Allegations of bribery in local government are serious, but what happens when no formal investigation follows?
A recent scandal involving Slough Borough Council and claims of cash-for-planning-permission has raised concerns – but also demonstrated that the proper channels for handling such accusations were followed.
What happened?
An email from an architecture firm to Slough Borough Council on March 15, raised concerns about alleged bribery. Reports suggested that three property developers were approached and asked to pay £500,000 each to have their planning applications approved—an impressive total of £1.5 million.
Recognising the severity of these claims, the Conservative-led council took immediate action, forwarding the letter to Thames Valley Police. While critics have focused on the lack of a formal investigation, it is noteworthy that the companies reacted quickly and correctly by alerting the council and the council acted responsibly by escalating the matter to law enforcement.
Some immediate fallout
Just weeks later, Slough’s chief planning councillor, Iftakhar Ahmed, resigned—though he claims it had nothing to do with the bribery allegations. Conservative council leader Cllr Dexter Smith also took decisive steps, removing all Tory members from the planning committee as a precautionary measure. While these actions fall short of an investigation and do not confirm wrongdoing, they do show a commitment to transparency and public confidence in the system.
No investigation – but no cover-up
Despite the serious nature of the claims, both Thames Valley Police and the Council determined there was not enough evidence to launch an investigation. The police stated that “no evidence has been identified” to support the claims, while the council noted that the letter lacked specific details, such as named individuals or direct proof of misconduct. In such cases, they say that officials are limited in what they can formally investigate.
Slough Labour MP Tan Dhesi has been vocal in demanding a full police investigation, arguing that the public deserves transparency in local government. He is quoted as saying, “With trust in politics so low, it’s abhorrent that Conservative councillors in Slough have allegedly leveraged their privileged position to demand huge bribes for planning permissions.”
But in what could be seen as a win for public accountability, the Information Commissioner’s Office forced the Council to release a redacted version of the original letter following an appeal by the Slough Observer. In an accidental oversight, the council also sent an unredacted version to the press, revealing the full extent of the concerns raised. Still, the whistleblower’s identity has been kept anonymous and the disclosure does demonstrate the importance of transparency in government.
A process that worked?
The controversy comes at a tricky time. Slough Borough Council is in the process of considering plans to build a large data centre on Green Belt land. There is no indication of bribery in that specific case but the allegations have cast a shadow over the council’s planning decisions.
The email that sparked the scandal seemed to indicate a pattern of anonymous demands for cash in exchange for planning approvals. No direct evidence has surfaced but the consistency of the reports raised alarm bells at least within the architecture firm that reported them.
The lack of a formal investigation is frustrating to some but the reality is that both the council and the police followed the proper procedures. The council acted in accordance with its legal obligations, passed the concerns to law enforcement. The police, after reviewing the information, found no grounds to proceed.
The council took precautionary steps within its ranks and released information to the public when required. Though no conclusive wrongdoing has been proven, the response shows that the system is designed to handle such allegations seriously.
No further action is being taken for now. Still, this case serves as a reminder that even unproven allegations can shake public confidence and that vigilance is required to maintain integrity in local government.
Download our comprehensive guide to Risk mitigation for bribery.
