Council defers tax rise decision

Gazette: Cllr Paul Smith, responsible for business and resources at Colchester Council. Cllr Paul Smith, responsible for business and resources at Colchester Council.

A DECISION on whether to increase council tax in Colchester next year has been deferred.

Budget papers published by the authority propose a potential 1.95 per cent rise.

This would equate to a £3.42 total rise for a Band D home.

However the budget also considers a freeze as the government has not yet announced how much council's can raise tax before needing a referendum.

The current level is two per cent but borough council officials fear local government minister Eric Pickles may reduce it to 1.5 per cent.

A council tax freeze, which would entitle the authority to a government grant equal to a one per cent rise, would still leave a funding gap of £89,000.

  • Read more on the budget in tomorrow's Gazette.

Comments (5)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

1:21pm Tue 21 Jan 14

micksmercs says...

Perhaps the chief could take an £89000 per year pay cut to balance the books.
Perhaps the chief could take an £89000 per year pay cut to balance the books. micksmercs

3:15pm Tue 21 Jan 14

Jess Jephcott says...

It's a question of priorities. If we want poor service, potholes, flooded roads, no police on the streets, etc. then let's vote for no rise. If we want a well run council then we have to pay for it. The stupidity of this is that the council thinks putting up taxes will cost them votes so we end up with a poor service from them.
It's a question of priorities. If we want poor service, potholes, flooded roads, no police on the streets, etc. then let's vote for no rise. If we want a well run council then we have to pay for it. The stupidity of this is that the council thinks putting up taxes will cost them votes so we end up with a poor service from them. Jess Jephcott

3:32pm Tue 21 Jan 14

Ritchie_Hicks says...

Jess Jephcott wrote:
It's a question of priorities. If we want poor service, potholes, flooded roads, no police on the streets, etc. then let's vote for no rise. If we want a well run council then we have to pay for it. The stupidity of this is that the council thinks putting up taxes will cost them votes so we end up with a poor service from them.
If you think a slight increase will solve all of those problems you are sadly mistaken.

The clue about money being spent on those services (or not) is in the name - 'Conservative'.
[quote][p][bold]Jess Jephcott[/bold] wrote: It's a question of priorities. If we want poor service, potholes, flooded roads, no police on the streets, etc. then let's vote for no rise. If we want a well run council then we have to pay for it. The stupidity of this is that the council thinks putting up taxes will cost them votes so we end up with a poor service from them.[/p][/quote]If you think a slight increase will solve all of those problems you are sadly mistaken. The clue about money being spent on those services (or not) is in the name - 'Conservative'. Ritchie_Hicks

5:02pm Tue 21 Jan 14

stevedawson says...

The administration according to most contributers on here are not competent.Therefore there should be no increase until we have one that is.the hospital has been placed in special measures.so should our council.
The administration according to most contributers on here are not competent.Therefore there should be no increase until we have one that is.the hospital has been placed in special measures.so should our council. stevedawson

8:50pm Tue 21 Jan 14

Hamiltonandy says...

Council could stop propping up failed projects such as the "cultural quarter". End the money wasted on the Firstsite parasites and lease the VAF to a commercial exhibition group. An end to the purchases of Queen Street buildings to "attract" developers that ends up costing the taxpayer for empty buildings. Even better if the empty buildings were leased to charities or rented out to start-up business as is.
Council could stop propping up failed projects such as the "cultural quarter". End the money wasted on the Firstsite parasites and lease the VAF to a commercial exhibition group. An end to the purchases of Queen Street buildings to "attract" developers that ends up costing the taxpayer for empty buildings. Even better if the empty buildings were leased to charities or rented out to start-up business as is. Hamiltonandy

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree