Tonight:
5°c
Traders attack deer tax imposed by Henry VIII
Miranda Bryant15 Dec 2009
It's no fun being a small firm in the recession: customers down, business rates to pay, higher national insurance - and then there's the 500-year-old tax for keeping the local royal deer from running away.
But one group of traders in Hampton Hill are fighting back: they are calling for the "deer tax" of Bushy Park to be slashed.
Businesses whose premises back on to the open space are required to pay the annual charge, which can be as much as £1,400 depending on their property.
It was introduced by Henry VIII as compensation for deer that escaped. But Royal Parks, which manages the land, still continues to charge an "encroachment rate" to premises that stand on the Crown-owned 5.03metre strip outside the park wall.
Some traders have received warning letters for not paying the tax - which was due in February - but they argue that they cannot afford it.
Vince Cable, MP for Twickenham and the Liberal Democrat Treasury spokesman, has joined their campaign, describing the levy as "outrageous" and "ancient".
Lawrence Phipps, whose firm Click-2-Print in Hampton Hill High Street is liable, said: "I've been paying £1,400 for the last five years. Now we are struggling. We've lost lots of work due to this recession.
"A couple of hundred pounds a year would be fine and most traders would say the same. But when you sit down and count the pennies you think, come on, be a bit more sensible. It's such an antiquated law. It's a lot to pay for a business that's hanging on."
About 360 red and fallow deer are believed to live in the park. Henry VIII turned it into a hunting ground after taking it over, along with Hampton Court Palace, from Cardinal Wolsey in 1529. He had the park walled in to improve his chances of catching the animals. But traders said there was no chance of deer leaping over the barrier: "I don't think anyone's ever seen one jump. No deer in there could possibly leap the wall now," said Mr Phipps.
Danny Patel, owner of Taps News-agent, added: "It's an old-fashioned law. Someone out there needs to sit down and sort it out. We live in the 21st century." Alistair Burnside, the co-owner of Attic Furniture, said: "It was always in our contract, but until recently we've never given it much thought. Now everybody is starting to look at all their bills and overheads and asking, 'Well, why are we paying this?'"
Mr Cable said: "They're not paying for a service, they're paying to be on their property. There's very little justification. We're asking [Royal Parks] to be reasonable and lenient dealing with individual cases."
Royal Parks said the fee varied depending on the commercial value of the property and amount of land occupied. It insisted the charge was a licence fee rather than a tax, and that all revenue raised contributed to park maintenance.
A spokeswoman said: "It is made clear to owners from the outset that the land is subject to licence and these may be periodically reviewed. Our staff are always willing to discuss any concerns owners may have about the level or structure of charges."
Reader views (2)
I pay this tax and was amazed when I found out what it was! It went up from £15 to £154 about four years ago!
- Ian Taylor, Hampton Hill, middlesex England, 17/12/2009 14:27
Report abuse
Yes Vince. It is indeed outrageous; nearly as bad as the increase in the local council tax (the biggest % increase in London this year ) imposed by your LibDem chums at Richmond Council.
- Andrew, Hampton Hill, 15/12/2009 19:05
Report abuse
