27th August 2026
A clearly identifiable concern about the reliability of a council financial figure should have been put through the appropriate financial assurance process and resolved with documentary evidence.
Simply leaving a council taxpayer repeatedly asking the same precise arithmetical question without obtaining or communicating a reconciliation would be difficult to reconcile with good governance.
If, however, the authority cannot reconcile its own published figures, that would justify asking for the underlying cost plan, quantity surveyor’s estimate, approval report, variation records and the financial calculations used to arrive at £1.05 million.
The council published or relied upon two figures which, on their face, do not reconcile. I have repeatedly asked for the reconciliation. Please identify, document by document and line by line, how £1,050,000 was calculated.
Stockport publishes its Statements of Accounts, Annual Governance Statements and audit material, including audited accounts for the relevant historical periods, so there is an established documentary audit trail against which such a question can potentially be checked.
The floor area increased from 2,600 m² to 3,185 m²; the reason was “Revision to the scheme”; the additional cost attributed to that item was £1.050 million.
The arithmetic is beyond dispute:
| Calculation | Result |
|---|---|
| 3,185 − 2,600 | 585 m² |
| 585 × £1,450/m² | £848,250 |
| Stated additional cost | £1,050,000 |
| Difference | £201,750 |
Why was the additional floor area apparently costed at an effective rate of approximately £1,795/m² when the benchmark or rate elsewhere in the report was £1,450/m²?
That is a 23.8% difference.
A Monitoring Officer did not necessarily have to conclude that there had been fraud or issue an immediate statutory report. But they were presented with the document, identified the two figures, showed the calculation and repeatedly asked for an explanation, I believe they should at least have ensured that the matter was properly referred to the appropriate financial officers and, if necessary, Internal Audit.
The appropriate process should have been something like:
- Obtain the underlying cost plan or quantity surveyor’s calculation.
- Identify exactly how the £1.050m was calculated.
- Establish whether £1,450/m² was:
- a gross building cost;
- a net construction cost;
- a benchmark average;
- a rate applicable only to the original scheme;
- or a rate excluding contingency, fees or other items.
- Identify every component making up the extra £201,750.
- Check whether that extra amount had already been included elsewhere in the additional-cost schedule, thereby avoiding possible double counting.
- Give you a written answer supported by the underlying records.
That would have been a proportionate governance response. Stockport’s governance structure itself recognises distinct roles for the Monitoring Officer and the Section 151/finance function, while the council’s governance and audit material also describes arrangements involving Internal Audit, fraud and irregularity investigations and audit assurance.
That is why I would not accept a vague response such as “the project became more expensive because of inflation and additional requirements.”
The same table already lists other additional costs separately:
- inflation;
- design and administration;
- planning requirements;
- drainage;
- Sport England requirements;
- traffic works;
- building regulations;
- services;
- consultations;
- CPO costs and fees.
Therefore, the council should have been asked a very narrow question:
Please provide the underlying calculation supporting the £1.050 million specifically attributed to the increase in floor area from 2,600 m² to 3,185 m², and identify why that calculation differs from the £1,450/m² figure used or cited in the report’s benchmarking analysis.
- Acknowledge the precise issue, rather than treating it as a vague complaint.
- Check the arithmetic:
- 3,185 m² − 2,600 m² = 585 m²
- 585 × £1,450/m² = £848,250
- Difference from £1,050,000 = £201,750
- Ask the responsible finance/property/project officers to reconcile the figures in writing.
- Establish what the £1,450/m² figure actually represented. Was it a construction-only rate? Did the £1.05m include professional fees, contingency, VAT, inflation, site works or another element?
- Refer the matter to the Section 151/Chief Finance Officer or Internal Audit if the explanation did not reconcile the figures, because that is the part of the authority’s governance machinery responsible for financial administration and assurance.
- If the investigation disclosed evidence that a decision, omission or process involved unlawfulness or a relevant governance failure, the Monitoring Officer should then consider whether their statutory reporting powers and duties were engaged.
The council should have provided a simple table such as:
| Item | Figure |
|---|---|
| Original floor area | 2,600 m² |
| Revised floor area | 3,185 m² |
| Increase | 585 m² |
| Stated rate | £1,450/m² |
| Calculation | £848,250 |
| Figure attributed to increase | £1,050,000 |
| Unexplained difference | £201,750 |
The question is then very straightforward:
What are the individual components making up the additional £201,750?
