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!