Budget = Cuts

Council bosses say increasing income and prioritising "core services" will be their focus as they battle with another cut in government grants. Parking charges will rise and the district's share of council tax will go up by the maximum two per cent allowed (unless a local referendum takes place) as officials try to balance Canterbury City Council's (CCC) budget.

The authority must slash £5.5 million by 2017-18, in addition to £4 million already found through savings from schemes including shutting Herne Bay, Whitstable and Canterbury Heritage museums for winter.

Although the amount of central Government grant to be awarded will not be formally announced until next month, CCC expects a cut of 13 per cent for 2014-15 – a reduction of £1.3 million from £10.2million to £8.9 million.

For the year 2015-16 the authority expects a further reduction of 16 per cent, taking the grant down to £7.5 million. Additional reductions are forecast at nine per cent for 2016-17 and ten per cent for 2017-18.

Council services have been ranked in order of importance to help work out where money should be spent and where savings can be made, but city council chief executive Colin Carmichael warned tough decisions lie ahead. He said:

"It is a very significant reduction and we can't just carry on doing things the same way. We have to work out what our core business is. There is no way to just carry on squeezing everything and trying to find the extra savings. It will not work. Within the next few years, councillors have to make a decision on what we won't do any more."

Consultation on the new proposals will start after they have been discussed by members of the council's ruling executive committee tonight (Thursday 7th Nov). They include raising parking charges in some city centre car parks by 20p an hour, and increasing the authority's proportion of the council tax by two per cent, or about 7p a week for a Band D property. The hike would bring in an extra £170,000 a year.

Officials can boost income by making sure planned new homes are built, earning a portion of the Government's new homes bonus. There is also rental income from Whitefriars shopping centre and other property, including the Military Road offices left empty by staff cuts. But Mr Carmichael warned that services would be affected:

"If people care enough about their local services they will get involved and they can find different ways of doing things. It has already worked with the Westgate Hall and it could work elsewhere. We also need managers within the council to come up with creative ways to reduce costs and increase income."

No large-scale redundancy programme is planned, but vacant posts may not be filled and each department will continue to be reviewed. Each service has been set a 20 per cent savings target between now and 2016. Cuts could also be made to the civic office, with the Lord Mayor undertaking fewer engagements. The council may also now charge for any house or street renaming services. Council leader John Gilbey said:

"The world of local government funding has now changed forever. We have to accept that there is less money available."

thisiskent 7th November 2013

Council's priorities not secret, not confidential, just rubbish

The city council has finally published its league table of services as it lays the ground for further budget cuts and savings.

It has put the controversial Local Plan, in which more than 15,000 new homes are planned for the district, atop the pile, with the cost of running democracy second and development management third.

Culture in Canterbury also features highly with the Marlowe Theatre at five out of 70, the Beaney at seven and the Roman Museum at 21. Meanwhile, rubbish collections are ranked 28 and public toilets are 53.

The lowest scored services were elections, archives and the council's obligations under the Freedom of Information Act.

Executive members and senior officers drew up the table as the council prepares to lose 45% of its income by 2017.

It means certain services and staff will face the axe. Mr Carmichael will go into greater details with officers at the staff conference on November 14. In his letter to council workers, chief executive Colin Carmichael said:

"All this information is being used in our star chambers to think about whether we need to continue to deliver these services and, if we do, whether to do so at the current cost level."

The table was created by rating each service out of 10 against each of the council's 10 pledges on its corporate plan. These have titles such as economy, safety, homes, culture, health and well-being, and young people.

Questions may be asked about those ratings after the Marlowe Theatre received 4/10 for health and well-being and the mayor's office received 3/10 in every single category, including housing, safety and protecting the environment.

The Conservative controlled authority came under fire earlier in the year after it created the list but refused to let anyone see it.

Cllr Alex Perkins, the leader of the opposition Lib Dem group, believes the people of the district should have been allowed to rate the services they use. He said:

"If the council are going to determine funding according to a league table of priorities then they should be local residents' priorities. not council leader John Gilbey's. Why don't the council ask people to give their own scores and actually prioritise what local residents want for a change."

The league table is published in the agenda for the executive meeting at the Guildhall tonight (7th November).

HB Gazette 7th November 2013

HBM

Council Priorities: where will the axe fall?

about 10 years ago

The Council's priorities. Theirs, not ours.

about 10 years ago

Council's priorities not secret, not confidential, just rubbish

about 10 years ago

Council's priorities aren't secret - they're confidential!

about 10 years ago

Our Council's secret priorities

about 10 years ago

Council's priorities aren't secret - they're confidential!

