We've been rather quiet in 2011. This blog explains what has been occupying us.
In February 2010, Cllr Bronsdon of Rye Harbour, supported by the other councillors from Icklesham, Rye Harbour and Winchelsea Beach wards --- Cllrs Bates, Drew, Horsman, Lyward, Merricks, Moore, Stanford, Sutton and Thompson --- lodged a complaint against the three ward councillors from Winchelsea -- Cllrs Chishick, Comotto and Terry --- for criticisng the adequacy of the Local Action Plan (LAP) questionnaire provided by Rother District Council and adopted by Icklesham Parish Council, protesting about the way in which Icklesham Parish Council had forced the questionnaire on Winchelsea, and calling on residents to boycott the questionnaire. He claimed that their actions had brought Icklesham Parish Council into disrepute, contrary to the Councillors' Code of Conduct.
A separate and very lengthy complaint was also made by Cllr Stansford of Rye Habour ward against Cllr Comotto alleging bullying of other councillors and the parish clerk, and failure to declare an interest at a meeting in August 2009.
All Winchelsea councillors were accused of making misleading and untruthful statements.
It is worth noting here that the August 2009 parish council meeting was held to discuss (in secret) a proposal to sue the Wincheslea website www.winchelsea.net for defaming Icklesham Parish Council by referring to "a history of incompetent chairmen" and "a dysfunctional council". The curious circumstances surrounding this meeting will be reviewed in another blog. Suffice it to say here that councils do not have the right to sue for defamation, as judges have felt that the threat of such action (even where it was unlikely to succeed) would intimidate critics and have a "chilling effect on democracy"! So, the whole discussion was pointless. However, under the Code of Conduct, Cllr Comotto should have declared a prejudicial interest, rather than just a personal interest, and left the meeting, as he is involved with the Winchelsea website. Cllr Comotto apologised for this error but argued that the breach was immaterial, given the pointlessness of the debate and the fact that he would have been aware of the resolution, whether or not he had attended, which meant he could have derived no material advantage.
Rother District Council commissioned a firm of solicitors to investigate the complaints. During this investigation, further complaints were made against Cllr Comotto. It is not possible to reveal these complaints as Standards Committees operate largely in secret but it is possible to say that the additional allegations made by Cllr Merricks would, if they had been made publicly, have been libellous. In the event, all the complaints bar two were dismissed by the investigator but she did conclude that the three Winchelsea councillors had brought Icklesham Parish Council into disrepute by making untruthful statements about the parish council's handling of the LAP. She also judged the language used by the councillors to have been intemperate.
At the hearing held by the Rother Standards Committee, the evidence provided to the investigator, by Cllr Stanford, purporting to show that Icklesham Parish Council had been preparing a LAP since 2005 --- and that Winchelsea councillors had therefore made untruthful and misleading statements about the suspicious suddenness of the council's proposals and demands --- was shown to be utterly incorrect. At this point, the Standards Committee decided that the issue was not the untruthful of statements but the intemperate language. The words that appeared to cause concern were "ambush" and "sham". On this basis, the Standards Committee concluded that the Winchelsea councillors had breached the Code of Conduct. The sanction imposed was a censure.
Winchelsea councillors appealed against the Standard Committee's decision on the grounds that the judge infringed their right to freedom of speech and obstructed their duty to defend their electorate against poor council decisions, and that they had not made untruthful or misleading statements and had not used intemperate language. On 12 December, an appeals tribunal agreed with the Winchelsea councillors, citing a long list of legal precedents, and quashed the judgment of the Rother Standards Committee. The judgement is worth reading:
"The Tribunal has determined that the three Appellants did not fail to follow the provisions of the Code because:
1 They were legitimately exercising their right to free speech.
2 The language employed by them had not been hostile, intemperate, ill-judged or misleading.
3 They were entitled to write to local residents informing them of matters they considered of particular relevance. The councillors’ actions were within the legitimate boundary of a local councillor defending local interests.
4 Residents had not been instructed to do anything unlawful and it was open to recipients to accept or reject the guidance issued by the councillors as to how to show their opposition to adoption of a parish-wide questionnaire.
5 The Code does not preclude a councillor from opposing council policy provided he uses legitimate and reasonable means. Local councillors are often involved in, or indeed lead, local opposition to locally sensitive issues. For instance, a planning matter which has a far greater impact on a defined locality than the rest of the district. This will, of necessity, bring councillors into opposition with local or party policy."
The tribunal could not have been clearer. The judgement is also forthright about the right of councillors to freedom of speech and the nature of the democratic political acitivity. It also made crystal clear that Winchelsea councillors had not been untruthful or misleading.
In addition, the tribunal dismissed, as inappropriate, the censure imposed on Cllr Comotto for failing to declare a prejudicial conflict of interest.
The question that need to be asked, in view of this judgement, is why did Rother, despite employing two solicitors and spending well over £10,000 of tax-payers' money, not see this one coming and allowed the complaint to proceed? As the tribunal made clear, there is a well-developed case law on the underlying issues.
And Rother's blunder is a serious one because, if they had won, it is difficult to see how genuine political activity could have continued in local government or how it could ever have been held to account. How did this happen? Perhaps, Rother has been a virtual one-party state for so long that it has just lost the hang of democracy. Some of the statements made by the legal adviser to the Standards Committee revealed a very restrictive view of elective democracy and the role of councillors. In effect, Rother's lawyer implied a collective responsibility on councillors that meant they could not seek to reverse decisions of their council, even where they considered these decisions to be utterly wrong, and could not campaign against unacceptable policies even in an election.
Rother also needs to reflect on its own undeclared conflict of interest. The first complaint centred on crticism of the questionnaire which Rother produced! This makes them something of an interested party.
And what about Icklesham Parish Council? Who can dispute its dysfunctional behaviour now? There have now been three complaints to the Standards Committee against Cllr Comotto. In response to the first (by 11 other councillors), Cllr Comotto was merely asked to send fewer e-mails to the then parish clerk. In response to the second complaint (by Cllr Merricks), it was explained that Cllr Comotto had been conducting normal political activity. And now, despite throwing a huge quantity of mud at all three Winchelsea councillors, a third vexatious complaint has also failed. The net result has been to waste everybody's time and provide employment to lawyers. No wonder, Eric Pickles is junking Standards Committees!"
RC
Thursday 22 December 2011
Wednesday 18 May 2011
Why does Icklesham Parish Council still not understand Annual Parish Meetings?
