How to audit your council’s major capital projects for value for money

When a council announces a major capital project, a new leisure centre, road scheme, housing build, regeneration, it’s sold as “an investment”. Sometimes it is. Sometimes it’s a slow-motion drain on council tax, with overruns, consultants, and contracts no one can properly explain.

A proper capital project audit is how you cut through the glossy brochures and get to the basics: what’s it for, what does it cost, what are the risks, and who benefits. If you support Reform UK, you’ll recognise the core test: stop waste, stop rip-off contracting, and make public money go further, without excuses.

This guide shows how to audit a council’s major capital projects for value for money (VfM), using public documents, simple checks, and the right questions.

Start with the plain-English definition of “value for money”

Value for money doesn’t mean “cheapest”. It means the best result for the money spent, over the full life of the asset.

A useful anchor is the UK’s Best Value duty, which expects councils to secure economy, efficiency, and effectiveness. The statutory guide explains what good looks like and what triggers intervention when things go wrong: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/best-value-standards-and-intervention-a-statutory-guide-for-best-value-authorities/best-value-standards-and-intervention-a-statutory-guide-for-best-value-authorities

For major schemes, you’re looking for three outcomes:

• Costs are controlled (capital cost, borrowing, and ongoing running costs).
• Decisions are evidenced (options compared honestly, not “decided then justified”).
• Benefits are real (not vague promises, not political pet projects).

If you only remember one idea, remember this: a council can “deliver” a building and still fail value for money if the business case was weak.

Build your audit pack (you don’t need insider access)

Most of what you need is already public, it’s just scattered. Start by gathering the documents below for the last decision point (cabinet approval, full council, or a key delegated decision).

Documents to find

• Committee reports and minutes (including appendices if published)
• The business case (often called an Outline or Full Business Case)
• Procurement paperwork: tender award report, evaluation summary, contract value
• Risk register summary (sometimes redacted, but you can still ask questions)
• The capital programme and monitoring reports (monthly or quarterly updates)
• Internal audit reports, external auditor commentary, or annual governance statements

If something isn’t published, use a Freedom of Information request. Keep it narrow and specific (one project, one date range, one decision).

For what auditors often flag in councils, it helps to read practical lessons from value for money work across local government, such as Grant Thornton’s overview of common weaknesses in governance and financial pressure: https://www.grantthornton.co.uk/insights/value-for-money-audits-lessons-for-local-authorities/

A quick “evidence map” you can reuse

Audit question	What you’re looking for	What a weak answer sounds like
What problem is this solving?	A clear need statement with evidence	“It will regenerate the area”
What options were compared?	At least 3 options, including “do minimum”	“This was the only viable option”
What is the full cost?	Capital cost plus interest, inflation, and lifecycle	“It’s £X, excluding borrowing”
Who owns the risk?	Named owners, mitigations, and contingency	“Risks are being managed”
How was the contractor chosen?	Transparent scoring, market testing, due diligence	“They were the best fit”
How will success be measured?	Measurable benefits with dates	“It will improve wellbeing”

This table is your backbone for a repeatable capital project audit.

Stress-test the business case (where most failures begin)

A capital project usually gets into trouble long before the first spade hits the ground. The warning signs sit in the assumptions.

Use these checks.

Check the “do-nothing” and “do-minimum” options are real

Councils sometimes downplay cheaper options so the preferred scheme looks inevitable. A genuine options appraisal should compare:

• basic maintenance versus full rebuild
• refurbishment versus new build
• phased delivery versus one big bang
• buying or leasing versus building

If only one option is taken seriously, you’ve found a value for money risk.

Look for optimism bias and weak costings

Construction inflation and delays have hit councils hard in 2025 and 2026. Public reporting has shown projects pausing mid-build and others dragging on for years, which tends to push final costs higher and disrupt services. Your audit should ask whether the business case included:

• realistic inflation assumptions
• ground risk and utilities risk
• adequate contingency (and clear rules for using it)
• time risk (planning, procurement, testing, handover)

If these were waved away, the council was gambling with your money.

Use a recognised appraisal yardstick

When a project claims transport benefits, the Department for Transport’s Value for Money Framework is a helpful reference for how costs, impacts, and uncertainty should be treated: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/67459942b58081a2d9be968e/value-for-money-framework.pdf

Even for non-transport schemes, the principle holds: benefits should be quantified where possible, and uncertainty should be shown, not hidden.

