ALMOST £335,000 for community facilities is sitting unused in West Somerset Council's coffers, with some of the cash being deposited in the authority's accounts up to four years ago.

The money has been paid to the council by developers through the 'planning gain' process, which sees money being allocated specifically for community purposes to offset the impact of developments in particular wards.

And despite receiving £132,181 from developers last year, the council spent just £1,000, although £55,500 has been earmarked for schemes in Watchet in the forthcoming year.

Money held on the council's books currently includes:

q Watchet - £90,025 for recreational facilities and £66,664 for affordable housing.

q Williton - £15,000 for recreational facilities.

q Old Cleeve - £32,500 for affordable housing.

q Stogumber - £1,000 for recreational facilities.

q Minehead - £14,767 for recreational facilities, £9,375 for cycling and walking facilities and £48,000 for improvements to The Esplanade.

q Crowcombe - £42,000 for affordable housing.

q Carhampton - £3,000 for recreational facilities.

q Stogursey - £12,000 for recreational facilities.

The figures were revealed in a report to Monday's scrutiny committee meeting and led to accusations that the council had deliberately held on to the money to shore up its own beleaguered finances.

Although the claim was strenuously denied, Cllr Simon Stokes said the figures appeared to speak for themselves.

He even claimed the authority had, in the past, been forced to hand back money to developers after failing to spend it in time, as some payments, but not all, are time dependent.

"This system does allow a cash-strapped council to hold relatively large sums . . . I worry this is money for the community and there is a temptation, certainly in the past, not to spend it because it helps us to balance our books," he said.

"This type of money should be spent quickly. There is no getting away from it, we have been holding on to it to helps us balance our books.

"There may not be a written policy [of holding on to the money], but it ruddy well looks like it."

Executive director Adrian Dyer confirmed interest from the planning gain money was put into the council's general fund but said the only unwritten policy was to hold on to small cash allocations until they could be added to other small sums "to deliver a bigger project".

Group manager for housing and community Ian Timms told the committee it was a "misconception" to think the council had "a big pool of money washing around" and said plans were well advanced to improve the process of spending planning gain money.

"The allocation of funds and wider knowledge relating to sums gained has, to date, been rather ad hoc and, therefore, needs to become much more co-ordinated," he said.

"In the future, it is intended that the sums secured through planning obligations will be included in the overall budget process.

"This will ensure that these sums are clear and visible. This work is nearly complete and will be reported to members shortly."

He said he was hopeful councillors could be more involved in the process of spending money in their wards and said plans were also in the pipeline to review the 'trigger' level for planning gain in larger settlements such as Minehead.

Currently, a developer can build 14 houses in Minehead without having to pay any money to the community to offset the work, while in some West Somerset villages, just two houses trigger a planning gain payment.

Brompton Ralph and Haddon councillor Keith Turner said the rules were unfair on the more rural areas of the district as it was unlikely any large-scale developments would be given permission.

"Kids in my ward don't benefit from this money, whereas in Minehead they could have a play park every day of the week if they wanted," he said.

Stogursey member Cllr Chris Morgan said it would be fairer for the lion's share of the planning gain money to be spent in the community where the development was being built, but for a percentage to be taken and put into a central pot for the benefit of rural areas.

His suggestion angered Alcombe West member Cllr Stokes, who claimed the whole point of planning gain money was to help

communities which had "suffered" development.

Cllr Morgan sought clarification: "You are stoical about the money being spent in the area? I would point out that Hinkley Point is in Stogursey."

The larger the development the more money is paid to planning authorities and if a new power station is built at Hinkley it would release millions of pounds for community facilities.

While Cllr Morgan's comments caused amusement, the committee agreed with the sentiments and said the scope of geographical boundaries should be reviewed when it came to the allocation of planning gain money.

They also called for the trigger levels which prompted planning gain payments to be reviewed, for the money to be spent in a "timely manner" and for councillors to be consulted on the needs of their particular wards.

The committee supported Mr Timms' suggestion of a district-wide audit of what each parish or town would like to see done should planning gain money become available in their area and said there should be more clarity in the entire planning gain process.

Committee chairman Cllr Tim Taylor said: "We asked for this paper as the processes were rather opaque and only vague information was coming through.

"Now we are seeing a process of greater openness that maybe wasn't there before."