Ruling and opposition councillors united to accuse a councillor of “playing politics” at the last meeting before the local elections after he tabled a motion to reduce their expenses.

RA and Lib Dem members spoke out forcefully against Conservative councillor Sean Sullivan in an expenses debate on Monday, April 19, after he tried to reduce the overall spend of £125,715.78 for 38 members by 14 per cent.

Councillors did however agree to freeze their basic allowances at £3,308.31 per year and that committee chairmen should receive only one special responsibility payment.

Woodcote Councillor Sean Sullivan proposed reversing the 14 per cent expenses increase agreed four years ago.

He said: “We should be seen by the public to reduce our expenses at a time when people everywhere find themselves in difficult financial circumstances.

“I don’t think that people like the idea that we are benefiting - we shouldn’t be making profit because we are a public service.

“I think a 14 per cent decrease matches the climate suitably.”

However the other parties rounded on Coun Sullivan accusing him of political posturing before the election on May 5.

Lib Dem leader Councillor Julie Morris said: “It is an honourable suggestion on the face of it, but it is really just a way to grab the headlines.

“We spend on average more than 10 hours a week - which is more than giving our time voluntarily.

“It is OK for colleagues who make a lot of money in their day jobs but it discriminates against those that don’t.”

RA councillor Robert Leach, who was attending his last ever meeting before standing down, said that the council was one of the lowest claimants in Surrey.

He said: “Councillor Sullivan has continued to receive the allowance for the past four years, it is funny that he decides now before an election to make his point.

“These newly agreed expenses are actually a 4.6% reduction.

I don’t believe we are overpaid - we are one of the lowest claimants in Surrey for expenses payments.”

Lib Dem Councillor Anna Jones added: “it would be very easy to reduce the 14 per cent, but many people need it.

“Petrol prices are very expensive at the moment - we might get to the situation where a member can’t travel to see a planning application because they can’t afford the fuel.”

The motion was defeated by 18 votes to three.