Venue: Council Chamber, Royal Tunbridge Wells, Kent TN1 1RS
Contact: Mathew Jefferys Democratic and Electoral Services Manager
No. | Item |
---|---|
Declarations of Interest To receive any declarations of interest by Members in items on the agenda. For any advice on declarations of interest, please contact the Monitoring Officer before the meeting. Minutes: No declarations of pecuniary or significant other interest were made. |
|
Apologies for absence Minutes: Apologies were received from Councillors Dr Hall, Hills, Horwood, Jamil and Ms Palmer.
Councillors Gray and Lewis-Grey were not present. |
|
Announcements To receive announcements from the Mayor, the Leader of the Council, members of the Cabinet and the Chief Executive. Minutes: The Mayor noted that a written summary of her past and future engagements had been made available to Members
The Mayor invited members of The Kent College Gymnastics Academy to give a short display.
Councillor Jukes, as a follow up to his announcement at the meeting of Full Council on 6 December 2017 that Councillor Scholes would be the Mayor for the year 2019/20, described Councillor Scholes’s experience, achievements and suitability for the role.
Councillor March announced arrangements for International Women's Day on 8 March 2018. She said that there would be a march from The Pantiles to the Town Hall and that the Mayor had invited people to come to the Council Chamber from 4.45pm until 6pm where a reception with inspirational women speakers would be held. Councillor March said that this was a non-political event and one of a number of commemorations being held across Royal Tunbridge Wells on this significant day. She added that entry to the Council Chamber would be by ticket on a first come first served basis.
There were no announcements by the Chief Executive. |
|
The minutes of the previous meeting PDF 312 KB The minutes of the previous meeting held on 6 December 2017 to be approved as a correct record. Minutes: RESOLVED – That the minutes of the meetings dated 6 December 2017 be approved as a correct record. |
|
Questions from members of the public To receive questions from members of the public, of which due notice has been given, pursuant to Council Procedure Rule 8, to be submitted and answered. Minutes: The Mayor advised that there were four questions pursuant to Council Procedure Rule 8.
1. Question from Dr Robert Chris
“The response to many of the public comments on the consultation on the draft Civic Development Framework (CDF) was, where they referred specifically to the proposed civic development, that they were “not directly related to the purposes of the draft document, its structure, form and content.” They were referred to the civic development project team but ignored for the purposes of the draft CDF. Please identify where in the draft CDF or in the instructions available to the public about how to respond to the consultation, it was made clear for the benefit of prospective respondents: a) that comments must be “directly related to the purposes of the draft document, its structure, form and content” (“the criteria”); b) how the criteria would be interpreted.
Given that the draft CDF is concerned only with those sites affected by the proposed civic complex development, and that none of the many objections to the proposed civic development was treated as falling within the criteria: c) is this not sufficient empirical evidence to conclude that the consultation was significantly misleading and should be declared void and rerun with clearer instructions for the public on how to frame their responses so as to fall within the criteria?”
Answer from Councillor McDermott
“In carrying out the public consultation on the draft Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) it was made clear both on the consultation website portal and the paper response form that this was a consultation on the draft SPD document itself.
The relevant portal page referred to the consultation being in respect of a draft Civic Development Planning Framework SPD and referenced the relevant planning regulations. The same page gave details of a drop in session when officers would be available to answer questions regarding the consultation and draft document.
The relevant paper response form also identified the document the subject of the consultation and stated: this response form should be used to make comments on the draft Civic Development Planning Framework SPD. It was clear therefore what the subject of the consultation was and on what basis representations were invited.
The consultation invited responses to five questions on the document, four of which were on specific elements of the draft document and one of which was for any other comments. No criteria were set to exclude representations however as with all consultations on specific subjects, in this case the draft SPD document, it is to be expected that representations made will be related and relevant to the subject itself and not to other matters.
It is not correct to state that the draft SPD document is concerned only with those sites affected by the proposed civic complex development. The document identifies a number of key sites in the town centre and gives commentary and guidance on each. Two of the sites relate to the proposed civic offices and new theatre.
