We’re not paying twice for splash pads, says Stourport councillors

COUNCILLORS have claimed residents would be “double-taxed” if Stourport Town Council had accepted the offer of a new splash pad.

Wyre Forest District Council presented the town council with two water facility options but both were declined.

Accepting would have resulted in Stourport’s council tax precept being increased further, they said.

Town councillors felt taxpayers were already paying for water facilities as part of their district council contribution and refused to increase the town’s council tax share from £3 to £4 for 2013/14.

Options given by the district council included an offer to pay for a splash pad facility, which involves pressure pads activated by children, at Stourport riverside and hand over running costs of £6,000 a year to the town council or to hand over maintenance costs of the existing paddling pool at £12,000 a year.

Conservative councillor David Little said: “Stourport Town Council would very much welcome a new splash pad but why does Stourport have to foot the bill for th emaintenance?

“We pay our council tax to Wyre Forest District Council, it maintains two pools in Kidderminster and one in Bewdley. Why is it,when it comes to Stourport, we have to pay again? It’s double-taxation.”

Mayor Gary Talbot cast the deciding vote which saw eight councillors decline the splash pad and seven vote in favour of raising council tax by another £1 to pay for it.

Labour councillor Jamie Shaw said the issue was a leftover problem from the local Government reorganisation in 1972.

Mr Shaw said: “It was a case of charging an extra £1 on the council tax or having no public facility there. They would rather lose the facility.”

He added that now the “only option” for the district council was to look for a private contractor to take over the paddling pool at the riverside which could mean that residents and visitors would have to pay to use it.

Comments (2)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

10:18am Tue 2 Apr 13

jon cooper says...

£300,000 was allocated by WFDC to bring three of these state of the art splash pads to the district. Brintons Park in Kidderminster is already under construction; the proposed Memorial Park splash pad has now been axed; and the third has totally disappeared off the radar. How WFDC has handled this splash park issue is a total and utter disgrace, and as with the majority of their decisions - TOTALLY BIASED.

WFDC have basically held a gun at the Stourport taxpayers head by giving us an ultimatum by basically saying; you can have a splash pad at the riverside, , if you pay for the £6,000 per year upkeep entirely yourselves; but at the same time you WILL pay for the upkeep of the splash pad in Brintons Park Kidderminster. So yet again, like the financing of other major facilities in Stourport, the town is expected to stand alone, whilst paying out elsewhere.

But this is only half the story regarding a riverside water play area. As Stourport is a tourist town that welcomes thousands of visitors during the summer months: WFDC have also stated quite clearly that unless the Stourport taxpayer pays a massive £12,000 per year to maintain the current paddling pool themselves, the pool will be grassed over if no outside interest can be found to manage it. WFDC stagger me anyway with their legendary bias, but this latest revelation is nothing short of irresponsible and shows complete stupidity.

When these splash parks were first touted around, WFDC stated quite grandly that kids love water, and splash parks would be fun. So if WFDC do the unthinkable and axe the already neglected riverside pool where do they expect kids to play whilst at Stourport riverside ? As a good friend of mine who has two young children said to me, the worry is that the axing of the pool could force kids into the river.

WFDC really should think on ...
£300,000 was allocated by WFDC to bring three of these state of the art splash pads to the district. Brintons Park in Kidderminster is already under construction; the proposed Memorial Park splash pad has now been axed; and the third has totally disappeared off the radar. How WFDC has handled this splash park issue is a total and utter disgrace, and as with the majority of their decisions - TOTALLY BIASED. WFDC have basically held a gun at the Stourport taxpayers head by giving us an ultimatum by basically saying; you can have a splash pad at the riverside, [wasn't this supposed to be the Memorial Park], if you pay for the £6,000 per year upkeep entirely yourselves; but at the same time you WILL pay for the upkeep of the splash pad in Brintons Park Kidderminster. So yet again, like the financing of other major facilities in Stourport, the town is expected to stand alone, whilst paying out elsewhere. But this is only half the story regarding a riverside water play area. As Stourport is a tourist town that welcomes thousands of visitors during the summer months: WFDC have also stated quite clearly that unless the Stourport taxpayer pays a massive £12,000 per year to maintain the current paddling pool themselves, the pool will be grassed over if no outside interest can be found to manage it. WFDC stagger me anyway with their legendary bias, but this latest revelation is nothing short of irresponsible and shows complete stupidity. When these splash parks were first touted around, WFDC stated quite grandly that kids love water, and splash parks would be fun. So if WFDC do the unthinkable and axe the already neglected riverside pool where do they expect kids to play whilst at Stourport riverside ? As a good friend of mine who has two young children said to me, the worry is that the axing of the pool could force kids into the river. WFDC really should think on ... jon cooper
  • Score: 0

2:18pm Thu 4 Apr 13

EdeaKrammer says...

Well, I have to say that they are just being reasonable by all means if the funds came by the taxpayers I mean that is enough for them to make a better judgment I believe.
www.usapoolpros.com
Well, I have to say that they are just being reasonable by all means if the funds came by the taxpayers I mean that is enough for them to make a better judgment I believe. www.usapoolpros.com EdeaKrammer
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree