COVID EMERGENCY COMMITTEE 6 August 2020

Subject: Options for Council Concurrent Functions Funding (CFF) for 2021/22 onwards

Director/Head of Service: David Ford, Director of Commissioned Services Caroline Cooper Head of Commercial and Cultural Development

Decision Issues: These matters are within the authority of the Covid Emergency Committee and are subject to the council’s budget setting process.

Classification: This report is open to the public

CCC Ward(s): Barton, Forest, & Stone Street, Herne & Broomfield, Little Stour & , Nailbourne, , , Westgate; the whole district if the option of exploring special expenses is pursued.

The current four year Concurrent Functions Funding Summary: agreements with parish councils end on 31 March 2021. This report provides options relating to CFF funding for 2021/22 onwards following formal consultation with parish councils. Recommendation 1: To reduce the budget over a To Resolve: four year period from 2021/22 to 2024/25, to £0 from 2025/26 onwards. A flat rate reduction would be made to parish council applications agreed for 2020/21

Recommendation 2: to remove the £20,000 annual contingency fund from 2021/22. Any underspend from the 2020/21 contingency fund will roll over and remain available until 31 March 2022.

Recommendation 3: to transfer the maintenance of CCC-owned parcels of land where no lease agreement is in place into the Council’s grounds maintenance contract from April 2021 (currently only Garlinge Green Village Green).

Next stage in process: The committee’s decision will be considered as part of the council’s budget setting process during Autumn 2020.

SUPPORTING INFORMATION

1. Introduction

The current 4-year Concurrent Functions Funding (CFF) arrangements with the district’s 24 Parish Councils ends on 31 March 2021. The total budget for 2020/21 is £134,500.

The potential reduction or removal of CFF was identified as part of the budget process in 2019. The Council committed to explore the withdrawal of funding for concurrent functions where they fall outside the parameters funded for urban areas, for example, where there is over provision of facilities in an area or on land not owned by City Council.

In order to inform a decision regarding this, formal consultation with Parish Councils took place between March and May of this year. At that time, the Council was reviewing its services and funding streams in order to find ongoing savings of £5m by 2023/24. Since the consultation was launched, the Council’s circumstances have changed significantly following the impact of COVID-19 and is facing significantly greater financial pressures that need to be considered as part of the decision making process regarding CFF.

This report presents the options for CFF for 2021/22 onwards in the context of the consultation feedback and the Council’s current financial position.

2. Detail

The parish council CFF scheme is set up to:

● fund expenses incurred by parish councils for the delivery of services, which are provided by the city council in urban areas. ● support the maintenance costs of parcels of land not owned or managed by the city council to help safeguard their provision, up to the current level of the budget.

Core items within these functions:

● Bus shelter maintenance ● Recreational grounds; litter picking and rubbish clearing, grounds and tree/shrub maintenance, grass cutting, fencing repairs, repairs to car parks, access and play equipment, safety inspections and insurance ● Closed burial grounds; grounds and tree/shrub maintenance, grass cutting and fencing repairs ● Cemeteries; grounds and tree/shrub maintenance, grass cutting, wages/rent for cemetery workers, repairs to car parks and access, safety equipment, burglar alarm maintenance, and insurance.

The annual budget is £134,500 allocated to 24 parish councils. The parish councils currently receive allocations ranging between £677 and £26,858 per annum. There is also an annual contingency fund of £20,000 available for parish councils to apply for to help deal with any unforeseen works that arise.

The land eligible to be maintained by CFF includes land owned by parish councils, church and privately owned land and a small number of CCC-owned parcels of land that are listed in the table below:

Parish Land parcel (owned by Canterbury City Council) Chartham Chartham Hatch Recreational ground, Bigberry Road & Neals Place Meadow, paths through it Herne & Broomfield Cherry Orchard Ball Court (MUGA), Cherry Orchard Herne Garlinge Green Village Green, Garlinge Green Road Hersden Play Area, The Sycamores Sturry Forge Gardens, Mill Road (opp Sturry Station) Bakery Green, Mill Road

A full list of the parcels of land and items currently eligible for funding is attached at Appendix 1.

The Council only has a statutory duty to maintain or finance the maintenance of land that it owns, excluding where lease agreements are in place and the obligation sits with the leaseholder.

This funding arrangement is not now common in with only Maidstone Borough Council allocating funding to parish councils for concurrent functions.

Any reduction in funding for parish councils would mean that they would need to become more self-reliant and review minimum service levels in the same way that the Council is currently reviewing its own service levels. Additionally, parish councils will need to explore alternative sources of funding such as increasing the precept or increasing hire or lease fees for sports clubs that use the facilities.

3. Relevant Council Policy/Strategies/Budgetary Documents

Corporate Plan - by encouraging greater involvement for local people, keeping our district a safe place to live, making our district cleaner and greener, supporting facilities and activities for children and young people.

Local Plan and Open Spaces Strategy - The parcels of land eligible for concurrent functions funding contribute towards the Council’s Local Plan target to ensure there is sufficient open space in the right places and to ensure they are of high quality, attractive to users and well managed and maintained.

4. Consultation planned or undertaken

An early engagement stakeholder event took place on 27 February. The event was attended by clerks and councillors from 15 of the 24 parish councils currently in receipt of concurrent functions funding. Formal consultation took place with the 24 parish councils between 23 March to 7 May 2020. The Council received 24 responses from 18 different parish councils (75% of parish councils) and their comments have shaped the options in this report. It should be noted that since the consultation was launched, the Council’s circumstances have changed significantly following the impact or COVID-19 and is facing significant financial pressures that need to be considered as part of the decision making process regarding CFF.

Appendix 2 is a summary of the consultations responses received.

5. Options available with reasons for suitability

Recommendation 1: CFF Budget

The budget options proposed as part of the consultation were as follows:

Option 1: Reduce the budget over a four year period from 2021/22 to 2024/25, to £0 from 2025/26 onwards. A flat rate reduction would be made to parish council applications agreed for 2020/21

67% of parish councils responding to the consultation stated that Option 1 is their preferred option as it sees a phased decrease over four years. This will minimise the impact on parish councils and give them time to plan and prepare for the change. There is no statutory duty for the Council to fund the maintenance of the grounds and facilities currently being funded and this is therefore the Council’s recommended option.

Under this option, the total CFF budget would reduce as follows:

Budget agreed for 2020/21: £134,500 Year 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25 2025/26

Total Annual Budget to £107,600 £80,700 £53,800 £26,900 £0 be allocated

Appendix 3 outlines the funding allocations that the 24 parish councils would receive over the next four years should option 1 be agreed.

Option 2: Reduce the budget over a two year period between 2021/22 and 2022/23, to £0 from 2023/24 onwards. Funding would be allocated according to prioritisation of need via an application process.

Only 4% of parish councils responding to the consultation cited option 2 as their preference stating that the impact of such a reduction over two years would be too great.

Under this option, the total CFF budget would reduce as follows:

Year 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24

Total Annual Budget to be allocated £89,667 £44,833 £0

Option 3: Reduce the budget to £0 from 2021/22 onwards.

No parish council supported this option given the immediate impact it would have for parish councils as well as their residents.

Alternative options

Not to make any changes to the current CFF - It should be noted that 25% of parish councils responding to the consultation stated that they didn’t support any of the options proposed as part of the consultation and that the budget of £134,500 should remain for the next four year period of 2021/22 to 2024/25 or even be increased. However, this option is unrealistic given that the Council does not have the budget to support this option, it does not relate to a statutory service and the Council is reviewing the minimum service levels in its own grounds maintenance contract for urban areas in order to make savings.

To introduce a special expenses scheme alongside the removal of CFF - If there are concerns about possible inequities between parished and non-parished parts of the District following the removal of CFF, councillors could consider introducing special expenses alongside the removal of CFF. This would deliver savings to the Council but would affect council tax bills across the District. Council tax bills in non- parished areas would increase and those in parished areas would fall, though parish precepts might well increase (this would of course be for parish councils to decide as separate legal bodies). Further details of special expenses schemes is set out in Appendix 4.

If the Committee were minded to consider a special expenses scheme, it is suggested that a separate report be brought back to the Committee setting out further details. Such a scheme could not be introduced for the 2021/22 financial year as it would require substantial analysis of the Council’s services and costs as well as extensive public consultation and changes to the council tax software. It could be introduced for 2022/23. The recommendations set out in this report could still continue as proposed as the Council can choose to have a CFF scheme, a special expenses scheme or neither.

Recommendation 2 - Contingency Fund

Option 1: to remove the £20,000 annual contingency fund from 2021/22. Any underspend from the 2020/21 contingency fund will roll over and remain available until 31 March 2022.

In 2017 the Community Committee agreed that there should be an annual contingency fund of £20,000 available for parish councils to apply for to help deal with any unforeseen works that arise. This funding is for contingencies and is not to be spent on routine works.

However, since the fund was introduced four years ago, no applications have been received for this funding and given the Council’s current financial position this funding could be fully utilised on other services. The recommended option is therefore option 1.

To reflect the fact that parish councils may have to pay for unforeseen works as a result of COVID-19, any underspend from the 2020/21 contingency fund will roll over and be available until 31 March 2022.

Option 2: to retain the £20,000 annual contingency fund.

As part of the consultation the majority of parish councils agreed that the contingency fund should be retained as a safety net as a parish council may at some point need to access this. However, given that no applications have been received in the last four years and there is a low probability of the contingency fund being fully used each year, it would be more appropriate for parish councils to work with the Council to deal with any emergencies that present a safety issue on a case by case basis and identify alternative funding for any repair work.

Recommendation 3: Parcels of land owned by the Council

Option 1: to transfer the maintenance of Council-owned parcels of land where no lease agreement is in place into the Council’s grounds maintenance contract from April 2021 (currently only Garlinge Green Village Green).

The Council has a statutory duty to maintain the land it owns and could include this land in the current grounds maintenance contract. This would ensure the land is maintained at minimum service levels and it removes the annual administration of paying the parish council the same amount to arrange maintenance. The parish council would no longer have to arrange for contractors to maintain the grounds or account for the funding.

There are seven parcels of Council-owned land eligible for CFF. Lease agreements are in place for the following sites and under these current arrangements, the Council has no obligations with respect to grounds maintenance:

Parish Land parcel Chartham Chartham Hatch Recreational ground, Bigberry Road Harbledown & Rough Common Neals Place Meadow, paths through it Herne & Broomfield Cherry Orchard Ball Court (MUGA), Cherry Orchard Herne Hersden Hersden Play Area, The Sycamores Sturry Forge Gardens, Mill Road (opp Sturry Station) Bakery Green, Mill Road

The only site without a lease agreement is:

Parish Land parcel Petham Garlinge Green Village Green, Garlinge Green Road

The land will be maintained at the same current minimum service levels as outlined in the Council’s grounds maintenance contract for urban areas, found at Appendix 5. It should be noted that these are currently under review.

The preference is for this parcel of land to transfer into the grounds maintenance contract from April 2021 and Petham Parish Council has confirmed that this would not affect any contractual arrangements in place between the parish council and maintenance contractors.

