A billing mistake has prompted scrutiny regarding the stated price of a council horticultural initiative.

The Carpet Gardens venture in Eastbourne was recorded in Eastbourne Borough Council’s Q1 2025/26 purchase order records as having cost £276,745.

Yet a remark posted on social media, attributed to Eastbourne Borough Council, indicated this amount was inaccurate, with the true expenditure standing at £135,000.

The council issued its response to a Facebook posting by Stand Up 4 Eastbourne that addressed the carpet gardens pricing.

Stand Up 4 Eastbourne, a campaigning group active on Facebook, asserted that the revision from £276,745 to £135,000 was not simply a typing error.

The group further noted that should this be correct, it raises serious questions that deserve clear, public answers.

Concerns have now emerged regarding why the amendment surfaced solely via a social media remark rather than through an official council announcement.

Eastbourne Borough Council acknowledged the mistake and stated the revised amount is substantially lower than initially reported.

A council spokesperson explained that the figure quoted is not correct and is the result of an administrative reporting error, with the actual figure being £135,000.

The appearance of the carpet gardens has generated considerable discussion of late.

During February this year, Eastbourne residents urged the council to abandon proposals that would introduce shingle to the seafront beds, which were previously decorated with flowers.

Councillor David Small likewise contributed through social media, recognising anxieties about the authority’s prolonged issues with financial documentation.

Cllr Small noted that he had asked where the discrepancy came from and that the council has been effectively un-auditable for a very long time due to their financial reporting being so slow and inaccurate. He added that there are some excellent staff, but the leadership has created so much accounting complexity through recharges, a long list of council owned companies, capitalisation and transformation costs that it has become an administrative nightmare.

Residents and campaigners have wondered why the inaccuracy was not spotted and rectified earlier.

Eleanor Dudley remarked that they got the accounts wrong and this is really a very serious issue and certainly is not a slip of the finger. She stated that as a company director in charge of other people’s money, she has never come across this kind of error. She said they need to know who is in charge of the financial department and why councillors did not pick up this error.

Others demanded a more formal investigation and greater accountability.

Peter Sanders called for an independent public enquiry.

Activists are now urging the council to provide a formal explanation and issue a public correction through proper official channels.