To kick off our new Have Your Say section on the website we will be looking at an article that was posted in the The Argus about our Rottingdean parish council coming under fire for demanding thousands of pounds more from residents.
The full article can be read here: Anger at Rottingdean parish tax demand with excerpts below:
A tiny parish council has come under fire for demanding thousands of pounds more from residents.
At a meeting earlier this month Rottingdean Parish Council voted to increase the annual amount of cash it requests from taxpayers to £45,000 – a steep rise of more than 66% since 2011
By law parish councils are allowed to raise their precept as much as they want, while district and borough councils must not raise tax by more than 2%.
Councillor Ken Humphreys, Rottingdean’s deputy chairman, admitted the council’s fear that parish precepts might be capped for the first time next year had influenced the decision to boost taxpayer takings.
He said: “There’s no doubt that the possibility of a cap next year meant the council was keen to put the rate up.
“But this money is also much needed. There’s the new toilets being repaired on the seafront and we have to pay about 50 to 60% of that.
“The only way we can get these toilets repaired is if we shell out for it.”
The council was plunged into turmoil in October last year when it lost nearly half its nine members, as well as its clerk, due to resignations.
One resident, who did not want to be named, said: “It is very worrying that the parish council can set any amount it wishes to be collected from residents of Rottingdean parish.
“Last April the parish council promised the rise would be a one off. Residents cannot refuse to pay this extra money.”
So, what are your thoughts? Can a 66% rise since 2011 really be justified given the current economic climate? Post a comment below and tell us what you think.
I have no objection to Councillors voting for extra community payments, provided they cover those costs personally themselves. Alternatively if they actually consult with residents in advance of spending our money, AND if there is an agreed quorum AND a majority in favour then let democracy have its way. Hopefully our councillors know what a quorum is. The recent 20 mph City-wide was approved by 0.7% of the City population (about 2070 voted in favour in a population of 250,000) and City Council declared “The results of the consultation suggest a clear majority of respondents are in favour of the proposals for the city wide introduction of 20mph speed limits”. Consult then decide please, as we do not benefit from the reverse logic of the Greens at City Hall “Fire, Aim, Ready” and the slogan “Wrong Planet Living”.
Has any one taken the trouble to see how much the parish council are prepared to spend on 4 unisex toilets for which they cannot get a guarantee from B&HCC that they will keep them open?
I was a member of the public at January and February’s Parish Council meetings. In January RPC agreed a maximum of £80,000 to include contingencies (and I understand this to be a ‘modified design’ ie not automatic flushing toilets, etc.) The latest figure re-voted on in February is now £84,000.
The minutes are on the Parish Council website, http://www.rottingdean-pc.gov.uk
so I do not need to make any further comment.
Marion
Regarding th huge (apparently obligatory) financial amount the R.P.C has had to contribute towards the P.C. W.Cs on the Undercliff which Brighton Council allowed to fall into disrepair – one assumes these will be ‘pay’ toilets. Since these toilets will benefit our many visitors rather than Rottingdean residents, will the entry money, however small, be returned to the coffers of the R.P.C. rather than Brighton Council. We should get something back for the large investment of the R.P.C. funds and the increased tax this venture has incurred. I assume Brighton Council will be financially responsible for cleaning these premises, providing the necessary supplies of both water, light, heat for dryers, soap, towels and toilet paper and ensuring the facilities are closed overnight so they are not used for irregular purposes. These costs should be covered by Council tax and certainly NOT be subsidized by the R.P.C. funds.