Definition of secret: not known or seen or not meant to be known or seen by others. Definition of confidential: intended to be kept secret.  [Oxford Dictionaries online] 

Who does Cllr Gilbey think he's kidding? 

---

Canterbury City Council is one of the most democratic local authorities in the country, claims leader John Gilbey. He hit out after the Kentish Gazette reported that the council had drawn up a league table of its 71 service areas and ranked them in order of importance but refused to reveal it.

Cllr Gilbey denies the council is guilty of secrecy. He told last Thursday's meeting of the ruling Conservative executive: 

"Some of these documents are kept confidential for many reasons and are looked at very carefully.  I think this is one of the most democratic councils we have, I honestly believe that.  That is why I don't take kindly to people inventing stories."

Last week it emerged that the league table is a key document as the council prepares for the 2014/15 budget. It is facing a cut of 50% in income by 2017 and scored each service according to importance and against the pledges in its corporate plan.

The Marlowe Theatre was fifth in the table and refuse collection came 29th, but none of the other positions are known and some are almost certainly facing the axe.

The council claims it will make the league table public next month when the proposed budget for next year is published.  But Cllr Alex Perkins, leader of the council's opposition Lib  Dem group, is demanding it is released now.  He said:

"The Gazette is absolutely right and deserves praise for bringing the council's appalling secrecy to everyone's attention.  There is absolutely no reasonable justification for the current leader of the council to keep the council budget formation process confidential.  And the Gazette has certainly not invented any of this as John Gilbey has claimed. 

The current leader and a tiny handful of Conservative councillors keep jealous control of all the budget information declaring it 'confidential' and refusing to share it even with their own backbenchers, let alone opposition councillors or the public.  It's completely unacceptable - it's your money after all."

Kingsmead Field campaigner Sian Pettman said:

"There's a worrying disconnect between Cllr Gilbey's perception of democracy and that of many of the district's residents.  His authoritarian style of leadership is ill-suited to the 21st century."

University of Kent Emeritus Professor of moral philosophy Richard Norman added:

"If Cllr Gilbey thinks that this is one of the most democratic councils, he needs to be aware that there are a great many people in Canterbury who don't see it that way."

The council will begin its consultation on the budget in November and will look to approve it in February.

HB Gazette 17th October 2013

View fullsize

HBM

Council Priorities: where will the axe fall?

about 10 years ago

The Council's priorities. Theirs, not ours.

about 10 years ago

Council's priorities not secret, not confidential, just rubbish

about 10 years ago

Council's priorities aren't secret - they're confidential!

about 10 years ago

Our Council's secret priorities

about 10 years ago

Nothing to do with jollies...

Andrew is the patron saint of Greece, Prussia, Romania, Russia, Scotland, Ukraine, and sports-themed regional promotion. At the St Andrews Open (a golf thing) our plucky council workers will be promoting us for all they're worth, but it may be a waste of their time and our money.

Row over Council's £40,000 trip to golf Open

Later this month, staff from the city council will travel to St Andrews in Scotland while The Open Championship golf takes place in a trip costing Canterbury's taxpayers £40,000. The city council insists staff will be working hard to promote Canterbury in a way which it hopes will benefit the district many times over when Sandwich hosts The Open at Royal St George's this time next year. However, one prominent hotelier questions the need to promote the city when Canterbury's hotels and bed and breakfasts will be full when The Open comes to east Kent next year. David Sharma, the owner of Howfield Manor Hotel in Chartham, says promoting the city on what will be its busiest week of the year is a waste of public money.

FOR

Council spokesman Rob Davies said:

The city council has made a total contribution of £40,000, spread over two years, towards the cost of staging the Open golf in east Kent next year. This spending has nothing to do with jollies and hospitality, as some people were suggesting during our budget consultation last year; and everything to do with maximising what is a great opportunity to promote the area to a worldwide audience in much the same way as the Tour de France was.

The three staff from the city council will join people from Visit Kent and other east Kent councils at St Andrews. They will be working 16-hour days for 10 days, have no access to watch the golf and will be staying in a rented house 50 miles away from St Andrews to keep the costs down. The team will have a huge, east Kent-branded stand featuring a range of images of the area in order to promote it as a great place for golfing breaks and holidays, to make sure we get the best possible legacy from the Open golf coming to Sandwich.

