Council chiefs say they have been “open and transparent” with external auditors after details of a controversial land sale were included in a reissued report.
The planned sale of sites at Leyfields and Netherstowe did not go ahead following a public backlash.
But Lichfield District Council has handed over more than £117,000 to housing association Bromford after the sale fell through when it emerged required consultation with residents had not taken place.
An external auditors report by Grant Thornton has now been reissurd with an amendment after Cllr Steve Norman, leader of the Labour opposition group, said there had been an “issue of non-compliance” over the handling of the proposed sale.
Cllr Norman said:
“This may have been the first time that the council has had an audit showing that they failed to comply with legislation.
“I believe it was important to have it recorded. The council seemed to have been ignorant of the requirement under the 1972 Local Government Act to consult residents, even though I understand Bromford did tell officers at the time.
“This has cost council taxpayers £117,756.97 in compensation and has meant that over half a million pounds has had to be taken out of their future budget income.”
Cllr Steve Norman, Lichfield District Council
Further information will be published in the Auditors’ Annual Report which is due in December.
Christie Tims, monitoring officer for Lichfield District Council, said:
“We have been open and transparent with the external auditors, and shared the investigation report put together by an independent solicitors firm in relation to the disposal of public open space land at Leyfields and Netherstowe, published in April 2021.”
Christie Tims, Lichfield District Council
117k compensation!!! They were ignorant of the 1972 Local Gov Act.
So not only have residents got to replace these funds with increased council tax, we also have to continually employ these ‘ignorant ‘ officers. I’m sorry this is outrageous. They need sacking for gross misconduct.
Lichfield council wouldn’t know open and transparent if it slapped them in the face
Seems the word transparency is used in loose terms that fits the officers desires not to be actually transparent . Why don’t they name the people involved , set out clearly who and when decisions were taken and whether there has been misconduct in public office . Because £100k of public money spaffed up the wall is a very serious matter and surely falls within in misconduct in public office , this isn’t just a procedural error it cannot be that simple..