Inquiry was held into Bournemouth council leader John Beesley

And it comes to a conclusion, formally at least, just as Bournemouth council is to be abolished.

An independent inquiry into the authority’s Conservative leader John Beesley has found that allegations made by colleagues about his conduct are unproven and that he did not breach the council’s own Code of Conduct.

The conclusions are drawn in a 46-page report published on Thursday, from lawyer Mark Heath of VWV Solicitors.

Mr Heath was for 15 years the head of legal and the monitoring officer at Southampton City Council.

And it follows the termination of an 18-month police investigation late last year into Cllr Beesley and his private business activities.

The Crown Prosecution Service said there was insufficient evidence to bring criminal charges.

• Report reveals the 'significant concerns' of Cllr Beesley's Conservative colleagues
• Leader 'never specifically recorded his work with developers or how much he was paid'
• One councillor alleged Cllr Beesley 'is a quietly clever controlling and manipulative person'
• Author of independent report said it was 'very clear officers had not been influenced or bullied'

Former council chief exec launched his own investigation into Cllr Beesley

The Heath report, commissioned by Bournemouth council, does include some significant concerns among his Conservatives colleagues about his role as a private consultant and his influence and leadership style as council leader.

A standards board meeting has been convened next Friday, which is the last working day of the council before the creation of the new Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole unitary.

Both the police investigation and the independent inquiry were triggered by a letter of complaint from ten Conservative councillors, just after the sudden departure of chief executive Tony Williams on March 17 2017.

At the time he left, Mr Williams was carrying out his own investigation into Cllr Beesley, which the leader says he was not aware of at the time.

Mr Williams passed away on May 18 last year, a year and a day after his departure.

Councillors raised concerns over work for developers

Cllr Beesley’s colleagues alleged a breach of obligations over pecuniary (financial) interests, which was what the police looked at.

He has never specifically recorded his work with named developers including Fresh Lime and Quantum or how much he is paid, in the register of members’ interests, but just lists himself as a director and employee of his own company Hospitality Solutions.

He says his advice on his declarations comes from the council’s senior legal counsel, monitoring officer Tanya Coulter.

The complainants also alleged that Cllr Beesley in his role as a hospitality consultant representing Fresh Lime over the controversial Belvedere hotel scheme, broke the Code of Conduct by compromising or trying to compromise officers, allowing his behaviour to bring the council into disrepute, attempting to use position improperly, bullying, harassing or intimidating council officers.

But in his executive summary, Mr Heath said “taking account of the evidence and the law” all the allegations are unproven.

Mr Heath also says: “We are aware that the Code of Conduct sets out that the highest standards are expected from those in positions of leadership, such as the leader of the council.”

Cllr Beesley acted as consultant to developer over Belvedere scheme in application to his own council

The solicitor interviewed the complainants (including councillors Mark Anderson, Stephen Bartlett, Jackie Edwards, Andy Jones, Don McQueen, Nick Rose and Rae Stollard) and also the chairman of planning, David Kelsey, Cllr Beesley himself, planning officers Andrew England and Simon Gould, project manager Claire Clark and the council’s external auditor, Paul Dossett of Grant Thornton. In his evidence Cllr Bartlett, a member of the planning committee, said he found it difficult to believe that Cllr Beesley was acting as a consultant to developer Fresh Lime over the Belvedere hotel scheme in an application to his own council. He said this was “clearly contrary to the members’ code of conduct.”

Cllr Bartlett raised the matter directly with Cllr Beesley and asked him if it was true.

“Councillor Beesley confirmed that this was true and stated that this was one of many projects he had been involved with through his business interests over the years.”

Cllr Bartlett added in his evidence: “It seemed inconceivable to me that the leader of the council would not have exercised any influence over the council officers present (in Belvedere pre-application meetings). Indeed consultants are engaged because of their expertise, expert knowledge and ability to influence on behalf of the client and they are therefore inevitably highly paid. Notwithstanding this, Cllr Beesley’s presence alone at such a meeting is bound to influence council officers particularly as in this case where officers were of a relatively junior status.”

He said he was “very disappointed the application was approved (five votes to four) as it was contrary to the view of the tourism department, the heritage officer, BAHA and contrary to the council’s parking policy”. This related to the lack of car parking spaces for the scheme which did not meet the council’s normal requirements.

