Cross-party support for reducing councillor numbers at Arun
Two Lib Dem councillors are proposing to get rid of up to 20 councillors at ADC in order to save money
A proposal to do away with more than a third of councillors at Arun District Council has gained cross-party support.
Two Lib Dem councillors are proposing to get rid of up to 20 councillors at ADC in order to save money, bringing the total down from 54 to 34.
This was given cross-party support at a full council meeting on Wednesday (November 9).
Francis Oppler (Orchard) and James Walsh (Beach), who proposed and seconded the motion, said a review by the Local Government Boundary Commission for England (LGBCE) could lead to savings ‘well in excess of £100,000 per year’ if the number of councillors is reduced.
The motion was broadly supported with all but a few councillors agreeing to approach the Boundary Commission.
Grant Roberts (Con, Arundel and Walberton) asked if the motion was a ‘genuine attempt to reduce costs’ or if it was simply ‘headline grabbing’ and Elaine Stainton (Con, Felpham West) disagreed with reduced councillor numbers at a time of increased house building.
Mr Oppler acknowledged that there was ‘no chance’ of boundary changes before May’s election.
“We’re doing it because it is the right thing to do,” he said, “It is the right thing for the council and the right thing for the residents.
“It will save thousands of pounds of residents’ hard-earned income.”
Ricky Bower (Con, East Preston) likened the motion to ‘turkeys voting for Christmas’ but he put forward several amendments which were later agreed by full council.
These included an estimate of costs for the review; setting up a timetable; finding out how much each member costs the council; and tasking the remuneration committee with a review of allowances.
Not everybody was happy with the amendments.
Paul Dendle (Con, Arundel and Walberton) feared the review could be ‘kicked into the long grass’.
“In 2012, I made my own personal representations to the Electoral Commission, suggesting that we actually reduced to 45 councillors,” he said.
“That would have actually saved us about £250,000 per year because you’re not taking into account the extra costs of administering councillors.
“I wasn’t very popular with my group at the time when I did, but think about it we would have saved £2.5 million over the last 10 years.”
The motion also prompted a debate on councillors’ attendance, with some calling for lateness to be recorded as well as absence.
“We need to have councillors that are actually going to be committed, turn up, and effectively contribute – not just take an allowance and just pop in and out when needs be,” said Mr Roberts.