BLUNDERS in the way East Hampshire District Council measured its planning performance could lead to the loss of a £90,000 government grant.

In a report which was due to go before district councillors at their overview and scrutiny committee on Wednesday, audit manager John Cummins said the errors made the council's planning decision performance look better than was actually the case.

Based on the statistics, East Hampshire District Council last year received a £90,000 planning performance-related grant from the government.

But now councillors could face having to repay the grant after a special audit review revealed the true picture.

Having declared figures which showed that the council was meeting and performing above two of the government's planning delivery targets, the audit revealed that the planning department was in fact falling below all three.

Mr Cummins was due to report to the committee that the special audit was carried out after the council received an allegation of irregularities.

He said: "No issues of fraud were found, but inconsistencies were found in the planning decision performance statistics due to error and how the computer system had been used".

He told councillors in his report that all planning authorities had to record decision performance data in three categories: major, minor and other applications, which all had different government targets. Sixty per cent of major applications should be decided in eight weeks; 65 per cent of minors and 80 per cent of others.

Compiling the data, said Mr Cummins, involved comparing the start date when an application was received with the date on which the decision notice was despatched.

He said the despatch date was recognised as being the date the documents were put out for posting, but until EHDC's computer system was upgraded in December 2003 it had no way of separately recording the decision despatched date, only the date on which it was made.

Mr Cummins' report, which was set to be discussed by councillors on Wednesday, added: "The figures produced have a direct impact on the planning delivery grant EHDC receives each year".

In the light of the complaint received by the council, a sample of planning decisions were reviewed to determine their actual start and actual despatch date, and "inconsistencies were found in the data which it was determined could have a negative impact on the amount of grant we have received if representative of the total population of planning decisions".

Following on from the findings, head of planning control Ian Ellis led a full review of all planning decisions over an 18-month period from October 1, 2002 to March 31 2004.

Corrected data showed that only 39.5 per cent of major applications had been dealt with within eight weeks, compared with the council's previously-declared figure of 55.5 per cent (target 60 per cent). The data showed that 57.7 per cent of minor applications reached the target - 7.34 per cent less than EHDC's first figure of 65.04 (target 65 per cent); and 73.9 per cent of the others hit the mark instead of the council's first figure of 80.2 per cent (target 80 per cent).

Councillors were due to be told on Wednesday: "The consequence is that having declared figures with performance above two of the three targets we will now fall below all three".

But Mr Cummins stressed that the latest data, using the new system, showed that EHDC was now back on track. Based on figures from October last year to the current month, the council looked set to achieve all three government targets.

He reported that the new computer system installed last December had solved some of the errors. In addition new consistency checks had been introduced, refresher training had taken place and a system of management control had been instituted to ensure that changes to the statutory start and decision despatched date were properly authorised and recorded.

Mr Cummins was set to tell councillors that the council was still waiting to hear whether the £90,000 government grant would have to be repaid.