Option 2: To make an annual payment to parish councils for the maintenance of CCC-owned land eligible for CFF funding (currently only Garlinge Green Village Green). This excludes land where there is no obligation for the Council to maintain grounds under a lease agreement. All payments will be at the same rate as the Council’s urban maintenance contract for the minimum service level identified.

Under this option, Petham Parish Council would receive the same rate of funding to maintain the land at the same minimum service levels as outlined in the Council’s grounds maintenance contract.

This option adds additional administration for both parties in terms of contracts, payments and accounting, however it would mean that parish councils have greater control over the service levels. For instance, the land could be maintained at a higher level than the Council’s minimum service level at an additional cost to the parish council.

6. Reasons for supporting option recommended, with risk assessment

Recommendation 1 - CFF Budget

Option 1: To reduce the budget over a four year period from 2021/22 to 2024/25, to £0 from 2025/26 onwards. A flat rate reduction would be made to parish council applications agreed for 2020/21

Option 1 is the parish councils’ preferred option as it minimises the impact on parish councils and gives them time to plan and prepare for the change. The parish councils currently receive allocations ranging between £677 and £26,858 per annum and if the CFF budget were to be reduced or removed, would need to review current service levels and find alternative sources of funding such as the precept. Residents in parished areas have already seen an increase in their precept over the last few years due to financial pressures experienced by parish councils and they are likely to have to pay a higher council tax moving forward due to increases from KCC, CCC, Police, KFRS, etc. Option 1 means that any increases to the precept or hire fees could be phased.

There is no statutory duty for the Council to fund the maintenance of the grounds and facilities currently being funded and this is therefore the Council’s recommended option.

Only one parish council, , reported that they would not be able to maintain its recreation ground as a consequence of removing the funding. No parish council reported that the safety of residents would be compromised if the CFF budget was removed.

There is a risk that parish councils may opt to close churchyards and pass the maintenance of these to the Council, which can be legally requested with a 3 month notice period. This could apply to the 7 closed churchyards currently supported through CFF as well as the 15 open burial grounds not eligible for CFF. Chartham and Sturry parish councils could also select to close their cemeteries which would impact on the Canterbury cemetery, but there is capacity there for some years to come. These risks were highlighted through the consultation, but no parish council stated that they would take this approach. A parish council could request the Council to maintain the land, however, this could happen regardless of whether CFF continues or not. The costs incurred from maintaining these churchyards would still be less than the potential overall saving that would be made.

Recommendation 2: Contingency fund - Option 1

Option 1: to remove the £20,000 annual contingency fund from 2021/22. Any underspend from the 2020/21 contingency fund will roll over and remain available until 31 March 2022.

Since the contingency fund was introduced four years ago, no applications have been received for this funding and given the Council’s current financial position this funding could be fully utilised on other services.

To reflect the fact that parish councils may have to pay for unforeseen works as a result of COVID-19, any underspend from the 2020/21 contingency fund will roll over and be available until 31 March 2022.

There is a small risk that contingency funds may be requested from a parish council after this date. Whilst the Council would be under no legal obligation to support the parish council, it is likely that the Council would want to consider alternative ways to fund any emergency works that would compromise the safety of residents.

Recommendation 3 - Parcels of land owned by CCC

Option 1 - to transfer the maintenance of Council-owned parcels of land where no lease agreement is in place into the Council’s grounds maintenance contract from April 2021 (currently only Garlinge Green Village Green).

The Council has a statutory duty to maintain the land it owns and this option would align the grounds maintenance arrangements for all Council owned land where lease agreements are not in place. It removes the annual administration of paying the parish council the same amount to arrange maintenance of the land. The parish council would no longer have to arrange for contractors to maintain the grounds or account for the funding.

7. Implications (a) Financial - The Council’s planned budget currently includes CFF funding for a further 2 years until the start of 2023/24. Given the feedback received from parish councils, MT proposes to phase the removal of funding over four years to enable parish councils ample time to prepare. The reduction in budget will contribute to the savings that the City Council needs to make. Any reduction in funding for parish councils would mean that they would need to become more self-reliant and review minimum service levels in the same way that the Council is reviewing its own service levels. Additionally, parish councils will need to explore alternative sources of funding such as increasing the precept or increasing hire or lease fees for sports clubs that use the facilities (b) Legal - There is no statutory duty for the Council to fund the maintenance of land that it does not own. Where the Council does own the land and has a responsibility to maintain the land (where there is no lease agreement in place or the lease agreement states that the Council must fund the maintenance of the land) they will continue to do so by incorporating the land into the grounds maintenance contract. The land will be maintained in line with the minimum service levels outlined in that contract. (c) Equalities - 10 parish councils expressed concerns about double taxation in response to the consultation and 7 requested that a special expenses scheme or equivalent should be explored in parallel with the CFF review. If the Committee were minded to consider a special expenses scheme, it is suggested that a separate report be brought back to the Committee setting out further details. There is no statutory duty for the Council to fund the maintenance of land it does not own and it is common in many parished areas nationally for residents to pay towards the grounds maintenance of their district or borough as well as towards their own parished area via a precept. It is a similar arrangement to that of residents living in housing estates that pay council tax as well as a maintenance fee to a management company. An Equalities Impact Assessment is included at Appendix 6. (d) Environmental including carbon emissions and biodiversity The parcels of land eligible for concurrent functions funding contribute towards the Council’s Local Plan target to ensure there is sufficient open space in the right places and to ensure they are of high quality, attractive to users and well managed and maintained. The options proposed may lead to parish councils maintaining recreational and open spaces at different service levels than currently maintained at. Only one parish council, Bekesbourne, reported that they would not be able to maintain its recreation ground as a consequence of removing the funding. No parish council reported that the safety of residents would be compromised if the CFF budget was removed.

A climate change impact assessment has been completed and is included at Appendix 7. (e) Staffing resource The outcome of the proposed consultation will impact on the amount of resource required at both city council and parish council level. The removal of the CFF budget reduces the staff resource required to prepare contract agreements, arrange payments and check expenditure. Parish councils will no longer have to make annual returns to the Council and report on CFF expenditure. (f) Crime and disorder Changes to sources of income for parish councils could lead to changes in maintenance service levels for their land and facilities. Less attractive spaces could attract antisocial behaviour.

8. Conclusions

All options presented are within the budget available. With reducing budgets and rising costs it is increasingly difficult to present options that would satisfy all parishes.

It is essential that a decision is made in adequate time to enable parish councils to plan for 2021/22 and allow for changes to the amount of precept levied.

The timetable below outlines the next steps for the options proposed:

Deadline for parish councils to set precept December 2020 Funding Agreements for 2021/22 to 2024/25 issued February 2021

● Funding Paid for 2021/22 April 2021 ● Cessation of contingency fund ● Transfer maintenance of Garlinge Green Village Green into the grounds maintenance contract (start date subject to any contractual arrangements in place between the parish council and maintenance contractors)

Contact Officer: Stacey Wells, 01227 862 365 Caroline Cooper, 01227 862 571

Appendices

Appendix 1 - List of eligible parcels of land and facilities Appendix 2 - Summary of the consultations responses received. Appendix 3 - Budget option 1 - parish councils allocations Appendix 4 - Special Expenses Appendix 5 - Minimum service levels as at 2020/21 in the Council’s grounds maintenance contract for urban areas Appendix 6 - Equality Impact Assessment Appendix 7 - Climate Change Impact Assessment

Appendix 1 List of eligible parcels of land and facilities

Parish Eligible parcels of land and facilities

Adisham Recreation grounds and open spaces: 1. Adisham recreation ground, The Street, Adisham (including closed Sports Court and children’s play equipment) 2. Triangle Green, Pond Hill, Adisham 3. Church Bank, Pond Hill, Adisham 4. Pond Hill Verge, Pond Hill, Adisham 5. Pond Green, Pond Hill, Adisham

Barham Recreation grounds and open spaces: 1. Brickfield Recreation Ground, boundaries on Brickfield Road, Rabbit Hole, and Gravel Castle Road, Barham 2. Valley Road Play Area, Valley Road, bottom of Derringstone Hill, Barham 3. Junction of Valley Road and The Street, opposite Barham Primary School, Barham

Closed churchyard: St John’s Church, Off Church Lane, Barham

Bus shelters: 1. Valley Road by school 2. Valley Rd at junction to Causeway/ Heathfield Way

Bekesbourne with Recreation grounds and open spaces: 1. Bekesbourne recreation ground, Old Palace Road, Bekesbourne 2. Aspinall Close community land, Aspinall Close, Bekesbourne

Bishopsbourne Recreation grounds and open spaces: Neame Meadow Recreation Ground - adjacent to the village hall in The Street, . The ground contains a section of the intermittent river The Nailbourne and the fence beyond.

Blean Recreation grounds and open spaces: 1. Blean Recreation ground and registered War Memorial, School Lane, Blean. 2. Village Green, Blean Common, Blean 3. Common Land, Radfall Road, Blean 4. Common Land, Chapel Lane, Blean Bridge Recreation grounds and open spaces: Bridge Recreation ground, Patrixbourne Road, Bridge (leased from Cantley Estates – comprises sports pitches, children’s playground, tennis club and sports pavilion.)

Bus shelters: 1. Near the Post Office 2. High Street, Bridge 3. Highland court

Chartham Recreation grounds and open spaces: 1. Memorial Playing Field, Station Road, Chartham 2. Shalmsford Street Recreational ground, Shalmsford Street, Chartham. 3. Chartham Hatch Recreational ground, Bigberry Road, Chartham Hatch. 4. The Village Green, The Green, Chartham 5. Station Road Triangle, Station Road, Chartham 6. Bakers Lane/Rattington Street Triangle, Bakers Lane, Chartham 7. Parish Road Triangle, Parish Road, Chartham 8. Land at the bottom of Beech Avenue

Cemeteries: Chartham Cemetery, Ashford Rd

Closed churchyard: St Mary’s churchyard, Church Lane

Bus shelters: 1. The Crescent 2. Pomfret Rd 3. Arnold Rd 4. Shalmsford Street, A28 Ashford Rd Jction 5. Hatch Lane, A28 Ashford Road Jction 6. Triangle, near Railway Station 7. Bigbury Rd, Crossroads, Chartham Hatch Not applicable

Chislet Recreation grounds and open spaces: 1. Hollow Street (owned by the Church commissioners but allowed to use as cricket field and school sports). No play equipment. 2. Village Green in front of Centre, St Mary’s the Virgin Church, Church Lane.

Closed churchyard: St Mary the Virgin Churchyard, Church Lane

Bus shelters: bus shelter

Fordwich None

Hackington Recreation grounds and open spaces: 1. Tyler Hill Recreation ground associated with the Memorial Hall in Summer Lane, Tyler Hill. 2. Tyler Hill “Green”, Road, Tyler Hill (at the south side of the junction of Hackington Road and Link Road.) 3. Tyler Hill Meadow, (Local Nature Reserve 2.2 acres), Tyler Hill Road. 4. Grassed area at the junction of Calais Hill and Wood Hill, marking gateway to Tyler Hill.

