A BETTER BOURNEMOUTH
STANDARDS COMMITTEE COMPLAINT
Reference to Standards Committee re Cllr John Beesley and Cllr Stephen MacLoughlin
Summary
This is a reference to the Standards Committee to review the conduct of Cllrs John Beesley and Stephen MacLoughlin. I believe the position to be as follows and would ask that these matters be investigated.
John Beesley as Chairman of the Planning Board, has wrongfully taken part in planning decisions when a close friend of his, Tony Ramsden, appeared before him and stood to gain financially large sums as a result of a favourable planning decision. John Beesley had not only a personal interest in the planning decision but also a prejudicial interest. He ought therefore to have disclosed the full extent of that interest and withdrawn from the room where the business was being considered, but failed to do so, contrary to paragraph 9 of the Local Authorities (Model Code of Conduct) Order 2007 ("the Code"). This conduct brings his office into disrepute (paragraph 5 of the Code).
Stephen MacLoughlin, as Leader of the Council, altered the Constitution of the Council in such a way as to generally be damaging (and contrary to the recommendations of the Pitt Report) and to lead almost inevitably to the appointment of John Beesley as Chair of the Planning Board. Cllr MacLoughlin thereby put John Beesley in a position of considerable influence over planning decisions, when he knew, or ought to have known, of the connections between John Beesley and Tony Ramsden and therefore that this would create a prejudicial personal interest, contrary to paragraph 9 of the Code. This conduct brings his office into disrepute.
Cllr Beesley
The background to this reference goes to the close connections between Cllr Beesley and Tony Ramsden, who operates through a planning agency that he has set up, "Planning Solutions."
Tony Ramsden was elected as a Councillor in May 1999. He was appointed to the Planning Committee and sat on the Committee until May 2003. After the election in May 2003 he retained his seat and continued on the Planning Committee till 2004 when he left the Council as he was declared bankrupt.
Soon after this it would appear that he set up various companies to give planning advice, even though he had no qualifications, under the banner “Planning Solutions”.
In this role as planning agent he started to appear in front of the Planning Committee. Since then, he and his colleagues at his firm "Planning Solutions" have handled numerous planning matters in the Bournemouth area including appearing before the Planning Board on controversial schemes.
Cllr John Beesley was elected at a by-
Connections between Cllr Beesley and Tony Ramsden/"Planning Solutions"
I have served on the Planning Board since 1999. Throughout this time, I was quite unaware of the close relationship between Cllr Beesley and Tony Ramsden. I doubt whether any but a handful of Members were aware of the close relationship.
For Cllr Beesley, Tony Ramsden is more than just a former colleague:-
1 Cllr Beesley is clearly a very close friend of Tony Ramsden and even sat at the top table with Tony Ramsden and his family at Tony Ramsden's wedding
2 Cllr Beesley is the godfather of a child of Tony Ramsden
3 Cllr Beesley and Tony Ramsden were business partners in Williamson and Treadgold Ltd (Company No 4005198) and records show that even at 28 February 2003, Cllr Beesley was the Company Secretary.
Declarations made (or not made) by Cllr Beesley
Between 2003 – 2007, the Chair of the Planning Board was the Lib Dem Cllr Ken Mantock. He used to give a blanket declaration for the whole Planning Committee, saying that we knew Tony Ramsden as an ex-
However, Cllr Beesley (who was already on the Planning Committee at that time) failed to make any personal declaration of his own. In particular, he did not go on to say (as was the case) that Tony Ramsden was a close friend and former business partner of his, nor did he go on to say that he should therefore not take part in any decision on business in which Tony Ramsden was involved, as he should have done. As I have stated, I had no idea about the close relationship between the two and I do not believe many other Members did either.
When Cllr Beesley was appointed Chair of the Planning Board, he continued to hear representations from Tony Ramsden (and his colleagues at Planning Solutions) despite the close personal interest. He continued to make only the blanket declaration on behalf of the whole Committee to the effect that Tony Ramsden was known to the Committee as an ex-
gave the misleading impression that this was the extent of the Board's, and in particular, his own interest. He failed to make any personal disclosure whatsoever that he, Cllr Beesley, had any personal interest above and beyond that of knowing Tony Ramsden (like other members of the Committee) as ex-
In 2007, when I began to learn of Cllr Beesley's interest, I challenged this, raising the matter with Cllr Beesley and with the Council's legal department (see attached emails to Brendan Gollogly dated 23 November 2007 and to Cllr Claire Smith dated 7 January 2008). This led to Cllr Beesley making a personal declaration that he knew Tony Ramsden as a friend. However, this still failed to declare "the extent and nature of his interest" (as required by the Code), i.e. not only close friend but also former business partner. In any event, the connection was so close that this was clearly a prejudicial personal interest and he should have removed himself from the decision (and all decisions in which Tony Ramsden's firm was involved), but failed to do so.
Connections with the hospitality industry
Cllr Beesley also at this time owned a company called Hospitality Solutions, whose aim was to promote the tourism industry. He was also a part owner in the Yenton Hotel.
He did not make any declaration of interest in relation to these business interests. I was quite unaware of them at the time and have only recently found out. This makes it surprising that his party appointed him to the Planning Board with his close involvement in the tourism business.
He has failed to make any declaration in respect of these matters.
Studland Dene Hotel Planning Application No 7/2007/4671/M
Please see attached minutes of the Planning Board of 19th November 2007, page J26 containing a note for a request for a deputation on behalf of the applicant.
This was an application that had been refused twice previously by the Planning Board, for permission to build 14 flats at the site of the then Studland Dene Hotel at 2 Studland Road. The person who was appearing at the Planning Board meeting on 19 November 2007 on behalf of the developer was the applicant’s agent, Tony Ramsden. Twice previously the application, which had been handled by a different agent, had been rejected. This time, with Tony Ramsden's involvement, it was approved. The decision made is set out below. What is particularly concerning is the way this application was handled by Cllr Beesley at the meeting, which led to planning approval being granted:
Please see the attached PDF file on the Studland Dene Hotel Planning application.
The Council has a planning policy in place, which would have required affordable housing in the case of Studland Dene. This was clearly set out in the officer’s report. The application was being recommended for granting on the basis set forward in the report. The officer stated in 4.16 that “If Members are supportive of the scheme I will continue negotiations with the Council's Housing Officer”. Cllr Beesley should have been aware of the applicable s 106 guidelines which make an affordable housing element necessary, and if not, should have asked either the head of planning or the legal representative, Brendan Gollogly.
Instead of providing affordable housing, a suggestion was made during the meeting by Cllr Newport (a very recently elected Member in the same ward as Cllr Beesley in which the Studland Dene Hotel is situated) to a contribution towards road surfacing works. Works to roads were not "essential to enable development to take place" and consequently were inappropriate as a contribution. Cllr Beesley must have known this. The Planning Board should not have even considered contributions in respect of non-
In the end, the sum that was finally agreed with Tony Ramsden/Developer was £50k, though I cannot remember this being mentioned at the meeting, so in effect Cllr Beesley allowed the decision to be granted, without obtaining any firm affordable housing commitment, contrary to our planning policy.
Even £50k was a derisory amount supposedly to provide 4+ affordable units off site).
It was quite wrong also that the application could be fundamentally changed during the course of the Planning Meeting in the manner that this application was, because the non-
The introduction of these substantial changes was flagged up by Cllr Newport when he made the move to grant and referred to road improvements. Would the officer’s recommendation to grant have been made, if there had not been a contribution to affordable housing? Obviously not, as he was in negotiations and had it as a necessary 106 Condition.
The Planning Board should not have attempted to fundamentally change this application in this way in my opinion and that of legal officers outside the Council. These last minute changes made the application materially different from the one the officers had considered and the officers were not given an opportunity to consider the changes or respond properly, neither was the public given any notice of the changes. Likewise, Members were not properly advised as to the consequences of the changes, why they were being introduced and whether or not they had to be accepted.
It is clear that these changes did not have officer or policy support and they were certainly not necessary to enable the development to take place or to secure a positive vote from Members. Members would surely have been keener to see off site contributions at the correct amount going towards affordable housing which were the officer’s recommendation, than to get no contribution with a promise by who knows who that money would be given to road improvements which is not essential and therefore could be challenged by the developer.
One of the key principles of Section 106 money is that it must not be used to purchase planning approval. In my view, though, this is exactly what happened here. However, with Cllr Beesley's full weight behind moving to grant, and with a heavy Conservative majority consisting of Members who (apart from Cllr Beesley and Cllr D. Smith) were all inexperienced in planning matters, the outcome was inevitable.
Where did these changes come from, who introduced and promoted them at the meeting, and who convinced other members to sanction them? Public perception might think the answer is quite clear.