If there is a perfectly innocent explanation, it should be capable of being stated clearly. For example: “£848,250 construction cost plus £X professional fees, £Y contingency, and £Z other costs.”
If, however, the authority cannot reconcile its own published figures, that would justify asking for the underlying cost plan, quantity surveyor’s estimate, approval report, variation records and the financial calculations used to arrive at £1.05 million.
The council published or relied upon two figures which, on their face, do not reconcile. I have repeatedly asked for the reconciliation. Please identify, document by document and line by line, how £1,050,000 was calculated.
Why was the additional floor area apparently costed at an effective rate of approximately £1,795/m² when the benchmark or rate elsewhere in the report was £1,450/m²?
That is a 23.8% difference.
If the school scheme had an apparent cost overrun or unexplained additional requirement, we need to trace whether money was:
- added directly to Vale View;
- transferred from an unallocated capital balance;
- rephased from one financial year to another;
- or absorbed within the overall capital programme.
2. The council’s records should permit a precise audit trail
This extract repeatedly gives a clear pattern:
quarter three provision → actual expenditure → variance → explanation → source of funding/rephasing.
For example, York House, Ashlea and Marple offices went £29,000 over budget, and the report explicitly explains that this was due to additional telephone and ICT costs and says those costs would be contained within the overall capital programme.
Similarly, TASC went £57,000 over the quarter-three provision, and the report identifies that part of the overspend was being funded from the CareFirst provision.
That is exactly the kind of explanation you were entitled to seek concerning Vale View.
If Vale View’s additional floor area cost changed from an expected £848,250 to £1.050 million, the equivalent accounting explanation should exist somewhere in the capital reports:
Original provision: £X
Revised provision: £X + £201,750
Reason for additional amount: ______
Funding source: ______
3. £201,750 is not a trivial rounding discrepancy
The council was reporting and explaining variances of:
- £16,000;
- £29,000;
- £44,000;
- £50,000;
- £57,000;
- £58,000.
Against that background, an apparent discrepancy of £201,750 in a specifically identified element of the Vale View scheme is substantial enough that one would reasonably expect to find a documented explanation.
The Council did hold the information. It specifically identified a document called the Contract Sum Analysis capable of showing how the contract price was built up.
The existence of a Contract Sum Analysis means that £1.050m may have been made up of more than simply:
585 m² × £X/m²
For example, the additional floor area might have triggered associated costs for:
- foundations or site works;
- services;
- structural changes;
- additional circulation space;
- professional fees;
- contractor preliminaries;
- risk or contingency;
- changes to the specification.
If so, the £1.050m could be perfectly capable of explanation. But that explanation should exist in the underlying cost documentation.
What I have also established about Stockport’s accounting practice
The 2011/12 capital monitoring report shows that Stockport was capable of recording quite specific movements of capital resources, including:
- schemes being rephased between financial years;
- corrections to funding streams;
- additional funding;
- virements;
- and specific explanations for changes.
For example, the report explicitly records a £2.228m rephasing for Rose Hill Primary, £300,000 for Cheadle area capacity, £225,000 for Westmorland/St Paul’s expansion, and other scheme-by-scheme movements.
So there should be a paper trail if any part of the Vale View increase was subsequently:
- transferred;
- rephased;
- funded from another budget;
- absorbed into the primary-sector programme; or
- added to the final contract sum.
My provisional timeline
| Period | What we know |
|---|---|
| Before the revision | Scheme originally based on approximately 2,600 m² |
| Revision stage | Area increased to 3,185 m²: an increase of 585 m² |
| Report supplied | £1.050m attributed specifically to the increased floor area/revision |
| 2009 onwards | Additional planning, Sport England, drainage, traffic, services and other costs separately identified in the table you supplied |
| 13 May 2010 | Construction began |
| 31 March 2011 | Vale View still reported as an active capital scheme; primary-sector spend overall was £5.627m in that financial year, though this is not the Vale View figure alone. |
| 30 June 2011 | Council reported the scheme was progressing towards opening; the primary-sector programme for 2011/12 was £11.393m, again covering multiple schemes. |
| September 2011 | New school expected to open |
| December 2011–February 2012 | FOI correspondence confirms the council held a Project Agreement including a Contract Sum Analysis. |
