It's been a while since we heard from resident spooky friend so I was quite looking forward to reading the latest missive from RTG.

It was a surprisingly, although possibly unintentional, seasonal nod to Charles Dickens as RTG took on the mantle of the Spirit of Christmas to Come, with Babergh in the role of Scrooge. 

See RTG's controversial column here...

Of course, he is entitled to an opinion of our proposal to revise the parking tariff, even if he is unrestricted by the need to use modern vehicles to go about his business. 

I am sure it will come as no surprise that I take issue with some of his comments and I must speak up for the 'financial eggheads in 'far away Ipswich' (it's only 10 miles, but more of that later) for I am one of them, albeit elected rather than employed.

Each year, when setting the budget, we itemise all the new cost pressures and look at how we will close the gap through funding (council tax, business rates and government grants), increases to fees and charges we apply to various services, investment income and also where we can make further cost savings through our ongoing transformation programme. It is getting increasingly difficult but this year we – and councils everywhere – have been hit by the perfect storm of high inflation, high interest rates and larger annual national pay awards. 

The budget for next year is the most challenging I have experienced and the forecast for the medium term is, quite frankly, frightening. We are having to make a number of far-reaching and difficult decisions, of which short-term parking charges is only one. 

I can reassure RTG that we are looking elsewhere for savings, including not filling staff vacancies, but the scale of the problem means these alone won't be sufficient. We are already running a lean organisation, made possible by working in partnership with Mid Suffolk, so large-scale staff savings aren't possible without large-scale service cuts. 

We are also looking elsewhere for additional income. All of the services we charge for – those statutory services where we have control over the fees and all the discretionary services – must pay their way if they are to remain, so increases will happen. Parking, as a discretionary service, cannot be the exception. RTG is wrong: these services have not been paid for already by council tax or business rates, which only fund about 28% and 20% of our budget respectively. 

We are, of course, sensitive to the concerns about a possible impact of short-term parking charges on high street footfall, but there is no evidence from anywhere in the country that this is a problem where charges are modest. Assertions and claims are not empirical data. 

As to our CIFCO investments, RTG has got this so wrong. Without the income it provides, which is not at risk due to the robustness of the tenancies of the properties, we would be in a much worse position. 

Finally the old chestnut of the move to Ipswich. It happened six years ago for very good reasons which have been articulated many times and still remain valid. RTG is wrong about Corks Lane: work hasn't ground to a halt and the first apartments will go on sale in the Spring. It has been a difficult development due to the nature of the listed buildings and other things that have been found on site, but it isn't a misconceived project and doing nothing with the site wasn't an option. 

We make decisions that may not please everyone, but they are done in the best interests of our residents and businesses. The first duty of councillors is to carry out the statutory requirement to deliver a balanced budget each year. We must, of course, constantly explain why we do things.

But beware populists who peddle easy solutions and promise things for free: they play a cruel trick on everyone and will be found out. 

I would like to finish by wishing readers a very Happy New Year with the promise that Babergh's finances are in responsible hands.

See RTG's controversial column here...