Taxpayers in Oxford get high-cost services, offering poor value for money, from the city council, according to a report obtained by the Oxford Mail.

A draft copy of district auditor Andy Burns' annual inspection of the Town Hall criticises the council for "gradual, but not significant improvements". On a scale of one to four, with four being the best, the council scored one for the way it makes use of resources.

The publication of the report, which was completed last month, has been postponed until after the city council elections on May 4 because the authority has appealed against the judgment.

Council chief executive Caroline Bull has written to the Audit Commission, the public spending watchdog, saying she believes# some of Mr Burns' findings to be incorrect and suggesting the authority should be given at least a score of two.

Mr Burns says: "It has made gradual, but not significant overall improvements, and thus needs to demonstrate it can achieve substantially better services. Its overall value for money is poor."

The council was praised for a positive working culture, good leadership and strengthening its finances. But Mr Burns added: "In 2006, we concluded the council's value for money is poor with considerable room for improvement.

"Costs are high across a range of services, in some cases exceptionally so, for average outcomes."

Labour's council leader Alex Hollingsworth, who is stepping down next month, said: "The letter is largely positive. There is 80 per cent good stuff and 20 per cent bad.

"There are some quite legitimate criticisms that I would not dispute, but I dispute the technical judgments behind some of the key statements.

"What we do not dispute is there are bits of the council that are not as good as they ought to be."

Last week, he said publication of the report before the appeal would be "silly", and denied the decision to withhold it was politically motivated. However, it has since been sent to all council members.

Liberal Democrat leader John Goddard, who yesterday tabled a motion calling for the report to be made public, said: "To delay the publication of bad news until after the elections is contrary to the standards of honesty and transparency to which the electors are entitled."