DEAR EDITOR -- So, Mr Calloway, a supporter of parish councils, continues to maintain that an active Lickey End Parish Council could be operated on a precept of £7 per annum for a Band D property.

In support of his case he quotes the precept of £6.46 charged by Catshill Parish Council, although he goes on to admit that the reason for the low precept could be because Catshill does not provide any services. Further, that any comparison between precepts charged by parish councils, should be made between Catshill and Lickey End, not Alvechurch and Lickey End.

From that statement one can assume, therefore, his plans for an active parish council do not include the provision of any services to the residents of Lickey End. He should therefore inform his fellow supporter, Mr Howard, of his plans for the parish council as Mr Howard has, on many occasions, gone on record outlining the services he envisages the parish council providing for the residents of Lickey End (all at a cost to the parish taxpayer) - the most expensive of all being the construction of a Community Hall on the recreation ground.

It doesn't take a degree in economics to work out that Mr Howard's plans would involve a precept in excess of £7 per annum. Whatever else the parish council supporters may accuse the Anti-Parish Council Group of, at least we all sing from the same hymn sheet!

I would also like to take the opportunity, through Letters, of disabusing Mr Beale (Letters October 1) of his misconception that the clerk of the Lickey End Parish Council is in receipt of a four-figure salary for doing nothing more than holding four meetings per year.

For your information Mr Beale, the two officers of the council, the clerk and the responsible financial officer (treasurer) give their services voluntarily at no cost to the parish taxpayers of Lickey End.

Roger Griffiths

Secretary, Anti Parish Council Group and

Clerk to Lickey End Parish Council

Meadowvale Road

Lickey End