The consultation was not misleading ... view the full minutes text for item FC58/17 |
|
Questions from members of the Council To receive questions from members of the Council, of which due notice has been given, pursuant to Council Procedure Rule 10, to be submitted and answered. Minutes: The Mayor advised that there were seven questions pursuant to Council Procedure Rule 10.
1. Question from Councillor Munn
“The Council has committed to resettling ten households under the Syrian Vulnerable Persons Relocation Scheme between 2015 and 2020 and has so far accepted seven households. Has the Council considered committing itself to more than ten households as there has not been a conclusion to hostilities?”
Answer from Councillor Weatherly
“The Housing team has not considered assisting more than 10 Syrian refugee households before 2020 for two reasons:
1) We continue to see a high number of people approaching the Council because they are facing homelessness or are sleeping rough, this will increase in April 2018 with the introduction of the Homelessness Reduction Act. We also have around 1,000 households on our Housing Register who are waiting for an affordable housing association home. We have to balance the needs of those households alongside Syrian families.
2) The limited availability of privately rented accommodation – we use this kind of housing for our refugee families, so as not to increase demand on the housing stock – is unfortunately becoming increasingly difficult to secure in Tunbridge Wells and in other parts of the Borough.
Taking account of those factors, we feel that our offer to help 10 Syrian households is both reasonable and achievable.”
Supplementary question from Councillor Munn
“The officers involved in this scheme are to be applauded for their evident commitment to this scheme and to their success so far. Is there no way the council can explore an increase to the numbers being accepted?”
Answer from Councillor Weatherly
“We are not looking at this at this moment.”
2. Question from Councillor Chapelard
“With reference to the agenda for the Finance and Governance Cabinet Advisory Board of 9 January 2018, item 13: Acquisition of Properties in Royal Tunbridge Wells. Should councillors have been briefed that this work was going on before Full Council voted on item 10 at its 6 December 2017 meeting?”
Answer from Councillor Jukes
“Councillor Chapelard, thank you for the question. As you are well aware exempt report papers are published in advance with the rest of the agenda and available to elected Councillors to review. Our processes including engagement with Finance and Governance prior to Cabinet taking a decision provides adequate opportunity for Councillors to engage in the process.
As you will be well aware the Council has set up a property investment fund and the proposed purchase of the properties in question is from funding already agreed by the Council. As the report, which I remind you is commercially confidential, demonstrated the investment opportunity and Cabinet took the decision on the 1 February 2018 to progress with the investment opportunity. So the simple answer is no as the procedure followed is as per any investment opportunity within the budget already identified.”
Supplementary question from Councillor Chapelard
“Given the location of the properties in exempt item 13 of the Finance and Governance Cabinet Advisory Board on 9 ... view the full minutes text for item FC59/17 |
|
Civic Development Planning Framework Supplementary Planning Document PDF 151 KB Additional documents:
Minutes: Councillor McDermott introduced the report and moved the recommendations. He said that the new development was only part of this consultation and reminded Members that this report had been considered by the relevant Cabinet Advisory Board and the Cabinet.
Councillor Jukes seconded the motion.
Members voting against the motion: Councillors Bulman, Chapelard, Hill, Lidstone, Munn, Stewart and Williams.
RESOLVED –
1. That the consultation responses received in respect of the draft Civic Development Planning Framework Supplementary Planning Document be noted and published;
2. That the draft Civic Development Planning Framework Supplementary Planning Document be further updated by the revisions set out in Appendix A; and
3. That the revised draft Civic Development Planning Framework Supplementary Planning Document, as amended above, be approved and adopted to inform decision making, as a material planning consideration, in regard to planning applications. |
|
Asset Management Plan 2018/19 PDF 118 KB Additional documents:
Minutes: Councillor Jukes introduced the report and moved the recommendations. He commented that the annual housekeeping report was a positive one and congratulated the staff on the excellent job they were doing with the properties. He advised that the Council was making a surplus on it’s property management and that this was indicative of the policy started about five or six years ago. He added that The Draft Asset Management Plan was subject to public consultation from 8 December 2017 to 18 January 2018 and that no comments were received from the public during this consultation period.
