District accused of ‘spin’ on offices in Dorchester

Independent auditors KPMG were called in to conduct a review following objections from five local electors in March last year over the council’s move to Charles Street.

The results of the ‘value for money assessment’ have now been published and, while the council has welcomed the finding that it followed ‘reasonable process’ and there is no basis for a further report, a number of issues were flagged up in the report.

Six recommendations are made by the auditors covering areas such as engagement with the public and evaluation of future tenders.

The auditors looked at how the development was selected, the information on which the decision to move was based, contracts relating to the development, monitoring and risk assessment of the project, the procedures in place for councillors to challenge decisions and public engagement.

The full results of the auditors’ review, which is estimated to have cost the authority £65,000, will be presented to the council’s audit and governance committee next Monday.

Council leader Robert Gould welcomed the findings but those who objected to the scheme have accused the council of ‘spin’.

Dorchester town, district and county councillor Trevor Jones – who was one of the electors raising an objection – said his initial reaction to the report was that it was not quite as positive as the council was making out.

He said: “I have only been able to scan the report because it’s only just been released.

“On the face of it, it’s a mixed bag and I don’t recognise the spin being put on it by the district council.

“There are a number of what the auditor calls ‘priority one’ recommendations.

“Clearly there are important issues which the council has to address to do things better in the future.”

John Grantham, from the anti-Charles Street group Public Holds WDDC (West Dorset District Council) to account, said the review was limited in its remit as it focused only on the process and procedures undertaken by the council, not the decisions themselves.

He said: “While we are glad to see KPMG’s six recommendations for improvement by WDDC on its future processes, our enduring concern is on the decisions WDDC has taken, leading to the overall horrendous-looking and costly administrative office edifice today in the heart of the county town of Dorchester.

“The building effectively stands, however, as its own monument to the lack of proper democracy, and for the vital need for real democracy in future.”

Council leader 'delighted'

Council leader Robert Gould said: “I am delighted that KPMG found that there were no grounds for issuing a public interest report and have recognised a number of areas of good practice.

“The district council did not call for this investigation but fully supported KPMG’s decision to undertake the review and we have found it to be a useful process.

“We accept the recommendations that have been made and have already started to act on some of them.

“For instance, we have taken steps to improve the ability of local residents to engage with the council by introducing public questions at full council meetings.

“Looking to the future, we are committed to progressing the Charles Street development and the opening of the new district council offices towards the end of this year.”

• Recommendation 1

• Consider opportunity costs as well as cashflows when evaluating future tenders

• Recommendation 2

• Where the council is engaged in a tender process, it should take care to be seen to be fair, and not to be perceived to favour one party

• Recommendation 3

• Where the council is engaged in a tender process, it should take care to comply fully with relevant procurement rules

• Recommendation 4

• Improve engagement with members and the public through more pro-active communication on the rationale for procedures, such as guidance on why contracts are redacted, meeting minute policies and public participation rules. This would save officers’ time in reacting to queries

• Recommendation 5

• Ensure pro-active engagement with the community which demonstrates the consultation that has taken place, particularly where projects evolve over a number of years

• Recommendation 6

• Communication on significant projects should be more proactive.

Officers should be careful to be seen not to breach the publicity code. Clear guidance should be made available to the public on asking questions and why they may be considered vexatious.