those concerns should have a massive impact on the situation.

“On both counts, I feel extraordinarily let down by senior officers of this council.

“A cautionary tale to anyone who wants to embark on a life of public service as a councillor.”

He said he felt no sanction should be applied.

“The investigator says I should never chair development management or scrutiny,” Cllr Burford added.

“It is extraordinarly unlikely in the current political climate that I would do either.”

The panel retired to discuss in private the sanctions they should recommend to full council.

On their return, Mr Frew said they recommended a formal censure by motion with a recommendation that Cllr Burford does not serve as chair or vicechair of any committees for three years.

The panel’s findings would also be published.

“That concludes the panel’s deliberations,” Mr Frew said.

“Thank you all for coming. All done and dusted, thank you.”