A COUNCIL tax rise in the coming financial year of 9.9 per cent will mean a small increase in a band D property of 21 pence per week or £10 plus per year (Gazette, February 3).

So says Tony Duck who would opt for that 9.9 per cent. But this increase is on top of a seemingly neverending rise in local taxation year on year. Even a 5.5 per cent increase is twice the rate of inflation.

There must be a much fairer way to pay for local services. What's good enough for general taxation, a tax on income, should be good enough for local taxation. Why then change the formula? What has property valuation to do with the provision of local services? Many people in the community are not so well off as those who would opt for a 9.9 per cent increase in local tax. Councillors are voted in apparently to serve the public rather than, it would

appear, to hammer the public.

Which brings me to the neverending saga of parking in the Market Place. Is the installation of parking meters viable? Is it economical when you consider the cost of

installation, collection of monies by council vehicles, plus the cost of monitoring the system by council employees who all have to be paid by the taxpayer?

This change will only drive the motoring community more into the side streets already overflowing with parked cars.

Perhaps a more radical approach on matters concerning the cost of administration is that of the proliferation of administration.

We have county councils, district councils, town councils and parish councils. How much duplication is there? How much would it benefit the community in reducing council tax if it were reduced to one authority? Perhaps it's a case of too many chiefs to too few Indians.

Perhaps an exercise in work study/work measurement might not be out of order. It might reveal many areas within the administration where savings may be in order.

K R MANNS

Potterne