Taxpayers could lose £220k due to Gloucester City Council errors

The council has missed deadlines to spend contributions for developers for improvements

Taxpayers could lose out on £220,000 from developers according to a report which highlights council errors.

A review into improving Gloucester City Council's processes has shown the authority has missed the deadline to spend contributions from developments for improvements.

The report highlights six section 106 legal agreements where the deadline for spending developers' contributions had passed.

This comes to around £220,000.

These agreements are made between developers and planning authorities when permission is granted for a development to go-ahead.

The funding usually goes towards public services such as schools, libraries, open spaces and children's play areas.

The annual report of the Chair of the Audit and Governance Committee was discussed by the audit and governance committee on Monday evening, reported the Local Democracy Reporting Service (LDRS).

The report also shows there were three agreements where the council had spent £50,000 more than the developer had committed to provide.

Discrepancies in figures

Councillors who claimed to have been "leaned on" for raising concerns about the issue say they have been vindicated.

Councillor Andrew Gravells (C, Abbeydale) said he has been requesting basic information on the figures since 2020.

He said he was told in January 2021 that there were no discrepancies, but the more he looked into it, he became "less convinced" that they were accurate figures.

Councillor Gravells said: "It was then that I handed over the whole issue of section 106 grants to the council's internal audit team and their report now shows in the papers that there are some massive and serious discrepancies in how these grants have been accounted for.

"The report shows that the accounting was chaotic and will probably cost the council money to correct that."

Concerns over the potential issue were first raised in January 2023. At the time, council chiefs were trying to keep the information under wraps, says the Local Democracy Reporting Service.

The audit and governance committee voted on January 16 to discuss the issue in public but officers initially refused to make the first report public citing "commercial sensitivities."

At the time, when the Local Democracy Reporting Service asked for the report, press officers said the document itself remained exempt despite the the committee resolving to discuss the matter in public.

However, the document was subsequently published on the council's website several days later.

The reports for July 17's meeting have been published. They show how the processes within the council have been reviewed and highlight where improvements could be made.