A COUNCILLOR breached a town council's code of conduct while attending only his third meeting.

The meeting was to discuss one of the biggest and most controversial development schemes Totton has ever seen.

However, Councillor Neville Penman's inexperience and the sheer size of the meeting led to him falling foul of one of the golden rules of being a councillor.

Cllr Penman has been found guilty of breaching Totton and Eling Town Council's code of conduct.

More than 70 locals squeezed into the council's chamber and others waited outside while the meeting to discuss Linden Homes' applications to develop three greenfield sites in Totton was held.

At the meeting last July, the council vowed to fight the plans which included proposals to provide a new base for AFC Totton and build 85 homes on its current ground, as well as 102 homes on the former BAT sports ground in Southern Gardens. The district council threw out the plans a few months later.

But Cllr Penman, who lives in Testwood Lane behind the football club, voiced only a personal interest when he should have declared a prejudicial one.

Having only been elected last May, the councillor found himself before a New Forest District Council standards panel.

Cllr Penman told the hearing: "Being a new councillor, I sought advice. With the amount of people in the room, I was told to stay for safety reasons. It was manic. There were so many conflicts over what sort of interest I had. I was confused."

Fellow town councillor George Dart supported his colleague. He said: "This was only his third meeting. He said he had to declare an interest and I said I thought he was declaring a personal, non-prejudicial interest, as I had concluded wrongly that he could not see the football ground from his home."

The panel concluded that Cllr Penman breached the code. Chairman Jerry Giltrow said: "When he declared an interest, he did not state he lived at the back of the football club or declare a prejudicial interest.

"The code states members must leave the room and the responsibility lies with the member. There is no defence for ignorance.

"There are mitigating factors - Cllr Penman did not breach the code deliberately but due to ignorance and uncertainty. He declared an interest of some sort and sought advice."

Cllr Penman was ordered to take part in a training session on the distinction between personal and prejudicial interests.

Afterwards, he said he would not be appealing, adding: "There have been misjudgements on my part and perhaps I did not get the right advice. But, at the end of the day, I think they have been very fair and there is nothing I can complain about."