Hadleigh town council has voted to defy a legal decision made against it, during a row about a conflict of interest involving one of its councillors.

During the discussion Hadleigh mayor Gordon McLeod also alleged the Babergh monitoring officers 'have been making dubious decisions', which has raised concerns across the district.

Cllr Beggerow, who is the treasurer of Hadleigh United and a town councillor, was found to have breached the councillors' code by voting and taking part in decisions at meetings regarding the proposed 3G pitch at Layham Road Sports Ground as his role with the football club was a clear conflict of interest and could benefit an organisation he has close association with.

Cllr Beggerow is also committee member and supporter of the football team, regularly travelling to away games as well as being involved at home match days.

Although Cllr Beggerow was advised by both SALC and Babergh Monitoring Office that he could have a non-registrable interest due to his close association with the football club, and therefore should leave the room, he interpreted differently and was subsequently sanctioned.

Hadleigh United treasurer and town councillor Rolf Beggerow

Due to the conflict of interest Cllr Beggerow was told to attend further councillor training, particularly in regards to the code of conduct, which he has signed up to.

As part of the code of conduct decision upheld against Cllr Rolf Beggerow, Babergh's legal team recommended Hadleigh town council reviewed decisions he took part in regarding Layham Road Sports Ground, in particular the 3G pitch.

Councillors discussed the items at a full council meeting last Thursday and voted unanimously against reviewing the decisions made, and also those in the room felt Cllr Beggerow had not breached the code, despite the monitoring officer's decision..

Along with Cllrs Roberts, and Wiltshire, Cllr Beggerow left the room while the agenda items concerning his breach and Babergh's recommendations were discussed.

Hadleigh council took advice from the Suffolk Association of Local Councils, which is a private membership association, and solicitors

Councillors who voted on the issue were: Cllrs McLeod, Brian Loftus, Gail Pryor, Rickaby Shearley-Sanders, Carol Schleip and Sue Monks.

Cllr Rickaby Shearly-Sanders refused to accept Babergh decision

Cllr Loftus stated that as people already knew Cllr Beggerow was the football club's treasurer he didn't see any point in going over the decisions and his fellow councillors agreed..

Cllr Shearly-Sanders then attacked the code of conduct decision and said: "The Monitoring Officer has given no evidence to support this decision and he may not have had sufficient evidence and appears [to] probably know nothing about Hadleigh.

"He uses language when he says, a member of the public, hypothesising, that a member of the public, knowing all the facts, and he hasn't explained all the background facts to what was going on would reasonably believe that it would, not could, but would, has made a definite decision without adequate, to my mind, facts. Some of the background facts, she obviously doesn't know much about Hadleigh, which is relevant, obviously because of the extent of your close proximity to what was going on."

Cllr Monks added: "Rolf has always acted with integrity and we've always known he's the treasurer of the football club. He can support something without automatically being predetermined he's got no vested interest in it, the pavilion and pitch is of community benefit, it's a benefit to Hadleigh, it's not a benefit to Rolf. I just feel, no I don't think there is any course of action for these decisions, he has demonstrated always when we were discussing things like, the pitch, the quality of what's going on the ground, he's open to ideas and discussions. So, absolutely I think this is appalling."

Cllr Loftus said: "I totally agree with Rickaby's wording, it's pretty much what I was just about to say, I think that the author's comments are quite specific in laying down what he believes the code of conduct says he wrote it, he should know what it's about rather than the Deputy Monitoring Officer."

Cllr McLeod said: "I only wish that the Deputy Monitoring Officer had read it."

Cllr Loftus then suggested: "We do need to sort out the policy, right and wrong, because we have two different approaches at the moment from the deputy monitoring officer and the author of the code of conduct policy and that can't be allowed to continue, otherwise the same issues will come up again.

Cllr McLeod concluded: "To tell the truth I believe that it has been cropping up with other councils in Suffolk and it's being addressed as we speak, because its Monitoring Officers have been making dubious decisions and it's actually being looked at quite seriously."