On 23 May (delayed from 16 May), Icklesham Parish Council will be holding its Annual Parish Assembly or Meeting. What Icklesham have never been understood is that an APM is intended to be a meeting of the community, not the council.
The agenda is therefore supposed to be set by the community, not the council. Guidance to councils suggests that organisations from within the parish be invited to speak about what they have been doing. This is done very successfully in parishes like Sedlescombe and at the Annual Town Meeting in Winchelsea. It is also suggested that a particular local issue, something important or controversial, be included on the agenda to attract public interest.
The special nature of APMs has been explained to Icklesham Parish Council again and again by Winchelsea councillors but to no avail. It is doubtful whether most Icklesham parish councillors know the difference between the APM and the council's AGM.
The consequence is that Icklesham APMs are pointless affairs, attended by few residents (audiences are largely councillors, their spouses and speakers). This year looks as if it will be the same. No community groups have been invited to make presentations and there are no real parish issues on the agenda. Instead, there will be the usual reports by the chairman, clerk and the County and District councillors. The National Trust's local Property Manager has been invited to speak about the work of the Trust in Winchelsea and will give exactly the same presentation as he gave in Winchelsea in May and again in November of last year. There will be a presentation from the Rural Rother Trust, a local small grants charity, and from Rye Community Transport, whose organiser happens to live in Rye Harbour. Where are the sports clubs, societies, allotment-holders, neighbourhood watches, emergency groups, the local PCSO, youth clubs, village halls, churches, local businesses, etc? Where is the discussion of speeding traffic (the number one problem identified by residents) or the Diamond Jubilee (the big local event next year)?
The agenda is therefore supposed to be set by the community, not the council. Guidance to councils suggests that organisations from within the parish be invited to speak about what they have been doing. This is done very successfully in parishes like Sedlescombe and at the Annual Town Meeting in Winchelsea. It is also suggested that a particular local issue, something important or controversial, be included on the agenda to attract public interest.
The special nature of APMs has been explained to Icklesham Parish Council again and again by Winchelsea councillors but to no avail. It is doubtful whether most Icklesham parish councillors know the difference between the APM and the council's AGM.
The consequence is that Icklesham APMs are pointless affairs, attended by few residents (audiences are largely councillors, their spouses and speakers). This year looks as if it will be the same. No community groups have been invited to make presentations and there are no real parish issues on the agenda. Instead, there will be the usual reports by the chairman, clerk and the County and District councillors. The National Trust's local Property Manager has been invited to speak about the work of the Trust in Winchelsea and will give exactly the same presentation as he gave in Winchelsea in May and again in November of last year. There will be a presentation from the Rural Rother Trust, a local small grants charity, and from Rye Community Transport, whose organiser happens to live in Rye Harbour. Where are the sports clubs, societies, allotment-holders, neighbourhood watches, emergency groups, the local PCSO, youth clubs, village halls, churches, local businesses, etc? Where is the discussion of speeding traffic (the number one problem identified by residents) or the Diamond Jubilee (the big local event next year)?
Icklesham Parish Council meeting 16 May 2011
This was the first meeting of the new council after the election of 5 May 2011.
The first real business was to co-opt two members, one for Icklesham and one for the Beach, because too few people stood for election in those wards. Mr Nick Warren, who stood in the District election, was co-opted for Icklesham ward. Mr Peter Turner, defeated in the Winchelsea election, was co-opted for the Beach. Mr Turner has been a councillor in the past. In 1999, he stood for election in Winchelsea, was defeated and co-opted for Icklesham. On that occasion, he was also made chairman on the same night, although he did not remain on the council for the full term.
The new clerk, Steve Foreman, has hit the ground running and has already made big strides in sorting out the administrative confusion and backlog of work at Icklesham Parish Council. Among other things, he is proposing multi-year financial planning. This is obviously sensible and is envisaged in the council's own Financial Regulations.It was previously proposed by Winchelsea councillors but rejected by the council.
Most dramatically, the clerk has cut the fat out of the budget by placing £44,647 out of the total £111,386 (40%) into a reserve. We were not sure about this proposal at the meeting, as we regard 40% as an excessive percentage (see below). Upon consideration, however, we accept that this is probably a sensible move, as it should stop the money being frittered away in ways for which it was not budgeted. Nevertheless, it is a serious indictment of the budget-setting process at Icklesham Parish Council that 40% of the budget should in effect be frozen on only the second month of the financial year!
At the next budget-setting, reserves need to be reduced to a sensible sum. 40% is far too high. In the last financial year, only five budget items, totalling £3,506, went over budget. Over the previous four years, aggregate gross overspends ranged between £1,111 and £6,016. So reserves of £44,647 are way too high. Tax-payers' money should not sit in the bank account of the council!
The clerk is following guidance which suggests reserves should be 25-100% of annual expenditure.However, the guidance also suggests that the figure be based on an assessment of the risk of overspending (which the clerk is indeed intending to do). We think it questionable that any reserves need to be held against items such as insurance, salaries, electricity bills for footlights, etc, as these are fixed in advance. And as explained, analysis of previous budgets shows that the risk of overspending on other budget items is low, while the risk of an unexpected drop in income is virtually nil (revenue has been greater or lower than the budgeted amount by no more than about £70). It also needs to be borne in mind that Icklesham Parish Council has underspent its budget by 20-53% in recent years, so we already have massive de facto reserves.
Excess reserves should be returned to tax-payers next year by a reduction in the precept. Icklesham stood out from the 33 parishes of Rother this year by imposing a 21% tax increase, while 21 others froze or cut taxes, and the other 11 imposed modest increases of between £143 and £2100. Indeed, the £16,133 hike imposed by Icklesham was greater than the sum of all the other 11 increases (£11,000).
Interestingly, the Chairman justified this year's 21% tax hike by claiming that, because Icklesham Parish was composed of four villages, it was more expensive to run than other parishes. We agree that the size and diversity of Icklesham Parish creates diseconomies of scale (administration has to be quadruplicated). But that fact does not explain why tax had to be raised by 21% this year. There are four other parishes in Rother which are warded. Three of these other multi-village parishes froze their tax: one (Ticehurst) cut theirs by almost £14,000.
After the meeting, a member of the public commented on the fact that the meeting was attended by the Clerk and Deputy Clerk, and asked why Icklesham Parish was paying for the time and travel expenses of two clerks. Good point!