Is it a coincidence that the developer had changed his planning agent and used Planning Solutions this time for this very contentious planning application?
I raised my concerns at the time with the legal officers of the Council in writing. Even then, I did not know that Cllr Beesley had such close connections with Tony Ramsden. See attached emails.
Poole Road Medical Centre
This was an application which the officers of the Council had rejected. Tony Ramsden then wrote a letter to the Echo making the case for the development on the basis that this would be to support local doctors; he also
circulated the letter to all members of the Planning Board. Cllr Beesley made no declaration as to his personal interest (due to his close connection with Tony Ramsden).
The outcome of the matter was that planning approval, against the recommendations of the officers, was granted.
Cllr MacLoughlin
Cllr MacLoughlin is the current Leader of the Council. He played a decisive part in putting Cllr Beesley in a situation where this prejudicial personal interest would arise.
Prior to the elections in 2007, Cllr Beesley had appeared, to many of us, to take on a leading role on the Planning Board, being always very well prepared and willing to speak at great length. The Tory Members of the Planning Board were Cllrs Beesley, David Smith, Ramsden (till 2004) and Ratcliffe. Cllr Ramsden’s position was not filled as the Planning Committee was reduced from 15-
After the election in 2007, the constitution was changed by the Leader, in a most underhand manner, to permit a Councillor to have more than one Special Responsibility Allowance. The only beneficiary of this is, and was, Cllr Beesley, having the roles at the same time of Deputy Leader, Cabinet Member for Resources and Chair of the Planning Board. The Leader specifically insisted that Cllr Beesley should have the role of Chair of Planning.
I think that this was wrong, as Cllr Beesley is heavily involved in the tourism business in this town, which must raise questions as to why the Leader insisted that Cllr Beesley should have the role of Chair of Planning, bearing in mind his background. The Leader was so adamant that he drove through a change in the constitution to permit it.
What is particularly concerning, is that the Leader justified the change at the time, by claiming that there was no option but to change the constitution so Cllr Beesley could be appointed as Chair of the Board, as there were no Councillors experienced enough on the Planning Board to take on this role.
The composition of the Planning Board is at the discretion of the Leader.
However, what he did not say was that Cllr Basil Ratcliffe (also of the Conservatives) had expressed the wish to serve on the Planning Committee and that he was highly experienced in planning issues.
Councillor Basil Ratcliffe was first elected in 1976. He stood down for a brief period for employment reasons but had been a Member of the Planning
Committee all the time he had been a Councillor and continually from 1991 to 2002 when he and Cllr Beesley became Cabinet Members.
Instead, the Leader chose to exclude this most experienced Councillor in planning, in favour of 5 Councillors, Mrs Anderson, Coope, Mrs Cooper, Lancashire and Newport, who between them had no planning experience at all. With such an inexperienced Planning Board, it was inevitable that the Board's only option was to vote in Cllr Beesley. I was a Member of the Planning Board and I and the rest of the Board had no idea of Cllr Beesley’s involvement in the tourism industry, nor his close interest with Tony Ramsden, nor the availability of Cllr Basil Ratcliffe.
To get Cllr Beesley onto the Planning Board and keep his other roles, it was necessary to change the Constitution. This was done as I have said in a most underhand way. This can be seen from the attached minutes of the Nomination Board. On page B3 section 4 entitled Appointments of Members to Panels and Boards, there is a reference in section 2 to amending the Council’s Constitution. Surely such an important matter should have had more prominence. I know that neither Cllrs Levell nor Rey were aware of this fundamental change. (See attached minutes of the Nomination Board 11.5.07)
I consider that the Leader was manipulating the system to ensure that his friend, Cllr Beesley, even with his prejudicial background, was given this very important position.
I understand that Cllr Ratcliffe is willing to state that he was absolutely furious when he heard that the reason for this very contentious appointment was that there was no one sufficiently well qualified on the new Board. In fact he was the most experienced Councillor in planning on the Council and he had been excluded from the Planning Board. He has correspondence to verify this.
Pitt Report
The conduct of the Leader and Cllr Beesley in making this change to the constitution was in my view clearly wholly wrong.
Reference should be made, by way of comparison, with the Pitt Report on the Borough Council of Poole, which came to the conclusion that Cabinet Members should not sit on the Planning Board. I agree with this, as there is not sufficient space between trying to implement Council Policy, which is the role of the Cabinet, and the Planning Board who has to verify it is in accord with Planning Policy. This report has not yet been acted on in Bournemouth. Why is this?
The Code
The relevant sections are sections 8 and 9.
Personal interests
8. —(1) You have a personal interest in any business of your authority where either—
(a) ……or
(b) a decision in relation to that business might reasonably be regarded as affecting [your well-
the majority of [ratepayers etc………].
A "relevant person" is defined as:
8. – (2) (a) "a member of your family or any person with whom you have a close association".
As regards Cllr Beesley, Tony Ramsden is clearly a person with whom he has a close association and accordingly, Cllr Beesley has a personal interest.
This at the very least, requires a personal disclosure of the "existence and nature of that interest". Cllr Beesley failed to make any disclosure, until I pointed out to him the need to do so. Even after this, he failed by to indicate the nature and extent of that interest, which were far greater than I and most other Committee Members realised.
The next question is, if there is a personal interest, this amounts to a prejudicial interest. I refer to the Code:
Prejudicial interest generally
10. — (1) Subject to sub-
Here, it is quite clear in my view, that the interest is one which a member of the public with knowledge of the relevant facts would reasonably regard as so significant that it is likely to prejudice the person's judgment of the public interest. The connection between Cllr Beesley and Tony Ramsden (and his company) was simply far too close.
I am concerned that Cllr MacLoughlin was aware of the facts and instigated a situation, by in effect appointing Cllr Beesley and disregarding Cllr Ratcliffe, whereby a prejudicial interest would arise and he must have known this was likely to occur. He also must have been aware of his involvement in the tourism industry and the potential conflict of interest that might arise.
I am also concerned at the manner in which Cllr MacLoughlin has forced through constitutional change, creating a conflict between the interests of the Council and Committee Members, contrary to the recommendations of the Pitt Report.
The Code also stipulates:
5. You must not conduct yourself in a manner which could reasonably be regarded as bringing your office or authority into disrepute.
I am concerned that the conduct of Cllr Beesley and Cllr MacLoughlin has been in breach also of paragraph 5 of the Code.
-
I hope that I have clearly stated why Cllr Stephen Macloughlin and Cllr John Beesley should be asked to attend the Standards Committee.
Furthermore, I am concerned that when I first raised this with our legal team in November 2007 they did not immediately refer this matter to the Standards Committee.
See attached emails already referred to. Cllr Roger West
Bournemouth 5th December 2009.
In this role as planning agent he started to appear in front of the Planning Committee. Since then, he and his colleagues at his firm "Planning Solutions" have handled numerous planning matters in the Bournemouth area including appearing before the Planning Board on controversial schemes.
Cllr John Beesley was elected at a by-
Connections between Cllr Beesley and Tony Ramsden/"Planning Solutions"
I have served on the Planning Board since 1999. Throughout this time, I was quite unaware of the close relationship between Cllr Beesley and Tony Ramsden. I doubt whether any but a handful of Members were aware of the close relationship.
For Cllr Beesley, Tony Ramsden is more than just a former colleague:-
1 Cllr Beesley is clearly a very close friend of Tony Ramsden and even sat at the top table with Tony Ramsden and his family at Tony Ramsden's wedding
2 Cllr Beesley is the godfather of a child of Tony Ramsden
3 Cllr Beesley and Tony Ramsden were business partners in Williamson and Treadgold Ltd (Company No 4005198) and records show that even at 28 February 2003, Cllr Beesley was the Company Secretary.
Declarations made (or not made) by Cllr Beesley
Between 2003 – 2007, the Chair of the Planning Board was the Lib Dem Cllr Ken Mantock. He used to give a blanket declaration for the whole Planning Committee, saying that we knew Tony Ramsden as an ex-
However, Cllr Beesley (who was already on the Planning Committee at that time) failed to make any personal declaration of his own. In particular, he did not go on to say (as was the case) that Tony Ramsden was a close friend and former business partner of his, nor did he go on to say that he should therefore not take part in any decision on business in which Tony Ramsden was involved, as he should have done. As I have stated, I had no idea about the close relationship between the two and I do not believe many other Members did either.
