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.
Sunday 30 January 2011
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)