The first real business was to co-opt two members, one for Icklesham and one for the Beach, because too few people stood for election in those wards. Mr Nick Warren, who stood in the District election, was co-opted for Icklesham ward. Mr Peter Turner, defeated in the Winchelsea election, was co-opted for the Beach. Mr Turner has been a councillor in the past. In 1999, he stood for election in Winchelsea, was defeated and co-opted for Icklesham. On that occasion, he was also made chairman on the same night, although he did not remain on the council for the full term.
The new clerk, Steve Foreman, has hit the ground running and has already made big strides in sorting out the administrative confusion and backlog of work at Icklesham Parish Council. Among other things, he is proposing multi-year financial planning. This is obviously sensible and is envisaged in the council's own Financial Regulations.It was previously proposed by Winchelsea councillors but rejected by the council.
Most dramatically, the clerk has cut the fat out of the budget by placing £44,647 out of the total £111,386 (40%) into a reserve. We were not sure about this proposal at the meeting, as we regard 40% as an excessive percentage (see below). Upon consideration, however, we accept that this is probably a sensible move, as it should stop the money being frittered away in ways for which it was not budgeted. Nevertheless, it is a serious indictment of the budget-setting process at Icklesham Parish Council that 40% of the budget should in effect be frozen on only the second month of the financial year!
At the next budget-setting, reserves need to be reduced to a sensible sum. 40% is far too high. In the last financial year, only five budget items, totalling £3,506, went over budget. Over the previous four years, aggregate gross overspends ranged between £1,111 and £6,016. So reserves of £44,647 are way too high. Tax-payers' money should not sit in the bank account of the council!
The clerk is following guidance which suggests reserves should be 25-100% of annual expenditure.However, the guidance also suggests that the figure be based on an assessment of the risk of overspending (which the clerk is indeed intending to do). We think it questionable that any reserves need to be held against items such as insurance, salaries, electricity bills for footlights, etc, as these are fixed in advance. And as explained, analysis of previous budgets shows that the risk of overspending on other budget items is low, while the risk of an unexpected drop in income is virtually nil (revenue has been greater or lower than the budgeted amount by no more than about £70). It also needs to be borne in mind that Icklesham Parish Council has underspent its budget by 20-53% in recent years, so we already have massive de facto reserves.
Excess reserves should be returned to tax-payers next year by a reduction in the precept. Icklesham stood out from the 33 parishes of Rother this year by imposing a 21% tax increase, while 21 others froze or cut taxes, and the other 11 imposed modest increases of between £143 and £2100. Indeed, the £16,133 hike imposed by Icklesham was greater than the sum of all the other 11 increases (£11,000).
Interestingly, the Chairman justified this year's 21% tax hike by claiming that, because Icklesham Parish was composed of four villages, it was more expensive to run than other parishes. We agree that the size and diversity of Icklesham Parish creates diseconomies of scale (administration has to be quadruplicated). But that fact does not explain why tax had to be raised by 21% this year. There are four other parishes in Rother which are warded. Three of these other multi-village parishes froze their tax: one (Ticehurst) cut theirs by almost £14,000.
After the meeting, a member of the public commented on the fact that the meeting was attended by the Clerk and Deputy Clerk, and asked why Icklesham Parish was paying for the time and travel expenses of two clerks. Good point!
Friday 8 April 2011
Parish council election on 4 May 2011
Candidates have been announced for the election on 4 May. The only contested election, as usual, will be in Winchelsea ward. We, the incumbent councillors --- Ben Chishick, Richard Comotto, Mike Terry --- will be standing against Steve and Peter Turner.
The main issues will be the proposal for a separate parish of Winchelsea (we in favour; the Turners against) and Council Tax (we against the increases; the Turners probably unwilling to oppose).
In Icklesham, Rye Harbour and Winchelsea Beach wards, there will yet again be no contested elections. Indeed, Icklesham and Winchelsea Beach cannot find enough candidates, so councillors will have to be co-opted. Rye Harbour cannot find any residents at all to stand for election, so they will continue to be represented by residents of Rye Town and Winchelsea Beach. Not a great advert for loca democracy.
The main issues will be the proposal for a separate parish of Winchelsea (we in favour; the Turners against) and Council Tax (we against the increases; the Turners probably unwilling to oppose).
In Icklesham, Rye Harbour and Winchelsea Beach wards, there will yet again be no contested elections. Indeed, Icklesham and Winchelsea Beach cannot find enough candidates, so councillors will have to be co-opted. Rye Harbour cannot find any residents at all to stand for election, so they will continue to be represented by residents of Rye Town and Winchelsea Beach. Not a great advert for loca democracy.
Sunday 3 April 2011
Tax increase 2011/12
Council tax bills have landed on door mats. The County and District Councils, as well as the Police and Fire authorities, have frozen their tax demands, in line with government guidance. Of the 33 parish and town councils in Rother, 21 have also followed the government by freezing or reducing their tax. Another 11 parish councils in Rother have increased tax by between £145 and £2,130. Icklesham Parish Council stands out by having imposed a hike of £16,133, considerably more than the 11 other parish councils put together (the 11 other parish councils which have increased tax have done so by a total of about £11,000)! Only Winchelsea ward councillors voted against this increase but were outvoted by councillors from Icklesham, Winchelsea Beach and Rye Harbour. Since 2003, Icklesham Parish Council's tax has quadrupled. However, it has always significantly underspent its budget.
Monday 7 February 2011
January council meeting, part II
The headline news in last week’s Rye Observer was that Rye Town Council had decided not to increase next year’s local tax. Well done, Rye!
Across the border, residents will be paying 20% more to Icklesham Parish Council (more than quadrupling the parish tax since the first of us became a councillor in 2003). Ironically, one of the councillors who voted for next year’s tax hike lives in Rye!
Last week, we promised to report on the secret discussion at Icklesham Parish Council in January. Councillors were told that they were not even allowed to mention the subject of the discussion. However, the published agenda stated “staff matters”, which rather blew the gaff. It is also public knowledge that the parish clerk, who joined in May, resigned in November and that the parish council is advertising for a replacement. So, it is fairly obvious what the “staff matter” was about!
We were told that the reason for keeping the matter secret from voters was the right of council employees to confidentiality about the terms of their employment. However, the former parish clerk does not have a problem about discussion of the way the matter was handled.
First, it needs to be made clear that council employees such as clerks are employed by the council as a whole. No individual councillor or group of councillors has the authority to take an employment (or any other) decision on their own. This includes the chairman of the parish council, who has no executive powers and whose function is purely to moderate council meetings. All decisions must be made by the full council or by a committee to whom the full council has specifically delegated powers.
Second, it also needs to be made clear that the vice chairman of a parish council has absolutely no status unless and until the chairman is absent. Otherwise, the vice chairman is just another councillor.
Given this situation, the fact that the events which led to the resignation of the clerk involved the chairman and vice chairman acting alone and without the authority of the council is clearly a matter of concern. But if the clerk was unfairly dismissed, it is the council as a whole and tax-payers who would be penalised. When pressed in December, the chairman of Icklesham Parish Council refused to answer questions from councillors, even in secret session. He claimed that he had been advised by the Sussex Association of Local Councils (SALC) not to discuss the matter, even with councillors and despite the fact that councillors acting collectively as the council are legally the clerk’s employer. He failed to reveal to the council that the clerk had written a resignation letter setting out her side of events until he was specifically asked. He then agreed to copy the letter to all councillors and, when pressed, agreed to copy the advice he claimed to have received from SALC. It should be noted that it is council policy that all such external advice should be requested and taken in written form.
Following the December meeting, we informed the chairman that, unless the council was allowed to discuss the resignation of the clerk at the next meeting, we would use our power to call a special meeting to do just that. It was reluctantly agreed to include the matter in the January agenda.
By the time of the January meeting, councillors had still not been sent a copy of the clerk’s resignation letter nor a copy of the SALC advice as promised. The resignation letter was distributed at the meeting, leaving no time to read and absorb. The SALC advice continued to be withheld. After turning off the council’s expensive recording system, the chairman read a long and detailed statement justifying the actions of himself and the vice chairman. He then refused to answer questions from councillors or provide the council with copies of his statement.
Subsequently, the chairman has supplied copies of e-mails between himself and SALC. They contain no substantive advice.
So, the situation is that an employment problem may have been created by the unauthorised action of the chairman and vice chairman, who usurped the authority of the council, and that the council may as a consequence have been exposed unwittingly to a charge of unfair dismissal. However, the elected councillors are not permitted to know all the facts about the management of an employee for whom they collectively bear the legal responsibility as employer.
Secrecy in government, particularly at local level, is rarely justifiable, even if cloaked in terms of employee confidentiality, but can never justify withholding information from elected representatives. It can too easily be used to hide incompetence, indolence and dishonesty from the public, and avoid the scrutiny that is one of the fundamental safeguards of democracy.
What’s going on at Icklesham Parish Council? How would we know? We’re just elected councillors.
Cllrs Chishick, Comotto and Terry
Across the border, residents will be paying 20% more to Icklesham Parish Council (more than quadrupling the parish tax since the first of us became a councillor in 2003). Ironically, one of the councillors who voted for next year’s tax hike lives in Rye!
Last week, we promised to report on the secret discussion at Icklesham Parish Council in January. Councillors were told that they were not even allowed to mention the subject of the discussion. However, the published agenda stated “staff matters”, which rather blew the gaff. It is also public knowledge that the parish clerk, who joined in May, resigned in November and that the parish council is advertising for a replacement. So, it is fairly obvious what the “staff matter” was about!
We were told that the reason for keeping the matter secret from voters was the right of council employees to confidentiality about the terms of their employment. However, the former parish clerk does not have a problem about discussion of the way the matter was handled.
First, it needs to be made clear that council employees such as clerks are employed by the council as a whole. No individual councillor or group of councillors has the authority to take an employment (or any other) decision on their own. This includes the chairman of the parish council, who has no executive powers and whose function is purely to moderate council meetings. All decisions must be made by the full council or by a committee to whom the full council has specifically delegated powers.
Second, it also needs to be made clear that the vice chairman of a parish council has absolutely no status unless and until the chairman is absent. Otherwise, the vice chairman is just another councillor.
Given this situation, the fact that the events which led to the resignation of the clerk involved the chairman and vice chairman acting alone and without the authority of the council is clearly a matter of concern. But if the clerk was unfairly dismissed, it is the council as a whole and tax-payers who would be penalised. When pressed in December, the chairman of Icklesham Parish Council refused to answer questions from councillors, even in secret session. He claimed that he had been advised by the Sussex Association of Local Councils (SALC) not to discuss the matter, even with councillors and despite the fact that councillors acting collectively as the council are legally the clerk’s employer. He failed to reveal to the council that the clerk had written a resignation letter setting out her side of events until he was specifically asked. He then agreed to copy the letter to all councillors and, when pressed, agreed to copy the advice he claimed to have received from SALC. It should be noted that it is council policy that all such external advice should be requested and taken in written form.
Following the December meeting, we informed the chairman that, unless the council was allowed to discuss the resignation of the clerk at the next meeting, we would use our power to call a special meeting to do just that. It was reluctantly agreed to include the matter in the January agenda.
By the time of the January meeting, councillors had still not been sent a copy of the clerk’s resignation letter nor a copy of the SALC advice as promised. The resignation letter was distributed at the meeting, leaving no time to read and absorb. The SALC advice continued to be withheld. After turning off the council’s expensive recording system, the chairman read a long and detailed statement justifying the actions of himself and the vice chairman. He then refused to answer questions from councillors or provide the council with copies of his statement.
Subsequently, the chairman has supplied copies of e-mails between himself and SALC. They contain no substantive advice.
So, the situation is that an employment problem may have been created by the unauthorised action of the chairman and vice chairman, who usurped the authority of the council, and that the council may as a consequence have been exposed unwittingly to a charge of unfair dismissal. However, the elected councillors are not permitted to know all the facts about the management of an employee for whom they collectively bear the legal responsibility as employer.
Secrecy in government, particularly at local level, is rarely justifiable, even if cloaked in terms of employee confidentiality, but can never justify withholding information from elected representatives. It can too easily be used to hide incompetence, indolence and dishonesty from the public, and avoid the scrutiny that is one of the fundamental safeguards of democracy.
What’s going on at Icklesham Parish Council? How would we know? We’re just elected councillors.
Cllrs Chishick, Comotto and Terry
Sunday 30 January 2011
Icklesham Parish Council planning committee
Many residents assume that parish council planning committees are empowered to take decisions on planning applications and many parish councillors (if not most) share this belief. However, parish councils have absolutely no planning powers. All planning decisions (apart from those on strategic infrastructure projects) are taken by the planning committees at District Councils, which are the Local Planning Authorities (LPA). Parish councils are not even “statutory consultees” on planning issues, in other words, the LPA is not obliged to seek their views. The sole planning privilege granted to parish councils is that they have the right to be notified of local applications. Beyond this, parish councils are in the same position as individual residents. To influence a planning decision being made by the LPA, both parish councils and individual residents have to make comments based on material planning considerations, ie points of planning law and policy. Simply supporting or objecting to a particular application is just a waste of everybody’s time.