Follow the money through procurement (this is where “rip-off” risk lives)

Major capital projects attract complex contracts, layers of subcontracting, and plenty of scope for “extras”. If you’re serious about stopping rip-off charges from contractors and agencies, focus here.

Ask whether the procurement created real competition

You want to see:

• a clear route to market (open tender, framework, negotiated procedure)
• more than one credible bidder
• a written evaluation showing how price and quality were scored

If the process was rushed, thin, or over-dependent on one supplier, you’re looking at higher prices and weaker control later.

Watch the consultant and interim spend

A common pattern is modest initial spend, then heavy use of programme managers, consultants, and interim staff. This is where salaries and day rates can spiral, even when outcomes don’t improve.

Your audit questions:

• How many consultants were used, and for what tasks?
• Were these skills built in-house or rented forever?
• Were day rates benchmarked against the market?
• Did senior oversight add value or just cost?

This aligns with a Reform UK instinct: no blank cheques for senior management layers that can’t show results.

Inspect the change control process

Most overspends arrive as “variations”. Some are unavoidable, many are preventable.

Look for:

• a formal change log
• approval thresholds (who can sign off what)
• evidence that alternatives were priced and challenged
• reasons for change (design errors, scope creep, client requests)

If the council can’t produce a clear variation trail, you can’t trust the final number.

Audit delivery: programme controls, not press releases

Once delivery starts, councils should report progress with the same discipline they used to win approval. If updates are vague, that’s a governance problem.

Audit Scotland’s good practice guide on major capital investment sets out what councillors and officers should have in place, from governance to risk management and reporting: https://audit.scot/uploads/docs/report/2013/nr_130314_major_capital_investment_guide.pdf

Key checks that work in any council:

• Milestones: are they measurable and reported consistently?
• Costs to complete: are forecasts updated, or stuck at the original budget?
• Risk movement: do risks reduce over time, or just get reworded?
• Independent scrutiny: is internal audit involved at key stages?

If a council is also trialling reduced working weeks, flexible patterns, or new workforce policies, ask how this affects programme capacity. Big projects need sustained oversight, not a part-time approach to responsibility.

Benefits realisation: does the project pay back in services?

A capital scheme’s “benefits” are where politics and reality often split. Your audit should ask what the council promised, and what it can evidence now.

Good benefits are specific:

• fewer temporary accommodation placements
• lower energy use per square metre (measured, not assumed)
• reduced maintenance backlog
• higher footfall and business occupancy (with a baseline)
• shorter journey times (measured properly)

Weak benefits are slogans.

This is also the public interest test. If a council wastes money on a poorly controlled build, the knock-on cost is fewer bus miles, slower pothole repairs, and less support for small firms. A Reform UK supporter doesn’t need a lecture on that, you see it on the ground.

If you want a structured way to judge whether investment cases are being assessed properly, the Office for Value for Money’s appraisal criteria is a useful reference point: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/office-for-value-for-money-ovfm-investment-appraisal-criteria

The red flags that usually mean trouble

A single red flag isn’t proof. Three or four together often is.

Red flags to note

• The business case relies on best-case assumptions only.
• The “preferred option” was selected before options were assessed.
• A contract award is justified with vague wording and few numbers.
• Progress reports mention “challenges” but avoid new forecasts.
• Variations and claims rise, with no clear log.
• Senior accountability is unclear, or keeps changing.

What to do with your findings (so it leads to action)

A capital project audit matters most when it changes behaviour. Keep your output short and practical.

A simple template that gets read

• One paragraph: what the project is, and current cost and timeline
• Three bullets: your biggest value for money concerns
• Three questions: what the council must answer publicly
• One ask: publish X document, commission Y review, pause Z decision

For Reform UK supporters, it’s also worth tracking how councils respond to forensic scrutiny elsewhere, including Reform-led pushes for stronger efficiency checks, such as the reported efficiency audit approach described here: https://reformpartyguildford.uk/reform-uk-launches-first-government-efficiency-audit-in-kent-a-new-era-of-accountability-begins/

Conclusion

A council’s big capital schemes can improve lives, or quietly drain budgets for years. A solid capital project audit keeps the focus on evidence, costs, risks, and measurable outcomes, not speeches and branding.

If you want change, start local: pick one project, gather the paperwork, and ask the hard questions in public. Waste survives in silence, accountability doesn’t.