Icklesham Parish Council meeting of 13 August 2012

Grant application for Winchelsea film

This was the main item of interest to Winchelsea. The community group Winchelsea Moving Pictures, who run Winchelsea Film Night, are producing a film (The Red Slipper) about an episode in the town’s relatively recent past. A grant of £1,000 has been made by Rother District Council from a grant it received under the Heritage Lottery Fund’s All Our Stories project . The remainder of the budget of about £2,500 is coming from funds raised by WMP itself. The parish council was asked for £200.

The proposal came under immediate attack from Cllr Bronsdon of Rye Harbour, who asserted, on the basis of no evidence whatsoever, that not many locals were involved. He was also unhappy that the money was “only for Winchelsea”.

Cllr Bronsdon tried to attack the grant on the grounds that Rother District Council was not putting any of its own money into the project, only part of a grant from HLF, presumably in order to argue that the parish council should only match-fund money from Rother’s own revenue. Cllr Comotto, on behalf of WMP, explained that the money from HLF was still part of Rother’s budgetary resources. But in fact, virtually all Rother’s revenues come from grants, not least, their central government grant.

Cllr Stanford of Rye Harbour was not happy with the copy of the bank statement showing all the WMP’s transactions since it was set up and demanded to see the accounts of the WMP. Cllr S Turner pointed out that these would not be available until the end of the WMP’s first year of operation. Cllr Stanford also confused the WMP’s film with the Diamond Jubilee film, and felt it was “rude” that the council had yet to see that film, despite providing a grant. Someone had to explain that the other film was about the Diamond Jubilee year in Winchelsea, so would not be available until after the end of the Diamond Jubilee year!

To be fair to the council, there was some confusion over the source of some of the funding, although this was hardly important. Unless money-laundering is suspected, money is money wherever it comes from. But Cllr Merricks felt that the council could not believe the application form.

Cllr P Turner questioned the historical accuracy of the memoirs on which the film is being based but the Chairman pointed out that this was not relevant.

In the end, it was probably the presence of a number of Winchelsea residents that forced a positive result. Proposed by the Chairman and seconded by Cllr P Turner, the application was approved unanimously.

New playground equipment for Icklesham Recreation Ground

Tenders for the proposed new playground facilities have come in and range from about £56,400 to some £71,700. Tenders for a permanent skatepark range from some £13,900 to just over £46,500. The wide range for the skatepark is apparently due to the fact that Cllr Warren, the principal architect of the project, allowed one quoting company to diverge from the specification agreed by the council.

The proposal before the council was that the tenders should go to the Sports and Recreation Working Group to recommend which was best value for money. However, despite months of previous discussion and in the absence of Cllr Warren, the proposal rapidly went back to square one, as some councillors, led by Cllr Bronsdon, questioned the whole idea of spending so much on one playground. The permanent skatepark was particularly unpopular with some councillors and was quickly deferred. Cllr Merricks revived her call for a multi-user games area, which she felt would encourage participation in sports in the spirit of the Olympics.

In the end, an amendment was proposed to the effect that the council review its strategy. There was some considerable procedural confusion about how an amendment is handled. Cllr P Turner argued that the amendment should be voted on and then the original resolution with the amendment added. No-one really knew what they were voting on. In the end, the motion was that the strategy go back to the Working Group (not the council), who will also assess the tenders for the playground equipment. It is clear that there is no consensus on the most fundamental issue of what (if anything) is required. The project is largely driven by the Working Group and not the council as a whole.

The Chairman expressed hopes that a grant of £30,000 may be available from the Weald and Rother Rural (WARR) Partnership but the deferral of the proposal could mean the council misses WARR’s deadline. Somebody also mentioned the landfill grants scheme but Icklesham falls outside the eligible area.

Parish Council-financed bus service

The second report from Rye Community Transport showed that, over the period from 1^st June to 3^rd August, there had been 110 users (counting each child as half an adult). Given that the council is paying RCT £7,500 per annum and assuming each adult user made a £1 donation, each journey has so far cost the council £11.88. Some 113 of the 165 journeys (68%) had no passengers. Only two Winchelsea residents have used the service, which translates into a tax contribution by the town of almost £170 per resident.

