Meeting to resolve island council tax row

Meeting to resolve island council tax row

Meeting to resolve island council tax row

First published in News

TOWN councillors are expected to reach a decision on the controversial tax precept this evening.

A Portland Town Council meeting will be held from 7pm at the All Saints Church in Easton.

It follows a fiery public meeting last week after councillors were heckled and urged to stand down for defending a council tax precept increase of 1,000 per cent for a Band D property.

The move was branded ‘utterly unreasonable’ by Local Government Minister Brandon Lewis.

Decisions made about the precept and budget look set to be scrapped and councillors will begin the process from scratch.

Councillor Ray Nowak has proposed a motion to raise the precept by two per cent, taking a Band D property from £14.73 to £15.02.

He said a low increase would demonstrate that Portland Town Council is listening to the community.

Councillors Les Ames, Andy Matthews and Rachel Barton will also urge councillors to consider their proposal to increase the bill for a Band D to £21 a year, an increase of 42.6 per cent.

The three councillors said limiting the rise to two per cent wouldn’t be enough to move the council forward to prepare for changes in the public sector.

Follow the latest news from the meeting on Twitter @DorsetEcho.

 

Comments (11)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

8:23am Wed 5 Feb 14

Foursite says...

Those of you that have been keeping up with this story will know it was I Foursite that broke it through these pages.I attended the PTC meeting on 15th Jan and this paper did not.You will also know that because the Munro family advertise their businesses within this paper they were able to have posts removed because of the effect they could or have had on their business.

I call this press censorship and a very dangerous path we are treading regarding our democracy.

When you are told, you will pay a 1,000% increase in any tax and that it has been set and cannot be removed, some get very angry as I did.The fact that my comments were removed is testament to how well thought out this ridiculous hike was.I have no shame in releasing the story, after all, the men at the top are saying "we are all in this together" The Munro family deserve all they get.

But beware people,if such a family are able to censor what we say or read locally,press censorship by any business is likely because they advertise within these pages.Business is controlling our lives and that is why governments support business. is it not ?. See you later. Foursite.
Those of you that have been keeping up with this story will know it was I Foursite that broke it through these pages.I attended the PTC meeting on 15th Jan and this paper did not.You will also know that because the Munro family advertise their businesses within this paper they were able to have posts removed because of the effect they could or have had on their business. I call this press censorship and a very dangerous path we are treading regarding our democracy. When you are told, you will pay a 1,000% increase in any tax and that it has been set and cannot be removed, some get very angry as I did.The fact that my comments were removed is testament to how well thought out this ridiculous hike was.I have no shame in releasing the story, after all, the men at the top are saying "we are all in this together" The Munro family deserve all they get. But beware people,if such a family are able to censor what we say or read locally,press censorship by any business is likely because they advertise within these pages.Business is controlling our lives and that is why governments support business. is it not ?. See you later. Foursite. Foursite
  • Score: 8

9:35am Wed 5 Feb 14

common cence says...

Thanks you for letting us all know what was going on , And that thank you is from the 500/ 600 who went to last weeks meeting, Lets hope we get the same turnout tonight,
Thanks you for letting us all know what was going on , And that thank you is from the 500/ 600 who went to last weeks meeting, Lets hope we get the same turnout tonight, common cence
  • Score: 5

9:48am Wed 5 Feb 14

Bob Goulding says...

Foursite wrote:
Those of you that have been keeping up with this story will know it was I Foursite that broke it through these pages.I attended the PTC meeting on 15th Jan and this paper did not.You will also know that because the Munro family advertise their businesses within this paper they were able to have posts removed because of the effect they could or have had on their business.

I call this press censorship and a very dangerous path we are treading regarding our democracy.

When you are told, you will pay a 1,000% increase in any tax and that it has been set and cannot be removed, some get very angry as I did.The fact that my comments were removed is testament to how well thought out this ridiculous hike was.I have no shame in releasing the story, after all, the men at the top are saying "we are all in this together" The Munro family deserve all they get.

But beware people,if such a family are able to censor what we say or read locally,press censorship by any business is likely because they advertise within these pages.Business is controlling our lives and that is why governments support business. is it not ?. See you later. Foursite.
I usually agree with you Foursite (and in fact I agree with most of what you have posted here) but I do not agree with the last bit. I believe that governments support businesses because they provide employment and generate tax revenue. Without businesses the government would be out of a job along with the rest of us.

