PROMINENT Farnham coun-cillor Victor Scrivens faces an anxious wait to learn of his punishment for breaching the town council's code of conduct.

Mr Scrivens, a former Mayor of Farnham and current Farnham town and Waverley borough councillor, was found at an official hearing last week to have breached the code twice. Waverley's portfolio holder for housing, Mr Scrivens was cleared of a third breach.

The Herald understands that one of the breaches was reported to the Standards Board for England by fellow Liberal Democrat town and borough councillor Victor Duckett, whose partner Janet Maines had reported Mr Scrivens' wife Sheila to the Standards Board for a similar breach, upheld in July.

The other complainants were former town and current Waverley Lib Dem councillor Willy Marshall, who resigned as a town councillor during the meeting which prompted his complaint, and Conservative town and borough councillor Pat Frost.

The Adjudication Panel for England, which handles more serious alleged breaches of council codes than councils' own standards committee panels, was this week expected to announce the date when it will convene to decide Mr Scrivens' fate.

The maximum punishment the panel can give is a five-year disqualification. In Mr Scrivens' case, this would be from Farnham Town Council, not Waverley. The minimum sanction would be a partial suspension, for example, being barred from sitting on a particular council committee.

After an eight-hour hearing at the Ramada Jarvis Hotel, on the Hogs Back, the three-member panel decided Mr Scrivens should be punished for two counts of failing to disclose a personal interest, failing to withdraw from a meeting when he had a prejudicial interest and improperly seeking to influence a decision.

As was the case when Sheila Scrivens was officially censured for the same charge in July, his undoing, on one charge, was failing to leave the council chamber during discussions about a grant application from the New Farnham Repertory Company (NFRC).

The other upheld allegation relates to Mr Scrivens leading objections to a planning application submitted by a member of the public with whom he had had a public row a year earlier. The row had resulted in his being investigated for, and subsequently cleared of, bringing the council into disrepute.

Until the summer, the Scrivens' had owned Measure for Measure, a costume hire shop which had loaned to and cleaned costumes for the NFRC at a heavily discounted price.

When Farnham Town Council's amenities committee met in January last year to discuss an application for funds from the NFRC, Mr Scrivens declared a personal interest, but, given his connections with theatre group, should also have declared prejudicial interest and left the chamber during discussions. Instead he spoke on the matter, seconded a motion and voted on it.

Cross examined by barrister David Abrahams at last Thursday's hearing of the Adjudication Panel for England, Mr Scrivens rejected the idea that he had given "considerable help" to the NFRC, despite only charging them £600 for costume cleaning and repairs compared to the going rate he estimated of about £3,000.

Mr Scrivens also refuted Mr Abrahams' suggestion that he is an NFRC "volunteer", which was how he was described on a website linked with the theatre group.

The other upheld allegation related to Mr Scrivens' conduct during a Farnham Town Council plans panel meeting in March last year.

The panel was considering a planning application from the owners of a shop at No 22 Downing Street for listed building consent.

A year earlier, Mr Scrivens had challenged one of the owners, a 22-year-old woman, about a vehicle which was parked outside the shop, and in Mr Scrivens' opinion, was causing an obstruction.

The woman claimed Mr Scrivens became aggressive and reported him to the Standards Board for England, who, in July 2002, cleared him of failing to treat others with respect and bringing the council into disrepute.

Last week the adjudication panel upheld an allegation that Mr Scrivens should have declared a personal and prejudicial interest in regard to the planning application and left the council chamber. Instead, Mr Scrivens led objections to the planning application, conveyed to planning authority Waverley council.

Mr Scrivens' barrister, Gordon Nardell, argued that the name of the applicant had not appeared on the documents before councillors that night, but Mr Abrahams countered that Mr Scrivens had demonstrated knowledge of the premises when he had uttered "the hairdressers" in reference to the planning application.

Mr Nardell said Mr Scrivens felt no "antagonism, hostility or embarrassment" toward the applicant.

But, hinting that there could have still been animosity, Mr Abrahams added that Mr Scrivens, in a Herald article in July 2002, had described the woman's comments about Mr Scrivens having been aggressive as "silly" and that he wasn't prepared to address them.

Mr Scrivens was cleared of a third complaint, that he failed to disclose a personal interest during a grant application from St Andrew's Church.

It had been alleged that as a St Andrew's worshipper and nominated church sidesman – someone who, among other duties, hands out hymn books – Mr Scrivens should have declared a personal interest.

Mr Scrivens wished to make no comment after the hearing.