Bus shelters: Hackington Road (opposite the Tyler's Kiln )

Harbledown Recreation grounds and open spaces: 1. Rough Common Playing Field, Rough Common Road, Rough Common CT2 9BU 2. Pine Meadow Play Area, London Road, , CT2 9AN 3. Cheyney Field, London Road, Upper Harbledown, CT2 9AT. 4. Jubilee Field, Church Hill, Harbledown, CT2 9AB 5. Dukes Meadow, Hillside Avenue, Canterbury CT2 8HA Herne & Broomfield Recreation grounds and open spaces: Broomfield Community Woodland Park (the old gypsy site)

Hersden Recreation grounds and open spaces: 1. Sycamore Green, entrance to The Sycamores, Hersden 2. Hersden Memorial Seat Green, Island Road, Hersden (in front of 23 South View)

Hoath Recreation grounds and open spaces: Playing Field (known locally as The Triangle), School Lane, Hoath

Ickham Recreation grounds and open spaces: 1. Village Green by the church at The Street, Ickham 2. Open Space – Rectory Cottage (New Village Green), Ickham

Kingston Recreation grounds and open spaces: King George V playing field, The Street, Kingston

Bus shelters: 1. At junction of The Street and Valley Road, Kingston 2. Outside the Black Robin PH

Littlebourne Recreation grounds and open spaces: recreation ground, High Street, Littlebourne

Open spaces: 1. Littlebourne Village Green, Bekesbourne Lane, Littlebourne 2. Turner’s Orchard, between 5-7 Nargate Street, Littlebourne 3. Cherry Orchard (Local Nature reserve), Court Hill, Littlebourne

Lower Hardres Recreation grounds and open spaces: 1. village green at the junction of School Lane and Hardres Court road, Lower Hardres. 2. Green Triangle near Church, School Lane, Lower Hardres 3. Village hall green (and parking area), Hardres Court Road, Street End, Lower Hardres 4. Green area by War Memorial, Nackington Road, Opposite Church Lane, Nackington, Lower Hardres.

Timber bus shelters: 1. Hardres Court Road 2. Street End Petham Recreation grounds and open spaces: Petham recreation ground, Town Road, Petham

Open spaces: 1. Gardeners Plot, Town Road, Petham 2. Triangle Plot, The Duckpit, Petham 3. Marble Pond, Church Lane, Petham 4. Village hall green (and car park), Church Lane, Petham

Bus shelter: Town Road, Petham village

Sturry Recreation grounds and open spaces: 1. Park View children’s play area, Park View, Sturry 2. Park View playing field, Park View, Sturry 3. Broad Oak Common, junction of Shalloak Road and Sweechgate, Broad Oak 4. Centenary Woodland, Park View, Sturry 5. Library Green, Chafy Crescent, Sturry (off High Street) 6. High Street seating area – entrance to High Street, Sturry

Cemeteries: Sturry cemetery

Closed churchyard: St Nicholas churchyard, Church Lane, Sturry

Bus shelters: 1. Concrete shelter, Mill Road, Sturry 2. Shelter outside Sturry train station

Thanington None

Upper Hardres Recreation grounds and open spaces: 1. Play area at rear of village hall, Hardres Court Road 2. Triangle at junction of The Street and Hardres Court Road 3. Triangle at junction of The Street and Lime Kiln Lane

Waltham Recreation grounds and open spaces: Waltham Park (Recreation field), Church Lane, Waltham.

Bus shelters: Front of village hall in Richdore Road

Westbere Recreation grounds and open spaces: 1. Village green, at the bottom of Church Lane. 2. Shrubbery Corner – open space, at the bottom of Bushy Hill Road adjacent to the telephone kiosk which is a listed building. 3. Area in front of St Anne’s Convent – open space by the convent, Lane, leading in to Island Road (A28).

Closed churchyards: 1. Old Church Yard, site of All Saints Church, Church Lane, Westbere. 2. New Church Yard, opposite All Saints Church, Church Lane, Westbere.

Wickhambreaux Recreation grounds and open spaces: The Playing Field, Seaton Road,

Open spaces: 1. Wickhambreaux village green, The Green, Wickhambreaux 2. village green, Stodmarsh

Womenswold Recreation grounds and open spaces: 1. Playground and Recreation ground at Nethersole Road, , . 2. The Green at , Womenswold

Closed churchyard: St Margaret’s churchyard, The Street, Womenswold

Appendix 2 - Summary of Concurrent Functions Funding consultation responses

Number of responses: 24

1. Which parish council do you represent?

Adisham Parish Council Barham Parish Council Bekesbourne with Patrixbourne Parish Council Bekesbourne with Patrixbourne Parish Council Bekesbourne with Patrixbourne Parish Council Bekesbourne with Patrixbourne Parish Council Blean Parish Council Bridge Parish Council Bridge Parish Council Chartham Parish Council Chislet Parish Council Chislet Parish Council Hackington Parish Council Harbledown and Rough Common Parish Council Parish Council Hersden Parish Council Hersden Parish Council Kingston Parish Council Littlebourne Parish Council Sturry Parish Council Parish Council Waltham Parish Council Westbere Parish Council Wickhambreaux Parish Council

2. Are you...?

Parish Council Chairman 6 25.0% Parish Councillor 2 8.3% Parish Clerk 9 37.5% Other, please state: 7 29.2% Other, please state:

Parish council as a whole Response from Barham Parish Council as a whole, ratified by email Response from the parish council as a whole, ratified by email Response from the parish councillors collectively Response from the parish councillors collectively Trustee and Secretary of Bekesbourne Recreation Ground Management Committee also parish Cllr Trustee of Bekesbourne Recreation Ground charity, Secretary of Bekesbourne Rec Ground Man Cttee

Budget

3. Taking everything into account, which option do you prefer?

Option 1: Reduce the budget over a four year period from 16 66.7% 2021/22 to 2024/25, to £0 from 2025/26 onwards. A flat rate reduction would be made to parish council applications agreed for 2020/21 Option 2: Reduce the budget over a two year period between 1 4.2% 2021/22 and 2022/23, to £0 from 2023/24 onwards. Funding would be allocated according to prioritisation of need via an application process Option 3: Reduce the budget to £0 from 2021/22 onwards - - Neither 6 25.0% Don’t know 1 4.2% No reply - -

3a. Why? Please include details of how you think each option would impact your parish

