Bournemouth Liberal Democrats

Cllr Beesley Planning Board Tribunal Case Summary

Introduction

This is an appeal from a Standards Committee decision in relation to allegations by Councillor Roger West that Councillor John Beesley had failed to comply with paragraphs 9 and 12 of Bournemouth Borough Council's Code of Conduct by failing to declare prejudicial interests and failing to withdraw himself from meetings when he has had personal interests.

Facts of the Case

• In 1999 Tony Ramsden was elected as a Bournemouth Borough Councillor
• In 2000 Cllr Beesley was elected as a Bournemouth Borough Councillor
• In 2003 Tony Ramsden resigned as Councillor
• Cllr Beesley had a close association with Mr Ramsden which included:
  • Previously being a Director with Tony Ramsden of the company Williamson & Treadgold Ltd
  • Being godfather to Tony Ramsden's son
  • And attending Tony Ramsden's wedding
  • He went to Ramsden's house once or twice a year for a children's party and lunched and dined with him and his family about as often.
• In 2005 Ramsden set up a planning consultancy business called 'Planning Solutions' which represented clients in relation to decisions made by the Borough's Planning Board. Mr Ramsden has made personal representations on behalf of clients to the Planning Board.
• Cllr Beesley was Chairman of the Planning Board from August 2007 to July 2010
• Cllr Beesley provided evidence that he took some care in considering the Code of Conduct.
• The Code of Conduct requires that the Cllr on the planning board make a declaration of personal interest and the nature of that interest.
• The Code of Conduct provides that a Bournemouth Councillor will have a personal interest in any business where either:

1. They have received gifts or hospitality worth more than £25
2. Or the decision might reasonably be regarded as affecting the well-being or financial position of a close associate, an employer of such a close associate or a firm in which they are a partner or company of which they are a director.

• In relation to disrepute the Code Provides:

"You must not conduct yourself in a manner which could reasonably be regarded as bringing your office or authority into disrepute."

• The records show that Cllr Beesley didn't always declare his close association with Tony Ramsden and didn't withdraw from proceedings when deciding planning applications from him or his clients on a number of occasions.
  • Cllr Beesley argued that in all instances he made the appropriate declaration and the records simply don't show these declarations
  • Cllr Beesley also claimed that he had received advice from the Monitoring Officer Joy Postings that the declarations were appropriate and that he was not required to withdraw from the Planning Board. There was email evidence which appeared to back up this assertion.
  • Joy Postings, in a statement, declared that she had not given such advice
• In March 2010 Beesley made a statement that he would no longer make a declaration with relation to Mr Ramsden.
• Cllr West brought an action to the Standards Committee against Beesley for failing to comply with the code

The Judge Grants the following using the Objective Test:

1. That Beesley had a close association with Mr Ramsden and his family
2. That the well-being of Mr Ramsden and his planning consultancy would be affected by the decisions of the Planning Board
3. That Beesley would have had a personal interest whenever:
   • Mr Ramsden appeared to represent the interests of a client
   • 'Planning Solutions' or 'Planning Solutions CTP Ltd' were agents for an applicant
   • Or where an applicant has employed Mr Ramsden

Legal Issues

• whether Beesley had a personal interest in the consideration by the Planning Board of planning applications which involved Mr Ramsden, Planning Solutions or Planning Solutions CTP as agent for the applicant; if so,
• whether Beesley declared both the existence and nature of his personal interests at the meeting in accordance with paragraph 9 of the Code of Conduct;
• whether Beesley's personal interests, if any, were prejudicial; and if so,
• whether Beesley failed to withdraw from the meeting due to the existence of the prejudicial interest contrary to paragraph 12 of the Code of Conduct.

Held:

• Beesley had a personal interest with respect to Mr Ramsden
• Beesley acted on advice and made declarations based on that advice with minor variations at relevant meetings. However:

"As part of our decision, we recommend that the Respondent reflect further on the position he outlined in evidence, and take further advice on the nature and extent of the definition of prejudicial interest set out in paragraph 10 of the Code."

• The test to apply for prejudicial interest is whether a member of the public viewing these circumstances would think there is likelihood or a real possibility of bias.
• The reasonable man would not conclude that the association of Cllr Beesley with Mr Ramsden was so significant as to give a real possibility of bias. Therefore he did not have a prejudicial interest.
• Beesley had taken appropriate advice and conformed to the Code of Conduct.

Statutes Considered

Local Government Act 2000 - s(49), s(51) & s(52)

Statutory Instruments

• The Relevant Authorities (General Principles) Order 2001 (SI 2001/1401)
• The Local Authorities Model Code of Conduct (England) Order (SI 2001/3575)
• The Local Authorities (Model Code of Conduct) Order 2007 (SI 2007/1159)

Cases Considered

Gillies v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2006] 1 WLR 781

Porter v Magill [2002] 2 AC 357