Icklesham Parish Council meeting 11 June 2012

This was the first council meeting after the Annual Parish Assembly on 14 May. Three issues from that event came onto the agenda of this meeting: whether the council should borrow as much as another £100,000; whether the council should turn off the footlights in Winchelsea at midnight; and whether there should be a re-organised parking scheme at the Pear Tree Marsh allotment site in Winchelsea open to all residents of Tanyard Lane.

The meeting once again saw the attendance of both clerks, unnecessarily adding to the council’s cost of administration.

 Council borrowing

At the Annual Parish Assembly, the threat of a Parish Poll had focussed the minds of councillors on whether parish tax-payers would accept a proposal that the council borrow up to £100,000, on top of the £40,000 already borrowed, largely to finance additional playground equipment in Icklesham. Councillors know that the hard-pressed tax-payers of other wards, let alone Icklesham, are unlikely to be impressed. Council debt would rise to some 150% of annual revenue, close to the debt/GDP ratios of those other paragons of fiscal prudence, Iceland, Ireland and Italy. That level of debt would also mean that a chunk of about £7,500 of each year’s revenue would be committed to paying off that debt every year for the next 20 years. A Parish Poll was proposed because it was felt that such a massive change in the financial structure and obligations of the parish should be put before voters.

At the Annual Parish Assembly, the Chairman had agreed to ask the council to consult residents before borrowing through a consultation organised by the council. But with no members of the public at the council meeting to hear what they said, some councillors tried to scupper that idea. Cllr Stanford argued that, as there had been no public consultation on the first borrowing of £40,000, there should be no public consultation on borrowing further £100,000. Cllr Warren, normally the voice of commonsense, proposed that any consultation should be ignored unless the result was supported by at least 50% of the electorate. Most councillors still do not seem to accept the principle that voting should not be subject to arbitrary conditions, particularly not conditions imposed by the likely losers!

Councillors then argued that they probably would not need to borrow the whole £100,000, as they expected they would be able to get substantial grants. Neutral observers may ask why the council therefore ever proposed that borrowing figure. Cynical observers might answer that, given the council’s failure to seek grants in the past, some councillors had little intention of trying to get grants in the future.

Cllr Comotto asked why the council had not determined how much grant money it could get before proposing a number for borrowing. He suggested that the council determine how much was available in grants, then fix a borrowing figure and then hold a public consultation. The council agreed.

Winchelsea footlights

The background to this issue is that Winchelsea has 17 footlights. They are not streetlights because they only light the footway, not the road. The parish council pays the bills. In contrast, in Rye and virtually everywhere else in the country, the cost of lighting is paid by the District or County Council. A proposal has been made to turn off the lights at midnight, primarily for environmental reasons. The annual saving of £700 a year would mean that the cost of altering the timers on each footlight would be recouped in less than 18 months. The council put the proposal to Winchelsea residents last year in the form of a questionnaire.

Almost 30% of households in Winchelsea returned completed questionnaires, most in favour of the proposal. However, objections were lodged by a resident, Mr John Spencer, who opposes the proposal. He complained that residents had been allowed to return completed questionnaires via their ward councillors. The insinuation is that there was no guarantee that ward councillors would pass on questionnaires supporting an opposing view or tamper with the questionnaires. As two of the Winchelsea ward councillors (Chishick and Turner) do not support the proposal to turn off the footlights at midnight, Mr Spencer’s insinuation of dishonesty was presumably aimed at Cllr Comotto, who did support the proposal.

In response to Mr Spencer’s complaint, the council decided to ignore the results of their own questionnaire. Councillors also argued that the turnout was too low, that the public had been given too much information on the questionnaire and that those who had lost the consultation were unhappy with the result! Interestingly, the29% response rate in Winchelsea compares with response rates of 9-13% to the council’s Local Action Plan questionnaire. Yet, the council is adamant that that has given them a popular mandate to spend money on all sorts of projects, including that to borrow as much as another £100,000 to spend on extra playground equipment.

Presumably, in order to allow the losers to have a second bite at the cherry, the council decided to refer the issue to the Annual Parish Assembly on 14 May. This decision was bizarre. Annual Parish Assemblies rarely attract more than half-a-dozen residents, compared to the 60 Winchelsea households (and 120 or so residents) who returned questionnaires.

In fact, 17 residents turned up at the next Annual Parish Assembly. The vote was 10-7 in favour of turning off the footlights! This did not seem to be result that some councillors had expected. In the face of this clear restatement of public opinion, the Chairman was forced to agree to take the matter back to the council on 12 June. And he was warned that, should the council try to dodge the issue again, a Parish Poll would be called.

