ANGRY chalet owners at Norton Park, on the outskirts of Dartmouth, want to make sure their £85,000 contribution to the Business Improvement District over the next five years is spent wisely. 'It's a large amount which needs some identifiable return,' said Stan Morrissey, chairman of the Norton Park Chalet Owners Association. He was speaking after a meeting in Dartmouth on Saturday when 34 chalet owners gathered to express their views at being missed out from last year's ballot on the BID for which they never received any information. Now a liaison group has been set up 'to ensure Norton Park businesses are not ignored in the future'. 'Most are not against paying a levy, but object strongly to being disenfranchised,' said Mr Morrissey. 'Owners have written to South Hams Council, Sarah Wollaston MP and others, and made inquiries at the Electoral Commission, the Audit Commission and many other authorities to find out what is going on.' Mr Morrissey said many chalet owners were unable to attend the meeting at the Baptist Church in Townstal as they were well into the letting season, but some had travelled from as far away as the Midlands and an impressive 86 per cent had sent apologies and their support. BID chairman Nigel Way and former chairman Paul Reach, now a board member, were present to answer questions. But Mr Morrissey said there was some difference of opinion over what was considered the correct business address of chalet owners for the delivery of documents and ballot papers, and how communications will be made in the future was not resolved. 'Norton Park is a particular problem for deliveries because most chalets do not have mailing addresses or even letterboxes and only about eight to 10 chalets are registered with the post office,' said Mr Morrissey. He said a lot of owners ran their businesses from home and bills and rate demands from South Hams Council were sent to home addresses. Mr Morrissey said no chalet owner had been found at Norton Park who was consulted, despite the BID volunteers having visited the site three times. 'At Norton Park, there are 170 businesses, about 15 per cent of the Dartmouth total, so it is strange that interviewees there are so elusive,' he said. Some who own several chalets were incensed that the levy was based on the number of premises owned and not on the number of businesses. Jim Tregaskis said: 'We have a small business with six chalets and have to pay £600 a year, a total of at least £3,000 over five years. 'Our total rateable value is £7,000. Why should we pay more than a town business with a much higher rateable value?' Another owner at the meeting said they had felt 'threatened' by the levy demand and dubbed the whole process as 'unfriendly'. Others said they had suspected a scam. Mr Way outlined some of the benefits that the BID hoped to deliver, including increased tourist footfall; business cost savings; help with laundry and services; cheaper car parking; and the possibility of a new footpath between Sainsbury's and Norton Park. 'The view of those present was that, though these would benefit tourist business in town, they would do very little to help their own businesses, due to the way that chalet lettings run,' said Mr Morrissey. But he said he was pleased the BID team was willing to listen and hoped that they would work together in future. An independent campaign has also been launched with a survey to many Dartmouth businesses to find out how many shared the Norton Park experiences. See progress at http://www.dartmouthbidvote">www.dartmouthbidvote concern.co.uk. l Vote in our poll: Should the Dartmouth BID vote be re-run? Go to http://www.dart">www.dart mouth-today.co.uk.