Icklesham Parish Council’s planning committee has only just been persuaded to stop saying that it “approves” or “rejects” applications, which gave the false impression it was a decision-making body. But it has not been possible to persuade it to offer substantive reasons. However, the most serious failure of Icklesham’s planning committee has been its disinclination to contribute to the formulation of planning policy. This is where parish councils, at least collectively, could make a real difference to planning. Ample opportunities have arisen recently, with the consultations on the Local Development Framework, Conservation Areas and the AONB Management Plan review, and at workshops organised at the last Rother planning seminar. Unfortunately, Icklesham has ignored such opportunities: only Winchelsea ward councillors took part.
Of course, Winchelsea may be more sensitive to planning issues than the other three wards of Icklesham Parish. It is the only Conservation Area in the parish, includes the only Scheduled Ancient Monuments (three of them in fact) and has a unique heritage as a medieval planned town that retains its original layout and landscape setting. It also includes some 120 listed buildings (Rye has about 300).
Given that Winchelsea is a site of such special historical and archaeological interest, a central objective of the parish council planning committee should be conservation in Winchelsea. However, in Icklesham Paish Council, on the matter of planning --- as in many other areas --- there is a kick against Winchelsea. For example, when comments about any planning application in Winchelsea have referred to the Conservation Area, Cllr Bronsdon of Rye Harbour (now the Chairman of the planning committee) has summarily dismissed the Conservation Area as merely a matter of “aesthetics”. That of course is the whole point of Conservation Areas! They are intended to maintain and enhance the special character and appearance of places! And this aim is a material planning consideration and imposes an obligation on all public authorities.
Another ongoing cause for concern has been the policy of ignoring letters objecting to planning applications in Winchelsea if they have not been copied to the parish council, even if they on the Rother website, or have been copied to the ward councillors. Refusing to accept that Winchelsea ward councillors are elected representatives of Winchelsea residents is a tenet of faith among most councillors from other wards and can be dismissed as petty politics, but refusing to acknowledge the existence of letters on planning applications seeks to disenfranchise the whole of Winchelsea.
New depths were plumbed at the planning committee in January. The subject was an application for the conversion of the former gasometer at the end of Hogtrough Lane into holiday accommodation. This site is outside the development boundary but within the Conservation Area, so the proposal raises exceptional issues. The parish council had before them an 11-page letter of objection from a conservation group in Winchelsea. It was a very detailed text, extensively referenced to planning law and obviously the product of much research. But Cllr Bronsdon dismissed the entire letter as being “only” about “heritage” and “planning law”, as though these were irrelevant to planning rather than central to the whole issue! No further reference was made to the letter and none of its arguments were considered.
In addition, the letters of objection on the Rother website were dismissed as being too few to matter, and additional letters, which were waiting to be posted on the Rother website, were brushed aside, even though they had been copied to a Winchelsea councillor. To date, letters have been written by 17 individual residents and three community groups, far more than is usual and a clear indication of local concern. This is in addition to letters from the County Archaeologist, the Environmental Health Officer and the National Trust. None of these letters were brought to the attention of the planning committee or discussed.
On the other hand, the planning committee, most of whose members had to declare a personal interest because they knew the applicant and one had done business with him, accepted without question the applicant’s argument that the proposal would improve the gasometer, which has been allowed to deteriorate into a very poor state. They were presumably unaware or unconcerned that national planning policy disallows such an argument and in fact views the deterioration of historic buildings as undermining the viability of proposals for conversion.
Things got even worse. The planning committee had been asked by a Winchelsea councillor to write to Rother to support a request for a Section 215 notice to be served on the owner of the gasometer to enforce his Conservation Area obligations to maintain the structure. However, the request contained a typo and said “125” rather than “215”, although it was quite clear from the text what a S215 notice was and the planning committee has come across them before. But the Chairman refused to allow the request to be considered or for a correction to be made by amendment.
By the end of the meeting, one could only be thankful that parish councils have no planning powers.
Icklesham Parish Council’s planning committee has only just been persuaded to stop saying that it “approves” or “rejects” applications, which gave the false impression it was a decision-making body. But it has not been possible to persuade it to offer substantive reasons. However, the most serious failure of Icklesham’s planning committee has been its disinclination to contribute to the formulation of planning policy. This is where parish councils, at least collectively, could make a real difference to planning. Ample opportunities have arisen recently, with the consultations on the Local Development Framework, Conservation Areas and the AONB Management Plan review, and at workshops organised at the last Rother planning seminar. Unfortunately, Icklesham has ignored such opportunities: only Winchelsea ward councillors took part.
Of course, Winchelsea may be more sensitive to planning issues than the other three wards of Icklesham Parish. It is the only Conservation Area in the parish, includes the only Scheduled Ancient Monuments (three of them in fact) and has a unique heritage as a medieval planned town that retains its original layout and landscape setting. It also includes some 120 listed buildings (Rye has about 300).
Given that Winchelsea is a site of such special historical and archaeological interest, a central objective of the parish council planning committee should be conservation in Winchelsea. However, in Icklesham Paish Council, on the matter of planning --- as in many other areas --- there is a kick against Winchelsea. For example, when comments about any planning application in Winchelsea have referred to the Conservation Area, Cllr Bronsdon of Rye Harbour (now the Chairman of the planning committee) has summarily dismissed the Conservation Area as merely a matter of “aesthetics”. That of course is the whole point of Conservation Areas! They are intended to maintain and enhance the special character and appearance of places! And this aim is a material planning consideration and imposes an obligation on all public authorities.
Another ongoing cause for concern has been the policy of ignoring letters objecting to planning applications in Winchelsea if they have not been copied to the parish council, even if they on the Rother website, or have been copied to the ward councillors. Refusing to accept that Winchelsea ward councillors are elected representatives of Winchelsea residents is a tenet of faith among most councillors from other wards and can be dismissed as petty politics, but refusing to acknowledge the existence of letters on planning applications seeks to disenfranchise the whole of Winchelsea.