Ahead of the council meeting on 12 June, Mr Spencer e-mailed the parish clerk to accuse Cllr Comotto of behaviour verging on electoral fraud. He alleged that, in the original consultation, Cllr Comotto had returned a questionnaire on behalf of his youngest daughter, who is below voting age. Mr Spencer has a well-established track record of making untrue and defamatory allegations against Cllr Comotto.  On this occasion, the clerk refuted Mr Spencer’s allegation (although it is questionable whether a returning officer should respond to unsubstantiated allegations of electoral fraud).

At the council meeting, councillors repeated the arguments that the first consultation had been defective because it gave too much information, that questionnaires could have been intercepted and fraudulently amended by ward councillors (or at least one of them), that the response rate was too low and (surprise surprise) that those who lost the vote were unhappy with the result! One councillor even complained that Cllr Comotto had campaigned in favour of the decision, which made the result unfair because opponents had not bothered to do the same!

The debate forced some councillors into political contortions that were a wonder to behold. Then, Cllr Stanford was unhappy that a Parish Poll would allow other wards to vote on an issue which she felt only involved Winchelsea (notwithstanding that all wards pay towards this expense). This line of argument was somewhat at odds with her usual position that Winchelsea is just a unit of Icklesham Parish and all councillors must have a say in its affairs. And in fact, she resumed her traditional line as soon as other Winchelsea matters came up.

Another volte face was performed by Cllr S Turner, who argued that he had been elected to represent Winchelsea, whereas his normal claim is that he has been elected to represent the whole parish (even though councillors are elected only by the voters of their own wards). On the basis of his new-found  attachment to Winchelsea voters, Cllr Turner felt he should be making the decision on behalf of his electorate.

But the best was yet to come. Cllr Stanford criticised the fact the Winchelsea residents who came to the Annual Parish Assembly included members of Cllr Comotto’s family (both registered voters). Then, she criticised Winchelsea residents for their “apathy” in failing to come to the Annual Parish Assembly and for failing to respond in greater numbers to the questionnaire. Presumably, what Cllr Stanford actually wanted was fewer Winchelsea residents who were likely to vote in favour of the footlight proposal less and more Winchelsea residents who were likely to vote against.

Cllr Stanford’s complaint about apathy in Winchelsea was also remarkable for its display of selective amnesia. She seemed to have forgotten that residents of the ward she represents (Rye Harbour) have been unwilling to provide a candidate for the council for many years (Cllr Stanford lives in Winchelsea Beach and the other Rye Harbour councillor, Cllr Bronsdon, does not even live in the parish). And Winchelsea Beach has only been able to fill its seats with two Winchelsea residents who cannot get elected in Winchelsea. She also seemed to have forgotten that, of the 17 residents who attended the Annual Parish Assembly, all but two were residents of Winchelsea!

Cllr Stanford’s complaints were supported by the Chairman, Cllr Horsman (Icklesham), who felt that more Winchelsea residents should have turned up as the meeting was in Winchelsea and there were Winchelsea issues on the agenda. He conveniently ignored the fact that, when the Assembly has been held in other wards, the turnout rarely exceeds half a dozen, even when there are issues on the agenda concerning those wards.

The council rejected a suggestion by Cllr P Turner for a pilot test and, in the end, voted to run a third consultation using a second questionnaire. This will be circulated only to registered electors.

However, this consultation is unlikely to happen as Cllr Comotto has decided to call a Parish Poll. Mr Spencer’s accusation of electoral impropriety by Cllr Comotto is likely to have tainted public confidence in the ability of the council to conduct a fair poll. Moreover, and perhaps more seriously, it has been suggested that Mr Spencer should be able to view and check the questionnaires from the original consultation so that he confirm that his allegations against Cllr Comotto are untrue. Despite the assurances received from the parish clerk that his allegations are untrue, Mr Spencer has served a Freedom of Information request on the parish council seeking access to returned questionnaires. Giving public access to voting forms of any sort would be an extraordinary breach of the basic principle that democratic votes and polls should be confidential, in order to prevent the bullying and intimidation of voters. A Parish Poll will ensure that that there is no breach of voter confidentiality and that no mud can be thrown at the conduct of the next consultation.