When Cllr Beesley was appointed Chair of the Planning Board, he continued to hear representations from Tony Ramsden (and his colleagues at Planning Solutions) despite the close personal interest. He continued to make only the blanket declaration on behalf of the whole Committee to the effect that Tony Ramsden was known to the Committee as an ex-
gave the misleading impression that this was the extent of the Board's, and in particular, his own interest. He failed to make any personal disclosure whatsoever that he, Cllr Beesley, had any personal interest above and beyond that of knowing Tony Ramsden (like other members of the Committee) as ex-
In 2007, when I began to learn of Cllr Beesley's interest, I challenged this, raising the matter with Cllr Beesley and with the Council's legal department (see attached emails to Brendan Gollogly dated 23 November 2007 and to Cllr Claire Smith dated 7 January 2008). This led to Cllr Beesley making a personal declaration that he knew Tony Ramsden as a friend. However, this still failed to declare "the extent and nature of his interest" (as required by the Code), i.e. not only close friend but also former business partner. In any event, the connection was so close that this was clearly a prejudicial personal interest and he should have removed himself from the decision (and all decisions in which Tony Ramsden's firm was involved), but failed to do so.
Connections with the hospitality industry
Cllr Beesley also at this time owned a company called Hospitality Solutions, whose aim was to promote the tourism industry. He was also a part owner in the Yenton Hotel.
He did not make any declaration of interest in relation to these business interests. I was quite unaware of them at the time and have only recently found out. This makes it surprising that his party appointed him to the Planning Board with his close involvement in the tourism business.
He has failed to make any declaration in respect of these matters.
Studland Dene Hotel Planning Application No 7/2007/4671/M
Please see attached minutes of the Planning Board of 19th November 2007, page J26 containing a note for a request for a deputation on behalf of the applicant.
This was an application that had been refused twice previously by the Planning Board, for permission to build 14 flats at the site of the then Studland Dene Hotel at 2 Studland Road. The person who was appearing at the Planning Board meeting on 19 November 2007 on behalf of the developer was the applicant’s agent, Tony Ramsden. Twice previously the application, which had been handled by a different agent, had been rejected. This time, with Tony Ramsden's involvement, it was approved. The decision made is set out below. What is particularly concerning is the way this application was handled by Cllr Beesley at the meeting, which led to planning approval being granted:
Please see the attached PDF file on the Studland Dene Hotel Planning application.
The Council has a planning policy in place, which would have required affordable housing in the case of Studland Dene. This was clearly set out in the officer’s report. The application was being recommended for granting on the basis set forward in the report. The officer stated in 4.16 that “If Members are supportive of the scheme I will continue negotiations with the Council's Housing Officer”. Cllr Beesley should have been aware of the applicable s 106 guidelines which make an affordable housing element necessary, and if not, should have asked either the head of planning or the legal representative, Brendan Gollogly.
Instead of providing affordable housing, a suggestion was made during the meeting by Cllr Newport (a very recently elected Member in the same ward as Cllr Beesley in which the Studland Dene Hotel is situated) to a contribution towards road surfacing works. Works to roads were not "essential to enable development to take place" and consequently were inappropriate as a contribution. Cllr Beesley must have known this. The Planning Board should not have even considered contributions in respect of non-
In the end, the sum that was finally agreed with Tony Ramsden/Developer was £50k, though I cannot remember this being mentioned at the meeting, so in effect Cllr Beesley allowed the decision to be granted, without obtaining any firm affordable housing commitment, contrary to our planning policy. Even £50k was a derisory amount supposedly to provide 4+ affordable units off site).
It was quite wrong also that the application could be fundamentally changed during the course of the Planning Meeting in the manner that this application was, because the non-
The introduction of these substantial changes was flagged up by Cllr Newport when he made the move to grant and referred to road improvements. Would the officer’s recommendation to grant have been made, if there had not been a contribution to affordable housing? Obviously not, as he was in negotiations and had it as a necessary 106 Condition.
The Planning Board should not have attempted to fundamentally change this application in this way in my opinion and that of legal officers outside the Council. These last minute changes made the application materially different from the one the officers had considered and the officers were not given an opportunity to consider the changes or respond properly, neither was the public given any notice of the changes. Likewise, Members were not properly advised as to the consequences of the changes, why they were being introduced and whether or not they had to be accepted.
It is clear that these changes did not have officer or policy support and they were certainly not necessary to enable the development to take place or to secure a positive vote from Members. Members would surely have been keener to see off site contributions at the correct amount going towards affordable housing which were the officer’s recommendation, than to get no contribution with a promise by who knows who that money would be given to road improvements which is not essential and therefore could be challenged by the developer.
One of the key principles of Section 106 money is that it must not be used to purchase planning approval. In my view, though, this is exactly what happened here. However, with Cllr Beesley's full weight behind moving to grant, and with a heavy Conservative majority consisting of Members who (apart from Cllr Beesley and Cllr D. Smith) were all inexperienced in planning matters, the outcome was inevitable.
Where did these changes come from, who introduced and promoted them at the meeting, and who convinced other members to sanction them? Public perception might think the answer is quite clear.
Is it a coincidence that the developer had changed his planning agent and used Planning Solutions this time for this very contentious planning application?
I raised my concerns at the time with the legal officers of the Council in writing. Even then, I did not know that Cllr Beesley had such close connections with Tony Ramsden. See attached emails.
Poole Road Medical Centre
This was an application which the officers of the Council had rejected. Tony Ramsden then wrote a letter to the Echo making the case for the development on the basis that this would be to support local doctors; he also
circulated the letter to all members of the Planning Board. Cllr Beesley made no declaration as to his personal interest (due to his close connection with Tony Ramsden).
The outcome of the matter was that planning approval, against the recommendations of the officers, was granted.
Cllr MacLoughlin
Cllr MacLoughlin is the current Leader of the Council. He played a decisive part in putting Cllr Beesley in a situation where this prejudicial personal interest would arise.
Prior to the elections in 2007, Cllr Beesley had appeared, to many of us, to take on a leading role on the Planning Board, being always very well prepared and willing to speak at great length. The Tory Members of the Planning Board were Cllrs Beesley, David Smith, Ramsden (till 2004) and Ratcliffe. Cllr Ramsden’s position was not filled as the Planning Committee was reduced from 15-
After the election in 2007, the constitution was changed by the Leader, in a most underhand manner, to permit a Councillor to have more than one Special Responsibility Allowance. The only beneficiary of this is, and was, Cllr Beesley, having the roles at the same time of Deputy Leader, Cabinet Member for Resources and Chair of the Planning Board. The Leader specifically insisted that Cllr Beesley should have the role of Chair of Planning.
I think that this was wrong, as Cllr Beesley is heavily involved in the tourism business in this town, which must raise questions as to why the Leader insisted that Cllr Beesley should have the role of Chair of Planning, bearing in mind his background. The Leader was so adamant that he drove through a change in the constitution to permit it.
What is particularly concerning, is that the Leader justified the change at the time, by claiming that there was no option but to change the constitution so Cllr Beesley could be appointed as Chair of the Board, as there were no Councillors experienced enough on the Planning Board to take on this role. The composition of the Planning Board is at the discretion of the Leader.
However, what he did not say was that Cllr Basil Ratcliffe (also of the Conservatives) had expressed the wish to serve on the Planning Committee and that he was highly experienced in planning issues.
Councillor Basil Ratcliffe was first elected in 1976. He stood down for a brief period for employment reasons but had been a Member of the Planning
Committee all the time he had been a Councillor and continually from 1991 to 2002 when he and Cllr Beesley became Cabinet Members.
Instead, the Leader chose to exclude this most experienced Councillor in planning, in favour of 5 Councillors, Mrs Anderson, Coope, Mrs Cooper, Lancashire and Newport, who between them had no planning experience at all. With such an inexperienced Planning Board, it was inevitable that the Board's only option was to vote in Cllr Beesley. I was a Member of the Planning Board and I and the rest of the Board had no idea of Cllr Beesley’s involvement in the tourism industry, nor his close interest with Tony Ramsden, nor the availability of Cllr Basil Ratcliffe.
To get Cllr Beesley onto the Planning Board and keep his other roles, it was necessary to change the Constitution. This was done as I have said in a most underhand way. This can be seen from the attached minutes of the Nomination Board. On page B3 section 4 entitled Appointments of Members to Panels and Boards, there is a reference in section 2 to amending the Council’s Constitution. Surely such an important matter should have had more prominence. I know that neither Cllrs Levell nor Rey were aware of this fundamental change. (See attached minutes of the Nomination Board 11.5.07)
I consider that the Leader was manipulating the system to ensure that his friend, Cllr Beesley, even with his prejudicial background, was given this very important position.
I understand that Cllr Ratcliffe is willing to state that he was absolutely furious when he heard that the reason for this very contentious appointment was that there was no one sufficiently well qualified on the new Board. In fact he was the most experienced Councillor in planning on the Council and he had been excluded from the Planning Board. He has correspondence to verify this.
Pitt Report
The conduct of the Leader and Cllr Beesley in making this change to the constitution was in my view clearly wholly wrong.
