TWO Newton councillors have landed themselves in hot water for breaking council rules.

Clr Neil Taylor has been suspended for a month and Clr Peter Astbury has been censured after a complaint was made to a top council watchdog.

The sanctions came following a row over the Parkside development.

Recently appointed executive member Clr Taylor was given the most severe punishment after failing to declare that he owned a house close to the site.

And Clr Astbury was given a slap on the wrist for campaigning against the scheme.

They will both have to make

public apologies and undergo code of conduct training.

The members declined to speak to the Newton and Golborne Guardian as they said they were considering an appeal.

The events centre around complaints made to the Standards Board for England last summer.

Earlestown councillor Keith Deakin alleged that the pair failed to declare personal and prejudicial interest when discussing a council item concerning Parkside.

He said they had arranged a meeting to generate opposition to the Parkside development and formed a campaign group against the proposal.

A month later, when the council considered a Local Development Framework report, the two Liberal Democrats moved for an amendment that the report be withdrawn and all references to the Rail Freight Interchange removed.

Clr Deakin also claimed that Clr Taylor had a possible financial interest, as his house on Banastre Drive stands next to the site.

And he suggested that Clr Astbury had posted information on a website saying he had delivered thousands of leaflets and was coordinating a campaign against Parkside.

Angela Sanderson, deputy monitoring officer, concluded that there was no evidence to indicate that the meeting was arranged 'to generate opposition' to Parkside or that either councillor belonged to a group campaigning against the development.

But she said: "Up to the time of interview, Clr Taylor had not declared his ownership of a property in Banastre Drive in the Register of Members' Interests.

"This in itself is a breach of the Code of Conduct.

"My view is that a member of the public would reasonably regard ownership of the family home so close to the site as so significant that it would be likely to prejudice judgement of the public interest."

She also said that that Clr Astbury was a leading campaigner in his own right and should have left the July 13 council meeting.

ndocking@guardiangrp.co.uk