EAST Hampshire District Council chief executive Will Godfrey has been forced to brief councillors this week after dramatic new information emerged on the council's planning performance His action follows months of growing speculation over the accuracy of planning performance figures, which have netted grants totalling £363,000, and a call to the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister to investigate the council's planning performance further. Now Mr Godfrey has admitted that the figures were investigated after a whistle blower claimed that a member of the planning department had issued a written instruction that incorrect data should be used to calculate the length of time it was taking to decide planning applications, and this resulted in incorrect data knowingly being submitted to the ODPM in relation to performance against government targets for time taken to determine planning decisions. In the letter to all councillors Mr Godfrey reiterated the previous finding that "no fraud took place", but admitted the situation was caused by an "incorrect instruction given to staff". He added: "The investigation found that no fraud was perpetuated but the matter was serious enough to be dealt with through the disciplinary procedure. "I am satisfied that the matter has been dealt with properly and that the correct procedures are now in place." Mr Godfrey also stated that "appropriate councillors" were briefed at an initial stage, but it was stressed to them that because it could lead to disciplinary action against officers it was necessary to treat the information as "confidential". And council leader Andrew Pattie confirmed this week that although he had been made aware of the situation he was not party to details due to that confidentiality. He told The Herald: "I assumed it was some sort of directive from the individual, but what form it took I did not know. Any information, including that directive, pertaining to the disciplinary hearing was confidential, and councillors were not party to that information." The latest briefing has been prompted by continuing concern about the council's planning service and its performance statistics. Mr Godfrey has stressed that: incorrect statistics were reported; the investigation found no fraud took place; the matter has been dealt with under the disciplinary procedure; the process has been corrected and the figures as resubmitted to the ODPM are correct. He said the matter first came to his attention in March last year when he received "allegations under the council's whistle- blowing procedure that incorrect data was knowingly being submitted to the ODPM in relation to performance against government targets for time taken to determine planning decisions". He added: "I took the allegation very seriously and immediately decided the matter required further investigation." After meeting the whistle blower he initiated a formal investigation. An internal audit took place, after which the matter was referred to a disciplinary panel, which met in April and "appropriate action was taken". But Mr Godfrey said it was clear to him that the council had received planning delivery grant from the government based on incorrect data. So he instructed staff to make sure that correct figures were submitted to the ODPM, an instruction which was carried out in June. The council is still waiting to hear if the government will want EHDC to return some of the grant. However, it was not until more than three months later that councillors were briefed about the incorrect data. This came at a meeting of the overview and scrutiny committee on September 29. It is the latest development in the long- running saga of the planning department's poor performance, which stretches back to the rule of the Liberal Democrats in the late l990s, when East Hampshire District Council was one of the worst performing councils in the country. In December 2001, the government announced that the council, along with around 50 others, was to be a "standards authority" which was to be specially monitored to try to improve its performance. The following year, government figures showed that EHDC had made a dramatic improvement, and as a result of these the council was given a £273,000 grant, one of the highest government planning- performance grants allocated that year. The following year's figures from October 2002 to September 2003, showed even greater success, and based on this, EHDC received a further £90,000 grant. But after the allegations of the whistle blower concerning these figures, they were re- examined, and it was then that the errors came to light. Mr Godfrey has stressed that new working practices have been put in place to ensure the problems will not happen again.
