Great Shelford Parish Council abandons planned 34% council tax rise – in favour of 15%

A parish council has rethought its plans to increase its share of the council tax bill by 34 per cent – and opted for a 15 per cent hike instead.

Great Shelford Parish Council was considering the original increase to help pay for road improvements in order to “act on significant concerns” from villagers.

However, councillors agreed at a meeting on Wednesday, 17 January to use savings to fund part of the project to reduce the amount it was asking for from villagers.

The change means for a Band D household will now pay a £23.67 a year more towards the parish council (£1.97 a month), instead of the originally proposed £52.97 increase (£4.41 a month).

One villager told the Cambridge Independent that he had found the 34 per cent proposal “hard to believe when so many of us are struggling through a cost of living crisis” and found it “extraordinary” that parish councils were not limited on the amount they can raise their share of the council tax bill, unlike other authorities.

The final council tax bill for Cambridgeshire households includes payments to the county council, a district or city council, plus a parish or town council, as well as for the police and fire services and, since last year, the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Combined Authority too.

Great Shelford parish councillors did raise concerns, however, that the authority could not keep ‘raiding’ its savings.

Cllr Lyn Disley said: “Last year we were very aware of the cost of living crisis and we did borrow from general reserves to reduce the council tax level.

“We have been advised that the general reserves level has to be raised, therefore with the best will in the world we cannot keep borrowing from Peter to pay Paul.”

Cllr Disley added: “None of the big boys are able to stand up for us. We are the ones who have got 5,000 commuters travelling through, we are the village getting that, and unfortunately as the political system stands we the parish council are the only ones who can start to put a few little protection measures in.

“In all the consultations we have done people have said they are frightened of using the roads, they are frightened of the air they are breathing, they cannot use public transport, and are worried about the pavements. We are trying to respond to everything.”

Cllr Disley noted the parish had held multiple consultations in which people supported paying more in council tax to fund a road improvement project.

But the chair, Cllr Malcolm Watson, was aware that the majority of people in the village did not respond to the consultation.

He said: “My biggest concern is the perception of a 34 per cent increase. That is my big concern.

“People receive their council tax bill and everything else is a three, five per cent increase and we are sticking out there as a sore thumb at 34 per cent.

“Either we explain it, or we need to use some general reserve funds to reduce the amount we use from the precept.”

Cllr Timothy Mann said it kept being raised at audits that the parish general reserves were too low.

Cllr Watson suggested some of the earmarked reserves – money set aside for specific things – could be used.

Cllr Disley raised concerns that the earmarked reserves had already been “raided”.

Cllr Watson suggested that £45,000 was taken from the earmarked savings pot to fund car park improvements at the Memorial Hall and was instead put towards the highways project.

He said the car park improvement work would still be undertaken, but could be done as part of the planned Memorial Hall upgrades project.

He suggested that £15,000 was taken from the savings put aside for potential land purchases and instead put towards the highways project.

Cllr Watson pledged that all of the proposed projects would still be completed, but said this would lower the amount they were asking in council tax.

The parish clerk confirmed using this money for the highways project would mean reducing the council tax increase to 15 per cent.

Councillors said if the projects planned could still happen, they supported the chair’s proposals and they voted in favour of the lower amount.