News

The council tax precept in Woodley has been frozen again, but the Tories say the ruling Lib Dems could have reduced it through better money management
advertisement

Woodley council tax precept frozen despite 'hoarding' criticism

By Jon Nurse
February 22, 2013

A cap on the town council precept has been agreed for a fourth consecutive year, despite criticism it could be lowered were it not for ‘hoarding’.

Woodley Town Council’s ruling Liberal Democrats voted to freeze its precept at a full council meeting last Tuesday.

The outcome was hailed an ‘incredible result’ by deputy leader Councillor Phil Challis, but his enthusiasm was not shared by the town’s Conservatives who claim their alternative budget would produce a 15 per cent cut in council tax.

Cllr Challis said: “Other Conservative-led town and parish councils in Wokingham borough have increased household precepts by up to 2.7 per cent and so Lib Dems are proud that the prudent financial management at Woodley Town Council has once more meant no increase in our precept for our residents.”

Twelve councillors voted to approve the precept but eight abstained.

Tory Cllr Keith Baker said: “I’m very disappointed that you didn’t take the opportunity to reduce the precept.

“The reserves are growing at an alarming rate of £40,000 to £50,000 over the last three years. That’s equivalent to £3 or £4 off council tax.

“I can’t see any reason why we are hoarding such high reserves rather than putting it back into our residents’ pockets.”

The council’s reserves, which came to £242,000 at the end of 2012, are projected to rise to £317,000 by March 2014.

Cllr Challis disregarded the accusation of hoarding, pointing instead to ways the reserves could be used in the near future.

“I think we should be looking for something sensible to do with our reserves and we have a number of projects people are aware of,” he added.

An alternative budget proposed by Woodley Conservatives claims to cut council tax by 15 per cent (£17 per household) by reducing staffing levels, reducing the expenses allocation, cutting losses at leisure centres and returning £100,000 of ‘excessive’ reserves back to residents.

A Woodley Conservatives statement reads: “This alternative budget reflects the real world that every single household in Woodley has to live in.

“With the extreme economic pressures that residents have been, and continue to be, experiencing, no council can simply ignore this.

“Unless you are this Liberal Democrat council who simply treat their residents as a never ending source of money.”

| Submit Comments | View Comments (28)

« Previous Story | Next Story »

Most recent user comments 15 of 28

1 | 2 | Next Page Show 15 | 25 | 50 per page

FFATV - talk to your old guard again, as various degrees of political posturing have gone on over Bulmershe Pool over the years.

Although talks have been offered by the borough council at various stages (which have always been taken up by the town council,) the borough has always baulked at anything that would require them to pay anything towards the development of Bulmershe.

The lease expires in 2015 - Woodley needs a pool that charges realistic prices - how it is run by is a secondary consideration.

Phil Challis, woodley
25/02/2013 at 13:07

Dec 6 "Wokingham is keen to go through the same process and hope to have this in place for the completion of the town centre regeneration"

Dec 20 "Thus we are left with a difficult decision here - decriminalise and bring in on-street parking to pay for it or leave it as it is for now"

The first letter wold be read by residents as a real sense that the council is really going to get this done. The second throws up a lot of obstacles to explain why Wokingham Borough Council is not going to do anything - not so keen after all!

Cllr Baker has been in charge of Highways for many years if the Council was keen it could have done this by now, rather than find obstacles all the time.

Fair deal for Woodley
25/02/2013 at 12:40

Thanks for the reply. If there's a loss involved, I can see the reason for being cautious.

Beef Cake Argh!
25/02/2013 at 09:31

Beef Cake Argh - unfortunately there is no legal offence of parking on the pavement. What there is is the offence of obstruction which is only valid if you are the person being obstructed. We do not like it but it is the law.

The parking enforcement takes 2 years to complete. I won't go into details here as theyy are quite complex but if you want to email me I would be only too pleased to explain more fully. The issue that has yet to be resolved is how to fund this. With only a handful of exceptions every authority in the country actually loses money on enforcement. For Wokingham the estimated running loss is between £50,000 and £100,000 per year.

In the current financial climate it is hard to decide how ro cover those losses. But we do need to move this forward.

Cllr Keith Baker
25/02/2013 at 09:02

So why hasn't WBC taken control of parking enforcement? And not just those parking on double yellows and zig zags but also those who park on the pavement?

Beef Cake Argh!
25/02/2013 at 07:51

Cllr Challis - I have never ever said that the council is not keen on bringing in civil parking enforcement and I always thought you were quite an honest local politician. I challenge you to quote precisely what you alledge I said in the local paper.

I do not mean your spin on this but I mean the words I used for you to say this. This will be the proof about who can trust who!

In fact I have consistently argued for this to happen and my public record on this speaks for itself.

Cllr Keith Baker
23/02/2013 at 08:49

I can I think endorse Cllr Baker's comments about Leisure Connections and Bulmershe, I understand from speaking to some of the local "old guard" who where around at the time - All local Councils including Woodley were offered to participate in the scheme, Bulmershe wasn't in the best condition even then but it could have been included, what happened as I understand it was that the Lib Dems in Woodley felt they could do a better job running it, - and then tried to, fair play to them but the costs of running a sports centre and in particular maintaining a pool are simply huge. We now have something of an elephant that isn't in the best of conditions in any manner and one which has fallen well behind the standards of the other centres in the area.

