Council keeps secret ‘damning report’ into blunder which could see up to £180,000 paid back to developers

Gloucester City Council chiefs are refusing to release a damning report into a blunder which could cost taxpayers up to £180,000 despite councillors voting to discuss the issue in public.

Councillors are concerned that funding from developers which goes towards public services such as schools, libraries, open spaces and children’s play areas has not been spent in time.

This funding, which is secured through section 106 legal agreements when planning permission is granted, goes back to the developer if it is not spent before the deadline.

Auditors have picked up that five developer contributions to the value of £180,000 had not been fully used by the deadline.

Councillors voted to discuss the issue in public at the audit and governance committee meeting this week.

But council officers are still refusing to make the “damning report” public, citing “commercial sensitivities”.

Councillor Jeremy Hilton (LD, Kingsholm and Wotton), who was at the meeting, said the debacle was due to incompetent management of the council’s section 106 agreements.

He said: “The audit and governance committee must be praised for its decision to overrule the attempt by the council’s Conservative administration to discuss the report behind closed doors.

“The damning report says that ownership and responsibility for the management of section 106 agreements is not clear. It also says that reconciliations in the general ledger were not carried out before or after the cyber incident.

“It seems that five developer contributions to the value of £180,000 had not been fully used by the deadline and three S106 agreements totalling £85,000 towards affordable homes had not been spent by the time of the audit.

“The ‘vanishing council’ under the Conservatives has recently lost its section 106 officer and has so few employees it seems it cannot manage developer contributions correctly.

“This along with the scandal over Marketing Gloucester Ltd and the service decline because of the cyber attack is another example of why Gloucester Conservatives are unfit to govern.”

Committee chairman Declan Wilson (LD, Hucclecote) said he was particularly concerned about the council’s lack of transparency. He questioned what the point of being a councillor is if you cannot bring these matters up.

“It’s taxpayers money. We have to be able scrutinise it in a transparent and accountable way. Otherwise what is the point of being a councillor if you cannot bring these things up in a transparent way and be accountable to the people who elect us.”

A city council spokesperson said officers have been fully engaged with the audit process and the views of the audit committee.

The decision that the report would be made exempt from the public due to commercial sensitivities was based on the advice of the monitoring officer

“A review has already commenced to make improvements in the monitoring of S106 funds at the council. We always use the S106 funds to improve communities for our residents, in line with the legal agreements, and the council fully intends to spend the full allocation of S106 money,” the spokesperson said.

The council also says the cyber attack they suffered in December 2021 has meant that some of the information was not available to include in the report at the time of writing.

And the monitoring officer is legally qualified to ensure lawfulness and fairness in decision-making and the promotion and maintenance of high standards of conduct by the administration.

The Local Democracy Reporting Service has requested a copy of the audit report but this has been declined.

Gloucester News Centre – http://gloucesternewscentre.co.uk