Reference should be made, by way of comparison, with the Pitt Report on the Borough Council of Poole, which came to the conclusion that Cabinet Members should not sit on the Planning Board. I agree with this, as there is not sufficient space between trying to implement Council Policy, which is the role of the Cabinet, and the Planning Board who has to verify it is in accord with Planning Policy. This report has not yet been acted on in Bournemouth. Why is this?
The Code
The relevant sections are sections 8 and 9.
Personal interests
8. —(1) You have a personal interest in any business of
your authority where either—
(a) ……or
(b) a decision in relation to that business might reasonably be regarded as affecting [your well-
the majority of [ratepayers etc………].
A "relevant person" is defined as:
8. – (2) (a) "a member of your family or any person with whom you have a close association".
As regards Cllr Beesley, Tony Ramsden is clearly a person with whom he has a close association and accordingly, Cllr Beesley has a personal interest.
This at the very least, requires a personal disclosure of the "existence and nature of that interest". Cllr Beesley failed to make any disclosure, until I pointed out to him the need to do so. Even after this, he failed by to indicate the nature and extent of that interest, which were far greater than I and most other Committee Members realised.
The next question is, if there is a personal interest, this amounts to a prejudicial interest. I refer to the Code:
Prejudicial interest generally
10. — (1) Subject to sub-
personal interest in any business of your authority you also
have a prejudicial interest in that business where the
interest is one which a member of the public with knowledge
of the relevant facts would reasonably regard as so
significant that it is likely to prejudice your judgment of the
public interest.
Here, it is quite clear in my view, that the interest is one which a member of the public with knowledge of the relevant facts would reasonably regard as so significant that it is likely to prejudice the person's judgment of the public interest. The connection between Cllr Beesley and Tony Ramsden (and his company) was simply far too close.
I am concerned that Cllr MacLoughlin was aware of the facts and instigated a situation, by in effect appointing Cllr Beesley and disregarding Cllr Ratcliffe, whereby a prejudicial interest would arise and he must have known this was likely to occur. He also must have been aware of his involvement in the tourism industry and the potential conflict of interest that might arise.
I am also concerned at the manner in which Cllr MacLoughlin has forced through constitutional change, creating a conflict between the interests of the Council and Committee Members, contrary to the recommendations of the Pitt Report.
The Code also stipulates:
5. You must not conduct yourself in a manner which could reasonably be regarded as bringing your office or authority into disrepute.
I am concerned that the conduct of Cllr Beesley and Cllr MacLoughlin has been in breach also of paragraph 5 of the Code.
-
I hope that I have clearly stated why Cllr Stephen Macloughlin and Cllr John Beesley should be asked to attend the Standards Committee.
Furthermore, I am concerned that when I first raised this with our legal team in November 2007 they did not immediately refer this matter to the Standards Committee.
See attached emails already referred to.
Cllr Roger West
Bournemouth 5th December 2009.
In this role as planning agent he started to appear in front of the Planning Committee. Since then, he and his colleagues at his firm "Planning Solutions" have handled numerous planning matters in the Bournemouth area including appearing before the Planning Board on controversial schemes.
Cllr John Beesley was elected at a by-
Connections between Cllr Beesley and Tony Ramsden/"Planning Solutions"
I have served on the Planning Board since 1999. Throughout this time, I was quite unaware of the close relationship between Cllr Beesley and Tony Ramsden. I doubt whether any but a handful of Members were aware of the close relationship.
For Cllr Beesley, Tony Ramsden is more than just a former colleague:-
1 Cllr Beesley is clearly a very close friend of Tony Ramsden and even sat at the top table with Tony Ramsden and his family at Tony Ramsden's wedding
2 Cllr Beesley is the godfather of a child of Tony Ramsden
3 Cllr Beesley and Tony Ramsden were business partners in Williamson and Treadgold Ltd (Company No 4005198) and records show that even at 28 February 2003, Cllr Beesley was the Company Secretary.
Declarations made (or not made) by Cllr Beesley
Between 2003 – 2007, the Chair of the Planning Board was the Lib Dem Cllr Ken Mantock. He used to give a blanket declaration for the whole Planning Committee, saying that we knew Tony Ramsden as an ex-
However, Cllr Beesley (who was already on the Planning Committee at that time) failed to make any personal declaration of his own. In particular, he did not go on to say (as was the case) that Tony Ramsden was a close friend and former business partner of his, nor did he go on to say that he should therefore not take part in any decision on business in which Tony Ramsden was involved, as he should have done. As I have stated, I had no idea about the close relationship between the two and I do not believe many other Members did either.
When Cllr Beesley was appointed Chair of the Planning Board, he continued to hear representations from Tony Ramsden (and his colleagues at Planning Solutions) despite the close personal interest. He continued to make only the blanket declaration on behalf of the whole Committee to the effect that Tony Ramsden was known to the Committee as an ex-
gave the misleading impression that this was the extent of the Board's, and in particular, his own interest. He failed to make any personal disclosure whatsoever that he, Cllr Beesley, had any personal interest above and beyond that of knowing Tony Ramsden (like other members of the Committee) as ex-
In 2007, when I began to learn of Cllr Beesley's interest, I challenged this, raising the matter with Cllr Beesley and with the Council's legal department (see attached emails to Brendan Gollogly dated 23 November 2007 and to Cllr Claire Smith dated 7 January 2008). This led to Cllr Beesley making a personal declaration that he knew Tony Ramsden as a friend. However, this still failed to declare "the extent and nature of his interest" (as required by the Code), i.e. not only close friend but also former business partner. In any event, the connection was so close that this was clearly a prejudicial personal interest and he should have removed himself from the decision (and all decisions in which Tony Ramsden's firm was involved), but failed to do so.
Connections with the hospitality industry
Cllr Beesley also at this time owned a company called Hospitality Solutions, whose aim was to promote the tourism industry. He was also a part owner in the Yenton Hotel.
He did not make any declaration of interest in relation to these business interests. I was quite unaware of them at the time and have only recently found out. This makes it surprising that his party appointed him to the Planning Board with his close involvement in the tourism business.
He has failed to make any declaration in respect of these matters.
Studland Dene Hotel Planning Application No 7/2007/4671/M
Please see attached minutes of the Planning Board of 19th November 2007, page J26 containing a note for a request for a deputation on behalf of the applicant.
This was an application that had been refused twice previously by the Planning Board, for permission to build 14 flats at the site of the then Studland Dene Hotel at 2 Studland Road. The person who was appearing at the Planning Board meeting on 19 November 2007 on behalf of the developer was the applicant’s agent, Tony Ramsden. Twice previously the application, which had been handled by a different agent, had been rejected. This time, with Tony Ramsden's involvement, it was approved. The decision made is set out below. What is particularly concerning is the way this application was handled by Cllr Beesley at the meeting, which led to planning approval being granted:
Please see the attached PDF file on the Studland Dene Hotel Planning application.
The Council has a planning policy in place, which would have required affordable housing in the case of Studland Dene. This was clearly set out in the officer’s report. The application was being recommended for granting on the basis set forward in the report. The officer stated in 4.16 that “If Members are supportive of the scheme I will continue negotiations with the Council's Housing Officer”. Cllr Beesley should have been aware of the applicable s 106 guidelines which make an affordable housing element necessary, and if not, should have asked either the head of planning or the legal representative, Brendan Gollogly.
Instead of providing affordable housing, a suggestion was made during the meeting by Cllr Newport (a very recently elected Member in the same ward as Cllr Beesley in which the Studland Dene Hotel is situated) to a contribution towards road surfacing works. Works to roads were not "essential to enable development to take place" and consequently were inappropriate as a contribution. Cllr Beesley must have known this. The Planning Board should not have even considered contributions in respect of non-
In the end, the sum that was finally agreed with Tony Ramsden/Developer was £50k, though I cannot remember this being mentioned at the meeting, so in effect Cllr Beesley allowed the decision to be granted, without obtaining any firm affordable housing commitment, contrary to our planning policy. Even £50k was a derisory amount supposedly to provide 4+ affordable units off site).
It was quite wrong also that the application could be fundamentally changed during the course of the Planning Meeting in the manner that this application was, because the non-
The introduction of these substantial changes was flagged up by Cllr Newport when he made the move to grant and referred to road improvements. Would the officer’s recommendation to grant have been made, if there had not been a contribution to affordable housing? Obviously not, as he was in negotiations and had it as a necessary 106 Condition.
The Planning Board should not have attempted to fundamentally change this application in this way in my opinion and that of legal officers outside the Council. These last minute changes made the application materially different from the one the officers had considered and the officers were not given an opportunity to consider the changes or respond properly, neither was the public given any notice of the changes. Likewise, Members were not properly advised as to the consequences of the changes, why they were being introduced and whether or not they had to be accepted.
