MAY I respond to the Andover Town Council (ATC) statement (Andover Advertiser, April 1, letters)?

I accept that the precept has to rise for election expenses and to increase reserves if these are legal requirements.

It is just a pity these sums were not known when only 14 per cent of the total electorate originally voted to create a town council.

It was not the reasons for the increases that I sought but reassurance that they were being effectively scrutinised.

That assurance is still lacking from the ATC response.

It seems that many of their ideas such as the leaders “badge” and having more events are simply nodded through with the council tax payer being left to pick up the tab.

Getting three quotes for tenders is common public service practice but does not address the basic question of whether the goods / services are required in the first place.

I suspect the audits mentioned are financial not systems audits.

I did not suggest what the ATC was doing is illegal, just its systems (without evidence to the contrary) appear non-existent or inadequate and morally questionable in times of austerity.

Finally I take issue with the ATC being the lowest precept in the whole of Test Valley.

Surely we are comparing apples to oranges.

ATC only has responsibility for two items (Christmas lights and allotments, perhaps soon to increase to three with bus shelters).

I suspect other parishes have far wider responsibilities.

Andover residents also pay the Andover Special Expenses, which more than doubles the precept cost.

A quick look down the tables of parishes’ total charges shows that of the 58 parishes, only 11 charged more than Andover and 46 charged less.

David Clark, Conholt Road, Andover