New depths were plumbed at the planning committee in January. The subject was an application for the conversion of the former gasometer at the end of Hogtrough Lane into holiday accommodation. This site is outside the development boundary but within the Conservation Area, so the proposal raises exceptional issues. The parish council had before them an 11-page letter of objection from a conservation group in Winchelsea. It was a very detailed text, extensively referenced to planning law and obviously the product of much research. But Cllr Bronsdon dismissed the entire letter as being “only” about “heritage” and “planning law”, as though these were irrelevant to planning rather than central to the whole issue! No further reference was made to the letter and none of its arguments were considered.
In addition, the letters of objection on the Rother website were dismissed as being too few to matter, and additional letters, which were waiting to be posted on the Rother website, were brushed aside, even though they had been copied to a Winchelsea councillor. To date, letters have been written by 17 individual residents and three community groups, far more than is usual and a clear indication of local concern. This is in addition to letters from the County Archaeologist, the Environmental Health Officer and the National Trust. None of these letters were brought to the attention of the planning committee or discussed.
On the other hand, the planning committee, most of whose members had to declare a personal interest because they knew the applicant and one had done business with him, accepted without question the applicant’s argument that the proposal would improve the gasometer, which has been allowed to deteriorate into a very poor state. They were presumably unaware or unconcerned that national planning policy disallows such an argument and in fact views the deterioration of historic buildings as undermining the viability of proposals for conversion.
Things got even worse. The planning committee had been asked by a Winchelsea councillor to write to Rother to support a request for a Section 215 notice to be served on the owner of the gasometer to enforce his Conservation Area obligations to maintain the structure. However, the request contained a typo and said “125” rather than “215”, although it was quite clear from the text what a S215 notice was and the planning committee has come across them before. But the Chairman refused to allow the request to be considered or for a correction to be made by amendment.
By the end of the meeting, one could only be thankful that parish councils have no planning powers.
Sunday 2 January 2011
Icklesham Parish Council budget and tax 2011/12
Despite the worsening financial circumstances of many residents and calls for restraint from the government, Icklesham Parish Council has approved a 20.6% hike in its tax demand for 2011/12. Since 2003, our parish council tax has quadrupled from £19,000 to almost £95,000. On top of this, IPC has borrowed and spent £40,000 on Icklesham village hall.
Only Winchelsea councillors voted against the tax ramp. Perhaps as a consequence, all new projects for Winchelsea were cut. Only the other three wards will see new spending.
The tax ramp comes despite the fact that IPC has never yet managed to spend its budget. The current council (since 2007) has spent an average of just 71% of budgeted expenditures and a mere 65% of annual income. Thus, parish council tax has been one-third higher than necessary.
IPC carried over £42,000 of unspent funds from last year. The year before, over £55,000. And the year before that, almost £40,000. And these numbers disguise the true situation, because of the switching of sums during the year from projects included in the original budgets to new projects not envisaged when the budgets were drafted.
One argument made in favour of the tax hike was that the sums involved were small when considered per household. The average is about £65. In isolation, many people may consider such a sum to be small. But every penny of money taken from taxpayers should be taken for necessary and planned projects, not sitting idle in the council’s bank account until councillors get around to deciding how to spend it. Such sums must also be considered in the context of other tax bills facing residents, the increasing cost of living and the shrinking real value of wages and pensions.
Another argument to justify the tax ramp was the extra cost of elections this year. In fact, this adds just £6,000 to the bill. The real reason for the large increase is unjustified changes such as the increase in the contingency fund to £10,000.
We were also told that the Sussex Association of Local Councils has urged parishes to increase their budgets to make up for the cuts by the District and County Councils. Unfortunately, none of the planned spending by IPC will tackle areas where other councils have reduced spending.
2011/12 Budget (unless otherwise stated, changes are from 2007/08 to 2009/10)
Chairman’s allowance: £300 (unchanged). IPC is one of the few councils in Rother to pay this. Only introduced in 2005/06. At least, it has been reduced from £450 and is no longer paid to the chairman upfront but is claimed against expenses. However, this year, the chairman has used his allowance to buy flowers for a former councillor’s widow and lunch for a guide and his wife who took some councillors on a private tour. It has previously been used to buy leaving presents for retiring councillors and clerk, money which should have come from councillors’ own pockets
Clerks’ allowances: £1,300 (unchanged). This budget item has been underspent by an average of £251 a year or 19%.
Clerks’ travel expenses: £1,800 (+38%). Only the public sector pays employees to travel to work and IPC only has to pay because it prefers to employ clerks living outside the parish.
Clerks’ salaries: £23,376 (+10%). This budget item has been underspent by an average of £1,568 a year or 8%.
Training £1,200 (+140%). For new councillors next year, but the training budget has been underspent by an average of £925 a year or 78% (07/08-10/11). Yet IPC refused £150 for training for a Winchelsea councillor this year.
Audit fee: £1,000 (unchanged).
Clerks’ office expenses: £2,400 (unchanged).
Elections: £8,000 (+300%). This sum should have been accumulated gradually over previous years.
Hire of village halls: £400 (-20%). IPC continues to have to pay for hall hire in all wards other than Rye Harbour, despite making an annual grant to all the halls. The cost should be deducted from the grants (£6,000 next year) .
Insurance: £2,000 (unchanged).
Legal expenses: £1,500 (+100%). This budget item has been underspent by an average of £575 a year or 92% (07/08-10/11). A disguised contingency fund, as there is no regular legal work and free legal advice is given by SALC and NALC.
Subscriptions: £1,000 (+18%). Rise due to unnecessary new subscription to National Playing Fields Association.
Allotment maintenance: £1,500 (+33%). This budget item has been underspent by an average of £1,107 a year or 55%. Another disguised contingency fund: planned work is separately budgeted.
Bus shelter repair: £2,000. This budget item has been underspent by an average of £1,057 a year or 60%. Yet, some bus shelters have been in a poor state for a while.
Grass cutting: £8,000 (+14%). Largely Icklesham, Winchelsea Beach.
Playground maintenance: £1,500 (+33%). This budget item has been underspent by an average of £2,608 a year or 92%. It is unclear why the maintenance budget should be so large given that most playground equipment is new (IPC has spent over £52,000 on new playground equipment since 03/04 and has budgeted to spend another £9,500). Another disguised contingency fund.
Playground inspection: £400 (unchaanged).
Rubbish clearance: £2,500 (unchanged). Largely Winchelsea Beach.
Seat cleaning: £500 (new). We support this, having tried to get benches cleaned for several years.
Small works: £3,000 (unchanged). General contingency fund for repairs.
Streetlighting electricity: £1,900 (+6%). This budget item has been underspent by an average of £365 a year or 18%.
