Furious county councillors stormed out of a district meeting last night after receiving an “undemocratic” email from council lawyers suggesting they should not take part in the debate if they supported ‘super council’ plans.

'Twin-hat' councillors serving on both Bucks County (BCC) and South Bucks District (SBDC) councils say they were sent an email from the district council’s legal department just two working days before the meeting on April 9.

The Conservative councillors were told that those who supported BCC’s proposal for a single-unitary authority in Bucks should declare it as either a personal or prejudicial interest and subsequently leave the meeting.

Councillor Roger Reed slammed the “appalling” email adding, “last time I checked this is Buckinghamshire, not North Korea”, before walking out behind Cllrs Lin Hazell and Dev Dhillon.

The Conservative county councillor for Denham said: “This email was quite specific – members may have a prejudicial interest to declare if they supported the council’s proposal for a single unitary.

“As it happens all three of us did. For example if the councillors attended a county council meeting and voted to support the county’s proposal, which as it happens we all did, those have to declare personal and prejudicial interests at the meeting, leave the room and not take any part in discussions.

“That is quite clear. I think it is appalling.”

The meeting was arranged to discuss the next step for the district council after plans to create a single-unitary authority in Bucks were given the green light by Government last month.

The four district councils, South Bucks, Wycombe, Chiltern and Aylesbury, had previously submitted a proposal for two-unitary authorities to rival BCC’s proposals.

Cllr Dhillon slammed the district office for being “poorly run” after he repeatedly called the democratic services for advice after receiving the email late on Thursday afternoon – but they failed to respond satisfactorily until Monday morning.

Legal services told the county councillor for Cliveden that he could be provided with a dispensation, which would permit him to take part in the debate, however he argues this detail was not in the original email.

Cllr Dhillon said: “Apologies if I do sound a little rude. I had a very stressful weekend, and I have for the very first time as over 20 years as a councillor been very very upset.

“We are talking about something in your agenda that does affect local communities and the wider community furthermore. To ask us not to take a part, I can understand not voting, it is completely undemocratic in my view.”

Cllr Lin Hazell branded the order as an “erosion” of her democratic rights, after slamming the “poorly worded” email.

Principle solicitor at SBDC, Sue Markham, said it is down to the councillors to decide if they have an interest, and only those with a prejudicial interest should remove themselves from the discussion.

She said: “Of course the monitoring officer, the democratic services team, and the legal team are always available to advise if advice is sought.

“On this occasion, because some queries had been raised, democratic services decided to send out some general advice so members could consider it.”