Misleading

As usual the letter from John S Clark is misleading. However from the figures quoted by John S of 2,000 consultations, only 400 indicated they would use the park, which is 25 per cent. He gives acknowledgement to Burleigh Press for their free printing of

As usual the letter from John S Clark is misleading. However from the figures quoted by John S of 2,000 consultations, only 400 indicated they would use the park, which is 25 per cent. He gives acknowledgement to Burleigh Press for their free printing of 8,000 resident consultation leaflets, but points out that only 420 households have indicated support. (I fail to see how he arrives at 98.4 per cent quoted in his letter.)John S then complains that the Conservative Group on the council refused to allocate £25,000 to the project and complains that they refused to discuss the matter further, conveniently forgetting that originally he was seeking £100,000. This was then reduced to £45,000, then to a Dutch auction as to how much the council will give his group. No firm proposals have been tabled as yet. The Conservative group was quite correct in not allocating money, and thereby further raising the town's precept at this time. I am unaware of what the town council did in effect agree to at their meeting in January, but would point out that if all the grants were approved the precept for Portishead ratepayers would work out on a Band D property at £45.62, which equates to a 23.55 per cent increase over last year. This, is on top of what the district council charges, for what I believe to be poor service, and the police charges.John D Rigby - Via e-mail


You may also want to watch:


Become a Supporter

This newspaper has been a central part of community life for many years. Our industry faces testing times, which is why we're asking for your support. Every contribution will help us continue to produce local journalism that makes a measurable difference to our community.

Become a Supporter
Comments powered by Disqus