Information on Investigations

Which Sector? > Local Authorities > Scottish Borders Council > LA/SB/398

Note of Decision Web Version

Complaint no. LA/SB/398 concerning an alleged contravention of the Councillors' Code of Conduct by Councillor Douglas Younger of Scottish Borders Council

1. Complaint number LA/SB/398 alleged a contravention of the Councillors' Code of Conduct ("the Code") by Councillor Douglas Younger ("the respondent").

2. It was alleged that the respondent had breached sections 4 and 5 relating to Registration and Declaration of Interests of the Councillors' Code of Conduct.

3. The complainant alleged that Councillor Younger had interests in a development company operating in Scottish Borders and that he failed to declare this information in his Register of Interests. The complainant also alleged that Councillor Younger, as a member of Scottish Borders Development and Building Control Committee, had considered applications from the development company and did not declare a conflict of interest.

4. Information obtained during the investigation showed that Councillor Younger and his wife sold a farm steading property and land to the development company. References to Councillor Younger and his wife, which were contained in an Equifax report obtained by the complainant, related to the legal steps which were taken to secure the terms on which the sale of the property were based. They did not demonstrate that Councillor Younger held any position, or had any interest in the company. Seven categories of Registerable Interests are set out in the Code of Conduct. The sale of property is not included as a Registerable Interest and did not, therefore, require to be included in Councillor Younger's Register of Interests. Neither did the sale of the property, in itself, give him a general interest in the development company which would require a declaration of interest in respect of each and every planning application made by the company.

5. Councillor Younger had registered his interest in the farm which he jointly owns with his wife. The development company submitted planning applications in respect of those parts of the property that Councillor Younger and his wife sold to them, but none of these applications had come before a Development and Building Control Committee meeting attended by Councillor Younger. Had that occurred, Councillor Younger would have required to declare an interest and leave the meeting, particularly as there remains future potential for further development at the site. There was, however, no reason which required Councillor Younger to have declared an interest at a Committee meeting on 13 June 2005 when a site visit in respect of two planning applications by the development company was proposed. The applications related to land in which Councillor Younger had no interest.

6. Councillor Younger entered into a business transaction with the development company when he sold them the property. He does not, however, hold any office in respect of the company and any association relates only to that legal transaction. I did not consider that there was an interest which required to be registered. Nor did I find that there was any interest which required to be declared in respect of planning applications by the development company which came before meetings of the Development and Building Control Committee attended by Councillor Younger. 

7. Having considered the information that arose from my investigation, I concluded that Councillor Douglas Younger had not contravened the Councillors' Code of Conduct.

D Stuart Allan,
Chief Investigating Officer.
Forsyth House
Innova Campus
Rosyth Europarc
Rosyth
Fife
KY11 2UU
17 May 2006