The Press and Journal (Aberdeen and Aberdeenshire)
Dad linked to Willie Young wall controversy
Property: Opposition demands an independent inquiry into situation
Council bosses were under pressure last night to order an independent investigation into the Willie Young wall repair row – after the SNP revealed the land appeared to belong to his father.
Council bosses were under pressure last night to order an independent investigation into the Willie Young wall repair row, after the SNP revealed the land appeared to belong to his father.
It followed days of high drama and bitter exchanges between Mr Young and the SNP.
After denials by council finance convener Mr Young and the city council that he owned the land alongside a £200,000 improvement project, the SNP instructed their lawyers to study fresh legal documents.
It culminated in the SNP last night claiming the legal analysis showed the owner of the land at Wellington Brae, Ferryhill, appears to be Mr Young’s father, David Young.
The opposition group said this proved that an independent inquiry was now essential.
Meanwhile, Mr Young obtained legal advice from a city council legal officer that there had not been any “conflict of interest”, based on the evidence seen so far.
Last night Sustrans, the public body funding the repairs, revealed they would be withholding the funds until the investigation had been concluded.
Earlier this week, it was revealed the work to repair the wall and surrounding area at Wellington Brae near to Mr Young’s home had been allocated more than £200,000 funding without ever being presented to a council committee for scrutiny.
Council officers approached Mr Young in the belief he was the landowner several times, and in e-mails stated he “verbally approved” the project.
After the allegations came to light, and the local authority launched an investigation, the Bridge of Don councillor denied being the landowner, though accepted he had owned it in the early 1990s.
He said he was just an “innocent bystander” and denied any wrongdoing.
The council, which has admitted there have been “serious failings” in handling the project, later confirmed the land was not in Mr Young’s name, and refused to reveal who it belonged to for “data protection” reasons.
But last night, outgoing Ferryhill SNP councillor Graham Dickson said he now had doubts that the council could conduct an independent probe, and called for outside experts to be called into Marischal College.
He said: “It has been clarified now that the land at Wellington Brae is not directly owned by William David Young, but by David Young who is believed to be Councillor Willie Young’s father.
“I have also been informed that Councillor Young had to sign documentation in 1993 to allow parcels of land to be sold on, which would have allowed him to know the land in question remained with David Young at that time.
“Aberdeen has been given the runaround by Councillor Young over the last few days, having moved between being unsure whether he owned the land to outright denying any connection to the land.
“Furthermore, the fact that there are press statements emanating from the council stating that ‘no elected member had been party to any decision taken’ when e-mails clearly show consultation between council officers and Councillor Young, plus the fact that the council chose to state that Councillor Young was not the owner without also saying that Mr David Young was the owner, totally undermines the trust that the public can place in the internal investigation.”
“Aberdeen has been given the runaround by Councillor Young”
Mr Young could not be contacted to clarify the relationship between himself and David Young last night.
But he did release a statement from the local authority’s head of legal Fraser Bell, based on the two days the review has been active.
Mr Bell tells the councillor: “From what I can see so far, you were simply asked whether or not you would be willing to consent to the work to the wall and also consulted on relative designs for the work.
“This was on the basis that the council understood you were the relevant landowner and as such you were not representing the council in this matter.
“Based on the above, I do not think you had a conflict of interest to declare.
“Clearly, had officer recommendations to accept the grant and commission the works come before the council for a decision, my advice would have been that you ought to have declared an interest and left the meeting room.”
A council spokesman said a full review into the circumstances was being carried out instructed by interim infrastructure director Bernadette Marjoram, and declined to comment further on the scope of the probe.
He said: “The fact that Councillor Young was contacted by council officers as landowner forms part of the ongoing review into the circumstances of the project.
“Until that review is concluded it would not be appropriate to comment further.”