As a small parish council we need to budget for the reduction to income, this would be of less of a financial burden to residents under option one. Councillors unanimously prefer Option 1 to reduce the funding over a four-year period – this would minimise the impact on residents’ council tax bill increases by a stepped up increase to meet the shortfall. It also makes it easier for budgeting purposes to know exactly how much per year the Parish Council will receive. At the stakeholder event on 27 February 2020, CCC members made clear that no proposals or decisions had been made yet until the impact on parishes of reducing or removing the funding completely had been explored further. Despite almost all parishes in attendance expressing the importance of the grant, none of the options included as part of the consultation include for keeping the grant at its current level or an option to have the grant in a different form e.g. an agreed fixed lower amount yearly payment. Chartham Parish Council precept for 2020-2021 is £132,980 Chartham Parish Council concurrent funding award for 2020-2021 is £26,857.70 Option 1: Reduce over four years: To add the £26,857.70 CFF figure to the precept from 2021- 2022 over a four year period would increase the precept by approximately 5% each year (£6,714.43). Option 2: Reduce over two years: To add the £26,857.70 CFF figure to the precept over two years: £13,428.85 increase to the precept for each year, approximately 10% increase per year which is significant for residents to meet. Option 3: To remove funding completely: To add the £26,857.70 figure to the precept for 2021-2022 would increase the precept by 20% - this is a huge increase for residents to meet in one go, especially as CCC, KCC, Police, KFRS, etc are likely to also be increasing their council tax share. The percentage increases for all three options are significant – and assume that the parish council does not have any other aspirations that may require additional precept provision. For example the Parish Council is currently in the process of producing a Neighbourhood Plan, which despite various funding streams available is likely to be a costly exercise. The Parish Council already has a substantial overspend on the funding allocation - £18,107.12 in financial year 2019-2020. Councillors unanimously prefer Option 1 to reduce the funding over a four-year period – this would minimise the impact on residents’ council tax bill increases by a stepped up increase to meet the shortfall. It also makes it easier for budgeting purposes to know exactly how much per year the Parish Council will receive. At the stakeholder event on 27 February 2020, CCC members made clear that no proposals or decisions had been made yet until the impact on parishes of reducing or removing the funding completely had been explored further. Despite almost all parishes in attendance expressing the importance of the grant, none of the options included as part of the consultation include for keeping the grant at its current level or an option to have the grant in a different form e.g. an agreed fixed lower amount yearly payment. Wickhambreaux Parish Council precept for 2020-2021 is £16,074 Wickhambreaux Parish Council concurrent funding award for 2020-2021 is £5,604.75 Option 1: Reduce over four years: To add the £5,604.75 CFF figure to the precept from 2021-2022 over a four year period would increase the precept by approximately 8% each year (£1,401.19) Option 2: Reduce over two years: To add the £5,604.75 CFF figure to the precept over two years: £2,802.38 increase to the precept for each year, approximately 16% increase per year which is significant for residents to meet. Option 3: To remove funding completely: To add the £5,604.75 figure to the precept for 2021-2022 would increase the precept by 33% - this is a huge increase for residents to meet in one go, especially as CCC, KCC, Police, KFRS, etc are likely to also be increasing their council tax share. The percentage increases for all three options are significant – and assume that the parish council does not have any other aspirations that may require additional precept provision. For example the Parish Council is currently in the process of changing the speed limits in Wickhambreaux and Stodmarsh from 60mph to 30mph, likely to cost in the region of £6,000. If the concurrent function grant for Bekesbourne Recreation Ground is removed we will not survive. It is not acceptable to remove it and place the burden of providing a district amenity on the parishioners. Furthermore, it is a very small portion of the overall CCC budget and will not make any significant difference to the overall picture. Please see supporting document. Please note that I am also a parish councillor for the Patrixbourne Ward. it’s difficult times to ask residents for a huge increase in one go with nothing to justify it. We do not have street lighting or street cleaning and poor refuse collection. The village already runs resources for the whole district - the recreation ground is used by Canterbury district and not local people but we maintain it. - It will mean we are paying twice for grass mowing / maintenance etc. The Way brings people out from Canterbury District and we are one of the few recreation grounds to allow dogs - again we maintain it so the village will suffer from paying twice. A workshop was held by The Council in Jan/Feb 2020 asking for opinions - no notice would appear to have been taken of the outcome of this - why then did the City Council spend money to hold it . None of these. If the concurrent function grant for Bekesbourne Recreation Ground is removed we will not survive. It is not acceptable to remove it and place the burden of providing a district amenity on the parishioners. We have always regarded the Recreation Ground as a District amenity. Unlike some other villages we welcome those from the wider district. If you read my attached letter you will note that we extend a welcome to our amenities to as far as . Furthermore, the sum involved c£3800 it is a very small portion of the overall CCC budget and will not make any difference to the overall picture for CCC but makes a huge difference for us. Obviously we would prefer Option 1- this would minimise the impact on residents' council tax bill increases by a stepped up increase. However why is there no Option 4- to retain the funding at the same level to avoid further double taxation on rural residents? At the stakeholder event on 27 Feb 2020 parishes urged CCC to undertake a VFM exercise whereby Serco quotes for grounds maintenance of some of the recreation grounds and their figures be compared to that paid by the relevant parish council. This will establish whether parishes utilising their own contractors are giving VFM. Has this been done? If not, we urge officers to do this to fully inform the city councillors at committee when the decision on the future of concurrent funding is determined Or an Option 5- to bring in a 'special expenses scheme'. The CCC paper says should the city councillors decide to proceed with the reduction in concurrent funding that officers would explore a Special Expenses Scheme. Surely that exploratory work should be done in parallel now to inform the city councillors decision? See below in Q7 about how it is unclear what form such a scheme might take and whether and (if so how) it would in fact mitigate each of the proposed options Details of how each option would impact our parish Westbere Parish Council precept for 2020-21 is £14,423 Westbere Parish Council concurrent funding award for 2020-21 is £4,094.47 Option 1: Add £4,094.47 CFF figure to the precept from 2021-22 over a 4 year period would increase precept by just over 7% in year 1 and by comparable, slightly smaller percentages in years 2, 3 and 4 Option 2: Add £4,094.47 CFF figure to the precept over 2 years: add 50% (£2,047.50) to the precept for 2021- 22 would increase the precept by 14.25% and by 12.5% in 2022-23 Option 3: Add £4.094.47 CFF figure to the precept for 2021-22 would increase the precept by 34%. The % increases for all 3 options are significant - and assume the parish council does not have any other aspirations that may require additional precept provision. We appreciate that our parish is not the worst affected in the district should the total of the CFF award be transferred to the precept. 2 parishes would face a 59% increase under Option 1. However our latest budget for 2020-21 required a precept raise of just over 20% to achieve a balanced budget. Even option 1 imposes a 7% further increase year on year will be unacceptable to residents and make the role of parish cllr unpalatable Obviously we would prefer Option 1 to reduce the funding over a 4 year period -this would minimise the impact on our residents' council tax bill increases by a stepped up increase. However why is there no Option 4 for Members to consider/support - to retain the funding at the same level, to avoid further double taxation on rural residents. At the stakeholder event held on 27 February the parish councillors and clerks urged CCC to undertake a value for money exercise whereby Serco quotes for grounds maintenance of some of the recreation grounds and their figures be compared to that being paid by the relevant parish council. This will prove that parishes utilising their own (often local) contractors are giving value for money. Has this been done? If not, we urge officers to do this in order to fully inform the city councillors at committee when the decision on the future of concurrent funding is determined. Or an Option 5 - to bring in a Special Expenses Scheme. The CCC paper says that should the city councillors decide to proceed with the reduction in concurrent funding that officers would explore a Special Expenses Scheme. Surely that exploratory work should be done in parallel now in order to inform the city councillors decision? Impact on parish Barham Parish Council precept for 2020-21 is £40,701 Barham Parish Council concurrent funding award for 2020-21 (not including the £2,700 for street lighting) is £6,485.48 Option 1: Reduce over four years To add the £6,485.48 CFF figure to the precept from 2021-22 over a 4 year period would increase the precept by 4% in year 1 and comparable albeit smaller percentages in years 2, 3 and 4 Option 2: Reduce over two years To add the £6,485.48 CFF figure to the precept over two years: To add 50% a £3,243 increase to the precept for 2021-22 would increase the precept by 8% and by 7.5% in 2022-23 Option 3: To remove funding completely To add the £6,485.48 CFF figure to the precept for 2021-22 would increase the precept by 17%. The percentage increases for all 3 options are significant - and assume that the parish council does not have any other aspirations that may require additional precept provision. We appreciate that our parish council is not the worst affected in the Canterbury district should the total of the concurrent function award be transferred to the precept. Two of the parish councils in the district would face a 59% increase under Option 3. Option 1 - this will provide the longest run in period to adopt and re-orientate our budgeting process. Option 2 - the impact of this will be too severe. Option 3 - this will have the severest effects including raising the precept by a sizeable % to cover the loss of income from CFF. Option 1 - This would allow our Parish to plan an appropriate budget in line with the reduction in value of the present Concurrent Funding in order to maintain key functions. This includes the benefit of a straightforward application process with little demand on Council resources (both sides); Option 2 - A faster drop in funding over time - limited to a two year support period - would not allow a successful transition. Option 3 - Simply too drastic a step towards Concurrent funding removal and would create conflict with taxpayers at the Parish level. Option 1 - would give councillors time to analyse new sources of income to replace CFF, eg. the precept could be increased gradually between 2022-2026 to make up the shortfall, therefore introducing a gradual change to residents' council tax bills. Option 2 - prioritising of need leaves too much uncertainty for annual parish council budgeting. Option 3 - such a sudden change would leave councillors with no option but to increase the precept in one hit to cover costs. Option 1 allows us to increase the precept over a 4 year period - better for Parishioners Option 1 is the best of what can only be described as very poor options! I understand that there was a meeting in February which 2 of our parish councillors attended. They were disappointed that it appeared little notice was taken of their opinions at that meeting. Option 1 seems the fairest for all the parishes. It gives time to budget for this financially over the next 4 years, with a gradual reduction in the funding received. There is no cost implication involved with applications. Option 2 will involve new applications from all parishes, fighting for a smaller budget to last just two years. There is less time to prepare for what happens post 2023 and less funds to have had in the mean time. Option 3 should not be considered this gives parishes no time to budget and no warning. Option 1 will give the parish a chance to gradually increase precept to cover the loss of the funding. Option 2 this option will mean not all parishes will get funding and the application process is bound to be complicated. Option 3 will not be fair to any of the parishes to suddenly stop it, could mean a large precept increase for some or loss of facilities. Option 1 would allow the parish council to budget on a four year cycle and to manage the rise in precept. Option 2 would be cause a steep rise in the precept in 2023/24, but could be alleviated by carrying forward elements of the CFF. Option 3 would cause the precept to rise steeply in 2021/22. Option 2 with a two-year tail off period would be the most useful as it would enable us to build up our reserves during that time whereas option 3 would have an immediate loss of funding impact. The timetable set out in the three options would be a problem as it is unlikely that any special expenses scheme can be put in place by the beginning of the tax year 2021/22. Might it therefore be worth asking CCC: • How is a period of double taxation to be avoided if a special expenses scheme (or other scheme) cannot be run in tandem with reductions in concurrent funding? • Can the reduction in concurrent funding be delayed until it can be linked to a special expenses scheme? Given that CCC are looking to make up a shortfall in funding the final outcome will be that we must increase the parish precept to cover open space and bus shelter maintenance. It seems most unlikely that residents in parishes will be charged less tax by the City Council once concurrent funding ceases but likely, instead, that residents in urban areas will be charged more. So the amount of tax paid to the City Council will vary according to where you live – this would be a change to the way things are now but, as CCC point out, not unprecedented. The other consideration is the future of Bakery Green and the green opposite Forge Gardens (not the toilets). The City Council own these and have a statutory duty to look after them. We have been offered two options: • Hand these areas back to the care of the City Council and have nothing more to do with them. o We would have no further responsibility for these sites. o They would cost us nothing. But o We would have no say in their future and no control over the standard of maintenance provided, we would have little power to address concerns from residents over upkeep or any other concern. o possibly would need a wayleave over Forge Gardens for servicing of the toilets • Carry on looking after them and the City Council will pay us. o With our current grounds maintenance costs for these sites we would, in total, be £181 per year out of pocket But o We would have control over the maintenance and respond to residents’ views To be fair the City Council’s maintenance specification is quite good but, how do we make sure it is delivered – some binding agreement? It could change in future. • A further option we could suggest is that we take the freehold of these two sites. Obviously we would get no help at all with maintenance and at the moment it might not be a particularly attractive option, but worth considering for the future if Canterbury default on maintenance or maintenance payments Pros and cons Three Options : so None of the above. The basic proposal fails to understand the logic behind CFF: that the Parished areas are able, and do, obtain services at a cheaper rate than the rates that the District pays. This is done because the Parishes, having very close links to the communities that they represent, are able to call upon the favourable treatment that their residents will offer, thus securing a lower price for work that the District should do. Thus preserving a CFF programme is beneficial to all the residents of the District. The proposal does not offer any indication of what would replace the budget to perform the work within the parished areas that the CFF budget contributes towards. Is the Officer suggesting that playing fields and recreational areas within the parished areas should not be maintained? That those facilities should be lost to the District? For of course, the facilities are made available to all residents within the District, not merely to the residents of the Parish within which the facility is sited. Will this be accompanied by the same budget treatment being applied to the urban, non-parished areas? If not, why not? The District taxes the entire District to provide services to the entire area, it should not destroy the facilities that exist within the parished areas and then require that the District’s residents that live within the rural parished areas travel into the urban areas to use similar facilities. Three Options : so None of the above. The basic proposal fails to understand the logic behind CFF: that the Parished areas are able, and do, obtain services at a cheaper rate than the rates that the District pays. This is done because the Parishes, having very close links to the communities that they represent, are able to call upon the favourable treatment that their residents will offer, thus securing a lower price for work that the District should do. Thus preserving a CFF programme is beneficial to all the residents of the District. The proposal does not offer any indication of what would replace the budget to perform the work within the parished areas that the CFF budget contributes towards. Is the Officer suggesting that playing fields and recreational areas within the parished areas should not be maintained? That those facilities should be lost to the District? For of course, the facilities are made available to all residents within the District, not merely to the residents of the Parish within which the facility is sited. Will this be accompanied by the same budget treatment being applied to the urban, non-parished areas? If not, why not? The District taxes the entire District to provide services to the entire area, it should not destroy the facilities that exist within the parished areas and then require that the District’s residents that live within the rural parished areas travel into the urban areas to use similar facilities.

4. If option 2 was implemented, what criteria do you think the city council should use to assess funding requirements according to prioritisation of need?

