Well, my bestie RTG has stepped back into the fray regarding Babergh's finances and specifically the vexed matter of short-term parking charges. 

He believes that my reply to his last missive was partial, although, on re-reading, it does seem comprehensive and clear. His later comments may, I think, cast some light on this. 

Just to digress briefly, the references to the slums of Hartest and brothels of Capel St. Mary are a bit OTT. These are two lovely villages – although, if the latter existed, the business rates we could collect would be most welcome.

The matter of who pays for what is key to how we balance our budget and I did try to explain the difference between statutory and discretionary services, but RTG does seem to have misunderstood so I will try to clarify. 

There are three categories of functions or services provided by a district council:

Services where there is a statutory prohibition on charging. Local authorities must provide such services free of charge at the point of service. These are services which the authority has a duty to provide, such as waste collection. 

Services where there are statutory charges. These are services that must be provided, but charges are set nationally and local authorities have little or no opportunity to control them. An example is planning fee income.

Lastly, there are services for which discretionary charges can be applied. Local authorities can make their own decisions on setting such charges. Generally, these are services that an authority can provide but is not required to provide, such as garden waste collection – and, yes, car parks. 

By and large, council tax covers the first category only – and is no where near enough to pay for the others, particularly the discretionary services, hence the well-established principle that the user pays. RTG's 'logical conclusion' is neither logical nor a conclusion.

I would also just like to mention at this point that his example of 'coughing up for village halls and community pubs' is a poor one: such projects are eligible for funding from the Community Infrastructure Levy and therefore do not impact on our budget at all.

On the matter of the costs of running our car parks, a detailed cost breakdown was presented to Cabinet last Tuesday and Cllr Riley was present in the audience to see the numbers and hear the explanations for each line item. I'm sure he was satisfied with the information provided.

Finally, the thorny question of proof of an impact or no impact on retail trade. There is, admittedly, very little research but the anecdotal evidence does support the view that there is no impact. Locally, we can see that the vacancy rate in Sudbury (7.8%) where there is currently a free period is much the same (indeed, slightly higher) as Stowmarket (7.3%) where short-term charges are in place. Both towns are thriving quite well.

I hope that this is the last word on this matter for a while, but I fear it probably won't be. Let's wait for the February council meeting.

Oh, I nearly forgot: spring 2024 for Corks Lane!

Rowland Taylor's Ghost latest column.

*You can have your say by send ing us your Reader's Letter - simply upload via the Nub It button here