By the way, my proposal was to increase the precept by 100% to provide a little more protection for local projects. 100% may sound a lot but it is less that 28p per week for a Band D household and would generate approx. £50,000 in revenue.
[quote][p][bold]Foursite[/bold] wrote: Those of you that have been keeping up with this story will know it was I Foursite that broke it through these pages.I attended the PTC meeting on 15th Jan and this paper did not.You will also know that because the Munro family advertise their businesses within this paper they were able to have posts removed because of the effect they could or have had on their business. I call this press censorship and a very dangerous path we are treading regarding our democracy. When you are told, you will pay a 1,000% increase in any tax and that it has been set and cannot be removed, some get very angry as I did.The fact that my comments were removed is testament to how well thought out this ridiculous hike was.I have no shame in releasing the story, after all, the men at the top are saying "we are all in this together" The Munro family deserve all they get. But beware people,if such a family are able to censor what we say or read locally,press censorship by any business is likely because they advertise within these pages.Business is controlling our lives and that is why governments support business. is it not ?. See you later. Foursite.[/p][/quote]I usually agree with you Foursite (and in fact I agree with most of what you have posted here) but I do not agree with the last bit. I believe that governments support businesses because they provide employment and generate tax revenue. Without businesses the government would be out of a job along with the rest of us. By the way, my proposal was to increase the precept by 100% to provide a little more protection for local projects. 100% may sound a lot but it is less that 28p per week for a Band D household and would generate approx. £50,000 in revenue. Bob Goulding
  • Score: 4

10:20am Wed 5 Feb 14

Nomalice says...

£50,000 for what? Siting around chatting about what you would like, and then being overridden by some other body getting ten times that amount
£50,000 for what? Siting around chatting about what you would like, and then being overridden by some other body getting ten times that amount Nomalice
  • Score: -3

10:34am Wed 5 Feb 14

Bob Goulding says...

Nomalice wrote:
£50,000 for what? Siting around chatting about what you would like, and then being overridden by some other body getting ten times that amount
I'm sorry but I don't think I understand what you are saying here. The £50,000 would be available to the NEW Portland Town Council to help maintain funding for local 'projects' that would otherwise be at risk due to lack of cash. It would be a 'fund' over which no other body or layer of government would have any control.
[quote][p][bold]Nomalice[/bold] wrote: £50,000 for what? Siting around chatting about what you would like, and then being overridden by some other body getting ten times that amount[/p][/quote]I'm sorry but I don't think I understand what you are saying here. The £50,000 would be available to the NEW Portland Town Council to help maintain funding for local 'projects' that would otherwise be at risk due to lack of cash. It would be a 'fund' over which no other body or layer of government would have any control. Bob Goulding
  • Score: 5

12:32pm Wed 5 Feb 14

Nomalice says...

I guess what I am saying is"I don't feel I am getting value for the money I am being forced to pay." I would therefor be reluctant to agree to pay even more on the pretence that I might (not will) get something more satisfactory. My vote would go to those who want to reduce the unnecessary layers of local government.I have lost all confidence in the present PTC, and don't see a NEW PTC being any different
I guess what I am saying is"I don't feel I am getting value for the money I am being forced to pay." I would therefor be reluctant to agree to pay even more on the pretence that I might (not will) get something more satisfactory. My vote would go to those who want to reduce the unnecessary layers of local government.I have lost all confidence in the present PTC, and don't see a NEW PTC being any different Nomalice
  • Score: 1

1:15pm Wed 5 Feb 14

Bob Goulding says...

Nomalice wrote:
I guess what I am saying is"I don't feel I am getting value for the money I am being forced to pay." I would therefor be reluctant to agree to pay even more on the pretence that I might (not will) get something more satisfactory. My vote would go to those who want to reduce the unnecessary layers of local government.I have lost all confidence in the present PTC, and don't see a NEW PTC being any different
I agree that the current PTC is not fit for purpose but that is more about the people involved (most but not all) rather than the 'institution' itself.

If you abolish the PTC all representation and control would move up a level to W&PBC and Portland's specific issues and needs would have to compete for support with those of the rest of the borough. With only 6 seats out of 36 on W&PBC it would be (and is) tough to ensure that Portland has a fair slice of the fiscal pie. And if you go up one layer further to DCC, Portland would be very luck to get anything more than a few crumbs.

The purpose of Parish and Town Councils nationwide is to ensure that local issues 'have a voice' and that there are some resources available to help deal with them controlled by local people free from outside interference.