Councillor McDermott seconded the motion.
Councillor Rankin said that there had been an issue with a council owned property in her Park ward which was not being maintained properly. She asked the appropriate department if they would paint and make good and they did so very promptly. She felt that in terms of asset management the council was responsibly dealing with properties and hoped that this would continue to be the case.
Councillor Williams said on Item 282 (page 248) Land Opposite 283 Upper Grosvenor Road Royal Tunbridge Wells Kent TN4 9EX that the removal of rubbish was promptly and efficiently dealt with by the council but that the proliferation of rats had not yet been concluded. He added that given the public health concerns he would be grateful for some comment from the Portfolio Holder on this public health nuisance.
Councillor Neve asked for written officer clarification on two items: · 144 (page 227) Pavilion Grosvenor Recreation Ground Upper Grosvenor Road Royal Tunbridge Wells Kent TN1 2JB described as a Semi Derelict Corrugated Metal Shed. Councillor Neve said that the pavilion in that area had just been re-developed and certainly was not derelict. · 154 (page 228) Changing Rooms Hilbert Recreation Ground Hilbert Road Royal Tunbridge Wells Kent TN1Recreation described as a Detached Single Storey Building. Councillor Neve said that it was an Oast House.
Councillor Lidstone followed up Councillor Williams’ point about the land at Upper Grosvenor Road. He said that the Council was repeating the cycle of clearing it up, putting fences up only for them to be knocked down and that there were rats. He felt that the council should be looking at this site as a priority.
RESOLVED –
1. That completion of the formal public consultation and results on the Draft Asset Management Plan 2018/19 be noted; and
2. That the Asset Management Plan 2018/19 be adopted. |
|
Budget 2018/19 and Medium Term Financial Strategy Update PDF 590 KB Additional documents:
Minutes: The Mayor exercised her discretion under Council Procedure Rules 13.4.2 and 13.4.4 to allow the mover of the motion and the group leaders to speak for more than ten minutes on this item, if they so wished.
Councillor Reilly introduced the report and moved the recommendations. He explained that the decisions about 2018/19 council budgets were being made in one of the most unstable political and economic environments experienced in recent times.
He continued that in the context of the widening gap between funding and demand, three significant funding pressures had been of concern to the council in setting the budget. They were general inflation in the cost of goods and services used by this council in delivering its services, additional unfunded legislative requirements and pressures arising from demographic change and consequent demand for service provision.
Councillor Reilly confirmed that the budget for the council was balanced for 2018/19 with no major reductions to frontline services and no use of the general reserve fund. This, he said, was despite a further reduction in the Revenue Support Grant of £202,000 to zero and a cut in government funding for New Homes Bonus of £302,000. The Council tax would increase by £4.98 for the whole year (i.e. 41 pence a month).
Councillor Reilly concluded that Cabinet had approved the draft budget for wider consultation on 6 December 2017 and that the report had been widely consulted on with presentations being made to groups representing communities in both the town and rural parts of the Borough.
Councillor Scholes seconded the motion and reserved his right to speak.
Councillor Williams sought to raise a Point of Information in respect of Councillor Reilly’s introduction. William Benson, Chief Executive, said that there was no such thing as a point of information. He advised Councillor Williams that if there was something he wanted to elicit then he should include it in his contribution to the debate.
Councillor Hill, on behalf of the Labour group, thanked Lee Colyer, Director of Finance, Policy and Development, for his tireless efforts and professionalism in preparing and explaining the budget during a time of austerity and cuts to local government revenue but said that they would not be supporting it. She felt that by embarking on an expensive and extravagant £90 million building project the Council was focussing on the wrong priorities and not addressing the daily concerns of residents in towns and villages across the Borough.
