A COUNCILLOR suspended after he allegedly failed to declare personal or conflicting interests when sitting on committees launched a "unique" High Court challenge on Monday.  Victor Scrivens, a member of Farnham Town and Waverley Borough Councils, was suspended by the decision of the Ethical Standards Officer of the Adjudication Panel for England in December last year. The officer ruled that Mr Scrivens had failed to declare "prejudicial interest and personal interest," when sitting on the amenities commission and the finance and general purposes group for Farnham Town Council, and the planning panel for Waverley.  But Mr Scrivens' counsel, Gordon Nardell, insisted at London's High Court that he had acted "rationally" in continuing to sit on all the committees. The court heard Mr Scrivens had been part of the panel considering a finance application by St Andrew's Parish Church, Farnham, despite the fact that he was a dedicated member of the church's congregation, and had just accepted an appointment as "honorary sidesman" of the church.  He also sat on a funding application by a local theatre company to which his business had sold costumes, and which used his shop as a box office, free of charge. In this case he declared a personal interest, but the officer ruled he should have also declared a "conflicting interest".  Thirdly, he sat on the planning panel for Waverley Council, considering an application by a Farnham householder against whom, it had been complained, Mr Scrivens was allegedly conducting a "vendetta." Mr Nardell called the allegations regarding the planning application "esoteric", adding: "There was no pecuniary or tangible connection with the individual or the premises in question, but a vague fear that a member of the public might ascribe embitterment, hostility or antagonism to Mr Scrivens."  He told the court Mr Scrivens had acted "rationally" in continuing to sit on all three panels. In relation to the theatre group allegation, the barrister said: "It was perfectly open to a rational councillor to conclude that the interests of transparency were sufficiently served by the declaration of a personal interest."  Mr Scrivens was left in suspense when Mr Justice Stanley Burnton reserved his judgement in the case.  He will now give his ruling at a later, unspecified, date.