SERIOUS problems in the planning department at East Hampshire District Council are the result of councillors and officers being "seduced" by the carrot of big government grants it was claimed this week. A senior Liberal Democrat and former leader of EHDC Peter Rodgers told The Herald this week: "Present problems stem from the council being seduced by the prospect of increased government funding in return for meeting targets. Hence the headlong rush into speedier decision, increased delegation of decision to officers (leaving councillors out of the loop) and other measures designed to meet the target at all costs." Mr Rodgers made his statement following a new briefing to councillors from EHDC chief executive on the council's planning performance. Will Godfrey was forced to write to every councillor individually after new information emerged last week about blunders in the way the council had been measuring its planning performance. In a report to EHDC's overview and scrutiny committee last September councillors were told that the errors made the council's planning decision performance look better than they actually were. These figures were submitted to the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and based on them the council received a £90,000 government grant. Later the council was forced to admit these figures were incorrect and new figures were submitted. But this week new information emerged which was not given to the overview and scrutiny committee last year. And Mr Godfrey has been forced to admit that the figures were investigated after a whistle blower claimed that a member of the planning department had issued an email instructing officers that incorrect data should be used to calculate the length of time it was taking to decide planning applications. The whistle blower further alleged that this resulted in incorrect data knowingly being submitted to the ODPM. Mr Rodgers told The Herald this week: "Generally speaking we were quite happy with the way we were progressing before. We were not too bothered about meeting guidelines until there was a promise of more money for the planning department if we met the targets. That is what triggered off the dash towards meeting the targets." He added: "I could not say whether it was members or officers who were responsible for this but I suspect it was a combination of both." Mr Rodgers said that given the financial incentives, he did not blame the planners for wanting to meet the government's target. "But I am concerned that no serious attempt was made to verify the accuracy of these figures before submission to the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister." "And I am disgusted," he continued, "that attempts continued to be made by the Tories to make political capital out of the false figures even after the council leaders clearly knew that the figures were inaccurate." He was also concerned that attempts made by the council's overview and scrutiny committee to get at the truth had been "consistently thwarted by the controlling party." "The whistle blower is to be congratulated," said Mr Rodgers, "for bringing this matter into the open. Without that, most councillors would have known nothing about it." Last September the committee accepted the explanation they were given about the matter, he said: "but this subsequent announcement would seem to indicate that we were not told the whole story at the time. The information about emails issued giving instructions, was not available to the scrutiny committee at the time, the only explanation was, that it was a misinterpretation of what was said, we now know there was different information available at that time." And the former Liberal Democrat council leader is now calling for the matter to be cleared up. He said the whole issue had highlighted the inadequacy of the overview and scrutiny process."It only works if it is completely open and documents and information are fully available, even if it means that the committee has to meet in camera." "I think too many of the Conservative group were anxious to sweep this under the carpet as soon as possible," claimed Mr Rodgers. The council is still waiting to hear whether it will be asked to repay the grant in view of the errors which it has admitted. But this week a spokesman for the ODPM told The Herald: "We have looked at this matter and at the moment we see no case for demanding any repayment. Any complaints about falsification would be a matter for the local audit commission."