Councillor Chapelard, on behalf of the Liberal Democrat group thanked Mr Colyer and the finance team. He welcomed the attempt to provide a balanced but said a properly balanced budget did not use reserves for capital projects. He warned members that the Council was using its reserves to pay for its day to day maintenance and at some point those reserves will run out and he asked what then? Councillor Chapelard also raised concerns that the council was using section 106 money to do routine maintenance to facilities rather than building much needed infrastructure. He ... view the full minutes text for item FC62/17 |
|
Council Tax 2018/19 PDF 127 KB Additional documents:
Minutes: Councillor Reilly introduced the report and moved the recommendations. He explained that the purpose of this report was to enable the council to calculate the council tax for 2018/19. So following agreement to the 2018/19 budget reports an increase of £4.98 which is 3 per cent on the Borough Council’s basic amount of council tax at Band B for 2018/19 was recommended. This would enable a balanced budget to be set.
Councillor Scholes seconded the motion and reserved his right to speak.
Councillor Lidstone commented that he was surprised to read on the 19 February 2018 that Kent County Council met on 20 February 2018 and had set their precept at £56 million. Councillor Lidstone asked to be assured that this was merely a typo in the report and that the decision on KCC precept was not pre determined.
In accordance with the relevant legislation regarding Full Council decisions on the setting of the council tax, a recorded vote was taken on the recommendations.
Members voting in favour of the motion: The Mayor (Councillor Mrs Soyke), Councillors Backhouse, Barrington-King, Dr Basu, Bland, Bulman, Mrs Cobbold, Dawlings, Elliott, Hamilton, Hannam, Hastie, Heasman, Hill, Holden, Huggett, Jukes, Lidstone, Mackonochie, March, McDermott, Moore, Munn, Neve, Noakes, Nuttall, Oakford, Podbury, Rankin, Reilly, Scholes, Simmons, Sloan, Stanyer, Stewart, Mrs Thomas, Uddin, Weatherly, Williams and Woodward. (40)
Members voting against the motion: Councillor Chapelard. (1)
RESOLVED – The detailed resolution is set out in the attached annexe. |
|
Treasury Management Policy and Strategy 2018/19 PDF 110 KB Additional documents: Minutes: Councillor Reilly introduced the report and moved the recommendations. He explained that the report set out the authority’s policies for managing investments and borrowing and he drew particular attention to: · The Council’s aims to achieve the optimum return on its investments commensurate with proper levels of scrutiny and liquidity. · The risk appetite of this council was low in order to give priority to security of its investments. · At its meeting of 6 December 2017 Full Council approved an amendment of the Treasury Management Policy and Strategy to increase the authorised limit for external debt and the operational boundary for external debt by £77 million to fund the new Civic Complex and theatre. · This amendment has been reflected within the 2018/19 Treasury Management Policy and Strategy and both the Authorised Limit for External Debt and Operational Boundary for External Debt have been increased from £20 million to £97 million. · The report had been supported by the Finance and Governance Cabinet Advisory Board on 9 January 2018.
Councillor Sloan seconded the motion and reserved his right to speak.
Councillor Stewart said that she would not be supporting this motion, as she did not support the project that the money would be going to finance and she thought it was irresponsible. She added that she was horrified that the authorised debt has been increased to £97 million and commented that if the risk appetite of the council was low, she could not imagine where the limit would be if the council had a medium appetite for risk.
Councillor Sloan endorsed the rigor applied by the Council in developing the treasury policy as well as the safeguards that were inherent in the strategy and its implementation.
Members voting against the motion: Councillors Bulman, Chapelard, Hannam, Hill, Lidstone, Munn, Stewart and Williams.
RESOLVED – That the Treasury Management Policy and Strategy 2018/19 be adopted. |
|
Urgent Business To deal with any business the Mayor regards as urgent due to special circumstances. Minutes: The Mayor confirmed there was no urgent business to consider within the provisions of Council Meetings Procedure 2.1.12. |
|
Common Seal of the Council To authorise the Common Seal of the Council to be affixed to any contract, minute, notice or other document arising out of the minutes, or pursuant to any delegation, authority or power conferred by the Council. Minutes: RESOLVED – That the Common Seal of the Council be affixed to any contract, minute, notice or other document arising out of the minutes or pursuant to any delegation, authority or power conferred by the Council. |
|
Date of next meeting Minutes: It was noted that the next meeting of the Full Council would take place on Wednesday 25 April 2018 at 6.30pm. |