It is clear that these changes did not have officer or policy support and they were certainly not necessary to enable the development to take place or to secure a positive vote from Members. Members would surely have been keener to see off site contributions at the correct amount going towards affordable housing which were the officer’s recommendation, than to get no contribution with a promise by who knows who that money would be given to road improvements which is not essential and therefore could be challenged by the developer.
One of the key principles of Section 106 money is that it must not be used to purchase planning approval. In my view, though, this is exactly what happened here. However, with Cllr Beesley's full weight behind moving to grant, and with a heavy Conservative majority consisting of Members who (apart from Cllr Beesley and Cllr D. Smith) were all inexperienced in planning matters, the outcome was inevitable.
Where did these changes come from, who introduced and promoted them at the meeting, and who convinced other members to sanction them? Public perception might think the answer is quite clear.
Is it a coincidence that the developer had changed his planning agent and used Planning Solutions this time for this very contentious planning application?
I raised my concerns at the time with the legal officers of the Council in writing. Even then, I did not know that Cllr Beesley had such close connections with Tony Ramsden. See attached emails.
Poole Road Medical Centre
This was an application which the officers of the Council had rejected. Tony Ramsden then wrote a letter to the Echo making the case for the development on the basis that this would be to support local doctors; he also
circulated the letter to all members of the Planning Board. Cllr Beesley made no declaration as to his personal interest (due to his close connection with Tony Ramsden).
The outcome of the matter was that planning approval, against the recommendations of the officers, was granted.
Cllr MacLoughlin
Cllr MacLoughlin is the current Leader of the Council. He played a decisive part in putting Cllr Beesley in a situation where this prejudicial personal interest would arise.
Prior to the elections in 2007, Cllr Beesley had appeared, to many of us, to take on a leading role on the Planning Board, being always very well prepared and willing to speak at great length. The Tory Members of the Planning Board were Cllrs Beesley, David Smith, Ramsden (till 2004) and Ratcliffe. Cllr Ramsden’s position was not filled as the Planning Committee was reduced from 15-
After the election in 2007, the constitution was changed by the Leader, in a most underhand manner, to permit a Councillor to have more than one Special Responsibility Allowance. The only beneficiary of this is, and was, Cllr Beesley, having the roles at the same time of Deputy Leader, Cabinet Member for Resources and Chair of the Planning Board. The Leader specifically insisted that Cllr Beesley should have the role of Chair of Planning.
I think that this was wrong, as Cllr Beesley is heavily involved in the tourism business in this town, which must raise questions as to why the Leader insisted that Cllr Beesley should have the role of Chair of Planning, bearing in mind his background. The Leader was so adamant that he drove through a change in the constitution to permit it.
What is particularly concerning, is that the Leader justified the change at the time, by claiming that there was no option but to change the constitution so Cllr Beesley could be appointed as Chair of the Board, as there were no Councillors experienced enough on the Planning Board to take on this role. The composition of the Planning Board is at the discretion of the Leader.
However, what he did not say was that Cllr Basil Ratcliffe (also of the Conservatives) had expressed the wish to serve on the Planning Committee and that he was highly experienced in planning issues.
Councillor Basil Ratcliffe was first elected in 1976. He stood down for a brief period for employment reasons but had been a Member of the Planning
Committee all the time he had been a Councillor and continually from 1991 to 2002 when he and Cllr Beesley became Cabinet Members.
Instead, the Leader chose to exclude this most experienced Councillor in planning, in favour of 5 Councillors, Mrs Anderson, Coope, Mrs Cooper, Lancashire and Newport, who between them had no planning experience at all. With such an inexperienced Planning Board, it was inevitable that the Board's only option was to vote in Cllr Beesley. I was a Member of the Planning Board and I and the rest of the Board had no idea of Cllr Beesley’s involvement in the tourism industry, nor his close interest with Tony Ramsden, nor the availability of Cllr Basil Ratcliffe.
To get Cllr Beesley onto the Planning Board and keep his other roles, it was necessary to change the Constitution. This was done as I have said in a most underhand way. This can be seen from the attached minutes of the Nomination Board. On page B3 section 4 entitled Appointments of Members to Panels and Boards, there is a reference in section 2 to amending the Council’s Constitution. Surely such an important matter should have had more prominence. I know that neither Cllrs Levell nor Rey were aware of this fundamental change. (See attached minutes of the Nomination Board 11.5.07)
I consider that the Leader was manipulating the system to ensure that his friend, Cllr Beesley, even with his prejudicial background, was given this very important position.
I understand that Cllr Ratcliffe is willing to state that he was absolutely furious when he heard that the reason for this very contentious appointment was that there was no one sufficiently well qualified on the new Board. In fact he was the most experienced Councillor in planning on the Council and he had been excluded from the Planning Board. He has correspondence to verify this.
Pitt Report
The conduct of the Leader and Cllr Beesley in making this change to the constitution was in my view clearly wholly wrong.
Reference should be made, by way of comparison, with the Pitt Report on the Borough Council of Poole, which came to the conclusion that Cabinet Members should not sit on the Planning Board. I agree with this, as there is not sufficient space between trying to implement Council Policy, which is the role of the Cabinet, and the Planning Board who has to verify it is in accord with Planning Policy. This report has not yet been acted on in Bournemouth. Why is this?
The Code
The relevant sections are sections 8 and 9.
Personal interests
8. —(1) You have a personal interest in any business of
your authority where either—
(a) ……or
(b) a decision in relation to that business might reasonably be regarded as affecting [your well-
the majority of [ratepayers etc………].
A "relevant person" is defined as:
8. – (2) (a) "a member of your family or any person with whom you have a close association".
As regards Cllr Beesley, Tony Ramsden is clearly a person with whom he has a close association and accordingly, Cllr Beesley has a personal interest.
This at the very least, requires a personal disclosure of the "existence and nature of that interest". Cllr Beesley failed to make any disclosure, until I pointed out to him the need to do so. Even after this, he failed by to indicate the nature and extent of that interest, which were far greater than I and most other Committee Members realised.
The next question is, if there is a personal interest, this amounts to a prejudicial interest. I refer to the Code:
Prejudicial interest generally
10. — (1) Subject to sub-
personal interest in any business of your authority you also
have a prejudicial interest in that business where the
interest is one which a member of the public with knowledge
of the relevant facts would reasonably regard as so
significant that it is likely to prejudice your judgment of the
public interest.
Here, it is quite clear in my view, that the interest is one which a member of the public with knowledge of the relevant facts would reasonably regard as so significant that it is likely to prejudice the person's judgment of the public interest. The connection between Cllr Beesley and Tony Ramsden (and his company) was simply far too close.
I am concerned that Cllr MacLoughlin was aware of the facts and instigated a situation, by in effect appointing Cllr Beesley and disregarding Cllr Ratcliffe, whereby a prejudicial interest would arise and he must have known this was likely to occur. He also must have been aware of his involvement in the tourism industry and the potential conflict of interest that might arise.
I am also concerned at the manner in which Cllr MacLoughlin has forced through constitutional change, creating a conflict between the interests of the Council and Committee Members, contrary to the recommendations of the Pitt Report.
The Code also stipulates:
5. You must not conduct yourself in a manner which could reasonably be regarded as bringing your office or authority into disrepute.
I am concerned that the conduct of Cllr Beesley and Cllr MacLoughlin has been in breach also of paragraph 5 of the Code.
-
I hope that I have clearly stated why Cllr Stephen Macloughlin and Cllr John Beesley should be asked to attend the Standards Committee.
Furthermore, I am concerned that when I first raised this with our legal team in November 2007 they did not immediately refer this matter to the Standards Committee.
See attached emails already referred to.
Cllr Roger West
Bournemouth 5th December 2009.
In this role as planning agent he started to appear in front of the Planning Committee. Since then, he and his colleagues at his firm "Planning Solutions" have handled numerous planning matters in the Bournemouth area including appearing before the Planning Board on controversial schemes.
Cllr John Beesley was elected at a by-
Connections between Cllr Beesley and Tony Ramsden/"Planning Solutions"
I have served on the Planning Board since 1999. Throughout this time, I was quite unaware of the close relationship between Cllr Beesley and Tony Ramsden. I doubt whether any but a handful of Members were aware of the close relationship.
For Cllr Beesley, Tony Ramsden is more than just a former colleague:-
1 Cllr Beesley is clearly a very close friend of Tony Ramsden and even sat at the top table with Tony Ramsden and his family at Tony Ramsden's wedding
2 Cllr Beesley is the godfather of a child of Tony Ramsden
3 Cllr Beesley and Tony Ramsden were business partners in Williamson and Treadgold Ltd (Company No 4005198) and records show that even at 28 February 2003, Cllr Beesley was the Company Secretary.