More largesse to Icklesham

In addition to debating whether to spend £60-80,000 of borrowed money on Icklesham (on top of the £40,000 of borrowed money already spent on that ward), the council decided to hire a temporary skatepark in Icklesham for three months over the summer holidays.  A figure of £5,000 had been earmarked.

Cllr Chishick asked whether this proposal, or indeed any of the plans for new playground equipment, were based on information about how many children lived in each ward, and what age groups they were in. Cllr Warren explained that the decision for the temporary skatepark was based on a meeting attended by 40 children of various ages, of whom, 38 wanted the skatepark.

The council suggested that the temporary skatepark might be a way of judging whether a permanent one would be used. When asked if the council was therefore going to monitor usage, the reply was no.

The council approved the proposal, despite having secured only one quote, which is contrary to its own Financial Regulations, which requires competitive quotes. The quote the accepted, which was only for 8 weeks, was for £3,800. This means that Icklesham Parish Council will be spending £100 per child in Icklesham for the summer holidays!

Pear Tree Marsh parking

At the Annual Parish Assembly, a resident of Tanyard Lane lobbied for fair access to parking in the allotment site, complaining that, at the moment, it is limited to allotment-holders and their friends.

Cllr Comotto explained that attempts to open parking on a fair basis to all residents of Tanyard Lane who did not have off-street parking had been obstructed by the refusal of the parish council to tackle the covenant which Rother District Council had placed on the site. The covenant says that the site can only be used for allotments. Rother’s solicitor insists that, before Rother will vary the covenant, the parish council will have to get permission from central government for a change of use from allotments to parking. He simply refuses to understand that no allotment plots are to be given up and that the proposal merely seeks to regularise parking that has been taking place for years.

At the Annual Parish Assembly, Cllr Comotto argued that the parish council should simply inform Rother that they intended to re-organise parking at Pear Tree Marsh. It was unlikely that Rother would bother to enforce the covenant, given that their objection was unsound. If Rother did object, then at least it would get them to the table for a serious discussion.

Cllr Merricks was clearly not paying attention. She announced that Rother had imposed a covenant on the allotment! Cllr Merricks also seemed to have forgotten that a covenant on the use of Icklesham Recreation Ground had been removed with very little problem.

Publication of council documents

The council agreed to a proposal by Cllr Comotto that all council documents, excluding only confidential documents, should be posted on the council’s website.

Richard Comotto

Icklesham Parish Annual Parish Assembly

On Monday 21 May, Icklesham Parish held its Annual Parish Assembly. This year, it was in Winchelsea.

The Annual Parish Assembly is an event that the Parish Council has never understood and so has never been able explain to residents. Consequently, it tends to degenerate into an ersatz Council meeting and, as at proper Council meetings, few residents turn up.

On this occasion, 16, possibly 17, residents appeared. All but one or two came from Winchelsea. There were none from Icklesham or Winchelsea Beach, reflecting the fundamental problem of having a parish of separate and diverse villages.

Of those residents who did turn up, 10 came along at my request to register their disquiet against a Council proposal to borrow up to £100,000 and a Council decision to ignore the results of their own consultation on the question of an early cut-off time for the footlights in Winchelsea. But even with these reinforcements, residents were outnumbered almost 2:1 by Councillors, officials, the two Clerks (why two?) and those hapless souls who were persuaded to set up stalls to promote their activities to residents (including two understandably very grumpy chaps from Rother District Council).

The Assembly started with the Chairman’s Annual Report. This was a recitation from a written speech. It would difficult to describe either the content or the presentation as riveting.

It was no surprise that the speech failed to mention one of the major events affecting the Council last year. This was the utter and complete dismissal by an appeals tribunal of the accusations made to the Standards Board by councillors from Icklesham, Rye Harbour and Winchelsea Beach (including the Chairman but orchestrated by Cllrs Bronsdon, Merricks and Stanford) against the three Winchelsea ward councillors. The judgement of the appeals tribunal was of national significance in that it demolished an attempt by a posse of Icklesham Parish Councillors and Rother District Council’s Standards Committee to restrict councillors’ freedom of speech and suppress their right to conduct legitimate political activity. Apart from questioning the competence of Rother, the judgement also made it clear that the complaints by Icklesham Parish Councillors were vexatious and implicitly posed questions about the complainants. They had alleged that the Winchelsea councillors had made “untrue and misleading” statements. The tribunal said not. So, who was untrue and misleading? It would have taken a big man to admit that he had been so egregiously wrong but the Chairman did not.

