MORE than £22,000 of Section 106 money paid by a developer had to be refunded after an internal investigation found that Reading Borough Council had failed to spend it on suitable projects.

Papers seen by the Reading Chronicle reveal that a total of £22,000 paid to the Council for transport projects in west Reading had to be reimbursed with interest after the developer lodged a formal complaint.

The developer paid a total of £64,939 in Section 106 money to the Council after gaining planning permission to convert Kentwood House in Kentwood Hill, Tilehurst, into eight self-contained flats.

Of this, £14,939 was spent on schools, £8,000 on leisure, and the remaining £22,000 allocated to the Reading Urban Area Package, a Department for Transport- approved scheme to upgrade transport facilities.

Of this allocation, £12,500 was earmarked to upgrade bus stops on Kentwood Hill, and £9,500 for Intelligent Transport Systems - understood to be the installation of real time information boards at bus stops.

But in February this year the developer’s agent emailed the Council’s transport department demanding to know why the £9,500 tranche had been spent on upgrading a pedestrian crossing at the junction of Oxford Road and Albany Road - about a mile from the development.

The email read: “It is quite apparent that a pedestrian crossing is not an ‘intelligent transport system’ and therefore the monies have not been spent on what was required within the s106. In any case, a pedestrian crossing in Albany Road does not in any way relate to the application site, being located near enough a mile from the site.

“It is difficult to see how that could be considered necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms. As such, we consider that this amount should be returned to our client.”

A senior council officer wrote back defending the decision to spend the money on the crossing. But dissatisfied, the developer lodged a formal complaint, claiming that the Council had “misappropriated” Section 106 money due to an “apparent lack of monitoring process and a clear record of where monies have been spent”.

The investigation revealed that the £12,500 for the bus stops had not been spent and had already been refunded in January this year. The investigating officer also disclosed in the report - published in September - that the remaining £9,500 had not been spent on the crossing, and this was also refunded with interest. Altogether, the Council had to repay £23,650.

The report denied there was general lack of monitoring, but admitted: “On this occasion it is clear to me that our monitoring records were not as comprehensive or complete as they should have been.”

A Council spokesman said: “With regard to the Kentwood Hill development contributions, £16,059 was spent on local schools and another £8,600 on Arthur Newbery children’s playground. Unfortunately, due to an administrative error £23,650 had to be repaid. On this occasion it is clear the Council’s monitoring records were not as comprehensive or complete as they should have been. Officers carried out a review of procedures to ensure this does not happen again.”

@lesleypotter2