THOSE who continually increase our council tax, well above inflation, must be stopped from seeing this as an annual routine.

For Kennet residents there was a 9.9 per cent rise last year followed by a compounded 12.3 per cent recently.

So, you might ask what about future years? Well, Kennet has plans for you.

The Council tax bill is made up of four items: Wiltshire County Council, police, town or parish councils and the district council.

Compared with Salisbury District and Test Valley (both with an increase of about four per cent) Kennet hit us with 14.5 per cent this year.

However, the main option under consideration was an increase of 45 per cent. But you can understand our councillors might feel uncomfortable with this increase in an election year.

What was not explained was that the 45 per cent increase is to be phased over four years from 2003/4.

So for the next three years it is guaranteed the Kennet element of our bills will have, at least, increases of 15 per cent.

If Kennet's neighbouring councils can keep their increases to just above inflation, the problem cannot be entirely laid at the door of Central Government grants.

So why have we got into this habit of expecting,and accepting, well above inflation council tax increases each year?

I believe both Central Government, Local Government and, one of the worst culprits, police forces have been allowed to drift into offering us ever better services, based on soft annual targets such as answering the phone within five rings. (Will it be four next year?)

Taxpayers are, in fact, the shareholders of the district council in which they reside. Together we need to force the Council Executive and police into thinking more about a philosophy of introducing hard savings targets linked to no improvement, or even reductions in services, in return for zero increase in council tax.

How many of us complain about the current level of service anyway?

From what little I have seen of council meetings our elected councillors need to get the message that we prefer services and staff levels to be cut in return for lower council tax.

Otherwise, within four or five years council taxes will have doubled yet again.

So how do we get this message across? I can think of three immediate options.

First, turn up at the council elections in May. Forget about party politics and vote for the candidate who promises to fight for reducing taxes. And, if elected, make sure they keep their promise by attending council meetings.

Second, write to the office of the Deputy Prime Minister stating the method used to assess the performance of councils Comprehensive Performance Assessment needs reduced council tax as its prime aim, rather than obscure improved service performance as at present.

Third when asked Kennet was not keen to run a referendum asking taxpayers if they would prefer improved services or a reduction in service and reduced tax.

Perhaps the editor of the Gazette could be persuaded to run such a referendum in the build up to the local elections?

John Prince

Charlton St Peter, Pewsey