BRIAN PARKER, of Crossparks, Dartmouth, writes:

I am concerned that the finance committee of Dartmouth Town Council, with its recommendations endorsed by the full council, displays incompetence, resulting in substantial disbenefit to the town.

This concern began two years or so ago when it became apparent that the town council had promised some years earlier to make a substantial contribution to the indoor swimming pool project but made no provision for setting aside money to meet the promise. Presumably the finance committee considered that the project would not actually come to fruition but it has and the commitment has to be met.

Intention of further gross expenditure was reported Council set for a U-turn over museum VAT plan, Chronicle, March 29. The council plans to spend £100,000 on the Butterwalk in the coming year. Nowhere have I seen a breakdown of this figure or the justification for it. Such lack of transparency, which is consistent with recent town council practice and shows disregard for the rights of council tax payers, is deplorable.

The questionable decisions have placed the council's finances in a parlous state, so much so that its precept has increasing by an eye-watering 30.9 per cent. This is at a time when it is clearly understood nationally, regionally and locally that expenditure has to be curbed. The Dartmouth tax hike is profligate, compared with South Hams Council's 3.5 per cent rise and Devon County Council's zero increase.

I now move to the element of my complaint in which South Hams Council has a major part, regarding the renovation of renting of the flat at the Butterwalk.

It was reported in the Chronicle and confirmed by a colleague who attended the town council meeting that there is an arrangement between the town council and South Hams Council concerning the flat.

Two years ago, the flat, which is above the museum, became vacant and the town council proposed renovating it to a high standard in order to command a 'top of the market' rent for it of around £800 per month. However, the town concil, even with its questionable financial excesses, baulked at the £60,000 estimated cost of the renovation.

Dartmouth Museum, desperate for extra space to display more of the Henley collection – which town councillors, as trustees of the Henley Trust are obligued to support – provide educational facilities and increase visitor numbers, made a proposition. This was to refurbish the flat at no cost to the town council and pay a rent similar to that sought.

After 17 months of vacillation, during which time there were handshake agreements that the museum proposal would be accepted, the town council has suddenly decided on a different arrangement, due to an offer from South Hams Council.

This offer is that, if the flat were to be made available for benefit-claiming tenants from South Hams Council's housing lists, financial support could be obtained from the Government.

It was said that a grant of up to £15,000 could be available for renovation of the property.

Town councillors then declared that it was not necessary to renovate to the high standard previously mooted and the cost could be brought down to £45,000. Were the full £15,000 grant obtained, the renovation cost to Dartmouth would halve from the original £60,000 to £30,000.

The matter of rental income was raised. A rent of £800 per month would be payable from welfare funding, with nine per cent going to South Hams Council and the remainder to the town council.

This proposal appears to have been accepted by the town council.

My objection to this acceptance is twofold. Firstly, the original figures for top quality renovation and 'top of the market' rent were £60,000 and around £800 per month. For a tenant on benefits, the renovation standard is reduced to £45,000 yet the rent from welfare sources is still at the 'top of the market' £800.

Together with the £15,000 grant, this seems to be a milking of welfare funding. I cannot say whether it is illegal for the councils to act in this way but, in my eyes, it is assuredly unethical.

The second part of my objection is that the town council, in rejecting the museum offer, is intending to spend £30,000 when it need not spend anything and to accept a rent of around £725 per month, when it was offered more.

There is a further point to be made. As I mentioned earlier, one of the realistic aims of the museum in its expansion needs is to increase visitor numbers to its own attractions and, by inference, to the town as a whole. It is difficult to see how visitor numbers, the lifeblood of the town, are boosted by installing a tenant in the flat.