Hopes of a ‘tourist tax’ to help boost seaside amenities across the Isle of Wight and improve the offering to visitors have been dashed, as a senior councillor says it would actually be a ‘green levy’ to support the environment and the climate change strategy.
Councillor Jonathan Bacon, the Council’s cabinet member for heritage and environment, has sought to clarify the tourist tax impression created after the corporate scrutiny meeting on Tuesday, stating it would actually be a green levy.
He has also expanded on the short answer he gave to the committee when he simply said the council were in discussions with directors.
The councillor who raised the subject, Councillor Richard Quigley, has said he is fine with calling it a green levy and ringfencing the money for the environment, so long as it generates money for the cash-strapped council. He said it could be called what it likes as long as it generated income.
At the corporate scrutiny committee earlier in the week, it was revealed the Isle of Wight Council is considering charging tourists when they visit the Island. Speaking at the time, Cllr Quigley said he saw no issue with charging a £1 or £1.50 fee for journeys starting on the mainland, saying it could help maintain the infrastructure against wear and tear caused by visitors.
On Thursday, speaking in the cabinet meeting, Cllr Bacon said the council was in early stages of discussions for potential funding routes to support the environment and other schemes, like the action plan supporting the climate change strategy. He said a green levy is a potential solution for any funding problems environment initiatives may have in the future
Cllr Bacon went on to say the sums the council were talking about earning from a green levy would never reach the numbers needed to plug the budget gap though.
Responding to the comments, Cllr Quigley said whatever the plan he was ‘absolutely determined to find other ways’ to make the income the council had lost. He said he was fine with the charge being ringfenced as a green levy as it would take the pressures off other services.
He said:
“Whatever we do to raise revenue is supplementing the lack of government funding we have got — there are not many levers the council can pull to do that.”
Cllr Quigley was concerned that to fix the funding problems, Islanders would have the burden placed on them — with either an immediate £35 council tax rise or a 50% increase in parking fees — and a charge could stop that.
They’ll just go to Dorset instead and boost their economy.
Just remember we’re all tourists too when going on holiday off the Island
“Cllr Quigley said he saw no issue with charging a £1 or £1.50 fee for journeys starting on the mainland”
So if an island resident is returning home from the mainland – would they have to pay the levy?
For instance – an student away at university.
How would this be administered by the train and ferry companies?
Any idea that comes through Mr. Bacon is going to be ridiculous and unworkable look at the floating bridge which he was involved in.
doesn’t matter which way they dress up this turd – it is still another attempt at taking money from peoples pockets and into theirs.
Cllr Quigley said whatever the plan he was ‘absolutely determined to find other ways’ to make the income the council had lost.
,…
typical labour – this translates as “absolutely determined to take as much money off the island residents as possible, no matter what the consequences, or the ability to pay.
..
how about the council cut services to match the reduction in income – just like the rest of us have to do, when we pay higher council tax bills, without a corresponding pay rise from our own work
So every time I come back to my home on the Island from the mainland (often), I get to pay the tourist tax even tho I am not a tourist and already pay my share of the council tax?
And who collects it? The ferry companies? – if so they will want extra funds for administering it of course, which means even higher fares as the cost is passed on to us.
You know exactly what you can go and do IWC.
correct – whatever the imbeciles at the council state – the ferry companies will add that amount to the ticket price and that will be it – you will pay whether you like it or not.
Then portsmouth and southampton will impose on the island residents in a tit for tat – although it won’t be aimed at tourists, it will be the commuters and regular islanders that pay and the ferry companies will add that cost on to the price as well –
these idiots in the council must think we are stupid
And they would be right, we are. For putting up with them time and time again!
A lesson in how to dig a hole. Suggestion: Now you are in it, STOP DIGGING!
Why do they always mention the environment let’s face it they Squander the money they get time after time and are so used to doing it its become the norm .
And here I thought it was to raise funds for Floating Bridge 7 !
Just another stealth tax for them to squander on their useless floating joke…
What the dim here DON’T get is even IF the money was ‘ring fenced’ from this tax, that STILL means the council then have to put in LESS from our council tax to fund such, so they STILL have more cash to spend on more wages, pensions and ‘expenses’ for themselves.
THINK
why has bacon got that stupid, smug, pursed lip grin – he looks like a right weirdo
If it was only tourists having to pay it, I don’t see why it’s wrong. It’s only a measly small amount anyway. Only cheapskates could object to paying such a small sum. It might even encourage more of the wealthier people to come instead of so many package tours of old people who want everything cheap. I wish the IW could be a little more upmarket, that is what is needed here.
More up market .. Visitors….
Have you been to Newport lately ????
The only wealthy people who come to the island are those buying 2nd homes and land to build on …
Holiday homes they can let out ..
Surely as a tourist island we have to expect Mr and Mrs average as it is the bread and butter of Hotel’s camp sites tourist attractions etc .
Creating and keeping job’s for islanders.
Surely if more well to do people moved here to live instead of just having holiday homes, there’d be better services as they wouldn’t want to live here permanently with just chavvy shops around and Poundlands everywhere. It would help the island longterm if there was more wealth around and better quality. It’s a shame the island has to rely so much on tourism and not something else, there used to be more industry here, and more agriculture.Better quality people would mean better quality all round as they would demand it.
Can Mr Bacon and Mr Quigley answer 1 question???
Will you guarantee that any money raised through this green levy / tax ,will go directly on upkeep etc and none of it will go into the Council pension pot?????
As a large portion of our Council tax does ….
YOU ms S, are missing my point.
For EVEN IF they do guarantee the money raised will go directly to upkeep etc and none into their pension pot, ALL that will happen is, the MONEY that they WOULD have had to spend on green issues from our council tax IF this tax was never dreampt up, will then instead be free to ‘go into their pension pots’ or wherever else they choose to waste it.
ie, IF you gave money to the RSPCA but oddly hated cats, and said none is to be spent on cats, the RSPCA would STILL have more cash in total, and thus using your sum to buy say dog food, would save them money gained from others to blow more on cats.
Green levy, and yet, look at all the environmental damage they are allowing with green field developments.
Maybe we should be taxing the councillors £1.50 for each house they allow to be built on the island.
It’s a good idea IF we see visible results. A prime example is the 1.25% increase in national insurance contributions to supposedly mend our broken NHS now we’re reading they’re going to hire an extra 42 managers with salaries of £270,000 a year. REALLY!
It’s just jobs for the boys. They must think we’ve all come up on the down train.