Far Far Away, Thames Valley
22/02/2013 at 23:07

Cllr Baker says "All town councils were asked if they wanted to run them or participate in a new joint venture with leisure connections. Wokingham & Earley said yes Woodley, under lib dems said no".

This just not true - The truth is that Leisure Connections looked at Bulmershe Leisure Centre and refused to take it on.

Also Wokingham and Earley facilities were run by Wokingham District council - they would not have had to ask Wokingham Town and Earley town.

Do you trust Cllr Baker? - Last week he wrote to the Wokingham Times saying the council is keen to bring in civil parking enforcement. This week he wrote to the Wokingham Times saying the council isn't keen to bring in civil parking enforcement.

Wokingham paid Leisure Connections at the start of the contract and are only getting a return in the later years of the contract, which I believe has been enhanced recently due to the tax arrangements associated with the move to the C-Salt trust.

Phil Challis, woodley
22/02/2013 at 18:49

Actually Jon has got it wrong the reserves were £311,237 at the end of March 2012. By their own figures it is forecast to be inmcrwased to £344,246. These are not my figures but the official figures. In March 2010 the reserves were £202,147. That is an increase of £142,000 in 3 years!

Damiano you asked for a comparison between other town councils. Woodley charges £114.65 for a band D property. Earley charges £61.85 and Wokingham charges £44.98.

It is a nice try by Phil to change history. When County Council was disbanded all the leisure facilities came to the new Wokingham unitary council. All town councils were asked if they wanted to run them or participate in a new joint venture with leisure connections. Wokingham & Earley said yes Woodley, under lib dems said no. Lesiure connections runs the 2 centres ate their cost and we share any profits. Very creative is the double taxation arguement!

Smiffy, the Town Clerk has said that all that is needed is 3 months worth in reserves. Phil wants nearly 6 months worth! You are also incorrect in saying wokingham pays for lesiure connections it does not as they are self financing and receive no revenue from the c ouncil. Unlike Bulmershe who regulary lose in excess of £100,000 every year which woodley rsidents have to pay.

Cllr Keith Baker
22/02/2013 at 18:30

So it was run by our council; then outsourced to Leisure Connection; who know 'work closely with' the charity that runs it (and presumably doesn't pay tax, etc.)? Does anyone else find that extremely questionable?

Damiano_Tommassi, Wokingham
22/02/2013 at 16:34

DT - I believe that Wokingham Borough transferred their leisure centres to C-SALT last year (http://www.c-salt.org.uk/)

The Leisure Connection website says "C-SALT is a registered charity which exists to promote community participation in healthy recreation by the provision of facilities and services for leisure and recreation, arts and culture. C-SALT works closely with Leisure Connection to manage leisure centres under contract to local authorities."

There are apparently advantages to operating as a charity.

Phil Challis, woodley
22/02/2013 at 16:09

I would say that the council reserves are not too high, if anything they are too low! £300k doesn't buy much these days. Cllr Keith Baker appears to be quite hypocritical in his comments at borough and local level as a surplus for the borough is fine!

I really don't understand the concept that Woodley has to pay for its own leisure centres where the rest of Wokingham pay for the other facilities within Wokingham. This is not fair at any level. Why should the people of Woodley have to pay twice? I guess I am lucky that Winnersh doesn't have that much to get stitched up by the borough council!

Smiffy, Reading
22/02/2013 at 16:04

Local Lady also says "And good point about WTC having the money to build a public loo - why don't they put their money where their mouth is ??"

I can say that we have - Woodley Town Council have committed to maintaining toilets once they have been built, but given the way that the toilets were stolen by Wokingham it would be wrong to pay for new ones out of reserves

Why do I say stolen .. well..

When LIDL were planning their building they offered to build new public toilets at no cost to the borough, which the borough refused.

Also when LIDL acquired (£££) the old toilet site from the borough they also gave them significant S106 contributions towards “toilet provision” which the borough spent on new toilets in the library.

I feel that the Conservative leadership of Wokingham Borough have completely bungled their handling of public toilets over the last few years – Wokingham Borough residents deserve better leadership in their borough council!

Phil Challis, woodley
22/02/2013 at 15:48

Phil Challis, thanks for providing some more information.

Regardless of the details over the leisure centres, it's clear to me that Cllr. Baker is attempting some shameful party politics here, and that we deserve better than his ilk.

Damiano_Tommassi, Wokingham
22/02/2013 at 15:41

LocalLady, I would imagine if we were able to delve into all of the information we'd find we are losing money; contributing to a CEO's wages/pension, company profits and so on. To run a building 200yds from our borough council office.

The only information I have on those who hold the contract is this:

Leisure in the Community Ltd http://companycheck.co.uk/company/04963443

"...for the year up to 31/03/2012 reported 'cash at bank' of £1,201,674, 'liabilities' worth £2,680,103, 'net worth' of £-13,693 and 'assets' worth £15,355,564"

Sounds like a bit of a mess to me, but I'm not an expert in business.