Cllr Bartlett then raised the matter with head of planning Andrew England.

“Essentially I felt the planning board had let down the residents of the town and that the council leader has been party to this failure by acting in the interests of the developer for which he was being paid and not in the interests of the town which he is elected to do.”

'The Belvedere decision was wholly inconsistent with our policy... Cllr Beesley's role is a concern'

Away from the town hall, he also spoke to chief executive Tony Williams, who revealed he was investigating Cllr Beesley’s involvement with the Belvedere application.

He also believed the code of conduct had been breached.

Cllr Bartlett said he was shocked a few days later to be called to an ‘unofficial Conservative group meeting’ to authorise asking full council to make Mr Williams redundant.

Only a week earlier, the cabinet had approved Mr Williams to lead the shared services governance between Bournemouth and Poole up to 2019.

Cllr Bartlett found his sudden exit “extraordinary” and resigned from the Conservative group the following month.

Cllr Stollard said Mr Williams had claimed his relationship with Cllr Beesley had “totally broken down”.

Both councillors Don McQueen and Jackie Edwards said in their evidence to the inquiry, they were concerned the chair of planning, David Kelsey, “had pushed” (the Belvedere application) through.

Cllr McQueen said: “Previously he had been a stickler on car parking issues. But not here and only here. Cllr Kelsey is Conservative group secretary and chief whip as well chair of the planning board.

“The Belvedere decision was wholly inconsistent with our policy. The role of Cllr Beesley in that remains unclear but of concern.”

He also submitted: “Given the departure of the chief executive as well as the previous CFO (chief financial officer) and MO (monitoring officer) I think senior officers know that they do what the leader wants the way the leader wants or they lose their jobs.”

Councillors said leader was 'charming and manipulative... but not a criminal'

Cllr Edwards described Cllr Beesley as “an extremely controlling leader and is overly assertive bordering on bullying.”

She also said: “When our complaint was submitted we requested confidentiality. Within about 50 minutes, I and other signatories were being confronted by members of Cllr Beesley’s inner circle.”

Cllr Rae Stollard said: ”Cllr Beesley is a quietly clever controlling and manipulative person. He can be very charming. I do not however think he is a criminal. He has also done a lot of good for Bournemouth.

“Nothing but the centre of attention will work for him. He has considerable political ambitions whereas I do not.

“He is keen [...] to be the person who sorts or resolves things, to be the fixer and the centre of attention.”

Cllr Nick Rose said in his submission: “At the time I would describe the political climate that we were operating in as one of bullying and intimidation.”

Planning chair says 'everyone was clear which hat Cllr Beesley was wearing'

Chair of planning Cllr Kelsey said that there was “nothing particularly significant in the Belvedere hotel matter in that the approach of the board reflected the council’s ongoing changing approach to the provision of on-site parking”.

“There was no suggestion of impropriety or adverse influence having been placed on officers. I am a stickler for such things,” he said. “I did not allow Cllr Beesley to attend the board. I never did when he was acting for a developer.”

Planning officers Mr England and Mr Gould both agreed that Cllr Beesley “stuck to the rules of engagement throughout, explaining his status clearly. As a consequence I think everyone at the meetings I was at was clear which hat he was wearing and which he was not. No pressure or influence was exerted by Cllr Beesley at either of the two meetings.”

Mr England added: “There is no doubt in my mind at all that he did not influence or seek to influence our decisions nor did he use or attempt to use his position as leader."

Author of report finds evidence that no breach of the code took place

In his summarising Mr Heath said: “We came to the conclusion that there was no direct evidence from the complainants in terms of specific actions or similar carried out in relation to planning/highways officers.”

He said officers directly involved in the Belvedere application “were very clear that they had not been influenced or bullied and had discharged their duties professionally”.

“Their evidence was both significant and compelling in this matter. The officers were very clear that they would not have been influenced in the way alleged. Their responses were firm robust and believable.

“The approach taken by the leader in explaining his status when acting as a consultant was appropriate. The approach taken by the officers in dealing with the leader when acting as a consultant was entirely professional and what was to be expected.