Prioritising according to safety requirements, please specify what 11 45.8% these should include: Prioritising funding for parishes where Concurrent Functions 12 50.0% Funding accounts for a greater proportion of their overall costs Other, please state with reasons why: 10 41.7% No reply 4 16.7%

Prioritising according to safety requirements, please specify what these should include:

Health and safety requirements of village hall inspection and playground equipment. Play area inspections and essential repairs Prioritising according to safety requirements: - safety requirements to keep the playing field facility open include: safety inspections, hedge cutting and maintenance, play area surfacing, grass cutting to allow safe access to equipment, provision of lockable gates, maintenance of car park for access to play area - lack of funds for grounds maintenance would eventually lead to an unsafe environment. - without adult and children's exercise and play provision in our rural community, residents would have to travel elsewhere, adding to more vehicles on the roads and traffic congestion. Priority needs to be maintaining environment, physical wellbeing and this is money spent on open spaces. Recreation grounds grass cutting and tree maintenance Play equipment inspections Litter picking and rubbish clearing Insurance We cannot opt for any of the current options in the consultation. We believe wholeheartedly that the concurrent function grant should continue and will not support any decision to discontinue it. We believe it should be reinstated to cover the full costs of the annual works that need to be done to provide a viable and safe Recreation Ground for the benefit of all (and see below re burial grounds). We suggest the following would be required for reimbursement for health and safety reasons: i) the annual ROSPA play inspections fees ii) Insurance iii) Fencing repairs if for safety reasons iv) Tree works for health and safety reasons (although this is difficult to predict a figure in advance) We suggest the following would be required for reimbursement for health and safety reasons: i) The annual ROSPA play area inspections fees (for those parishes that have play equipment - Westbere does not) ii) Insurance iii) Fencing repairs if for safety reasons iv) Tree works for health and safety reasons (although it is difficult to predict a figure in advance) We suggest the following would be required for reimbursement for health and safety reasons: i) The annual ROSPA play area inspections fees ii) Insurance iii) Fencing repairs if for safety reasons iv) Tree works for health and safety reasons This would be best achieved by a system of reimbursement up to a set limit for each council (whether the same limit for each council or a varying limit based on the number of public areas, etc covered) with invoices used as evidence in the application process. We suggest the following would be required for reimbursement for health and safety reasons: i) The annual ROSPA play area inspections fees ii) Insurance iii) Fencing repairs if for safety reasons iv) Tree works for health and safety reasons This would be best achieved by a system of reimbursement up to a set limit for each council (whether the same limit for each council or a varying limit based on the number of public areas, etc covered) with invoices used as evidence in the application process.

Other, please state with reasons why:

4 Other The District should decide what provision of recreation and other services is reasonable across the entire district. This should include decisions as to where such provision should be located. The suggested answers demonstrate a clear misunderstanding of CFF, and should be avoided. a) The items covered by the present CFF are not safety critical items: there will be some who ask for additional or priority funding because facilities are in a dangerous condition, but this is a symptom of previous critical underfunding which was not topped up by the Parishes, but it is not a reason for higher funding from a future budget allocated to cover recreational and other services. b) The second suggested reason fails to understand that the funds flow to the Parishes to cover work that should be done within the Parishes by the District directly. The CFF funds should merely reimburse the Parishes for the work done on the District’s behalf. It is, therefore, illogical and inequitable…file.. 4 Other The District should decide what provision of recreation and other services is reasonable across the entire district. This should include decisions as to where such provision should be located. The suggested answers demonstrate a clear misunderstanding of CFF, and should be avoided. a) The items covered by the present CFF are not safety critical items: there will be some who ask for additional or priority funding because facilities are in a dangerous condition, but this is a symptom of previous critical underfunding which was not topped up by the Parishes, but it is not a reason for higher funding from a future budget allocated to cover recreational and other services. b) The second suggested reason fails to understand that the funds flow to the Parishes to cover work that should be done within the Parishes by the District directly. The CFF funds should merely reimburse the Parishes for the work done on the District’s behalf. It is, therefore, illogical and inequitable and di Concurrent funding on average makes up 40-50% of our total budget, making up the shortfall would make a significant increase to the PRECEPT in the short term. i) We believe all parishes spend more on concurrent items than they receive CFF for. We urge CCC to study parishes' overall spend on concurrent functions vs their award and put together a table showing (i) award (ii) spend (iii) the shortfall figure and (iv) % shortfall against the award. This should then be given to the city cllrs to inform their decision on the future of concurrent funding ii) % of expenditure on concurrent is only an indirect and potentially imperfect way of identifying the extent of the proposed change on the precept. If there is to be prioritisation, it should be applied directly to that factor subject to the following paragraph: iii) Parish reserves should not be taken into account- this would penalise those parishes that have been prudent in the past and the reserves have been built up through taxation of residents in previous years. Support for parishes with lower levels of reserves should not be at the expense of parishes that have behaved responsibly No comment - we do not support this option - the need is clear: we need funding for concurrent functions which we manage extremely well on very tight budgets and with volunteer officers. Number of facilities and areas that the PC's are responsible for should be taken into consideration. Some parishes have a lot more areas to maintain (play equipment to maintain and grass to cut etc). on a pro rata basis across all PCs Option 2 should take into consideration environmental issues. Harbledown and Rough Common PC have a large amount of trees and open spaces which need to be maintained. We support funding for parishes where concurrent spend accounts for a greater proportion of the overall costs. We urge officers to study parish councils' overall spend on concurrent functions versus their actual award - and put together a table showing (i) the award, (ii) actual spend, (iii) shortfall figure and (iv) the % shortfall against the award. This should be given to city councillors to inform their decision on future funding. For example: For all of Barham's concurrent functions, Barham already has a shortfall in actual eligible spending against the award in the region of £7,200 - which already goes on the precept. The parish reserves figure should not be taken into account- this would penalise those parishes that have been prudent in the past- and the reserves have been built up through taxation of residents in previous years- so they should not be penalised again to support parishes with lower levels of reserves which have possibly failed to build a sensible level of reserve

5. Do you have any alternative proposals or suggestions for how the city council could reduce the Concurrent Functions Funding budget? If so, please provide details:

- neighbouring parishes could liaise and employ a joint contractor (but the extra costs in parish clerks' time in administration and management may outweigh any savings gained) - would sending out CCC's own teams to the parishes to provide grass cutting and grounds maintenance help reduce costs? - Canterbury City Council increase Council Tax to cover the shortfall, so the request for funds is district wide rather than local (ie. parish council increasing the precept). 1. Ensure all parishes are reimbursed (pro-rata or otherwise against available budget) for the same number of general amenity cuts for grass cutting- the previous 4 year award capped the number of cuts to 18- but not all parishes asked for reimbursement of that number. There are parishes currently claiming for less- so those parishes claiming for more cuts could have their figures adjusted downwards to ensure equality. 2. The funding could be allocated in a more sophisticated/formulaic way to ensure equality between parishes - for example a £ rate per hectare or type of land could be considered. 3. In our parish maintenance of the closed burial ground is subsidised by volunteers - with for example volunteer litter picking and weeding events - This means that the amount of maintenance /number of cuts in the parish is minimised. Does this happen in the urban areas? 4. If CCC is going to withdraw funding then CCC could take some services back - for example the bus shelters - these are at a capped rate and so CCC would know what the actual saving would actually be. 1. Ensure that all parishes are reimbursed (pro-rata or otherwise against available budget) for the same number of general amenity cuts for grass cutting - the previous 4 year award capped the number of cuts to 18- but not all parishes asked for reimbursement of that number. There are parishes currently claiming for less- so those parishes claiming for more cuts could have their figures adjusted downwards to ensure equality. 2. In our parish maintenance of the closed burial ground is subsidised by volunteers - with for example volunteer litter picking and weeding events- this means the amount of maintenance/no of cuts in the parish is minimised. Does this happen in the urban areas? 5 Reducing the overall CFF cost to the District The Parishes currently reduce the cost of the provision of services to residents by setting a precept, and using some portion of that to top up the CFF funding offered which already covers only part of the full cost of the services to the District’s residents. Thus a simple, transparent and honest approach would be to precept within the current non-parished areas within the District. This would provide funding to cover, at least in part, the maintenance of the recreational areas within those areas as is currently expected to be done in the Parishes. 5 Reducing the overall CFF cost to the District The Parishes currently reduce the cost of the provision of services to residents by setting a precept, and using some portion of that to top up the CFF funding offered which already covers only part of the full cost of the services to the District’s residents. Thus a simple, transparent and honest approach would be to precept within the current non-parished areas within the District. This would provide funding to cover, at least in part, the maintenance of the recreational areas within those areas as is currently expected to be done in the Parishes. Although the Parish Council appreciates that budgets are tight, this is the case across the country and includes parish councils. Parish Councils regularly undertake tendering exercises to ensure value for money for their residents, for items such as grass cutting, and as part of this process review the number of cuts, etc. Some funding would be better than nothing to go towards these costs. Another suggestion would be to set a lower rate for the funding but to keep CFF running – say awarding all parishes 50% of their final grant allocation for 2020-2021. There would be no need to fill in an application form, reducing the administrative burden on both Clerks and CCC as clearly parishes would overspend on this amount. Although the Parish Council appreciates that budgets are tight, this is the case across the country and includes parish councils. Parish Councils regularly undertake tendering exercises to ensure value for money for their residents, for items such as grass cutting, and as part of this process review the number of cuts, etc. Some funding would be better than nothing to go towards these costs. Another suggestion would be to set a lower rate for the funding but to keep CFF running – say awarding all parishes 50% of their final grant allocation for 2020-2021. There would be no need to fill in an application form, reducing the administrative burden on both Clerks and CCC as clearly parishes would overspend on this amount. As there was a meeting about this held in February I would hope that notice would have been taken of suggestions from parish councillors then. No comment - we do not support any reduction - indeed we would like to see the funding increased at least to the level it was at before the reductions began. We are already squeezed to the limit and run on a shoestring. None offered that would improve the Options offered Out line which areas CCC will continue to support ie. grass cutting of recreation grounds or public areas. This will particularly help smaller rural parishes where this cost is a significant part of parish maintenance and upkeep. The Concurrent Functions Funding budget has been reduced steadily in the 20 plus years with which I have been involved. We do not think it should be reduced - we think it should be enhanced to enable the parishes to work with the City Council to deliver the concurrent functions. We do this very efficiently at minimal cost and we like to think that we work in partnership with the City Council as we do on other matters such as the management of the Little Stour & Nailbourne watercourses. The parishes seem to be viewed as a negative cost on the CCC budget. I suggest that we are a positive cost and that to remove the funding will incur other costs for the City Council. For instance, in Bekesbourne-with-Patrixbourne we currently have two open burial grounds: one at St Marys, Patrixbourne and one at St Peters, Bekesboune. Both run at a minimal cost and CCC provides a fraction of the cost of maintaining them. Should this funding cease the Parochial Church Council could consider closing the grounds. The cost of maintaining them would then fall to CCC and it would be significantly more than the monies currently paid to the parish for this purpose. Please note that Bridge churchyard is currently a closed churchyard and therefore burials from the of Bridge take place in the adjoining civil parish of Patrixbourne. The annual cost for on the precept is currently £250 for each parish: £500 in total. Please compare this to your cost of maintaining Bridge churchyard.

Parcels of land owned by Canterbury City Council

6. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this proposal?