We will also have the same presence at the 2012 Open at Royal Lytham & St Annes. In short, this trip will see our staff working their socks off for the benefit of the local economy and to get the maximum return for our £40,000 contribution.

AGAINST

David Sharma, who has run Howfield Manor since it reopened in autumn 2008, said:

There will be no accommodation available anywhere near Canterbury while the golf is on, so what is the point of going to St Andrews to promote accommodation? Even hotels in south London will be full during the tournament. This trip has all the hallmarks of a jolly for those people going. And given that there are going to be cutbacks in public services, going up to Scotland to watch the golf seems even more wasteful.

If the council was genuinely interested in promoting tourism in the district then it should look at trying to encourage people to come to Canterbury during the week when things are much quieter - not during the busiest week of the whole year. We don't need them promoting us when we get the business, we need it during down times. I'm going to be fully booked during the golf. I'm just bewildered about this on two counts. First, as an accommodation provider I question the need for it and secondly, as a council taxpayer I'm angry public money is being used for it.

HB Gazette 8th July 2010

---

As I have mentioned elsewhere, one of my many hideous personality defects is that I just don't 'get' golf. This leaves me doubly perplexed when trying to assess the commercial logic of sending people to the other end of the country to work stupid hours for a fortnight. I'm assuming that the £40k is simply to buy our exhibitor's pass - feeding and housing our ambassadors at the other end of the country is extra. Thrilled as I am that Council employees are prepared to work 16 hour days promoting Canterbury (District, not just the City, I hope), they don't have to go to Scotland to do it.

The Open will be coming to Sandwich, regardless of the Council's presence and efforts at St Andrews. Hardened golf fans will already have decided whether to come to the Sandwich Open. Of those who are undecided and persuadable, I'm guessing only a minority will be at St Andrews. It seems like a lot of time, money and effort to catch those few waverers - a half-way decent ad campaign in the golfing press would probably do the trick.

If Mr Sharma is correct, the whole area will be fully booked during the Sandwich Open anyway, so people would end up in the bridal suite, or an over-priced broom cupboard, or in the middle of nowhere - hardly the most attractive way to be a visitor.

Key concept: "return on investment". Is anyone at our Council measuring this? Does anyone have any figures for previous years?

Hobby politicians

Well, here's a thought - "Councillors are transient amateurs whose chosen hobby is to play at local politics" - and as a result, it is the councillors (not the rest of us) who should foot the bill.

---

Gesture wanted from councillors

Once again the Canterbury Times has highlighted that old chestnut of the allowances and expenses paid to Canterbury City Councillors ("Councillors pocket £386k", June 17). Former Royal Marine Commando and war veteran Albert Parris, from Herne, is not the only local council taxpayer to be dismayed and infuriated by these amounts, which total more than £386,000 and individually range from almost £32,000 down to the much more modest basic allowance of just £4,710.

At a time when local council taxpayers are set to experience cutbacks in services, and local authority staff face redundancies, it would be a welcome token gesture if all 50 local councillors refrained from claiming their allowances/ expenses, thus substantially increasing the amount of money available in the council’s coffers to maintain local services and jobs.

Councillor McMahan is very quick to defend the allowances claimed by his colleague Peter Vickery-Jones but scores an own-goal when he states: "We pay council officials more than councillors claim." In saying this, Mr McMahan entirely misses the point - the fundamental distinction between officials and councillors. Officials receive a wage or salary for carrying out a given task in accordance with a written contract of employment. They are the permanent paid employees of the local authority.

Councillors, on the other hand, are transient amateurs whose chosen hobby is to play at local politics. It is not their livelihood. Everyone is entitled to a recreational sport, hobby or pastime but for most people, whether they choose to play golf or to collect stamps, this costs them money. Is it fair then that council tax payers should foot the bill for some 50 "elected representatives" to indulge in their preferred passion for local politics?

To all those councillors who are so quick to defend the allowances/ expenses claimed, backed up with heart-rending statistics concerning the number of hours of "work" they put in each week on council business, I would repeat the following words, attributed to former US president Harry S Truman: "If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen."

John A Fishpool, Dering Road, Herne Bay

HB Times letters 8th July 2010

High maintenance councillors pocket £386k

Expenses, expenses - dontcha just love them? No suggestion here of unseemly duck houses or whatnot, I believe this is all above-board, as-per-normal stuff. It all mounts up pretty quickly, far exceeding the projected savings from museum closures, for example. But it's the salaries that bug me. And Mr Parris has a point.

