HomeNewsWales News

Taxpayers face 5% rise in police bill

COUNCIL taxpayers in North Wales, where the amount paid for policing has increased by nearly 250% in a decade – the third highest for a force area in Wales and England – are likely to face another 5% rise in policing costs.

This will be recommended at a meeting of the police authority on Friday.

However it will still mean a shortfall of £2.9m below the amount required to keep services at their present levels.

Chief Constable Richard Brunstrom says a rise of 5% would mean an increase for a band D property from £178.16 to £187.05 in the policing element, an extra £8.89 a year or 17p a week.

A standstill requirement would involve a 10.9% rise – 37p a week, and would mean no reductions in the budget.

But treasurer Nigel Thomas explained in a report that the 5% rise was the preferred option and the most prudent.

Mr Thomas said it would allow for broadly a similar level of community policing as at present

He added, “An increase below 3% would require a budget that it may not be possible to deliver in the time available and would likely give rise to a deficit situation.

“This would represent a move from the reasonable towards the unreasonable and this inevitably would require further consideration of the authority’s legal position.”

At a recent public consultation meeting at Llanfairfechan, some speakers demanded there should also be a zero option, despite being told by Mr Thomas that this was untenable.

In a vote, however, most supported this or paying less than 3%.

There has been criticism of the controversial chief constable for spending £300,000 on a mounted unit at Wrexham and losing £25,000 when trying in vain to overturn a rejection of a needle vending machine for drug addicts at Colwyn Bay.

A Freedom of Information reply has revealed that the 1,500 randomly selected members of the public involved in a telephone consultation exercise commissioned by the authority were not given the nil option.

The five options were – increasing the precept by more than 5%, by 5%, by 3%, or by less than 3%. There was also a “don’t know” option.

In association with