AN INQUIRY into the signing on polling day of a deal committing Bournemouth to a new casino has cleared the Town Hall of any wrong-doing.

But some councillors are saying voters will only be satisfied by a full investigation in public.

Bournemouth's new Conservative leadership ordered a review after discovering that a contract signed on May 3 could tie its hands over plans for a leisure complex, including a casino, near the Pavilion on Bath Road.

The internal report insists officers acted properly to implement a decision already agreed by the council - and warns that backing out of the deal with the Trevor Osborne Group could cost millions in compensation.

The council's monitoring officer has confirmed that proper procedures were followed and "no officer acted inappropriately", the report adds.

Cllr Stephen MacLoughlin, new leader of Bournemouth Borough Council, said: "In strict accordance with the council's constitution, it seems as if nothing untoward happened.

"Having said that, I think the situation is still highly questionable. I think most members of the public would say Can this really be, that on the day of an election the officers sign a contract like this?'"

The report to be presented to the council's cabinet tomorrow says the council must choose between sticking with the scheme, trying to modify it or pulling out - at a cost "likely to run into millions of pounds".

Cllr MacLoughlin said: "We don't want to proceed with the scheme as it is. I would not rule out the possibility of breaking the contract, but before we get to that we need to have more detailed contact with Trevor Osborne to try and find out to what extent he's prepared to modify the proposal."

Labour leader Ben Grower said recent events should be looked at by a panel which could call politicians and officers as witnesses. "I would agree on the evidence so far that nothing legally wrong has been done. I'm not suggesting, nor have ever suggested, that. But I think we need to know why this course of events took place at the time," he said.

Independent group leader Cllr Anne Rey said: "I think the public has a right to know everything that's gone on. It's got to be transparent."

Former councillor Adrian Fudge, who approved the details of the Pavilion deal the day before it was signed, said he had been exonerated.

He said: "The decision was taken by the council on April 2 and all that happened after that was that officers were empowered to complete the deal and just came to me and said Just so you know, these are the final details'."

Cllr Richard Smith, who led the council's former Liberal Democrat regime, said the report showed there had been "nothing untoward" in the signing.

"I can understand why the public thinks - on the limited information that it has been given and the spin that was placed on it - that something untoward was happening. The fact is there were three and a half years' worth of negotiations," he said.

He said the deal would mean an improved Pavilion, more public access to the venue, more car parking and a restored public square in front of the theatre.

"It's such a fantastic deal, but people lock on to one element that represents six per cent of the floor area of the new building," he said.

Why officers signed

THE report by corporate director Stephen Godsall sets out the key reasons why officers signed proceeded in signing the contract just before the elections:

  • There was a risk of "substantial" compensation claims if officers did not sign the deal already agreed by council.
  • The terms of the deal were improved because the developer knew the imminent election of a new council could cause difficulties.
  • No move had been made by councillors to overturn the decision of April 2.
  • Consultation had shown "largely positive" results. Much of the opposition was based on the erroneous idea that the development would house one of the government's "super casinos" or that there would be building in the Lower Gardens.
  • Comment from local people revealed other misunderstandings, including that the casino would replace the theatre and ballroom use at the Pavilion.

What happened and when

  • May 2003: The newly elected Liberal Democrats call off Conservative plans to refurbish the Pavilion using £10m in Private Finance Initiative money.
  • 2004: The Trevor Osborne Group is appointed preferred bidder for a new re-development. Its scheme includes a new building on Bath Road containing restaurants, casino, tourist information centre and roof gardens, with 450 spaces underground. At least £13m will be spent refurbishing the Pavilion.
  • April 2 2007: Council considers the final Osborne scheme and is warned the company could seek compensation if it is ditched. Officers aim to complete the agreement by April 27.
  • April 27: Officers believe extra days of negotiation will improve the terms for the council. Various issues are referred to cabinet member Adrian Fudge for confirmation that they comply with the council's decision of April 2.
  • May 2: Arrangements are in place to sign the contract in the evening, but are thwarted by an email failure at the Town Hall.
  • May 3 (election day): Printing and checking documents for errors. Documents are signed 6.45pm.
  • May 4: The new Conservative administration discovers the commitment has been made and orders an internal inquiry.