The price of democracy at Canterbury City Council is a third of a million pounds. Last year the 50 councillors cost us all £386,511 in allowances. Top of the pile was Tory council leader John Gilbey (Blean Forest) with £31,833, which included special responsibility money of £21,138, another £2,129 for his car and £431 in mobile phone charges.

Herne and Broomfield's Peter Vickery-Jones was the second-highest paid councillor with £13,576, including £5,883 for special responsibility £1,596 for his car and £437 for his mobile phone. Wincheap's Alex Perkins, leader of the Liberal Democrats, claimed £13,056, including £269 for his mobile phone and £675 for travel. Whitstable's Julia Seath, the Labour group leader, claimed £6,234.

The best value councillor was Tankerton's Martin Fisher; with just his basic allowance of £4,710. He is currently on bail facing child sex offence charges. Next cheapest was Herne Bay's Vince McMahan, with £4,802.92, including a £92.92 bill for his car. Seven councillors only claimed £4,890 (their basic allowance, plus £180 PC allowance): Mike Berridge; Robert Bright; Paul Carnell; Roger Matthews (recently cleared on corruption charges); Mike Steed; Heather Taylor and Martin Vye.

News of the allowances infuriated war veteran Albert Parris, 73, of Herne. The former Royal Marines Commando fumed:

"Our councillor Peter Vickery-Jones received £13,576, which is more than some of our soldiers get on the front line. It is outrageous. How can he justify that sort of money when we have injured soldiers denied proper artificial limbs? He even gets an allowance from the parish council."

Mr Parris was so incensed he has written to both Whitstable and Canterbury MP Julian Brazier, and the Prime Minister David Cameron. He said:

"It makes my blood boil when I have to beg, steal and borrow £370 to hire a coach to take our guys to Gable Cross police station to salute dead Marines coming back from the frontline. Councillors are making a laughing stock out of us with our money especially when everyone is having to make cuts."

Mr Vickery-Jones was not available for comment, but he is a member of the council's executive with responsibility for property and engineering, planning and regeneration, housing, community safety environmental services, community development and outdoor leisure, including beach huts. He also serves on the Herne Bay area members panel, and the housing appeals and benefits committee. He is a magistrate and member of the Canterbury and Herne Bay Volunteers Centre and Canterbury Mediation Service. The former Merchant Navy marine engineer lives in Herne Bay with his wife and their daughter; and is a governor of Herne Junior School. He has since re-trained as a plumber.

HB Times 17th June 2010

---

It's a vexing question, whether the Elected should be paid, and if so - what for, and how much? Nobody's forcing them to be there, after all - they volunteered for a spell of selfless sacrifice for the common good. The Car, Travel, Mobile and PC categories are what I would regard as expenses. The fixed Basic allowance, plus the grand total of the various "Special Responsibilities" tariffs the councillor has chosen to take on, look to me like a salary by-any-other-name.

The Council probably has a small swarm of officers devoted to drawing up contracts. I would like to see them produce a contract that describes what the councillors must do for the Electorate before they can claim their salaries, let alone their expenses. One of our councillors moved to Surrey not so recently, his attendance dropped from 90-ish% to 20%, but his salary is an undiminished 100% - bonkers.

No expenses spared

The nitty-gritty in all its unadorned nitty-grittiness. Here are our councillors' expenses for 2009 - find out who's chatty, who's got wanderlust, and who's just very, very special. I've corrected a couple of errors in the table as it appeared in the HB Times, and re-jigged it as an Excel spreadsheet. There's a link at the bottom of the article for you to download it. Click the table below to see a bigger version.

click it to big it

Download the spreadsheet

£20k down a small hole

Just to quickly refresh your memory, dear reader, we are living in times of budget cuts and belt-tightening. There has been widespread local coverage of Canterbury City Council slashing, cutting, trimming and salami slicing. In the expectation that their central funding will be reduced, CCC has been wielding the knife on all but the biggest projects.

It came as an unwelcome surprise to me that CCC was proposing to make a £20,000 "contribution to hospitality for the Open Golf Tournament at Sandwich". (For the benefit of our international readers, the town of Sandwich has its own Town Council, and falls within the realm of Dover District Council. In terms of the semi-feudal world of local government funding, it is completely separate from Canterbury City Council: only 12 miles from Canterbury, but it may as well be in France.)