Let's focus on getting the right people in the PTC chamber with some sensible resources rather than scrap what little independence we have. Once done it can never be undone.
[quote][p][bold]Nomalice[/bold] wrote: I guess what I am saying is"I don't feel I am getting value for the money I am being forced to pay." I would therefor be reluctant to agree to pay even more on the pretence that I might (not will) get something more satisfactory. My vote would go to those who want to reduce the unnecessary layers of local government.I have lost all confidence in the present PTC, and don't see a NEW PTC being any different[/p][/quote]I agree that the current PTC is not fit for purpose but that is more about the people involved (most but not all) rather than the 'institution' itself. If you abolish the PTC all representation and control would move up a level to W&PBC and Portland's specific issues and needs would have to compete for support with those of the rest of the borough. With only 6 seats out of 36 on W&PBC it would be (and is) tough to ensure that Portland has a fair slice of the fiscal pie. And if you go up one layer further to DCC, Portland would be very luck to get anything more than a few crumbs. The purpose of Parish and Town Councils nationwide is to ensure that local issues 'have a voice' and that there are some resources available to help deal with them controlled by local people free from outside interference. Let's focus on getting the right people in the PTC chamber with some sensible resources rather than scrap what little independence we have. Once done it can never be undone. Bob Goulding
  • Score: 3

2:06pm Wed 5 Feb 14

Foursite says...

Bob Goulding wrote:
Foursite wrote:
Those of you that have been keeping up with this story will know it was I Foursite that broke it through these pages.I attended the PTC meeting on 15th Jan and this paper did not.You will also know that because the Munro family advertise their businesses within this paper they were able to have posts removed because of the effect they could or have had on their business.

I call this press censorship and a very dangerous path we are treading regarding our democracy.

When you are told, you will pay a 1,000% increase in any tax and that it has been set and cannot be removed, some get very angry as I did.The fact that my comments were removed is testament to how well thought out this ridiculous hike was.I have no shame in releasing the story, after all, the men at the top are saying "we are all in this together" The Munro family deserve all they get.

But beware people,if such a family are able to censor what we say or read locally,press censorship by any business is likely because they advertise within these pages.Business is controlling our lives and that is why governments support business. is it not ?. See you later. Foursite.
I usually agree with you Foursite (and in fact I agree with most of what you have posted here) but I do not agree with the last bit. I believe that governments support businesses because they provide employment and generate tax revenue. Without businesses the government would be out of a job along with the rest of us.

By the way, my proposal was to increase the precept by 100% to provide a little more protection for local projects. 100% may sound a lot but it is less that 28p per week for a Band D household and would generate approx. £50,000 in revenue.
It cannot be denied that governments are in place for many reasons, collecting and increasing taxes usually in order to increase the size of government the ultimate reason is for controlling its people.That is why we have laws that government make.

There is nothing new in collecting taxes but there is something new in the many different taxes they collect..It all helps to give people very busy lives,and having to worry about money as most of us do.
Many people choose to sit indoors in front of those TV and Computer screens these days, and shut away the madness of the outside world.
This is what happened until a few weeks ago on Portland.The people of Portland were woken up,and realised they were being dictated to by one family, and a foul mouthed football hooligan. who had up until that time felt safe in their seats.
I cant agree with a 100% rise either it is too much for some people.I think Les Ames,Andy and Rachel have it right. . I would support a modernised community council or a Portland Independence Party. We need to break away from the political persuasions and get back while we have a chance some control over our lives and have a say on what happens where we live.
If business is able to censor the press because that business pays for an advert in that press they are destroying the very fabric of our society, Democracy.!!! thus taking the onus away from government
[quote][p][bold]Bob Goulding[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Foursite[/bold] wrote: Those of you that have been keeping up with this story will know it was I Foursite that broke it through these pages.I attended the PTC meeting on 15th Jan and this paper did not.You will also know that because the Munro family advertise their businesses within this paper they were able to have posts removed because of the effect they could or have had on their business. I call this press censorship and a very dangerous path we are treading regarding our democracy. When you are told, you will pay a 1,000% increase in any tax and that it has been set and cannot be removed, some get very angry as I did.The fact that my comments were removed is testament to how well thought out this ridiculous hike was.I have no shame in releasing the story, after all, the men at the top are saying "we are all in this together" The Munro family deserve all they get. But beware people,if such a family are able to censor what we say or read locally,press censorship by any business is likely because they advertise within these pages.Business is controlling our lives and that is why governments support business. is it not ?. See you later. Foursite.[/p][/quote]I usually agree with you Foursite (and in fact I agree with most of what you have posted here) but I do not agree with the last bit. I believe that governments support businesses because they provide employment and generate tax revenue. Without businesses the government would be out of a job along with the rest of us. By the way, my proposal was to increase the precept by 100% to provide a little more protection for local projects. 100% may sound a lot but it is less that 28p per week for a Band D household and would generate approx. £50,000 in revenue.[/p][/quote]It cannot be denied that governments are in place for many reasons, collecting and increasing taxes usually in order to increase the size of government the ultimate reason is for controlling its people.That is why we have laws that government make. There is nothing new in collecting taxes but there is something new in the many different taxes they collect..It all helps to give people very busy lives,and having to worry about money as most of us do. Many people choose to sit indoors in front of those TV and Computer screens these days, and shut away the madness of the outside world. This is what happened until a few weeks ago on Portland.The people of Portland were woken up,and realised they were being dictated to by one family, and a foul mouthed football hooligan. who had up until that time felt safe in their seats. I cant agree with a 100% rise either it is too much for some people.I think Les Ames,Andy and Rachel have it right. . I would support a modernised community council or a Portland Independence Party. We need to break away from the political persuasions and get back while we have a chance some control over our lives and have a say on what happens where we live. If business is able to censor the press because that business pays for an advert in that press they are destroying the very fabric of our society, Democracy.!!! thus taking the onus away from government Foursite
  • Score: 6

