The trust behind plans to build London’s £175m Garden Bridge across the River Thames has been cleared of any financial irregularities by the Charity Commission.
The commission examined the trust’s governance, specifically whether trustees were meeting their legal duties and whether the trust was complying with charity law. The report did not examine matters such as the merits of the project, or how it was funded, which are outside the commission’s remit.
The commission found that processes for the awarding of contracts appeared to be robust, but did express some concerns that trustees did not fully explore the opportunities to compare the critical paths of other comparable infrastructure projects, and as a result be better enabled to assess project risk.
It also looked at the management of conflict of interests within the charity, and found that they were managed in line with the charity’s policy. The regulator also said that it could confirm that benefactors were not party to contracts made by the charity.
The commission said that the charity met required standards of financial management, and had been able to justify and account for the high forward spend made by the charity, and how much it has spent to date.
However, the commission said that it considers that trustees could make improvements to their annual reporting, and provide greater insight to the progress made and challenges addressed in their last financial year.
David Holdsworth, chief operating officer at the Charity Commission, said: “We have been able to offer public assurance that the Garden Bridge Trust is meeting its obligations as a registered charity and that it has the proper financial controls in place.
“We are aware of the considerable public debate regarding this project. Our role is not to comment on the merits of the project but to assess concerns about its governance and ensure it is compliant with the legal framework for charities.”
Before Christmas the National Audit Office published a highly critical report into the controversial project.
Margaret Hodge is also leading a review of the project and whether it can be considered value for money.