It is also worth noting that even Rother had dismissed most of the complaints made by Cllrs Bronsdon, Merricks, Stanford et al. These ranged from being “very offensive” to bullying and intimidation of councillors and the parish clerk (who denied this). However, this little slice of history was airbrushed by the Chairman.

One puzzling part of the evening was why there was a presentation by Rye Police about Community Speed Watch. It was only in January that Icklesham Parish Council rejected the attempt by the former PCSO to extend the scheme to Icklesham and Winchelsea Beach. At that meeting, Cllr Stanford claimed to support Community Speed Watch but not community involvement, and Cllr Bronsdon claimed to support Community Speed Watch but not the use of speed guns.  In other words, they supported Community Speed Watch but not the community or speed watch bits! 

Cllr Horsman reiterated his fears that volunteers would be assaulted but, when yet again confronted with overwhelming contrary evidence, simply went into denial. Interestingly, his concern for the safety of volunteers did not stop him originally asking if Winchelsea volunteers would agree to do Speed Watch in Icklesham!

The one useful thing that Rye Police could have done at the meeting would have been to introduce the new PCSO for the Parish, Andrew Smith, but he remained an anonymous presence.

The high points of the evening were the discussions of the Council’s decision to ignore the results of a consultation on turning off the footlights in Winchelsea at midnight and its proposal to borrow up to £100,000, on top of the £40,000 that they have already borrowed.

On the question of turning off the footlights at midnight, the background is that, in November 2011, Icklesham Parish Council sent out consultation forms to all households in Winchelsea asking whether they would support, for economic and environmental reasons, turning off the 17 footlights at midnight.  The cost of fitting timers would be recouped in less than 18 months and then there would be an annual saving of some £750 a year (rising with electricity prices). Responses were received from 66 households (ie about 24% of the village). The result was 2:1 in favour of turning off the lights at midnight. However, at a subsequent Council meeting, one resident opposed to turning off the lights early attacked the consultation on the grounds that it may have been fiddled because residents had been given the option of returning their forms via ward councillors. The resident also argued that the consultation was not valid because it did not ask whether residents wanted more lights.

Councillors from other wards joined in, complaining that the consultation forms had given too much information to residents! The Chairman judged the rate of response to be too low. The Council therefore decided to ignore the results of their own consultation and bring the question to the Annual Parish Assembly.

When pressed about this decision, the Chairman simply repeated the excuse that the turnout was too low and that some residents were unhappy about the result. When he was asked whether the Council had a policy setting a threshold on the level of responses to consultations, he simply would not answer. He just kept repeating that the response was judged too low and that some residents were unhappy with the proposal. He continued in the same vein when it was pointed out to him that the response to the Local Action Plan, on which the Council are basing much of their spending, had responses from Icklesham , Rye Harbour and Winchelsea Beach of less than half the response rate to the footlights question! Nor was the Chairman any more forthcoming when the absurdity was highlighted of ignoring a consultation of all households in favour of the Annual Parish Assembly where less than a dozen residents usually turn up.  

By the time the Chairman was questioned on whether it was appropriate to ignore a clear vote in favour of a proposal because the losers objected to the result, he was sinking fast and proposed that the Council be asked to reconsider its decision to defer the question back to the Annual Parish Assembly! It had to be pointed out that, as the question had already come to the Assembly, this particular course of action could not be reconsidered.

A vote was taken and the result was 10:7 in favour of turning off the lights. At this point, I requisitioned a Parish Poll in order to ensure that the Council could not again ignore the balance of opinion among residents.  Cllr Stanford complained that this would mean that residents of other wards would have a vote on the Winchelsea lights --- putting her figure on the problem of having a parish composed of four separate villages. Cllr Bronsdon weighed in to express amazement that I was willing to have the Council spend money on a matter of principle and, for the first of many occasions during the evening, said how “sad” he was at my action.

The comic turn of the evening was the suggestion from one resident that the saving from turning off the lights early would be illusory because, without the lights, traffic signs in Winchelsea would have be illuminated or replaced by expensive reflective versions, and that the Strand Gate would have to be illuminated to stop cars crashing into it in the dark! It was explained that the lights in Winchelsea are footlights, designed to illuminate the pavement, not the road, so would not affect traffic. It was also questioned as to why the Strand Gate would need to be illuminated if the footlights were turned off early. There is currently no footlight anywhere near the Strand Gate and cars do have headlights.

