Is it Fair to reduce the support grant to the parish councils in the borough?

As a town councillor in Colchester for a number of years, I was aware rural areas paid full council taxes but did not enjoy all the benefits those living in the town were entitled to.

I was therefore interested to attend a meeting at which Colchester Council would discuss the proposal to cut its grants to parish councils by up to 50 per cent.

Under the “Have your Say” part of the meeting, several parish council charimen, and the representative for the Association of Local Councils, pointed out the pain being felt by many members in our society should be borne equally, and fairly.

They asked: “How can it be fair when the Government grant to Colchester is being reduced by 7.25 per cent, to pass on a 50 per cent cut to the parish councils”?

While accepting a cut was reasonable, they considered the decision was out of proportion and that the parish councils would have to increase their own tax demands from the public.

T he services provided by the parish councils can include items such as the provision of village halls and children’s playgrounds (very necessary in rural areas), grass cutting, litter picking and maintenance.

Phasing in any cuts would allow a period of adjustment to their reduced income and help them amend their budgets.

Conservative Kevin Bentley, who had called in the original decision for further scrutiny, spoke passionately on behalf of parish councils, saying too often rural areas were thought of as poor relations, and indeed there are pockets of deprivation in many rural areas. He also pointed out the whole borough pays tax to Colchester Council while the rural areas pay more through their parish precepts to pay for vital services not covered by the borough.

Tina Dopson, as the relevant portfolio holder, spoke supporting the decision to cut the grants by 50 per cent, although she appeared to feel a degree of sympathy for the recipients of the cuts.

A debate followed and it was obvious that the Lib/Lab administration had closed their minds to any rethink.

Personally I felt shocked at the reason they gave.

It is a fact that the cut is to be 50 per cent of the grant, yet these particular members of the finance and audit scrutiny panel were adding the precepts to the grant and saying that the cut was therefore only a smaller percentage.

Talk about fiddling the figures!

It confirmed to my mind that the matter should be looked at again. The voice of the people in the rural areas has been ignored.

Wyn Foster
Councillor, Prettygate
Ward
Colchester