Declarations made (or not made) by Cllr Beesley
Between 2003 – 2007, the Chair of the Planning Board was the Lib Dem Cllr Ken Mantock. He used to give a blanket declaration for the whole Planning Committee, saying that we knew Tony Ramsden as an ex-
However, Cllr Beesley (who was already on the Planning Committee at that time) failed to make any personal declaration of his own. In particular, he did not go on to say (as was the case) that Tony Ramsden was a close friend and former business partner of his, nor did he go on to say that he should therefore not take part in any decision on business in which Tony Ramsden was involved, as he should have done. As I have stated, I had no idea about the close relationship between the two and I do not believe many other Members did either.
When Cllr Beesley was appointed Chair of the Planning Board, he continued to hear representations from Tony Ramsden (and his colleagues at Planning Solutions) despite the close personal interest. He continued to make only the blanket declaration on behalf of the whole Committee to the effect that Tony Ramsden was known to the Committee as an ex-
gave the misleading impression that this was the extent of the Board's, and in particular, his own interest. He failed to make any personal disclosure whatsoever that he, Cllr Beesley, had any personal interest above and beyond that of knowing Tony Ramsden (like other members of the Committee) as ex-
In 2007, when I began to learn of Cllr Beesley's interest, I challenged this, raising the matter with Cllr Beesley and with the Council's legal department (see attached emails to Brendan Gollogly dated 23 November 2007 and to Cllr Claire Smith dated 7 January 2008). This led to Cllr Beesley making a personal declaration that he knew Tony Ramsden as a friend. However, this still failed to declare "the extent and nature of his interest" (as required by the Code), i.e. not only close friend but also former business partner. In any event, the connection was so close that this was clearly a prejudicial personal interest and he should have removed himself from the decision (and all decisions in which Tony Ramsden's firm was involved), but failed to do so.
Connections with the hospitality industry
Cllr Beesley also at this time owned a company called Hospitality Solutions, whose aim was to promote the tourism industry. He was also a part owner in the Yenton Hotel.
He did not make any declaration of interest in relation to these business interests. I was quite unaware of them at the time and have only recently found out. This makes it surprising that his party appointed him to the Planning Board with his close involvement in the tourism business.
He has failed to make any declaration in respect of these matters.
Studland Dene Hotel Planning Application No 7/2007/4671/M
Please see attached minutes of the Planning Board of 19th November 2007, page J26 containing a note for a request for a deputation on behalf of the applicant.
This was an application that had been refused twice previously by the Planning Board, for permission to build 14 flats at the site of the then Studland Dene Hotel at 2 Studland Road. The person who was appearing at the Planning Board meeting on 19 November 2007 on behalf of the developer was the applicant’s agent, Tony Ramsden. Twice previously the application, which had been handled by a different agent, had been rejected. This time, with Tony Ramsden's involvement, it was approved. The decision made is set out below. What is particularly concerning is the way this application was handled by Cllr Beesley at the meeting, which led to planning approval being granted:
Please see the attached PDF file on the Studland Dene Hotel Planning application.
The Council has a planning policy in place, which would have required affordable housing in the case of Studland Dene. This was clearly set out in the officer’s report. The application was being recommended for granting on the basis set forward in the report. The officer stated in 4.16 that “If Members are supportive of the scheme I will continue negotiations with the Council's Housing Officer”. Cllr Beesley should have been aware of the applicable s 106 guidelines which make an affordable housing element necessary, and if not, should have asked either the head of planning or the legal representative, Brendan Gollogly.
Instead of providing affordable housing, a suggestion was made during the meeting by Cllr Newport (a very recently elected Member in the same ward as Cllr Beesley in which the Studland Dene Hotel is situated) to a contribution towards road surfacing works. Works to roads were not "essential to enable development to take place" and consequently were inappropriate as a contribution. Cllr Beesley must have known this. The Planning Board should not have even considered contributions in respect of non-
In the end, the sum that was finally agreed with Tony Ramsden/Developer was £50k, though I cannot remember this being mentioned at the meeting, so in effect Cllr Beesley allowed the decision to be granted, without obtaining any firm affordable housing commitment, contrary to our planning policy. Even £50k was a derisory amount supposedly to provide 4+ affordable units off site).
It was quite wrong also that the application could be fundamentally changed during the course of the Planning Meeting in the manner that this application was, because the non-
The introduction of these substantial changes was flagged up by Cllr Newport when he made the move to grant and referred to road improvements. Would the officer’s recommendation to grant have been made, if there had not been a contribution to affordable housing? Obviously not, as he was in negotiations and had it as a necessary 106 Condition.
The Planning Board should not have attempted to fundamentally change this application in this way in my opinion and that of legal officers outside the Council. These last minute changes made the application materially different from the one the officers had considered and the officers were not given an opportunity to consider the changes or respond properly, neither was the public given any notice of the changes. Likewise, Members were not properly advised as to the consequences of the changes, why they were being introduced and whether or not they had to be accepted.
It is clear that these changes did not have officer or policy support and they were certainly not necessary to enable the development to take place or to secure a positive vote from Members. Members would surely have been keener to see off site contributions at the correct amount going towards affordable housing which were the officer’s recommendation, than to get no contribution with a promise by who knows who that money would be given to road improvements which is not essential and therefore could be challenged by the developer.
One of the key principles of Section 106 money is that it must not be used to purchase planning approval. In my view, though, this is exactly what happened here. However, with Cllr Beesley's full weight behind moving to grant, and with a heavy Conservative majority consisting of Members who (apart from Cllr Beesley and Cllr D. Smith) were all inexperienced in planning matters, the outcome was inevitable.
Where did these changes come from, who introduced and promoted them at the meeting, and who convinced other members to sanction them? Public perception might think the answer is quite clear.
Is it a coincidence that the developer had changed his planning agent and used Planning Solutions this time for this very contentious planning application?
I raised my concerns at the time with the legal officers of the Council in writing. Even then, I did not know that Cllr Beesley had such close connections with Tony Ramsden. See attached emails.
Poole Road Medical Centre
This was an application which the officers of the Council had rejected. Tony Ramsden then wrote a letter to the Echo making the case for the development on the basis that this would be to support local doctors; he also
circulated the letter to all members of the Planning Board. Cllr Beesley made no declaration as to his personal interest (due to his close connection with Tony Ramsden).
The outcome of the matter was that planning approval, against the recommendations of the officers, was granted.
Cllr MacLoughlin
Cllr MacLoughlin is the current Leader of the Council. He played a decisive part in putting Cllr Beesley in a situation where this prejudicial personal interest would arise.
Prior to the elections in 2007, Cllr Beesley had appeared, to many of us, to take on a leading role on the Planning Board, being always very well prepared and willing to speak at great length. The Tory Members of the Planning Board were Cllrs Beesley, David Smith, Ramsden (till 2004) and Ratcliffe. Cllr Ramsden’s position was not filled as the Planning Committee was reduced from 15-
After the election in 2007, the constitution was changed by the Leader, in a most underhand manner, to permit a Councillor to have more than one Special Responsibility Allowance. The only beneficiary of this is, and was, Cllr Beesley, having the roles at the same time of Deputy Leader, Cabinet Member for Resources and Chair of the Planning Board. The Leader specifically insisted that Cllr Beesley should have the role of Chair of Planning.
I think that this was wrong, as Cllr Beesley is heavily involved in the tourism business in this town, which must raise questions as to why the Leader insisted that Cllr Beesley should have the role of Chair of Planning, bearing in mind his background. The Leader was so adamant that he drove through a change in the constitution to permit it.
What is particularly concerning, is that the Leader justified the change at the time, by claiming that there was no option but to change the constitution so Cllr Beesley could be appointed as Chair of the Board, as there were no Councillors experienced enough on the Planning Board to take on this role. The composition of the Planning Board is at the discretion of the Leader.
However, what he did not say was that Cllr Basil Ratcliffe (also of the Conservatives) had expressed the wish to serve on the Planning Committee and that he was highly experienced in planning issues.
Councillor Basil Ratcliffe was first elected in 1976. He stood down for a brief period for employment reasons but had been a Member of the Planning
Committee all the time he had been a Councillor and continually from 1991 to 2002 when he and Cllr Beesley became Cabinet Members.
Instead, the Leader chose to exclude this most experienced Councillor in planning, in favour of 5 Councillors, Mrs Anderson, Coope, Mrs Cooper, Lancashire and Newport, who between them had no planning experience at all. With such an inexperienced Planning Board, it was inevitable that the Board's only option was to vote in Cllr Beesley. I was a Member of the Planning Board and I and the rest of the Board had no idea of Cllr Beesley’s involvement in the tourism industry, nor his close interest with Tony Ramsden, nor the availability of Cllr Basil Ratcliffe.
