Olney Town Council
Explains S136
For the current year ending 31 March 2006 these charges increased by a further 4.5%. Assuming a similar increase for the foreseeable future the table below shows how much additional council tax each household in Olney will have paid.
Councillors and Cabinet Member, that no financial figures were provided to the Cabinet Members when they made their decision to change the charging mechanism. Financial information was presumably not deemed necessary as the Cabinet Report issued to the Parishes stated that the change would not a ect a council tax payer's bill.
Milton Keynes Council (MKC) adopted the Sl36 Scheme approximately ten years ago for sharing the cost with the Parishes of maintaining and cutting the grass verges that is undertaken by MKC. The cost allocated to each Parish was based upon the number of square metres of verges the Parish required MKC to maintain. Sl36 also included the maintenance of "play area" equipment within each Parish.
A er 1 Year 5 Years 10 Years Each Band D Property £23.34 £127.67 £286.77 Each Band H Property £46.68 £255.36 £573.58
OTC has pressed the Cabinet to reverse their decision pending a full discussion of the financial implications, which have been detrimental in the main to the rural parishes and to the advantage of the urban parishes, without success.
The total cost for this work to Olney was £32,461 for the year ended 31 March 2004 and examples of the individual costs are as follows:
Why has Olney Town Council been  ghting this increase  r the past 18 months?
Because in the MKC Cabinet Report announcing the change in calculating the cost of this work it states "The council t  payer  bill shou  remain the same as it wou  have  ne  the change had not takenp ce. .. " D two months a er the distribution of the Cabinet Report the MK Contact O icer for this change, in a written response to a question from a rural parish on how to budget for the new calculation stated, that the Parish should use the "ca u tion  r the current
What has OTC achieved to date?
An Olney Resident Band D council taxpayer paid £13.30 p.a. Band H £26.60 p.a. (The cost to other Bands are proportionate)
Nothing tangible. OTC is disappointed to report that it has met with a very dismissive attitude on the part of some MKC O cers and MKC Cabinet Members together with prevarication when OTC has made attempts to speed things up.
How has OTC tried to broaden the  ght against this overcharge in our Council T ? OTC wrote to other rural parishes explain{ the financial impact of the above chan several of whom are paying far more than the almost three times that Olney residents are paying  r the same work. Examples are Woburn Sands who are paying ten times the amount they paid under the Sl36 Scheme and Warrington, who have no such work done for them and used to pay nothing, but now must pay. This means a Band D council tax payer in Warrington paid £36.64 and a Band H council taxpayer paid £73.28 when previously they paid nothing. Using the same tables as above, a er five years and ten years a Band D council taxpayer will have paid additional council tax of £200 and £450 respectively, and a Band H council taxpayer will have paid additional council tax of £400 and £900 respectively.
MKC changed the basis of calculation for the year ended 31 March 2005 and the total cost to Olney,  r the same work, rose to £89,427 and was paid by residents as  llows:-
 nancial year and al w a ctor r in tion. "
An Olney Resident Band D council taxpayer paid £36.64 p.a. Band H £73.28 p.a.
Olney Town Council (OTC) understands from Graham Mabbutt, one of our Ward
  PAGE 62
OTC hopes that the residents of Olney believe this is a fight we should continue to pursue with vigour. •
Is your
time
money?
Do you have an old clock, vase, picture, piece of furniture or jewellerythat you would Like to know the value o  You may be surprised at just what you may find at home.
Several rural parishes have joined the fight
We also provide valuations for Insurance
Probate
Family Division
to have this matter reviewed, which has led to the formation of the SWAG, Sl36 Withdrawal Action Group. Overall the ro1 sum by which, mainly rural, parishes ha  been overcharged totalled in excess of £425,000 in the first year ending 31 March 2005. Approximately 75% of this went to reduce the costs of five urban parishes.
Professional and confidential service
Finally, it is also overlooked by MKC that many of the rural parishes, like OTC, employ their own groundsta  to maintain much of their recreational facilities. The urban parishes, however, have 4,500 acres of parks and green spaces (abour 20% of the new ci  area) maintained by an independent charity at no cost to themselves.
Onsite v uations and sal  carried out
Detailed illustrated website information
If you have anything in a drawer or cupboard you would like to know more a ut bring it along. It could lead to time
What is being done at present?
2(1  e,,nh.un Stn:t.·t. lkdlord.
1K-t0  J 
t. 0121 l 2(1h  (1(1
I 0125 f 2 9 082
   W p ,K'Ot.k.1u t10n l'O uk
PHO OX
As an impasse has been reached with MKC O icers and Cabinet, in December 2004 SWAG requested the District Auditors O ce look into this matter. OTC has been assured that their report will be independent and although it has been a long time coming we anticipate its publication early September.