I WOULD like to congratulate Chris Drury on his splendid article in the Ely Standard last week regarding Sutton Parish precepts. I completely agree with his remark that the local parish councillors seem to be more interested in their grandiose schemes rat

I WOULD like to congratulate Chris Drury on his splendid article in the Ely Standard last week regarding Sutton Parish precepts.

I completely agree with his remark that the local parish councillors seem to be more interested in their grandiose schemes rather than the benefits required by the local people.

Perhaps if these schemes were open to the public rather than behind closed doors we could have some say in our forthcoming precept.

In my last letter to the Ely Standard I voiced my concern regarding amenities and activities offered to the parishioners in the village.

When I spoke to the chairman of the parish council I was told I would be sent a list of all these, which is still not forthcoming.

Surely, if less money was spent on public buildings, more money could possibly be diversified into more shops and businesses.

As for The Glebe, considering the amount of money spent and borrowed it is diabolical.

This project should have been voted on by the residents of Sutton and not decided upon behind closed doors.

Why should we have to pay for money borrowed on The Glebe project when we had no say in the matter?

How would the parish council feel if they had to pay for something they had no say in?

Is this going to be another drain on the purse like The Pavilion?

I also agree with Chris Drury - how many more employees will the parish council have this year?

Another unnecessary expense and I'm certain there are others in our village that would agree.

I sincerely hope we can get some reduction in our precept.

JULIE LINNEY

Sutton