To get Cllr Beesley onto the Planning Board and keep his other roles, it was necessary to change the Constitution. This was done as I have said in a most underhand way. This can be seen from the attached minutes of the Nomination Board. On page B3 section 4 entitled Appointments of Members to Panels and Boards, there is a reference in section 2 to amending the Council’s Constitution. Surely such an important matter should have had more prominence. I know that neither Cllrs Levell nor Rey were aware of this fundamental change. (See attached minutes of the Nomination Board 11.5.07)
I consider that the Leader was manipulating the system to ensure that his friend, Cllr Beesley, even with his prejudicial background, was given this very important position.
I understand that Cllr Ratcliffe is willing to state that he was absolutely furious when he heard that the reason for this very contentious appointment was that there was no one sufficiently well qualified on the new Board. In fact he was the most experienced Councillor in planning on the Council and he had been excluded from the Planning Board. He has correspondence to verify this.
Pitt Report
The conduct of the Leader and Cllr Beesley in making this change to the constitution was in my view clearly wholly wrong.
Reference should be made, by way of comparison, with the Pitt Report on the Borough Council of Poole, which came to the conclusion that Cabinet Members should not sit on the Planning Board. I agree with this, as there is not sufficient space between trying to implement Council Policy, which is the role of the Cabinet, and the Planning Board who has to verify it is in accord with Planning Policy. This report has not yet been acted on in Bournemouth. Why is this?
The Code
The relevant sections are sections 8 and 9.
Personal interests
8. —(1) You have a personal interest in any business of
your authority where either—
(a) ……or
(b) a decision in relation to that business might reasonably be regarded as affecting [your well-
the majority of [ratepayers etc………].
A "relevant person" is defined as:
8. – (2) (a) "a member of your family or any person with whom you have a close association".
As regards Cllr Beesley, Tony Ramsden is clearly a person with whom he has a close association and accordingly, Cllr Beesley has a personal interest.
This at the very least, requires a personal disclosure of the "existence and nature of that interest". Cllr Beesley failed to make any disclosure, until I pointed out to him the need to do so. Even after this, he failed by to indicate the nature and extent of that interest, which were far greater than I and most other Committee Members realised.
The next question is, if there is a personal interest, this amounts to a prejudicial interest. I refer to the Code:
Prejudicial interest generally
10. — (1) Subject to sub-
personal interest in any business of your authority you also
have a prejudicial interest in that business where the
interest is one which a member of the public with knowledge
of the relevant facts would reasonably regard as so
significant that it is likely to prejudice your judgment of the
public interest.
Here, it is quite clear in my view, that the interest is one which a member of the public with knowledge of the relevant facts would reasonably regard as so significant that it is likely to prejudice the person's judgment of the public interest. The connection between Cllr Beesley and Tony Ramsden (and his company) was simply far too close.
I am concerned that Cllr MacLoughlin was aware of the facts and instigated a situation, by in effect appointing Cllr Beesley and disregarding Cllr Ratcliffe, whereby a prejudicial interest would arise and he must have known this was likely to occur. He also must have been aware of his involvement in the tourism industry and the potential conflict of interest that might arise.
I am also concerned at the manner in which Cllr MacLoughlin has forced through constitutional change, creating a conflict between the interests of the Council and Committee Members, contrary to the recommendations of the Pitt Report.
The Code also stipulates:
5. You must not conduct yourself in a manner which could reasonably be regarded as bringing your office or authority into disrepute.
I am concerned that the conduct of Cllr Beesley and Cllr MacLoughlin has been in breach also of paragraph 5 of the Code.
-
I hope that I have clearly stated why Cllr Stephen Macloughlin and Cllr John Beesley should be asked to attend the Standards Committee.
Furthermore, I am concerned that when I first raised this with our legal team in November 2007 they did not immediately refer this matter to the Standards Committee.
See attached emails already referred to.
Cllr Roger West
Bournemouth 5th December 2009.
In this role as planning agent he started to appear in front of the Planning Committee. Since then, he and his colleagues at his firm "Planning Solutions" have handled numerous planning matters in the Bournemouth area including appearing before the Planning Board on controversial schemes.
Cllr John Beesley was elected at a by-
Connections between Cllr Beesley and Tony Ramsden/"Planning Solutions"
I have served on the Planning Board since 1999. Throughout this time, I was quite unaware of the close relationship between Cllr Beesley and Tony Ramsden. I doubt whether any but a handful of Members were aware of the close relationship.
For Cllr Beesley, Tony Ramsden is more than just a former colleague:-
1 Cllr Beesley is clearly a very close friend of Tony Ramsden and even sat at the top table with Tony Ramsden and his family at Tony Ramsden's wedding
2 Cllr Beesley is the godfather of a child of Tony Ramsden
3 Cllr Beesley and Tony Ramsden were business partners in Williamson and Treadgold Ltd (Company No 4005198) and records show that even at 28 February 2003, Cllr Beesley was the Company Secretary.
Declarations made (or not made) by Cllr Beesley
Between 2003 – 2007, the Chair of the Planning Board was the Lib Dem Cllr Ken Mantock. He used to give a blanket declaration for the whole Planning Committee, saying that we knew Tony Ramsden as an ex-
However, Cllr Beesley (who was already on the Planning Committee at that time) failed to make any personal declaration of his own. In particular, he did not go on to say (as was the case) that Tony Ramsden was a close friend and former business partner of his, nor did he go on to say that he should therefore not take part in any decision on business in which Tony Ramsden was involved, as he should have done. As I have stated, I had no idea about the close relationship between the two and I do not believe many other Members did either.
When Cllr Beesley was appointed Chair of the Planning Board, he continued to hear representations from Tony Ramsden (and his colleagues at Planning Solutions) despite the close personal interest. He continued to make only the blanket declaration on behalf of the whole Committee to the effect that Tony Ramsden was known to the Committee as an ex-
gave the misleading impression that this was the extent of the Board's, and in particular, his own interest. He failed to make any personal disclosure whatsoever that he, Cllr Beesley, had any personal interest above and beyond that of knowing Tony Ramsden (like other members of the Committee) as ex-
In 2007, when I began to learn of Cllr Beesley's interest, I challenged this, raising the matter with Cllr Beesley and with the Council's legal department (see attached emails to Brendan Gollogly dated 23 November 2007 and to Cllr Claire Smith dated 7 January 2008). This led to Cllr Beesley making a personal declaration that he knew Tony Ramsden as a friend. However, this still failed to declare "the extent and nature of his interest" (as required by the Code), i.e. not only close friend but also former business partner. In any event, the connection was so close that this was clearly a prejudicial personal interest and he should have removed himself from the decision (and all decisions in which Tony Ramsden's firm was involved), but failed to do so.
Connections with the hospitality industry
Cllr Beesley also at this time owned a company called Hospitality Solutions, whose aim was to promote the tourism industry. He was also a part owner in the Yenton Hotel.
He did not make any declaration of interest in relation to these business interests. I was quite unaware of them at the time and have only recently found out. This makes it surprising that his party appointed him to the Planning Board with his close involvement in the tourism business.
He has failed to make any declaration in respect of these matters.
Studland Dene Hotel Planning Application No 7/2007/4671/M
Please see attached minutes of the Planning Board of 19th November 2007, page J26 containing a note for a request for a deputation on behalf of the applicant.
This was an application that had been refused twice previously by the Planning Board, for permission to build 14 flats at the site of the then Studland Dene Hotel at 2 Studland Road. The person who was appearing at the Planning Board meeting on 19 November 2007 on behalf of the developer was the applicant’s agent, Tony Ramsden. Twice previously the application, which had been handled by a different agent, had been rejected. This time, with Tony Ramsden's involvement, it was approved. The decision made is set out below. What is particularly concerning is the way this application was handled by Cllr Beesley at the meeting, which led to planning approval being granted:
Please see the attached PDF file on the Studland Dene Hotel Planning application.
The Council has a planning policy in place, which would have required affordable housing in the case of Studland Dene. This was clearly set out in the officer’s report. The application was being recommended for granting on the basis set forward in the report. The officer stated in 4.16 that “If Members are supportive of the scheme I will continue negotiations with the Council's Housing Officer”. Cllr Beesley should have been aware of the applicable s 106 guidelines which make an affordable housing element necessary, and if not, should have asked either the head of planning or the legal representative, Brendan Gollogly.
Instead of providing affordable housing, a suggestion was made during the meeting by Cllr Newport (a very recently elected Member in the same ward as Cllr Beesley in which the Studland Dene Hotel is situated) to a contribution towards road surfacing works. Works to roads were not "essential to enable development to take place" and consequently were inappropriate as a contribution. Cllr Beesley must have known this. The Planning Board should not have even considered contributions in respect of non-
In the end, the sum that was finally agreed with Tony Ramsden/Developer was £50k, though I cannot remember this being mentioned at the meeting, so in effect Cllr Beesley allowed the decision to be granted, without obtaining any firm affordable housing commitment, contrary to our planning policy. Even £50k was a derisory amount supposedly to provide 4+ affordable units off site).