Strongly agree - - Tend to agree - - Neither agree nor disagree 1 20.0% Tend to disagree - - Strongly disagree 3 60.0% Don't know - - No reply 1 20.0%

6a. Why? Please include any restrictions which may affect the city council’s ability to do this as part of your response (for example, contracts already entered into, etc):

The Parish Council has taken a 15 year lease on Neals Place Meadow and has around 10 years to run on this lease. This is a challenging space to maintain and the Parish Council has a management plan in place. I see that the city council assessment is a sum of £1122 pa, this is inadequate. We own the MUGA situated in Cherry Orchard and would prefer to continue to maintain it to the high standard it is kept at currently

Double taxation

7. Do you have any comments regarding double taxation, or any suggestions as to how this could be overcome? If so, please provide details:

All our local amenities which can be funded through the concurrent function grant are actually district amenities which meet many of the City Council’s objectives for which we receive nominal income. If the concurrent function grant for Bekesbourne is removed the recreation ground will not survive. It is not acceptable to remove it and place the burden of providing a district amenity on the parishioners. Apply a precept to the currently non-parished areas. Thus those residents with a short walk of Dane John, for example, would pay for the upkeep of what is essentially their local gardens. Similarly for other Parks and Gardens and services around the District. Such a precept could be reduced by the basic CFF that the District would pay to all areas, urban and rural, within the District. It is what the District have expected the parished areas to accept; we know that it works; it should be applied across the District if the facilities are to be preserved, urban areas and rural areas equally. Apply a precept to the currently non-parished areas. Thus those residents with a short walk of Dane John, for example, would pay for the upkeep of what is essentially their local gardens. Similarly for other Parks and Gardens and services around the District. Such a precept could be reduced by the basic CFF that the District would pay to all areas, urban and rural, within the District. It is what the District have expected the parished areas to accept; we know that it works; it should be applied across the District if the facilities are to be preserved, urban areas and rural areas equally. By reducing and phasing out CFF the city council are effectively asking parish councils to pass the costs onto the parish by way of the precept. This would in our case raise the precept by 40 to 50 percent, which will be difficult to justify to residents. CFF is there to prevent double taxation. To remove it will automatically bring about double taxation. There is no way to overcome it other than taking it in house, those jobs done by Parish Councils on behalf of Canterbury City Council. Double taxation already exists - there is already a shortfall in funding received versus the provision being undertaken, with this shortfall being met through the precept. The Parish Council is aware of CCC’s argument that this does not constitute double taxation but the matter stands the residents feel they are being penalised for living in rural parishes areas. Councillors were interested to learn of the Special Expenses Scheme which would alleviate double taxation and seems to fairest method for determining council tax levels. CCC needs to be exploring how this system would work at Canterbury in parallel with this consultation, not after a decision has already been made, to ensure that if this scheme is viable it is implemented at the same time as a cut in funding. As part of this process, CCC needs to be working closely with Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council to find out how well the scheme has worked. Any ‘teething’ problems experienced by Tonbridge and Malling can hopefully be learnt from and incorporated into any implemented scheme going forward. Double taxation already exists - there is already a shortfall in funding received versus the provision being undertaken, with this shortfall being met through the precept. The Parish Council is aware of CCC’s argument that this does not constitute double taxation but the matter stands that residents feel they are being penalised for living in rural parishes. Councillors were interested to learn of the Special Expenses Scheme which would alleviate double taxation and seems to be the fairest method for determining council tax levels. CCC needs to be exploring how this system would work at Canterbury in parallel with this consultation, not after a decision has already been made, to ensure that if this scheme is viable it is implemented at the same time as a cut in funding. As part of this process, CCC needs to be working closely with Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council to find out how well the scheme has worked. Any ‘teething’ problems experienced by Tonbridge and Malling can hopefully be learnt from and incorporated into any implemented scheme going forward. Double taxation already exists: there is already a shortfall in funding received vs the provision being undertaken, with this shortfall being met through double taxation. It is suggested that a Special Expenses Scheme would alleviate double taxation. The CCC paper says that should the city councillors decide to proceed with the reduction in concurrent funding that officers would explore a Special Expenses Scheme. Surely that exploratory work should be done in parallel now in order to inform the city councillors decision? Also, it is very unclear how such a scheme would produce any real practical benefit or relief for the parishes. That needs to be clearly explained before its adoption could be agreed. NB PARCELS OF LAND: BARHAM PARISH COUNCIL WISHES TO COMMENT ON THIS AS IT MAINTAINS A PARCEL OF LAND KNOWN AS JUBILEE MEADOW IN BARHAM. JUBILEE MEADOW IS OWNED BY CCC BUT IS LEASED TO THE PARISH COUNCIL UNTIL 2023. Spaces still need managing regardless of their ownership. All land is 'managed' for its residents regardless of ownership. Barham Parish Council supports the view that the land should be maintained at CCC's general amenity levels. If CCC incorporates CCC owned parcels of land into its own grounds maintenance contract then officers MUST first establish that there would even be a saving - it is possible that the parish council are already maintaining it at a lower level. In order to secure certainty and keep costs to a minimum a lot of parish councils have entered long- term maintenance agreements with their contractors and this would pose constraints on both the ability to / the timescale if and for CCC to take the maintenance back in-house. DOUBLE TAXATION: Double taxation already exists: There is already a shortfall in funding received versus the provision being undertaken with this shortfall being met through double taxation. A Special Expenses Scheme would alleviate double taxation. The CCC paper says that should the city councillors decide to proceed with the reduction in concurrent funding that officers would explore a Special Expenses Scheme. Surely that exploratory work should be done in parallel now in order to inform the city councillors decision? No No comment Parish councils can increase their precepts but this does not address the issue that the parish councils are reluctant to seek funds from their residents for functions which the city council could and should be supplying to the rural districts. Bekesbourne has a very well used recreation ground and pavilion which is used by many, NOT just those within the parish of Bekesbourne and Patrixbourne. Bekesbourne recreation ground is used by 3 district football teams : Canterbury Youth; City Lions; and Tankerton Veterans. These football teams regard it as their home ground and although they pay; it is such a minimal income no profit is made once money has been paid to prepare the pitches and maintain and clean the pavilion. However, it does mean that the recreation ground is being used by many people for sport of different ages and abilities and I understand that CCC is very keen for all its residents to maintain health and fitness. There is also weekly meeting (BREW) at Bekesbourne recreation ground pavilion for those from Bekesbourne and others living nearby to meet up and socialise. The pavilion is also available for hire for birthdays etc and is used by pilgrims travelling to Canterbury Cathedral. Last year veterans travelling from the continent used its facilities on route to London. The recreation ground attracts dog walkers from local areas as it is one of the few recreation grounds which allow well-behaved dogs onto the site. Many other recreations grounds do not allow this so many people use it not just local dog owners. So as can be seen the facilities at Bekesbourne (and Patrixbourne) are used by many, many people from the area and in fact outside the area. Residents of parishes could have a lower level of council tax to offset the cost of looking after what is currently covered by Concurrent funding this would help offset the increase in precept. The suggestion of some form of special expenses budgeting appears prudent in the circumstances and could resolve the risk of double taxation for specific services. The timetable set out in the three options would be a problem as it is unlikely that any special expenses scheme can be put in place by the beginning of the tax year 2021/22. Might it therefore be worth asking CCC: • How is a period of double taxation to be avoided if a special expenses scheme (or other scheme) cannot be run in tandem with reductions in concurrent funding? • Can the reduction in concurrent funding be delayed until it can be linked to a special expenses scheme? Given that CCC are looking to make up a shortfall in funding the final outcome will be that we must increase the parish precept to cover open space and bus shelter maintenance. It seems most unlikely that residents in parishes will be charged less tax by the City Council once concurrent funding ceases but likely, instead, that residents in urban areas will be charged more. So the amount of tax paid to the City Council will vary according to where you live – this would be a change to the way things are now but, as CCC point out, not unprecedented. The other consideration is the future of Bakery Green and the green opposite Forge Gardens (not the toilets). The City Council own these and have a statutory duty to look after them. We have been offered two options: • Hand these areas back to the care of the City Council and have nothing more to do with them. o We would have no further responsibility for these sites. o They would cost us nothing. But o We would have no say in their future and no control over the standard of maintenance provided, we would have little power to address concerns from residents over upkeep or any other concern. o possibly would need a wayleave over Forge Gardens for servicing of the toilets • Carry on looking after them and the City Council will pay us. o With our current grounds maintenance costs for these sites we would, in total, be £181 per year out of pocket But o We would have control over the maintenance and respond to residents’ views To be fair the City Council’s maintenance specification is quite good but, how do we make sure it is delivered – some binding agreement? It could change in future. • A further option we could suggest is that we take the freehold of these two sites. Obviously we would get no help at all with maintenance and at the moment it might not be a particularly attractive option, but worth considering for the future if Canterbury default on maintenance or maintenance payments Pros and cons This issue of the fairness and the need for the concurrent function grant has been a difficult conversation for a long time. The implication has been that the City Council could reduce its input into the Concurrent Function ‘pot’ on the basis that parish councils have the ability to increase their precept to cover any shortfall and that there is (currently) no cap on such increases. Whilst it is true that parish councils can increase their precepts the implication that they should do so does not deal with the issue that the parish councils are reluctant to seek funds for functions which the city council could and should be supplying to the rural districts. It is sometime referred to as ‘double taxation’ but I suggest that all our local amenities which can be funded through the concurrent function grant are actually district amenities which meet many of the City Council’s objectives. For example, at Bekesbourne Recreation Ground we have three district football teams who use it as their home ground: Canterbury Youth; City Lions; and Tankerton Veterans. These teams provide us with a minimal income to prepare the pitches and maintain and clean the pavilion. We make no profit on this income which is all fed back into the system to keep the ground and the pavilion safe and in good condition for all. The Recreation ground and pavilion is also used once a week for a community support group known as BREW which provides an opportunity for social interaction for parishioners of all ages. The ground is used for parish events and celebrations and available for community hire at the same rates for those who live in the parish and those who do not. It attracts dog walkers from local areas as we are one of the few recreation grounds which allow well-behaved dogs onto the site. Our neighbouring village of Bridge does not allow dogs onto its recreation ground and therefore residents from Bridge (and other places) walk or drive to Bekesbourne for free play in our field. This issue of the fairness and the need for the concurrent function grant has been a difficult conversation for a long time. The implication has been that the City Council could reduce its input into the Concurrent Function ‘pot’ on the basis that parish councils have the ability to increase their precept to cover any shortfall and that there is (currently) no cap on such increases. While it is true that parish councils can increase their precepts the implication that they should do so does not deal with the issue that the parish councils are reluctant to seek funds for functions which the city council could and should be supplying to the rural districts. It is sometime referred to as ‘double taxation’ but I suggest that all our local amenities which can be funded through the concurrent function grant are actually district amenities which meet many of the City Council’s objectives. For example, at Bekesbourne Recreation Ground we have three district football teams who use it as their home ground: Canterbury Youth; City Lions; and Tankerton Veterans. These teams provide us with a minimal income to prepare the pitches and maintain and clean the pavilion. We make no profit on this income which is all fed back to keep the ground and the pavilion safe and in good condition for all. Bekesbourne Recreation ground and pavilion is also used once a week for a community support group known as BREW which provides an opportunity for social interaction for parishioners of all ages. The ground is used for parish events and celebrations and available for community hire. It attracts dog walkers from local areas as we are one of the few recreation grounds which allow well-behaved dogs onto the site. Our neighbouring village of Bridge does not allow dogs onto its recreation ground and therefore residents from Bridge (and other places) walk or drive to Bekesbourne for free play in our field. I have written above about the burial grounds. Total budget of £269,000 spread across CCC District is a small sum per household but it’s a larger financial burden when placed solely on parishes. The Council tax we pay is to provide services to all residents in the CCC District and to demand we pay again to receive certain services and facilities that we have already paid for is not acceptable.

