FOUR Withypool and Hawkridge parish councillors have been ordered to apologise to an elderly couple after they spray-painted their property in a misguided attempt to "reclaim" a strip of land on behalf of the village.

Parish council chairman Alan Collins was joined by vice-chairman David Bawden and fellow councillors Keith Branfield and Pat Williams when he sprayed a line on a Tarmacadam path owned by John and Maureen Walters of Withypool.

Cllr Collins also drove two metal poles through the path as he believed the couple had illegally encroached on land which formed part of the neighbouring parish garden.

He told a hearing panel of West Somerset Council's standards committee earlier this month that he had been trying to mark out a new boundary at the time of the incident on August 27, 2009.

But subsequent legal advice proved the couple did own the land they had covered with Tarmacadam, having bought it from the parish council in 2002.

Cllr Collins had been one of the signatories on the transfer document.

Mr and Mrs Walters complained that the actions of all four councillors had breached the national code of conduct which governs the behaviour of all local authority elected members.

They said they had not been informed about the parish councillors' planned visit to mark out a new boundary and, by spray-painting and driving in posts, the councillors had deliberately defaced and damaged their property.

They said said all four councillors had behaved in a discourteous manner which had caused them "much upset and distress".

A full investigation was subsequently carried out and the findings were presented to the district council's hearing panel on April 14.

Both the complainants and the councillors were given the opportunity to speak at the hearing, which set out to establish the facts and whether the code had been breached.

Cllr Collins denied he had been aggressive or offensive to the couple but accepted he had called octogenarian Mr Walters "a naughty boy".

He said he was friends with Mr and Mrs Walters and the comment had been made "between two friends".

He said he had been to see Mr and Mrs Walters previously about the boundary and refused to accept the couple and the parish council were involved in an ongoing boundary dispute.

"We believed we acted in the parish's best interests. Although upset was caused, it caused us upset as well because we didn't want anything like this to happen," Cllr Collins said.

He said the parish council had not intended to sell the disputed piece of land to Mr and Mrs Walters and blamed the parish clerk for mistakenly including it in the deal in 2002.

"If we had known it was their land we would not have been there," he said.

Cllr Collins was adamant he had not breached the code of conduct as at the time of the incident he was convinced the land in question belonged to the parish.

He said the hearing panel proceedings were "out of proportion" to the incident and that the investigating panel had "missed the point".

"We were just marking our boundary. There was no dispute. We were doing this on our own ground," he said.

Cllr Bawden said Cllr Collins had taken the lead on August 27 and had taken a hammer, two metal posts and paint to the parish garden.

He said he did not get involved "in any action" and had identified himself to Mr and Mrs Walters when challenged.

"I thought the chairman was going to make an appointment with Mr and Mrs Walters to have a meeting.

"Afterwards, we took legal advice and it would appear they owned the land and we may have possibly trespassed," Mr Bawden said.

He said Mr and Mrs Walters and been "fortunate" to buy the land from the parish council which had enabled them to build "extensive stables".

He said Cllr Collins' "naughty boy" comment had not been made in an offensive manner but accepted all four councillors had gone to the land with the intention of marking out what they believed to be the correct boundary.

He conceded Mr and Mrs Walters had not been given advance warning of the parish council's intentions.

Cllr Branfield confirmed the parish council believed the parish garden boundary was in the wrong place and said Cllr Collins had been to see Mr and Mrs Walters about marking out a correct boundary.

"I had only been on the parish council a short time and . . . I had no reason to disbelieve my fellow councillors. I was there to support the chairman in his actions," Cllr Branfield said.

He said the parish council had decided to intervene two days before the "site visit" to mark out a new boundary and said he did not think Mr and Mrs Walters needed to be informed in advance as the land was part of the parish garden.

"We're all rural people. We're not thugs of ruffians. We're all farmers on Exmoor.

"We were there to protect a piece of ground we are trustees of as parish councillors.

"There were no raised voices and there was no shouting."

He said the minutes of the January 6, 2009 parish council meeting confirmed Cllr Collins had met Mr and Mrs Walters and "they were clear where the boundary lay".

"I assumed they would have been aware at some stage we would be doing this," Cllr Branfield said.

Cllr Williams - who initially wanted to have the hearing panel proceedings held in secret - also maintained Mr and Mrs Walters had been aware of the parish council's intentions to mark out a new boundary with stakes.

She was equally adamant the disputed land was part of the parish garden, despite a solicitor's letter being written on behalf of her and her fellow councillors, claiming all four had been "mistaken" and the land was indeed owned by Mr and Mrs Walters.

She said: "The land I stood on at that time, and I still believe, belonged to the parish garden.

"I did not give abuse, I did not enter into conversation.

"I did not feel there was any need to enter into conversation or be abusive.

"My personal opinion was the land belonged to the parish council. I had a duty as a parish councillor and resident of Withypool."

Cllr Williams said she too had been "deeply upset" by the incident and ensuing investigation and claimed she had suffered anxiety problems as a result.

"I have been deeply hurt as well.

"We have all suffered over this matter," she said.

But the hearing panel, led by chairman Tim Evans, concluded that all four councillors had failed to give advance notification of their intentions to Mr and Mrs Walters.

However, they accepted there was some dispute over the way in which Cllr Collins' had made his "naughty boy" comment to Mr Walters.

They found in favour of Mr and Mrs Walters' version of events and said the four had deliberately defaced and damaged the couple's property, treated them in a discourteous manner and twice breached the code of conduct as a result.

Cllrs Collins and Cllr Bawden apologised for what had happened with the benefit of hindsight, while Cllrs Branfield and Williams said the situation should never have arisen.

The panel formally censured Cllr Collins for his actions and ordered him to send a written apology to Mr and Mrs Walters, while Cllr Bawden was also ordered to make a written apology.

Cllr Branfield was told to submit a written apology and undertake training in the code of conduct, while Cllr Williams was ordered to undertake a conciliation process with the complainants.

However, that process would be suspended for a month and waived completely if she sent a written apology to Mr and Mrs Walters.

The panel also recommended that all current business of the parish council should be scrutinised by the district council's monitoring officer and the internal procedures checked as they were "not for purpose" having allowed a boundary dispute to be dealt with in a "wholly inappropriate manner".

The council's code of conduct training should also be reviewed and all councillors were recommended to undertake training on an annual basis.