It was quite wrong also that the application could be fundamentally changed during the course of the Planning Meeting in the manner that this application was, because the non-
The introduction of these substantial changes was flagged up by Cllr Newport when he made the move to grant and referred to road improvements. Would the officer’s recommendation to grant have been made, if there had not been a contribution to affordable housing? Obviously not, as he was in negotiations and had it as a necessary 106 Condition.
The Planning Board should not have attempted to fundamentally change this application in this way in my opinion and that of legal officers outside the Council. These last minute changes made the application materially different from the one the officers had considered and the officers were not given an opportunity to consider the changes or respond properly, neither was the public given any notice of the changes. Likewise, Members were not properly advised as to the consequences of the changes, why they were being introduced and whether or not they had to be accepted.
It is clear that these changes did not have officer or policy support and they were certainly not necessary to enable the development to take place or to secure a positive vote from Members. Members would surely have been keener to see off site contributions at the correct amount going towards affordable housing which were the officer’s recommendation, than to get no contribution with a promise by who knows who that money would be given to road improvements which is not essential and therefore could be challenged by the developer.
One of the key principles of Section 106 money is that it must not be used to purchase planning approval. In my view, though, this is exactly what happened here. However, with Cllr Beesley's full weight behind moving to grant, and with a heavy Conservative majority consisting of Members who (apart from Cllr Beesley and Cllr D. Smith) were all inexperienced in planning matters, the outcome was inevitable.
Where did these changes come from, who introduced and promoted them at the meeting, and who convinced other members to sanction them? Public perception might think the answer is quite clear.
Is it a coincidence that the developer had changed his planning agent and used Planning Solutions this time for this very contentious planning application?
I raised my concerns at the time with the legal officers of the Council in writing. Even then, I did not know that Cllr Beesley had such close connections with Tony Ramsden. See attached emails.
Poole Road Medical Centre
This was an application which the officers of the Council had rejected. Tony Ramsden then wrote a letter to the Echo making the case for the development on the basis that this would be to support local doctors; he also
circulated the letter to all members of the Planning Board. Cllr Beesley made no declaration as to his personal interest (due to his close connection with Tony Ramsden).
The outcome of the matter was that planning approval, against the recommendations of the officers, was granted.
Cllr MacLoughlin
Cllr MacLoughlin is the current Leader of the Council. He played a decisive part in putting Cllr Beesley in a situation where this prejudicial personal interest would arise.
Prior to the elections in 2007, Cllr Beesley had appeared, to many of us, to take on a leading role on the Planning Board, being always very well prepared and willing to speak at great length. The Tory Members of the Planning Board were Cllrs Beesley, David Smith, Ramsden (till 2004) and Ratcliffe. Cllr Ramsden’s position was not filled as the Planning Committee was reduced from 15-
After the election in 2007, the constitution was changed by the Leader, in a most underhand manner, to permit a Councillor to have more than one Special Responsibility Allowance. The only beneficiary of this is, and was, Cllr Beesley, having the roles at the same time of Deputy Leader, Cabinet Member for Resources and Chair of the Planning Board. The Leader specifically insisted that Cllr Beesley should have the role of Chair of Planning.
I think that this was wrong, as Cllr Beesley is heavily involved in the tourism business in this town, which must raise questions as to why the Leader insisted that Cllr Beesley should have the role of Chair of Planning, bearing in mind his background. The Leader was so adamant that he drove through a change in the constitution to permit it.
What is particularly concerning, is that the Leader justified the change at the time, by claiming that there was no option but to change the constitution so Cllr Beesley could be appointed as Chair of the Board, as there were no Councillors experienced enough on the Planning Board to take on this role. The composition of the Planning Board is at the discretion of the Leader.
However, what he did not say was that Cllr Basil Ratcliffe (also of the Conservatives) had expressed the wish to serve on the Planning Committee and that he was highly experienced in planning issues.
Councillor Basil Ratcliffe was first elected in 1976. He stood down for a brief period for employment reasons but had been a Member of the Planning
Committee all the time he had been a Councillor and continually from 1991 to 2002 when he and Cllr Beesley became Cabinet Members.
Instead, the Leader chose to exclude this most experienced Councillor in planning, in favour of 5 Councillors, Mrs Anderson, Coope, Mrs Cooper, Lancashire and Newport, who between them had no planning experience at all. With such an inexperienced Planning Board, it was inevitable that the Board's only option was to vote in Cllr Beesley. I was a Member of the Planning Board and I and the rest of the Board had no idea of Cllr Beesley’s involvement in the tourism industry, nor his close interest with Tony Ramsden, nor the availability of Cllr Basil Ratcliffe.
To get Cllr Beesley onto the Planning Board and keep his other roles, it was necessary to change the Constitution. This was done as I have said in a most underhand way. This can be seen from the attached minutes of the Nomination Board. On page B3 section 4 entitled Appointments of Members to Panels and Boards, there is a reference in section 2 to amending the Council’s Constitution. Surely such an important matter should have had more prominence. I know that neither Cllrs Levell nor Rey were aware of this fundamental change. (See attached minutes of the Nomination Board 11.5.07)
I consider that the Leader was manipulating the system to ensure that his friend, Cllr Beesley, even with his prejudicial background, was given this very important position.
I understand that Cllr Ratcliffe is willing to state that he was absolutely furious when he heard that the reason for this very contentious appointment was that there was no one sufficiently well qualified on the new Board. In fact he was the most experienced Councillor in planning on the Council and he had been excluded from the Planning Board. He has correspondence to verify this.
Pitt Report
The conduct of the Leader and Cllr Beesley in making this change to the constitution was in my view clearly wholly wrong.
Reference should be made, by way of comparison, with the Pitt Report on the Borough Council of Poole, which came to the conclusion that Cabinet Members should not sit on the Planning Board. I agree with this, as there is not sufficient space between trying to implement Council Policy, which is the role of the Cabinet, and the Planning Board who has to verify it is in accord with Planning Policy. This report has not yet been acted on in Bournemouth. Why is this?
The Code
The relevant sections are sections 8 and 9.
Personal interests
8. —(1) You have a personal interest in any business of
your authority where either—
(a) ……or
(b) a decision in relation to that business might reasonably be regarded as affecting [your well-
the majority of [ratepayers etc………].
A "relevant person" is defined as:
8. – (2) (a) "a member of your family or any person with whom you have a close association".
As regards Cllr Beesley, Tony Ramsden is clearly a person with whom he has a close association and accordingly, Cllr Beesley has a personal interest.
This at the very least, requires a personal disclosure of the "existence and nature of that interest". Cllr Beesley failed to make any disclosure, until I pointed out to him the need to do so. Even after this, he failed by to indicate the nature and extent of that interest, which were far greater than I and most other Committee Members realised.
The next question is, if there is a personal interest, this amounts to a prejudicial interest. I refer to the Code:
Prejudicial interest generally
10. — (1) Subject to sub-
personal interest in any business of your authority you also
have a prejudicial interest in that business where the
interest is one which a member of the public with knowledge
of the relevant facts would reasonably regard as so
significant that it is likely to prejudice your judgment of the
public interest.
Here, it is quite clear in my view, that the interest is one which a member of the public with knowledge of the relevant facts would reasonably regard as so significant that it is likely to prejudice the person's judgment of the public interest. The connection between Cllr Beesley and Tony Ramsden (and his company) was simply far too close.
I am concerned that Cllr MacLoughlin was aware of the facts and instigated a situation, by in effect appointing Cllr Beesley and disregarding Cllr Ratcliffe, whereby a prejudicial interest would arise and he must have known this was likely to occur. He also must have been aware of his involvement in the tourism industry and the potential conflict of interest that might arise.
I am also concerned at the manner in which Cllr MacLoughlin has forced through constitutional change, creating a conflict between the interests of the Council and Committee Members, contrary to the recommendations of the Pitt Report.
The Code also stipulates:
5. You must not conduct yourself in a manner which could reasonably be regarded as bringing your office or authority into disrepute.
I am concerned that the conduct of Cllr Beesley and Cllr MacLoughlin has been in breach also of paragraph 5 of the Code.
-
I hope that I have clearly stated why Cllr Stephen Macloughlin and Cllr John Beesley should be asked to attend the Standards Committee.
Furthermore, I am concerned that when I first raised this with our legal team in November 2007 they did not immediately refer this matter to the Standards Committee.
See attached emails already referred to.
Cllr Roger West
Bournemouth 5th December 2009.
Website designed and maintained by Forum Marketing & Consulting Ltd. Tel: 07968 028391 www.forummarketingandconsulting.com