3:50pm Wed 5 Feb 14

Bob Goulding says...

Foursite wrote:
Bob Goulding wrote:
Foursite wrote:
Those of you that have been keeping up with this story will know it was I Foursite that broke it through these pages.I attended the PTC meeting on 15th Jan and this paper did not.You will also know that because the Munro family advertise their businesses within this paper they were able to have posts removed because of the effect they could or have had on their business.

I call this press censorship and a very dangerous path we are treading regarding our democracy.

When you are told, you will pay a 1,000% increase in any tax and that it has been set and cannot be removed, some get very angry as I did.The fact that my comments were removed is testament to how well thought out this ridiculous hike was.I have no shame in releasing the story, after all, the men at the top are saying "we are all in this together" The Munro family deserve all they get.

But beware people,if such a family are able to censor what we say or read locally,press censorship by any business is likely because they advertise within these pages.Business is controlling our lives and that is why governments support business. is it not ?. See you later. Foursite.
I usually agree with you Foursite (and in fact I agree with most of what you have posted here) but I do not agree with the last bit. I believe that governments support businesses because they provide employment and generate tax revenue. Without businesses the government would be out of a job along with the rest of us.

By the way, my proposal was to increase the precept by 100% to provide a little more protection for local projects. 100% may sound a lot but it is less that 28p per week for a Band D household and would generate approx. £50,000 in revenue.
It cannot be denied that governments are in place for many reasons, collecting and increasing taxes usually in order to increase the size of government the ultimate reason is for controlling its people.That is why we have laws that government make.