Streetlighting maintenance: £1,442 (unchanged). Carried over unspent from last year.
Tree maintenance: £1,500 (+200%). Seems a lot given that IPC has this year spent/budgeted £4,300 on a comprehensive programme of inspection and maintenance (proposed by Winchelsea councillors to stop the waste of money on sporadic ad hoc inspections, the reports of which kept getting lost).
Emptying dog bins: £1,200 (-60%). Winchelsea Beach. An exceptional and welcome cut-back.
Contingency Fund: £10,000 (+33%). This rise was justified on the basis of unsubstantiated advice. However, financial analysis suggests a figure of £4,000 would be more than adequate, as IPC has underspent its budgets by an average of £24,600 a year. IPC also has a separate £3,000 contingency fund for small works and several other items in the budget are disguised contingency funds. IPC also has an insurance policy to cover extreme events.
Pear Tree Marsh allotment: £1,800 (+80%). Clearing a blocked ditch. IPC has refused to roll over the unspent money in this year’s budget to clear the derelict areas in this allotment.
Direction sign, Icklesham: £500 (new). Unnecessary.
Cost of grant to Icklesham Memorial Trust: £3,118 (unchanged). This is the annual cost of paying back a £40,000 grant given to Icklesham village hall and funded by borrowing for 20 years.
Community noticeboard, Icklesham: £800 (new). Hardly a priority. There is no need given that there is a parish noticeboard and one on a bus shelter. In contrast, IPC refused to release £169 budgeted this year for a noticeboard on the Strand bus shelter for residents of Tanyard Lane.
Repair of Smeatons Lane, Winchelsea Beach: £1,000. Smeatons Lane is apparently owned by IPC and money has to be spent every year, £3,200 this year alone.
Fencing of Smeatons Lane, Winchelsea Beach: £4,000. Some £2,700 has already been spent replacing a collapsed fence along Smeatons Lane with posts to stop cars parking on council property. The new money is to install a new gate, fix the gate posts and replace the remaining fence. The gate, one gate post and remaining fence are not in need of replacement. This is unnecessary, particularly in current circumstances.
Fingerpost sign, Rye Harbour: £750 (new). To the lifeboat hut. No demonstrated need. Hardly a priority.
Gateway sign, Rye Harbour: £1,400 (new). An isolated and relativlely cost/ineffective speed calming measure.
Flagpole, Rye Harbour: £2,000 (unchanged). This budget item has been underspent by an average of £1,150 a year or 92% (03/04-10/11). Why is IPC spending any money on this flagpole?
Community noticeboard, Rye Harbour: £800 (new). Hardly a priority. There is no need given that there is a parish noticeboard and one at the shop. In contrast, IPC refused to release £169 budgeted for a noticeboard on the Strand bus shelter for residents of TanyardLane.
Youth projects: £1,000 (unchanged). This budget item has been underspent by an average of £1,000 a year or 67%. No projects planned. Another disguised contingency fund. Yet a request for money for a youth project in Winchelsea this year was refused.
Donation fund: £1,000 (unchanged). This budget item has been underspent by £333 a year or 40%.
Grant to Rye Community Transport: £1,500 (unchanged).
Grants to churches: £1,200 (+20%). Money towards maintenance of churchyards, but IPC does not know how much the churches spend. Each gets 25% whereas the cost differs widely between churches. When the grant was divided pro rata with costs, other wards objected to St Thomas’s receiving a larger share.
Grants to village halls: £6,000 (+50%). When IPC had a fund to which village halls could apply, they rarely bothered. Now money is given out each year whether or not the village halls need money, and IPC does not ask how the money is spent. There is no justification for increasing this sum by so much, if at all.
Grant to Rye Harbour Nature Reserve: £300 (unchanged). This has become an annual grant. Rather generous in current circumstances.
New bins: £500. For other wards. Yet IPC refused to reinstate money for a larger waste bin to replace the overflowing one by the public toilets & recycling bins.
Local Action Plan: £1,500 (new). No specific projects. Another disguised contingency fund.
New playground equipment: £2,500. IPC has spent over £52,000 on new playground equipment since 03/04 and budgeted to spend another £9,500. It has never assessed need, does not know how many children there are in each ward and what age. It is poor financial planning to concentrate expenditure in this way.
Total Expenditure: £111,386
Only Winchelsea councillors voted against the tax ramp. Perhaps as a consequence, all new projects for Winchelsea were cut. Only the other three wards will see new spending.
The tax ramp comes despite the fact that IPC has never yet managed to spend its budget. The current council (since 2007) has spent an average of just 71% of budgeted expenditures and a mere 65% of annual income. Thus, parish council tax has been one-third higher than necessary.
IPC carried over £42,000 of unspent funds from last year. The year before, over £55,000. And the year before that, almost £40,000. And these numbers disguise the true situation, because of the switching of sums during the year from projects included in the original budgets to new projects not envisaged when the budgets were drafted.
One argument made in favour of the tax hike was that the sums involved were small when considered per household. The average is about £65. In isolation, many people may consider such a sum to be small. But every penny of money taken from taxpayers should be taken for necessary and planned projects, not sitting idle in the council’s bank account until councillors get around to deciding how to spend it. Such sums must also be considered in the context of other tax bills facing residents, the increasing cost of living and the shrinking real value of wages and pensions.
Another argument to justify the tax ramp was the extra cost of elections this year. In fact, this adds just £6,000 to the bill. The real reason for the large increase is unjustified changes such as the increase in the contingency fund to £10,000.
We were also told that the Sussex Association of Local Councils has urged parishes to increase their budgets to make up for the cuts by the District and County Councils. Unfortunately, none of the planned spending by IPC will tackle areas where other councils have reduced spending.
2011/12 Budget (unless otherwise stated, changes are from 2007/08 to 2009/10)
Chairman’s allowance: £300 (unchanged). IPC is one of the few councils in Rother to pay this. Only introduced in 2005/06. At least, it has been reduced from £450 and is no longer paid to the chairman upfront but is claimed against expenses. However, this year, the chairman has used his allowance to buy flowers for a former councillor’s widow and lunch for a guide and his wife who took some councillors on a private tour. It has previously been used to buy leaving presents for retiring councillors and clerk, money which should have come from councillors’ own pockets
Clerks’ allowances: £1,300 (unchanged). This budget item has been underspent by an average of £251 a year or 19%.
Clerks’ travel expenses: £1,800 (+38%). Only the public sector pays employees to travel to work and IPC only has to pay because it prefers to employ clerks living outside the parish.
Clerks’ salaries: £23,376 (+10%). This budget item has been underspent by an average of £1,568 a year or 8%.
Training £1,200 (+140%). For new councillors next year, but the training budget has been underspent by an average of £925 a year or 78% (07/08-10/11). Yet IPC refused £150 for training for a Winchelsea councillor this year.
Audit fee: £1,000 (unchanged).
Clerks’ office expenses: £2,400 (unchanged).
Elections: £8,000 (+300%). This sum should have been accumulated gradually over previous years.
Hire of village halls: £400 (-20%). IPC continues to have to pay for hall hire in all wards other than Rye Harbour, despite making an annual grant to all the halls. The cost should be deducted from the grants (£6,000 next year) .
Insurance: £2,000 (unchanged).
Legal expenses: £1,500 (+100%). This budget item has been underspent by an average of £575 a year or 92% (07/08-10/11). A disguised contingency fund, as there is no regular legal work and free legal advice is given by SALC and NALC.
Subscriptions: £1,000 (+18%). Rise due to unnecessary new subscription to National Playing Fields Association.
Allotment maintenance: £1,500 (+33%). This budget item has been underspent by an average of £1,107 a year or 55%. Another disguised contingency fund: planned work is separately budgeted.
Bus shelter repair: £2,000. This budget item has been underspent by an average of £1,057 a year or 60%. Yet, some bus shelters have been in a poor state for a while.
Grass cutting: £8,000 (+14%). Largely Icklesham, Winchelsea Beach.
Playground maintenance: £1,500 (+33%). This budget item has been underspent by an average of £2,608 a year or 92%. It is unclear why the maintenance budget should be so large given that most playground equipment is new (IPC has spent over £52,000 on new playground equipment since 03/04 and has budgeted to spend another £9,500). Another disguised contingency fund.
Playground inspection: £400 (unchaanged).
Rubbish clearance: £2,500 (unchanged). Largely Winchelsea Beach.
Seat cleaning: £500 (new). We support this, having tried to get benches cleaned for several years.
Small works: £3,000 (unchanged). General contingency fund for repairs.
Streetlighting electricity: £1,900 (+6%). This budget item has been underspent by an average of £365 a year or 18%.
Streetlighting maintenance: £1,442 (unchanged). Carried over unspent from last year.
Tree maintenance: £1,500 (+200%). Seems a lot given that IPC has this year spent/budgeted £4,300 on a comprehensive programme of inspection and maintenance (proposed by Winchelsea councillors to stop the waste of money on sporadic ad hoc inspections, the reports of which kept getting lost).
Emptying dog bins: £1,200 (-60%). Winchelsea Beach. An exceptional and welcome cut-back.
Contingency Fund: £10,000 (+33%). This rise was justified on the basis of unsubstantiated advice. However, financial analysis suggests a figure of £4,000 would be more than adequate, as IPC has underspent its budgets by an average of £24,600 a year. IPC also has a separate £3,000 contingency fund for small works and several other items in the budget are disguised contingency funds. IPC also has an insurance policy to cover extreme events.
Pear Tree Marsh allotment: £1,800 (+80%). Clearing a blocked ditch. IPC has refused to roll over the unspent money in this year’s budget to clear the derelict areas in this allotment.
Direction sign, Icklesham: £500 (new). Unnecessary.
Cost of grant to Icklesham Memorial Trust: £3,118 (unchanged). This is the annual cost of paying back a £40,000 grant given to Icklesham village hall and funded by borrowing for 20 years.
Community noticeboard, Icklesham: £800 (new). Hardly a priority. There is no need given that there is a parish noticeboard and one on a bus shelter. In contrast, IPC refused to release £169 budgeted this year for a noticeboard on the Strand bus shelter for residents of Tanyard Lane.
Repair of Smeatons Lane, Winchelsea Beach: £1,000. Smeatons Lane is apparently owned by IPC and money has to be spent every year, £3,200 this year alone.
Fencing of Smeatons Lane, Winchelsea Beach: £4,000. Some £2,700 has already been spent replacing a collapsed fence along Smeatons Lane with posts to stop cars parking on council property. The new money is to install a new gate, fix the gate posts and replace the remaining fence. The gate, one gate post and remaining fence are not in need of replacement. This is unnecessary, particularly in current circumstances.
Fingerpost sign, Rye Harbour: £750 (new). To the lifeboat hut. No demonstrated need. Hardly a priority.
Gateway sign, Rye Harbour: £1,400 (new). An isolated and relativlely cost/ineffective speed calming measure.
Flagpole, Rye Harbour: £2,000 (unchanged). This budget item has been underspent by an average of £1,150 a year or 92% (03/04-10/11). Why is IPC spending any money on this flagpole?
Community noticeboard, Rye Harbour: £800 (new). Hardly a priority. There is no need given that there is a parish noticeboard and one at the shop. In contrast, IPC refused to release £169 budgeted for a noticeboard on the Strand bus shelter for residents of TanyardLane.
Youth projects: £1,000 (unchanged). This budget item has been underspent by an average of £1,000 a year or 67%. No projects planned. Another disguised contingency fund. Yet a request for money for a youth project in Winchelsea this year was refused.
Donation fund: £1,000 (unchanged). This budget item has been underspent by £333 a year or 40%.
Grant to Rye Community Transport: £1,500 (unchanged).
Grants to churches: £1,200 (+20%). Money towards maintenance of churchyards, but IPC does not know how much the churches spend. Each gets 25% whereas the cost differs widely between churches. When the grant was divided pro rata with costs, other wards objected to St Thomas’s receiving a larger share.
Grants to village halls: £6,000 (+50%). When IPC had a fund to which village halls could apply, they rarely bothered. Now money is given out each year whether or not the village halls need money, and IPC does not ask how the money is spent. There is no justification for increasing this sum by so much, if at all.
Grant to Rye Harbour Nature Reserve: £300 (unchanged). This has become an annual grant. Rather generous in current circumstances.
New bins: £500. For other wards. Yet IPC refused to reinstate money for a larger waste bin to replace the overflowing one by the public toilets & recycling bins.
Local Action Plan: £1,500 (new). No specific projects. Another disguised contingency fund.
New playground equipment: £2,500. IPC has spent over £52,000 on new playground equipment since 03/04 and budgeted to spend another £9,500. It has never assessed need, does not know how many children there are in each ward and what age. It is poor financial planning to concentrate expenditure in this way.
Total Expenditure: £111,386
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)