“Further, it was clear that had Cllr Beesley not been involved in the Belvedere Hotel, they would have acted no differently in terms of their professional view, advice and judgement.”

The report says there is no direct evidence in support of breach of code of conduct but there is “compelling evidence especially from the officers that there was no breach.”

It says: “We believe that a member of the public, knowing all the relevant facts, would reasonably think that Cllr Beesley’s actions would not impact on the council’s ability to properly carry out its functions.”

On the issue of Mr Williams’ paperwork not being considered, the report says: “In considering the evidence, even if we had investigated in full the allegations around the departure of the previous CEO (which were not part of the complaint), whatever our findings, that would not been evidence or proof even to a civil burden of proof that Cllr Beesley had behaved contrary to the code of conduct in relation to the planning/highways officers regarding the Belvedere Hotel as alleged in the complaint.”

Two weeks ago the Daily Echo published special report on Mr Williams’ investigation, after being given access to his private papers, notes and his draft statement to the police.

Mr Heath pointed out that while the investigation was under way, the Committee on Standards in Public Life had reported on a review of ethical matters in local government. It suggested toughening up the rules for registering and declaring financial interests, saying current arrangements were not working.

And here's what Cllr Beesley told the inquiry...

COUNCILLOR Beesley has always insisted he did nothing wrong and in a letter to Mr Heath’s inquiry said the complaint was “a direct challenge to the integrity of both myself and senior council officers”.

His contribution at a meeting in August 2016 was “limited” and he had been asked to attend by his client, Fresh Lime Developments.

“The sole purpose of my attendance was to contextualise the proposals in respect of the developer’s transport consultants. I was not there to test, enunciate or explain the council’s parking policies.

“When I attend (meetings) in my capacity as a consultant, I always make my role and status very clear in that I am there as a consultant to the client in a private role and not in any other capacity that I may be known for elsewhere.

“I also make it very specifically clear that I do not rely on any relationship that I may have through my council role and I always act accordingly. I take advice on my approach and no issue has ever been raised with me by any council officers as to the consultancy role or the way in which I conduct it.

“In my consultancy business, Hospitality Solutions, I have had a number of clients over the past 20 years. Whenever these have resulted in work which falls within Bournemouth, I have been very conscious of the obligations placed on me as a councillor and have always made the appropriate declarations of personal interests with advice from the council’s monitoring officer (Tanya Coulter) when necessary.”

He said his role with Fresh Lime Developments was solely around hospitality aspects of its Belvedere Hotel planning application. “I attended team meetings with the client and planning officers and on every occasion I began the meeting with a declaration which made it specifically clear that I was attending in the capacity of a consultant advisor, as a private individual in my private business and that officers should ignore my separate elected office and council role,” he said.

“At no time did I attend pre-application meetings of the planning board concerned with this proposal nor did I attend the planning board meeting at which the application was determined.

“Throughout I ensured that I did not speak to other councillors about the application nor did I attempt to communicate with them in any other way, with one exception.” One exception, he said, was a meeting with planning committee member Cllr Stephen Bartlett after he raised concerns about Cllr Beesley’s involvement in the application.

Cllr Beesley said the complainants “with others have deliberately leaked information and briefed the media to fulfil their own ambitions”.

And in a complex series of paragraphs, Cllr Beesley argues why he is under no obligation to disclose who pays him in a private capacity. He says: “In terms of the issue (of declaration of interests), my interpretation has always been that ‘the name of any person or body who employs or has appointed you’ means precisely what it says in terms of my unincorporated business, Hospitality Solutions.

“The interpretation has been and continues to be that in my case, being self-employed and ‘trading as’, recognises that I am the employer and that my business appoints me in that capacity.

“My understanding is that this is also the basis of the interpretation of the monitoring officer. Any other interpretation has simply never occurred to me. Commercially, any other interpretation would mean that all client details would be required to be listed, regardless of client confidentiality, and therefore the ability to trade in my lawful self-employed capacity could only be for clients who were compliant with their details being published. This would then also apply to those in the professions and to anybody with private clients, who in some cases would be private householders. In turn, that would be prejudicial to carrying on a trade or profession unless agreement from a client or customer was sought and freely given, which in many cases it would (or could) not be.”