Contingency Fund

8. To what extent do you agree or disagree that the Contingency Fund should continue to be made available?

Strongly agree 17 70.8% Tend to agree 2 8.3% Neither agree nor disagree 2 8.3% Tend to disagree - - Strongly disagree - - Don’t know 1 4.2% No reply 2 8.3%

8a. Why?

7. Contingency Fund Retain such a fund. All budgets contain contingencies; not even Canterbury District’s Members and Officers have perfect foresight! There should be a fund which would support unexpected and unusual items. This can be accessed by the decisions of the District Members in Council. It would be district wide, for all areas would be operating a precept style scheme. It would be open and transparent. Although the fund is not really utilised at this current time, it is possible that parishes will not be able to raise or feel comfortable raising the entire shortfall of the CFF budget on their precept, therefore may find themselves unable fund emergency works such as tree works or repairs to fencing/play equipment. A fund should be in place as a back up to assist parishes – if Option 1 is taken forward then we suggest for a 5 year period. Although the fund is not really utilised at this current time, it is possible that parishes will not be able to raise or feel comfortable raising the entire shortfall of the CFF budget on their precept, therefore may find themselves unable to fund emergency works such as tree works or repairs to fencing/play equipment. A fund should be in place as a back up to assist parishes – if Option 1 is taken forward then we suggest for a 5 year period. Because parish councils are often hit by unexpected large bills for care of facilities such as Recreation Grounds. But you must publicise it. Despite my long involvement with the City Council I did not know that it existed. We would have applied in the past for health and safety expenses if we had known about it. Instead we have struggled on. Few parish councils have made use of it probably because they were unaware of its existence so it should continue. From 2017 CCC has had a £20,000 annual contingency fund available for parish councils to apply for to help deal with any unforeseen works that arise. To date no applications have been received for this funding. Barham Parish Council considered the following 3 questions in its response: 1. Should the £20,000 be scrapped and CCC take it as a saving? No. Whilst this option would appear to be beneficial in the short term, should any parish council with little or no reserves encounter a situation which required financial assistance, none would be available. 2. Should the £20,000 be put into the overall Concurrent Function funding pot to help absorb the precept increases that Option 1 and Option 2 (if chosen) would impose on us? No. It should not for the same reason as question 1 above. 3. Should the parish council reserves figure be taken into account? No. This would penalise those parishes that have been prudent in the past- and the reserves have been built up through taxation of residents in previous years- so they should not be penalised again to support parishes with lower levels of reserves which may have possibly failed to build a sensible level of reserves. So, absolutely reserves should not be taken into account. This would be akin to an employer taking into account an individual's savings account when setting a salary level. CCC should remember that Parish Councillors are unpaid volunteers and their combined worth is far more than the concurrent funding payment should salaried staff be required to take over the duties. Furthermore, it is a very small portion of the overall CCC budget and will not make any difference to the overall picture. We feel we truly cannot in the interests of the residents, opt for any of the current options in the consultation. We believe without doubt that the concurrent function grant should continue and we will not support any decision to discontinue it. I have explained in great detail above and in my accompanying document as to why the concurrent function grant is essential to this parish. If parishes have unexpected expenditure it would be useful to have a back up In small parishes there is limited ability to raise funds for enriching public areas for physical and mental well being. It has proved to be a great help to parishes in the past. A safety net is needed to call on to help with emergencies and unforeseen circumstances. It simply recognises that non budgeted expenditure may occur at some point and is a relatively small budgetary value. No one has applied for this in the last four years so perhaps it would be better split and used as part of the concurrent pot and shared amongst the parishes. Rather than it being absorbed into CCC's pot at the end of the 4 years, if again it is unused. Retain such a fund. All budgets contain contingencies; not even Canterbury District’s Members and Officers have perfect foresight! There should be a fund which would support unexpected and unusual items. This can be accessed by the decisions of the District Members in Council. It would be district wide, urban and rural, for all areas would be operating a precept style scheme. It would be open and transparent. Strongly agree - parish councils in rural areas with a low precept do not have sufficient funds in reserve for unexpected matters, eg. urgent repair and maintenance work to trees, playing field equipment, car park repairs. The contingency fund is small and will not make much difference to PCs. The CFF however will be a major blow to most parish councils if phased out. To help offset the loss of funds and to compensate for the double taxation To make funds available for parishes who experience unexpected expenditure. Westbere Parish Council consider the Contingency Fund to be an essential backstop. By definition unexpected expenses can be large and outside planned agreed budgets. Because of this they will, therefore, obviously have a serious impact on and be detrimental to a small parish. Westbere Councillors also believe that the reserves figure should not be taken into account as this would directly penalise parishes that have been prudent in the past. These reserves have been built up over time through taxation of residents in previous years. Why should residents, therefore, be penalised in order to support parishes with lower reserves who may have been less prudent?

Other comments

9. Do you have any other comments on the Concurrent Functions Funding scheme?

1. Other external pressures: This proposed removal of concurrent function reimbursement should not be looked at in isolation. There has already been a significant impact on most parish councils’ precepts for 2020-2021 with KCC EiS removing their previous free website hosting support. The other organisations who form part of a households overall council tax bill have also increased their portion – CCC, KCC, Police, KFRS, etc, which although may be small on its own, together could have a significant impact on less affluent households. 2. Referendum Principles for Parish and Town Councils: The DCLG has scrutinised parish council precept increases since 2016 and expects parish councils to exercise restraint when setting precept increases. Whilst they have not been minded to apply Referendum Principles to parish and town councils yet, this position could change. If this were to be the case from 2021-2022 some of the parish councils in Canterbury could be affected and be subject to (an expensive) referendum in order to raise the money necessary to carry out concurrent functions. This would also impact on their ability to raise funds and to be able to make any other improvements in the parish. 3. Cemeteries Should the CFF grant be abolished completely as per this consultation’s options, councillors feel that the cemetery should still be funded separately. Both Chartham and Sturry have a cemetery which allows CCC to ensure there is sufficient supply of facilities in the borough for burials (both cemeteries are open to residents from outside of the parish). If Chartham and Sturry were to close their cemeteries due to limited funds, this would put pressure on CCC to provide the required provision for burials. This has proven particularly essential in light of the current Covid-19 pandemic to ensure there is adequate provision in place. 4. Statement from CCC Although this is CCC’s decision, it will be the Clerk and councillors who will be receiving phone calls and emails from residents questioning rises to the precept. The majority of CCC officers do not fully understand the role of a parish council and the same can be said for residents. Residents will likely lay the blame on their local parish council despite the fact the increases will be as a direct result of CCC’s decision to withdraw funding. Councillors therefore request that a statement be issued by CCC which can be sent to residents when enquiries come in explaining the City Council’s decision and making it clear that they anticipate rates may rise to cover the shortfall in funding. The majority, if not all, parishes will likely object to losing this funding and therefore should not be blamed by residents for CCC’s decision. 1. Other external pressures: This proposed removal of concurrent function reimbursement should not be looked at in isolation. There has already been a significant impact on most parish councils’ precepts for 2020-2021 with KCC EiS removing their previous free website hosting support. The other organisations who form part of a households overall council tax bill have also increased their portion – CCC, KCC, Police, KFRS, etc, which although may be small on its own, together could have a significant impact on less affluent households. 2. Referendum Principles for Parish and Town Councils: The DCLG has scrutinised parish council precept increases since 2016 and expects parish councils to exercise restraint when setting precept increases. Whilst they have not been minded to apply Referendum Principles to parish and town councils yet, this position could change. If this were to be the case from 2021-2022 some of the parish councils in Canterbury could be affected and be subject to (an expensive) referendum in order to raise the money necessary to carry out concurrent functions. This would also impact on their ability to raise funds and to be able to make any other improvements in the parish. 3. Statement from CCC Although this is CCC’s decision, it will be the Clerk and councillors who will be receiving phone calls and emails from residents questioning rises to the precept. The majority of CCC officers do not fully understand the role of a parish council and the same can be said for residents. Residents will likely lay the blame on their local parish council despite the fact the increases will be as a direct result of CCC’s decision to withdraw funding. Councillors therefore request that a statement be issued by CCC which can be sent to residents when enquiries come in explaining the City Council’s decision and making it clear that they anticipate rates may rise to cover the shortfall in funding. The majority, if not all, parishes will likely object to losing this funding and therefore should not be blamed by residents for CCC’s decision. 1. The total CFF budget is £134,500. This represents just 0.09% of CCC's total income of £153,092,000 for the year ending 31/3/19, the total CFF pot as part of the total CCC expenditure of £159,118,000 for the year ending 3/3/19 is just 0.085% 2. No room for service level reduction: The previous 4 year agreement already caps parish council service levels to CCC service levels- ie bus shelters capped at a flat rate of £140 per shelter, and grass cuts capped by CCC to 18 general amenity cuts per year. Barham PC undertakes and has asked for reimbursement of 12 cuts for its open spaces and just 10 cuts for its closed burial ground- so little room to reduce service provision to minimise the loss of CFF award, any loss of funding will have to be raised on the precept. 3. Other external pressures increasing precepts: The removal of CFF reimbursement should not be looked at in isolation. There has already been a significant impact on most precepts for 2020-21 with KCC EiS removing their previous free web hosting support. KCC Cantium alternative charges £1,000 for the 1st year and £695 for years 2 & 3 based on a 3 year contract (we appreciate there are other web hosting providers but their figures are comparable). A £1k precept increase is in most cases significant 4. Referendum principles: DCLG has scrutinised parish precept increases since 2016 and expects us to exercise restraint when setting increases. While they haven't yet been minded to apply referendum principles, this could change. If this were the case from 21-22 some parishes could be subject to a referendum to raise money to carry out concurrent functions. Also impact on ability to raise funds and make other improvements in the parish 5. Budget setting timetable: CCC impose a December deadline each year for parishes to provide their following year precept requirement. By law the precept budget decision must go to a full meeting of council to be ratified. CCC's decision on future CFF funding must therefore be made and known to enable parishes to prepare budgets in Nov @ at latest 6. Admin costs: A final point of note is there are admin costs in dealing with contractors, maintenance schedules, work instructions, invoices etc that are carried out by clerks and cllrs, no reimbursement of this time is built in to the CFF award 7. If CCC resolve to decrease funding or remove altogether, may parishes have a statement from CCC to share with residents to explain the precept increase this will impose on them 1. Total CFF budget is £134,500. This represents just 0.09% of CCC's total income of £153,092,000 for the year ending 31/3/20. Total CFF pot as part of total CCC expenditure of £159,118,000 for the year ending 31/3/20 is 0.085% 2. No room for service reduction- the previous 4 year agreement already caps parish service levels to CCC service levels ie bus shelters capped at flat rate of £140 per shelter and no of grass cuts capped to 18 general amenity cuts per year. Westbere PC undertakes and has asked for reimbursement of 12 cuts for its open spaces and closed burial grounds so there is little room for reduction to minimise the loss of CFF award, meaning any loss will have to be raised via precept 3. Other external pressures increasing precepts: the proposed removal of CFF reimbursement should not be looked at in isolation. There has already been a significant impact on most parish precepts with KCC EiS removing previous free web hosting support 4. Referendum principles: DCLG has scrutinised parish precept increases since 2016 and expects parishes to exercise restraint when setting increases. They have not yet been minded to apply referendum principles to parishes but this could change. If this were the case from 21/22 some parishes could be subject to a referendum to raise the money necessary to carry out concurrent functions. This would impact their ability to raise funds and make other improvements. In the last month the headline CTax levels by LAs in 20/21 have been published, essentially the average increase in is 3.9%, the smallest since 16/17 and the average local precepting authority increase is 4%, smallest since 15/16 5. Parish budget setting timetable: CCC impose a deadline in Dec each year for parishes to provide their next year precept. By law the precept decision must go to a full council meeting to be ratified. CCC's decision on future funding must therefore be made and known to parishes by Nov at the latest 6. Admin costs: A final point of note is that there are admin costs in dealing with contractors, maintenance schedules, work instructions, invoices etc carried out by clerks and cllrs- and no reimbursement of this time is built into the CFF award 7. If CCC resolves to decrease funding or remove it altogether, may the parish councils please have a statement from CCC to share with all residents to explain the inevitable precept increase this action will impose on them HPC is also very interested in taking over the responsibility for the maintenance of the recreation ground and open spaces as detailed in Appendix A. Can you please confirmed that full responsibility for the Hersden pavilion would remain with CCC. The Parish Council would not wish to take on the responsibility for the Pavilion (which has recently been the target of arson attacks and needs to be rebuilt). The Parish Council would also have concerns about taking the grounds maintenance of these parcels of land if the final decision regarding the CFF options was other than option 1 If the concurrent function grant for Bekesbourne Recreation Ground is removed we will not survive. It is not acceptable to remove it and place the burden of providing a district amenity on the parishioners. Furthermore, it is a very small portion of the overall CCC budget and will not make a significant difference to the overall picture. *** Therefore we cannot opt for any of the current options in the consultation. We believe whole heartedly that the concurrent function grant should continue and will not support any decision to discontinue it. I have no doubt that the other parishes will be of the same opinion. I have not mentioned burial grounds but in this parish we have two - one at St Mary's, Patrixbourne and one at St Peter's, Bekesbourne. They are maintained by a mixture of regular contractors for the grass mowing and volunteer working parties for everything else. The concurrent function grant I does not cover all the costs by any means but is a very helpful contribution. Note that St Mary's Patrixbourne is used for burials of parishioners in Bridge as the churchyard there is closed and the two villages are part of the same Benefice. The city council undertakes the maintenance of closed churchyards as it is not a concurrent function. One option for our two churches would be to close our churchyards and hand all the upkeep over to the city council with a resulting negative effect on the CCC budget. St Mary's church is on the Franciscan trail and regularly visited by Pilgrims. Bekesbourne churchyard is on a popular local walking route and well used by local people. It is not acceptable to remove it and place the burden of providing a district amenity on the parishioners (see 6) . Please do not stop it. Our Recreation Ground will not survive without it and what will happen then? Does the City Council have enough affordable football space for all the district teams? Where would our parishioners be able to meet for outdoor activities? Would we have to close our burial grounds? See attached response The Concurrent Functions Funding scheme is considered essential to small rural parishes with a low precept. Rural parish councils manage their own maintenance of play areas, employing local businesses to do so on a tight CFF budget. This contributes to the district's economy and takes the burden of maintaining outlying areas away from the city council. Rural parishes should be supported in these efforts, rather than, in effect, be penalised by having funds removed. If CFF is removed entirely, another source of funding should be made available to rural parishes whose residents should not be penalised by having the precept raised. The PC leases Neals Place Meadow from Canterbury City Council and there is 10 years unexpired on this lease. The figure quoted of £1,122 as compensation for maintaining the meadow is inadequate to keep it in a good state. The reduction of concurrent funding is not beneficial to smaller parishes as the financial burden on parishioners (many of whom are retired) will be much higher than in larger parishes. a fairer system for removal of funding should be sought. Adisham Parish Council has relied heavily on this income to maintain a geographically large parish with a comparatively small number of residents. There has to be an acknowledgement by the District that the CFF system exists to reimburse the Parishes for the work that they do within their own areas which should be done by the District to the service levels that are evident within the Urban areas. The present funding levels are already a dishonourable enforced levy by the District upon the residents of the parished areas. The District Members were told so directly at previous CFF consultations. They decided then to pay for only a fraction of what they knew was the full cost of the services that they should provide to their rural residents. To suggest further reductions would be yet more dishonourable. Thus, historically, the Parishes have subsidised the District, and yet, historically, the Parishes have been allocated lower levels of provision from the District of recreational services and resources than the levels provided within the Urban areas. This discrimination against the Rural parts of the District should not be allowed to continue. An overhaul of the entire system, as set out above, would be an improvement, but to put this in place will require that the Officers and Members improve their understanding of this whole topic. There has to be an acknowledgement by the District that the CFF system exists to reimburse the Parishes for the work that they do within their own areas which should be done by the District to the service levels that are evident within the Urban areas. The present funding levels are already a dishonourable enforced levy by the District upon the residents of the parished areas. The District Members were told so directly at previous CFF consultations. They decided then to pay for only a fraction of what they knew was the full cost of the services that they should provide to their rural residents. To suggest further reductions would be yet more dishonourable. Thus, historically, the Parishes have subsidised the District, and yet, historically, the Parishes have been allocated lower levels of provision from the District of recreational services and resources than the levels provided within the Urban areas. This discrimination against the Rural parts of the District should not be allowed to continue. An overhaul of the entire system, as set out above, would be an improvement, but to put this in place will require that the Officers and Members improve their understanding of this whole topic. We feel we cannot readily opt for any of the current options in the consultation. We believe without doubt that the concurrent function grant should continue and we will not support any decision to discontinue it.

