Information on Investigations

Which Sector? > Local Authorities > Scottish Borders Council > LA/SB/659

Note of Decision Web Version

Complaint no. LA/SB/659 concerning an alleged contravention of the Councillors' Code of Conduct by Councillor Carolyn Riddell-Carre of Scottish Borders Council

1. Complaint number LA/SB/659 alleged a contravention of the Councillors' Code of Conduct (“the Code”) by Councillor Carolyn Riddell-Carre (“the respondent”).

2. It was alleged that the respondent had contravened the Code, in particular, paragraphs 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, 5.13 and 5.18 (Declaration of Interests).

3. The complaint alleged that the respondent had a conflict of interest in relation to land adjacent to Newtown St Boswells, owned by her cousin and known as Whitehill Farm, which had been designated by the Council as part of a possible site for 900 houses. He alleged that, although the respondent declared a “non-pecuniary” interest when the Council approved an amended draft Local Plan at its meeting on 16 June 2005, by participating in the debate and voting on the Plan she had breached paragraphs 5.1 to 5.3, 5.13 and 5.18 of the Code.

4. Notwithstanding that the complaint related to conduct which occurred almost 2 ½ years ago the allegations made by the complainant were carefully examined. The key issues to consider were whether the respondent had an interest in the particular item of business and, if she had, whether she made adequate declaration in respect thereof when the item came before the meeting for consideration.

5. The information available indicated that Whitehill Farm was owned by the respondent's cousin and that the respondent did not have a financial interest in the farm. Indeed the complainant himself acknowledged that the respondent did not stand to benefit directly from the Council's proposals. Accordingly, I found that the respondent did not have a financial interest which she required to declare.

6. The respondent decided that, even though she was opposed to the use of Charlesfield and Whitehill Farm for the expansion of the villages in question, it was appropriate for her to declare a “non-pecuniary” interest when the matter came before the Council for consideration, in view of her cousin's ownership of the farm. The minute of the meeting recorded that the respondent declared a non-pecuniary interest and went on to participate in the discussion. A proposal by her to separate the planned expansion of Newtown St Boswells from the requirement to provide 900 unit railway dependent housing land was unanimously accepted by the Council.

7. By declaring an interest the respondent recognised that her cousin's ownership of Whitehill Farm might have given rise to the perception that she had a non-financial interest in this item of business and that, notwithstanding that she was opposed to the inclusion of the land in the Council's plans, it was appropriate to declare an interest.

8. Although she did not state the precise nature of her interest it is likely that most of her fellow councillors would have been aware of the reason for her declaration. However, other persons (in particular, members of the public who may have been present) may not necessarily have been aware of the nature of her interest. In addition, it is always open to interpretation as to whether a councillor is acting for or against his or her interests from the position which the councillor adopts in relation to an item of business in which he or she has an interest. Support for or opposition to the item could equally be perceived as being in the councillor's interest. For these reasons when a councillor declares an interest in an item of business the precise nature of the interest should also be disclosed.

9. The item under discussion was a planning policy matter rather than an individual planning application and, in terms of the guidance issued by the Standards Commission, councillors are fully entitled to express their views or advocate proposals on the making, approval or amendment of the development plan. It was relevant to take account of the fact that, notwithstanding that the respondent was opposing the inclusion in the Council's proposals of the land owned by her cousin and that this was likely to be perceived as acting against his interests, she decided that, in the interests of transparency, she should declare an interest.

10. It was also relevant to point out that even when a full declaration of a non-financial interest is made, in terms of paragraph 5.18 of the Code a councillor can participate in the discussion and voting if he or she, in conscience, believes that a member of the public, knowing all the relevant facts and acting reasonably, would not consider that the councillor might be influenced by the interest in their role as a councillor. Even if the respondent had disclosed the nature of her interest, in terms of the judgement afforded to her by paragraph 5.18, she could have taken part in the discussion and voting.

11. Having regard to all of these factors I did not consider the fact that the respondent did not disclose the precise nature of her interest to be sufficiently material to constitute a breach of the Code. Accordingly, I found that the respondent had not breached paragraphs 5.1 to 5.3, 5.13 or 5.18 of the Code.

12. Having considered the information that arose from my investigation, I concluded that, Councillor Carolyn Riddell-Carre, had not contravened the Councillors' Code of Conduct.

D Stuart Allan

Chief Investigating Officer

Forsyth House

Innova Campus

Rosyth Europarc

Rosyth

KY11 2UU

22 February 2008