Disappointment at results of audit into Valley Gardens project

Conservative councillor Lee Wares asked for an internal audit into the decision-making process around the third phase of the Valley Gardens project, which would remove the roundabout by the Palace Pier.

Work is already under way on the first and second phases of the project between St Peter’s Church through to Victoria Gardens, where the layout of the road and green spaces are changing.

Councillor Wares criticised the report in a letter and a speech to Brighton and Hove City Council’s Audit and Standards Committee last week (Tuesday January 14).

A long-term critic of the third phase of the project, he said that vital information about funding had not been shared with the council’s Environment, Transport and Sustainability Committee before a key decision.

He said: “In three instances this report concludes there was no shortfall in information supplied to councillors or that it was improperly communicated.

“These are shocking conclusions. It is not for officers to decide what information they will supply councillors to reach the right decision.

“Officers must provide all pertinent information for councillors to make a decision, based on all the available information.”

Councillor Wares also said that the report did not address the complaint about information about Duke’s Mound being omitted.

During debates at Environment, Transport and Sustainability Committee meetings, Councillor Wares has shared his concerns about removing the Aquarium roundabout and making Madeira Drive one way, saying that these changes would cause traffic problems at Duke’s Mound.

He added that the report was not a comprehensive statement of the weaknesses or improvements required but a “box-ticking exercise”.

Councillor Wares said that he was not criticising the audit report’s authors but the scope and limitations affecting the process.

After the meeting he said: “It was very disappointing that despite the original serious issues and my follow-on concerns, they had not been dealt with (and) that Labour and Green councillors had nothing to say.

“Not one question or comment was raised by them and they just waved the report through as ‘job done’.

“It is a shame that when somebody dares to question or criticise the way in which this council and administration operates, the only response is to suggest that I questioned professional integrity.

“If we can’t challenge or ask questions then, frankly, what is the point. It is perhaps of little surprise, however, as neither Labour or the Greens want this appalling scheme – as presently designed – stopped for any reason.”

At the Audit and Standards Committee meeting Green councillor Leo Littman said that the audit had been carried out within the constraints set by the Audit and Standards Committee in accordance with the council’s constitution.

Councillor Littman, who chairs the committee, said: “You may not agree with the project or policy changes, but this is not a matter for this committee.

“The committee must take the conclusions on face value.”

Conservative councillor Robert Nemeth said that it could feel as though a subject “runs away” from members when they asked for audit reports.

He referred to his own experience when he asked for an audit of official rough sleeper figures after disputing the numbers last year.

Councillor Nemeth said: “It felt the process ran away without my query being tackled.

“It feels in a similar way that that’s how Councillor Wares feels now. There’s quite a nuanced point he’s trying to make and then the process runs away and doesn’t answer what he’s trying to get at.

“I’ve seen three such letters leading to three such reports now. There seems to be a glitch in the process where councillors feel strongly about something to take it to this committee.

“If they go away unhappy, it’s because there is some element of the dialogue which is not working.”

Two members of the public put questions to the committee about the audit report.

Valley Gardens Forum member Daniel Nathan said that he was disappointed with the rigour and asked for supporting data in the form of an appendix to the audit report.

He was told that it was not normal for working papers to be disclosed and the internal report met the requirement of the desktop review in accordance with professional standards.

Brighton resident Rob Shepherd, a retired mathematician, questioned the cost and benefits information, saying that it was wrong.

He was told that there were no technical errors in the business case which had been checked rigorously.

But Mr Shepherd said that “disbenefits” had been counted as benefits, rendering the scheme financially unviable.