Appendix 3 - Budget Option 1: parish council allocations

2020/21 Parish Council Agreed 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25 Allocations Adisham £5,914 £4,731 £3,548 £2,365 £1,183 Barham £6,464 £5,171 £3,878 £2,585 £1,293 Bekesbourne with Patrixbourne £3,898 £3,119 £2,339 £1,559 £780 Bishopsbourne £1,949 £1,559 £1,169 £780 £390 Blean £5,118 £4,094 £3,071 £2,047 £1,024 Bridge £2,703 £2,162 £1,622 £1,081 £541 Chartham £26,858 £21,486 £16,115 £10,743 £5,372 Chislet £5,987 £4,790 £3,592 £2,395 £1,197 Hackington £2,214 £1,771 £1,329 £886 £443 Harbledown & Rough Common £11,274 £9,019 £6,764 £4,509 £2,255 Herne and Broomfield £5,962 £4,769 £3,577 £2,385 £1,192 Hersden £4,973 £3,979 £2,984 £1,989 £995 Hoath £677 £541 £406 £271 £135 Ickham & Well £1,871 £1,497 £1,123 £749 £374 Kingston £2,442 £1,954 £1,465 £977 £488 Littlebourne £13,188 £10,551 £7,913 £5,275 £2,638 Lower Hardres £1,769 £1,415 £1,061 £708 £354 Petham £2,972 £2,377 £1,783 £1,189 £594 Sturry £10,528 £8,423 £6,317 £4,211 £2,106 Upper Hardres £1,750 £1,400 £1,050 £700 £350 Waltham £2,174 £1,739 £1,304 £869 £435 Westbere £4,094 £3,276 £2,457 £1,638 £819 Wickhambreaux £5,605 £4,484 £3,363 £2,242 £1,121 Womenswold £4,116 £3,293 £2,470 £1,646 £823 TOTAL CFF BUDGET £134,500 £107,600 £80,700 £53,800 £26,900

Appendix 4 - Special Expenses

The Council could decide to introduce a scheme of Special Expenses under s35 of the Local Government Act 1992. Under such a scheme, local residents would be charged for the local provision of services. This would be by way of a supplement to their council tax bill.

Essentially special expenses schemes are an alternative to CFF in that both arrangements aim to treat parished and non-parished areas equitably. CFF does this by providing parishes with funding to cover the costs of local services that are funded by the District in non- parished areas. Special expenses do this by levying an extra charge on non-parished areas. The Council could choose to have either CFF, a special expenses scheme or neither.

Until now the Council has deemed all its costs for service provision to be general rather than special expenses and has included them in the calculation of the district’s council tax.

If a special expenses scheme was introduced, the Council’s general expenses would be reduced and therefore the Band D council tax would also reduce across the District. However, in localities where special expenses were incurred (likely to be mainly unparished areas - Canterbury, and ) an additional Band D charge would be applied specifically relating to those special expenses.

This approach is used in a number of Kent districts - for example:

● Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council (questions and answers as part of public consultation in 2016, plus link through the table of possible impacts by parish and non-parished areas (Tonbridge being the )) https://www.tmbc.gov.uk/services/council-and-democracy/consultations/questions- and-answers ● Folkestone and Hythe District Council (council tax charges showing special expenses) https://www.folkestone-hythe.gov.uk/council-tax/financial-information/year- 2020-2021 ● Tunbridge Wells Borough Council (see page 2 showing special expenses per area) https://democracy.tunbridgewells.gov.uk/meetings/documents/s47151/12%20Append ix%20A%20-%20Council%20Tax%20Resolution.pdf

Practical issues

Introducing special expenses would be a considerable undertaking including the following tasks:

● identification of services that could be classified as local services; ● costing up these services; ● modelling potential special expenses charges; ● consulting residents on the scope and principles of a special expenses scheme; ● remodelling the scope and other elements of the scheme following consultation; ● amendments to the council tax software to enable special expenses to be calculated and charged on council tax bills; ● committee/council decisions on the consultation proposals, response to the consultation and final format of any scheme to be introduced.

Given the work required, it would not be practical to start work now to introduce a scheme in time for council tax setting in February 2021. Instead, if a scheme were to be introduced it would be from April 2022 for the 2022/23 financial year. The first step in the process would be to report back to councillors in more detail on what a scheme might include, costs of implementation and a provisional timetable. Appendix 5 - Minimum service levels as at 2020/21 in the Council’s grounds maintenance contract for urban areas

The general amenity levels are as follows:

Regime Service level

Amenity Grass cutting 18 grass cuts between March and October

Tree inspections Every 2 years (and any resulting works)

Amenity Shrub Bed maintenance Shrub Bed planting and maintenance every 2 weeks between March and October. 2 visits over the winter to prune and maintain in December

Amenity Hard Surfaces Hard Surface Weeding 3 times per year maintenance Moss Treatment 2 times per year Quarterly inspections Quarterly litter picking Monthly sweeping

Fence or Wall Maintenance Quarterly safety inspections and resulting repairs

Gate Inspection Maintenance Quarterly safety inspections and resulting repairs

Playground inspections Inspections once per week including minor repairs. Repair and replacement as required.

Litter picking Performance related in line with EPA Medium Standard 24/7 depending on usage and frequency of littering. This usually means a weekly visit to most sites.