There is nothing new in collecting taxes but there is something new in the many different taxes they collect..It all helps to give people very busy lives,and having to worry about money as most of us do.
Many people choose to sit indoors in front of those TV and Computer screens these days, and shut away the madness of the outside world.
This is what happened until a few weeks ago on Portland.The people of Portland were woken up,and realised they were being dictated to by one family, and a foul mouthed football hooligan. who had up until that time felt safe in their seats.
I cant agree with a 100% rise either it is too much for some people.I think Les Ames,Andy and Rachel have it right. . I would support a modernised community council or a Portland Independence Party. We need to break away from the political persuasions and get back while we have a chance some control over our lives and have a say on what happens where we live.
If business is able to censor the press because that business pays for an advert in that press they are destroying the very fabric of our society, Democracy.!!! thus taking the onus away from government
I agree that politics have no place in PTC. It should be local people working for the local community irrespective of political affiliations. However, I can't agree that 100% increase is unaffordable except in a very small number of instances where support is almost certainly provided anyway. The average household in Portland is Band B which would mean that the average increase in real terms would be only about 22p per week. I cannot believe that this is unaffordable.
[quote][p][bold]Foursite[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Bob Goulding[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Foursite[/bold] wrote: Those of you that have been keeping up with this story will know it was I Foursite that broke it through these pages.I attended the PTC meeting on 15th Jan and this paper did not.You will also know that because the Munro family advertise their businesses within this paper they were able to have posts removed because of the effect they could or have had on their business. I call this press censorship and a very dangerous path we are treading regarding our democracy. When you are told, you will pay a 1,000% increase in any tax and that it has been set and cannot be removed, some get very angry as I did.The fact that my comments were removed is testament to how well thought out this ridiculous hike was.I have no shame in releasing the story, after all, the men at the top are saying "we are all in this together" The Munro family deserve all they get. But beware people,if such a family are able to censor what we say or read locally,press censorship by any business is likely because they advertise within these pages.Business is controlling our lives and that is why governments support business. is it not ?. See you later. Foursite.[/p][/quote]I usually agree with you Foursite (and in fact I agree with most of what you have posted here) but I do not agree with the last bit. I believe that governments support businesses because they provide employment and generate tax revenue. Without businesses the government would be out of a job along with the rest of us. By the way, my proposal was to increase the precept by 100% to provide a little more protection for local projects. 100% may sound a lot but it is less that 28p per week for a Band D household and would generate approx. £50,000 in revenue.[/p][/quote]It cannot be denied that governments are in place for many reasons, collecting and increasing taxes usually in order to increase the size of government the ultimate reason is for controlling its people.That is why we have laws that government make. There is nothing new in collecting taxes but there is something new in the many different taxes they collect..It all helps to give people very busy lives,and having to worry about money as most of us do. Many people choose to sit indoors in front of those TV and Computer screens these days, and shut away the madness of the outside world. This is what happened until a few weeks ago on Portland.The people of Portland were woken up,and realised they were being dictated to by one family, and a foul mouthed football hooligan. who had up until that time felt safe in their seats. I cant agree with a 100% rise either it is too much for some people.I think Les Ames,Andy and Rachel have it right. . I would support a modernised community council or a Portland Independence Party. We need to break away from the political persuasions and get back while we have a chance some control over our lives and have a say on what happens where we live. If business is able to censor the press because that business pays for an advert in that press they are destroying the very fabric of our society, Democracy.!!! thus taking the onus away from government[/p][/quote]I agree that politics have no place in PTC. It should be local people working for the local community irrespective of political affiliations. However, I can't agree that 100% increase is unaffordable except in a very small number of instances where support is almost certainly provided anyway. The average household in Portland is Band B which would mean that the average increase in real terms would be only about 22p per week. I cannot believe that this is unaffordable. Bob Goulding
  • Score: 8

5:13pm Wed 5 Feb 14

Nomalice says...

Whenever anyone says something like " It is only the price of a pint. It is only 22p," alarm bells go off. Next year when the rate of inflation, or price index calculation is added, it will be, " It is only the price of Fish & Chips or a bottle of wine".
If the pension increase, or the minimum wage increase is in direct proportion, it might have some legs. But it NEVER is, and it is ALWAYS the least well off who bear the brunt.
You can only squeeze a finite amount of juice from and orange. Then you are left with a useless outer case. It HAS to stop.
Whenever anyone says something like " It is only the price of a pint. It is only 22p," alarm bells go off. Next year when the rate of inflation, or price index calculation is added, it will be, " It is only the price of Fish & Chips or a bottle of wine". If the pension increase, or the minimum wage increase is in direct proportion, it might have some legs. But it NEVER is, and it is ALWAYS the least well off who bear the brunt. You can only squeeze a finite amount of juice from and orange. Then you are left with a useless outer case. It HAS to stop. Nomalice
  • Score: 0

6:54pm Wed 5 Feb 14

Bob Goulding says...

Nomalice wrote:
Whenever anyone says something like " It is only the price of a pint. It is only 22p," alarm bells go off. Next year when the rate of inflation, or price index calculation is added, it will be, " It is only the price of Fish & Chips or a bottle of wine".
If the pension increase, or the minimum wage increase is in direct proportion, it might have some legs. But it NEVER is, and it is ALWAYS the least well off who bear the brunt.
You can only squeeze a finite amount of juice from and orange. Then you are left with a useless outer case. It HAS to stop.
No, it is only 22p per week per household i.e. no more than 11p per head per week for standard rate council tax payers. No tricks. Fact.
[quote][p][bold]Nomalice[/bold] wrote: Whenever anyone says something like " It is only the price of a pint. It is only 22p," alarm bells go off. Next year when the rate of inflation, or price index calculation is added, it will be, " It is only the price of Fish & Chips or a bottle of wine". If the pension increase, or the minimum wage increase is in direct proportion, it might have some legs. But it NEVER is, and it is ALWAYS the least well off who bear the brunt. You can only squeeze a finite amount of juice from and orange. Then you are left with a useless outer case. It HAS to stop.[/p][/quote]No, it is only 22p per week per household i.e. no more than 11p per head per week for standard rate council tax payers. No tricks. Fact. Bob Goulding
  • Score: 7

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

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