WHITCHURCH Town Council is expected to put a freeze on its council tax precept for the forthcoming year.
But the town council has yet to confirm whether it has implemented the recommendation from its budget report, prepared by former locum clerk Luke Trevaskis, as councillors voted to conduct discussions in private session last night.
According to the report, Whitchurch Town Council will request a precept of £512,163, an increase of just £7,909 on the previous budget.
In real terms, Whitchurch Town Council will not request an increase on its precept for 2022/23, meaning a band D property will continue to pay £151.45 per annum.
The report also states the town council expects its income for the year to be £616,023 while expenditure to be £616,022.65 with with wages and pension contributions expected to come in at £261,739.65.
In a meeting of the full council, held at the town's Civic Centre on Thursday, January 20, the budget and precept was set to be discussed in open council.
Councillor Andy Hall proposed to move items five and 10 – budget and precept and staffing, respectively – as it contained staffing details, so all aspects of the report should be moved into private session.
However, Whitchurch town mayor Cllr John Sinnott, under advice from locum clerk Ian Cruise-Taylor, told the meeting that in the 'spirit of open and transparent democracy', the budget setting should be kept in public session.
Mr Cruise-Taylor also stated that the budget and the setting of the precept – how much council tax will be claimed for the forthcoming financial year – could be discussed in public as is the standard practice.
But Cllr Jack Thornton immediately proposed that, in his view the staffing details could not be disassociated from the rest of the budget, it must be heard in private and his motion was carried.
At the end of the public session, the town clerk again suggested that the budget and precept discussion from item five be kept open to the public, with support from Cllr Sinnott.
However, Cllr Thornton again insisted that because some aspects of the budget contained staffing details, it should be in private session and reminded the council that a vote had taken place.
This led to the removal of the public and press.
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article