The clearest explanation of the rationale behind the outlay that I've been able to find comes from the Council Leader, Cllr Gilbey:

The Leader said that the £20,000 contribution for The Open golf tournament in 2011 was not a grant and that it never had been. He indicated that, like the situation for the 2012 Olympics in London, the whole of the district would benefit from the event and that we would expect every hotel in the district to be fully booked. The Leader emphasised that the £20,000 was available, if required, for the council to take full advantage of the event. He pointed out that it would be used for things like promotions to make sure we achieved the maximum benefit for the businesses, homes and people of the District, as we did when The Open golf tournament last came to Kent.

Schmoozing in the posh seats, by the sounds of it. News of this £20k-worth of largesse has been widely met with incredulity and anger, and unsurprisingly it came up in the recent budget "debate" in the form of a don't-be-evil-be-good ambush from the LibDems:

It was proposed by Councillor A Perkins and seconded by Councillor Dixey that the council cancel the £20,000 contribution to the Open Golf at Sandwich and use that money to reinstate £20,000 of the funding withdrawn from Age Concern and Northgate Over 60’s. (Revenue neutral).

The foregoing amendment was declared LOST. I'm not particularly surprised, but I am thoroughly disgusted. As luck would have it, this was one of the shamefully rare occasions when the vote was actually recorded, so we (the paying punters) get to find out who did what:

For the amendment:
Councillors Berridge, Bright, Calvert-Mindell, Dixey, Dye, M Flaherty, R Flaherty, Flanagan, Hando, Linfield, MacCaul, Matthews, Parsons, A Perkins, Staley, Vickers, Vye and Wratten (18)

Against the amendment:
Councillors Anderson, Austin, Bissett, Davis, Doyle, Ellis, Fisher, Gilbey, Harrison, Mrs Law, Lee, McCabe, McMahan, Patterson, J Perkins, Pickersgill, Samper, Sharp, Sonnex, A Taylor, H Taylor, Thomas, Todd, Vickery-Jones and Windsor (25)

Abstained from voting:
Councillors Cragg and Reuby (2)

Absent from the meeting:
Councillors Carnell, Eden-Green, Parry, Seath and Steed (5)

You may want to ask any or all of those who voted against the motion why they did as they did, or you may want to share an opinion with them. Here's a who's who and where and how:

Anderson Conservative, North Nailbourne, john.anderson@canterbury.gov.uk
Austin Conservative, Sturry North, tony.austin@canterbury.gov.uk
Bissett Conservative, Herne and Broomfield, evelyn.bissett@canterbury.gov.uk
Davis Conservative, Reculver, gabrielle.davis@canterbury.gov.uk
Doyle Conservative, Chartham and Stone Street, rosemary.doyle@canterbury.gov.uk
Ellis Conservative, Northgate, darren.ellis@canterbury.gov.uk
Fisher Conservative, Tankerton, martin.fisher@canterbury.gov.uk
Gilbey Conservative, Blean Forest, john.gilbey@canterbury.gov.uk
Harrison Conservative, Tankerton, jeanne.harrison@canterbury.gov.uk
Mrs Law Conservative, Seasalter, jean.law@canterbury.gov.uk
Lee Conservative, West Bay, peter.lee@canterbury.gov.uk
McCabe Conservative, Blean Forest, hazel.mccabe@canterbury.gov.uk
McMahan Conservative, West Bay, vincent.mcmahan@canterbury.gov.uk
Patterson Conservative, Chartham and Stone Street, mike.patterson@canterbury.gov.uk
J Perkins Conservative, Gorrell, jackie.perkins@canterbury.gov.uk
Pickersgill Conservative, Northgate, sally.pickersgill@canterbury.gov.uk
Samper Conservative, Chestfield and Swalecliffe, jenny.samper@canterbury.gov.uk
Sharp Conservative, Seasalter, mike.sharp@canterbury.gov.uk
Sonnex Conservative, Herne and Broomfield, sharron.sonnex@canterbury.gov.uk
A Taylor Conservative, Reculver, ann.taylor@canterbury.gov.uk
H Taylor Conservative, Sturry South, heather.taylor@canterbury.gov.uk
Thomas Conservative, Chestfield and Swalecliffe, ian.thomas@canterbury.gov.uk
Todd Conservative, Chestfield and Swalecliffe, pat.todd@canterbury.gov.uk
Vickery-Jones Conservative, Herne and Broomfield, peter.vickeryjones@canterbury.gov.uk
Windsor Conservative, Seasalter, cyril.windsor@canterbury.gov.uk