Eventually, the Chairman agreed that the Council would be asked to accept the result of the consultation and the vote at the Annual Parish Assembly. I therefore withdrew the requisition for a Parish Poll on the understanding that, if the Council once again tried to ignore the balance of opinion among residents, that I would convene a special Parish Meeting and requisition a Parish Poll again.

And so to the question of the Council’s proposal to borrow up to £100,000 in order to buy more playground equipment. Icklesham Parish Council has already borrowed £40,000 in order to make a grant towards the repair of Icklesham Memorial Hall. It is the only parish council in Rother to have borrowed and one of the few in the county. Another £100,000 would bring its debt ratio to a level higher than Italy, Ireland and Iceland, and fairly close to that of Greece.

Cllr Stanford assured everyone that the Council would be getting grants of at least £25,000. One can have confidence that Cllr Warren and the Clerk will try, but Icklesham Parish Council has never bothered with grants before (missing out on at least one grant schemes for playgrounds) and would still add up to £75,000 to the council’s debt.

It was suggested that the annual borrowing cost of several thousand pounds a year was insignificant. But add that to the £3,000 plus already being paid to service the previous £40,000 borrowing and you start automatically taking out a significant chunk of the annual budget.

I indicated that, in view of the major impact of the proposed borrowing on Council finances, I believed that residents should be consulted and so wished to call a Parish Poll. It was claimed that residents had already been consulted and reference was made to an article in the Icklesham newsletter. Unfortunately, this did not explain that the cost or that the money was to be borrowed. Nor did it reveal how much tens of thousands of pounds has already been spent on playground equipment.

At the mention of a Parish Poll, Cllr Bronsdon again expressed his “sadness” and indulged himself in accusations that I was proposing to blight local youth by refusing to buy them extra playground equipment, missing the point that the question is how this should be financed. But I did offer to withhold my request if the Parish Council agreed to conduct a fair poll themselves. This will be discussed at the next Council meeting.

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!

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.

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

Precept to increase by 12% next year

At its meeting on 14 December 2009, Icklesham Parish Council fixed a budget of £99,843 for the financial year starting on 1 April 2010. This means a precept (the tax levied by the Parish Council on residents) of £77,500 compared with £69,414 in this current financial year (the additional £22,343 in the budget will be financed mainly by £20,793 of unspent money likely to be carried over from this year).The budget discussion and the rest of the Council meeting are described in another posting. The budget (with previous year's figures in brackets) is:

Expenditures
administration
23,800  Clerks' costs (23,600)
4,750    other admin expenses (4,750)
2,000    insurance (2,000)
2,000    elections fund (0)
500       training fund (1,000)
1,500    newsletter, website fund (1,500)
300       Chairman's allowance (450)
7,500    contingency fund (7,500)
750       legal contigency fund (750)
current
7,000     grass cutting (7,000)
5,500     rubbish & dog bin collections (5,200)
2,500     street lighting in Winchelsea (2,500)
1,400     playground maintenance fund (900)
1,000     allotments maintenance fund (1,000)
1,000     Smeatons Lane maintenance fund (5,000)
500        tree maintenance fund (4,500)
3,500     fence repair fund (3,500)
4,500     other repairs, cleaning, small works fund (4,421)
capital projects
3,118     cost of loan for Icklesham Memorial Hall grant (3,118)
4,000     Icklesham Recreation Ground drainage maintenance (0)
5,000     new playground equipment in Winchelsea Beach
2,000     new playground equipment in Rye Harbour
2,000     Rye Harbour flagpole maintenance (1,000)
750        new sign for Rye Harbour
175        new bin by Strand bus shelter
5,000     Pear Tree Marsh allotment project
1,000     donations fund (1,000)
4,000     grants to village halls (4,000)
1,000     grants to churchyards (3,150)
1,500     grant to Rye Community Transport (1,500)
300       grant to Rye Harbour Nature Reserve (300)
99,843 total expenditure (108,092)


income
20,793   unspent funds carried over from previous year (36,364)
2           interest (7)
148       rent (148)
1,400    allotment rents (1,400)
77,500   precept (69,414)
99,843 total income (107,333)