Fresh concerns have been raised about transparency and accountability over the costly Vale View School project, after correspondence from the District Auditor indicated delays and legal constraints in releasing information about the scheme’s overruns.

Local resident Sheila Oliver, who has spent several years seeking clarity over the escalating costs of the Vale View School development, had received letters from District Auditor Tim Watkinson explaining that he was still considering what information can be shared and whether Stockport Council’s consent is required before disclosure.

Vale View School, formerly planned for Harcourt Street in North Reddish, has long been the subject of controversy following significant cost increases that ultimately left taxpayers footing a far higher bill than originally anticipated. Despite this, detailed explanations of how and why the overruns occurred have remained limited.

In his correspondence, Mr Watkinson states that he is dealing with Mrs Oliver’s request under Section 49 of the Audit Commission Act 1998, rather than the Freedom of Information Act, as district auditors are exempt from FOI legislation. He notes that while he holds information that could be disclosed, the law allows discretion where release might prejudice the effective performance of his statutory duties.

“I want to stress that I am approaching this from a standpoint of disclosing the information to you wherever possible,” Mr Watkinson wrote. However, he also explained that he is considering whether disclosure would require the Council’s agreement and whether releasing the material could affect his audit functions.

While the auditor had acknowledged Mrs Oliver’s continued emails and assured her that he would undertake any audit work he considered necessary, no firm timescale had been given for when substantive information might be released. Mr Watkinson had also pointed out that responses under Section 49 are not time-bound.

For campaigners and local residents, this has raised further questions about whether the system is working in favour of openness. Critics argue that, in cases involving major public expenditure, the balance should lean more clearly towards transparency, particularly where the audited body itself is the subject of concern.

Mrs Oliver said she remains frustrated by the lack of clear answers. “Years on, we still don’t have a straightforward account of how so much public money was allowed to be overspent,” she said. “Acknowledging concerns is not the same as addressing them.”

The case also highlights wider issues around the powers and independence of district auditors. While they are tasked with holding councils to account, the need to consider council consent before releasing information can appear to undermine that independence in the eyes of the public.

Stockport Council has previously stated that lessons have been learned from the Vale View project, but detailed public explanations have been scarce.

As residents continue to face financial pressures and cuts to local services, questions about historic spending decisions — and how effectively they are scrutinised — remain highly relevant. For many in Stockport and beyond, the Vale View School saga is not just about the past, but about confidence in how public money is safeguarded in the future.

Mon 29/03/2010 14:47

Dear Mrs Oliver

I promised to write to you by the end of this month with details of progress. I am still determining which information I hold would be appropriate to share with you, and I have yet to obtain the Council’s agreement in relation to this.

I will write again as soon as I have more information to provide.

You have sent me a number of further emails raising your continued concern regarding Stockport Council. These are acknowledged. I will consider the content of these emails and will undertake any audit work that I consider necessary to fulfil my statutory responsibilities.

Yours sincerely

Tim Watkinson

District Auditor

_____________________________________________
From: Tim Watkinson
Sent: 09 March 2010 18:17
To: ‘sheilaoliver@ntlworld.com’; ‘request-28309-0e5b203e@whatdotheyknow.com’
Subject: FW: Information request under the Audit Commission Act and Environmental Information Regulations – Costs of proposed school, Harcourt Street, North Reddish, Stockport

Dear Mrs Oliver

I am in the process of dealing with your Freedom of Information request which you originally sent to the Audit Commission on 3 February 2010.

Richard Page, one of our Freedom of Information Assessors, wrote to you on 10 February to explain that the Audit Commission (as opposed to the District Auditor) held no information relevant to your request. Richard asked if you wanted me to respond to your request under the Audit Commission Act 1998, in particular Section 49 (restriction on disclosure of information), as District Auditors are not subject to the Freedom of Information Act. You confirmed that you did on 10 February.

Richard stated that I would also consider whether any of the information requested comes under the Environmental Information Regulations 2004, in which case I would need to respond to you by 10 March 2010.

I have now reviewed all the information that I hold and am satisfied that none of the information that you have not previously seen comes under the Environmental Information Regulations 2004. I do, however, hold information that Section 49(2B) enables, but does not require, me to disclose to you and I am currently considering whether to do so would, or would be likely to, prejudice the effective performance of my statutory functions, and whether I need to seek the Council’s consent to disclose such information. I want to stress that I am approaching this from a standpoint of disclosing the information to you wherever possible, but there are certain processes that I must go through before deciding finally what I can provide.

Responses to requests under Section 49 are not time bound, but I will aim to write to you again by the end of March to update you on my progress and provide what information I can.

I also acknowledge the separate emails you have sent to me directly since your original email to the Audit Commission. I will consider the content of these emails and will undertake any audit work that I consider necessary to fulfil my statutory responsibilities.

Thank you for raising your concerns with the Audit Commission and with me directly.

Yours sincerely

Tim Watkinson

District Auditor