BOURNEMOUTH Council is considering introducing a ban on major decisions in the run up to elections after its investigation into the Casino controversy.

The special committee studying the election day signature of the £59m has recommended Bournemouth's Council's constitution needs reviewing in two key areas.

No council officers or councillors were found to have acted unlawfully over their actions leading up to May 3.

But the committee suggested the council could introduce a ban on passing key decisions in the period immediately before the election - known as a period of purdah'.

And it recommended a study of a rule that allows planning decisions to be referred to the full council. That rule was vital to the casino getting the green light from the Liberal Democrat controlled council.

The planning committee had tried to defer giving a decision. But a minority of Liberal Democrat members invoked the rule - letting their party majority prevail at a full council meeting.

The purdah' rule, and the rule giving the planning committee full power, are both already used by other councils.

The conservative members of the committee had to settle for questioning the morality of the way the decision was made, not its legality, after independent lawyers cleared those involved.

The Tories were concerned a recommendation to refuse the casino turned into a recommendation to approve it over the course of a weekend.

Conservative leader Cllr Stephen MacLoughin repeatedly asked the same questions: were council officers put under undue pressure to get the plan passed? If so, by whom?

They said in their evidence they were not. But Tory members were still convinced the deal was rushed through for the wrong reasons and that the town's image had been tarnished.

"Every single person I have spoke to was adamant - this was a breach of trust on the part of the council and it was totally immoral," said Cllr Mark Anderson, Queens Park.

Cllr MacLoughlin said the council's negotiating position had weakened by the speed of the contract signing.

Liberal democrat Committee chair Cllr Roger West, Redhill and Northbourne said the decision was in the town's best interest. The committee had heard the council was known for being poor at completing deals.

But Cllr MacLoughlin said it was staggering' to say the council should be proud of the decision.

The man the Tories really wanted, former councillor Adrian Fudge, was in the public gallery and only made a cameo appearance.

He signed a document that meant a council officer felt he could sign the contract on behalf of the council, Cllr MacLoughlin said.

Cllr MacLoughlin said the public perception was Mr Fudge's actions had been morally unjustifiable and that he had been the one person who could have stopped this'.

After the meeting, Mr Fudge said the independent legal advice was his signature was not needed, and the decision to proceed was taken by the council, making Cllr MacLoughlin's moral claim ridiculous'.