Agenda and minutes

To receive any apologies for absence.

Apologies were received from Councillor Horwood. Councillors Lidstone, Noakes, Mrs Thomas and Willis were not present.

To approve the minutes of a previous meeting as a correct record. The only issue relating to the minutes that can be discussed is their accuracy.

Councillor Rutland was missing from the list of attendees at the 18 December 2019 meeting.

RESOLVED –

1.    That the list of those in attendance at the meeting on 18 December 2019 be amended to include Councillor Rutland; and

2.    That, subject to the above amendment, the minutes of the meeting dated 18 December 2019 be approved as a correct record.

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.

No declarations of pecuniary or significant other interest were made.

To receive announcements from the Mayor, the Leader of the Council, members of the Cabinet and the Chief Executive.

Details of the Mayor’s activities had been circulated. The Mayor had no further announcements.

The Leader of the Council announced:

·         Councillor Woodward would be nominated for Deputy Mayor in 2020/21.

·         The Department for Transport had announced that the Council had been awarded £785,000 towards a scheme that would improve access to the High Brooms Station Southbound platform.

Councillor March announced:

·         The Tunbridge Wells Forum had been nominated for the award of Grassroots Venue: Spirit Of The Scene at this years Music Week awards.

·         The GO card would be marketed in mid March with the aim of increasing engagement for families and individuals on low incomes. The card could be used at The Trinity Theatre, Amelia, Putlands Sports and Leisure Centre, The Assembly Hall Theatre, The Forum, The Puppetry Festival, Weald and St John's Sports and Leisure Centre.

To receive any questions from members of the public, of which due notice has been given in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 8, to be submitted and answered.

The Mayor advised that eleven questions from Members of the Public had been received under Council Procedure Rule 8, full details of which were set out in the supplement to the agenda.

1. Question from Dr Robert Chris

As Members were in receipt of the question submitted, Dr Chris summarised the main points as follows:

·         Had the Council learnt anything from the Calverley Square experience?

·         After seven months the cross-party working group had yet to recognise its role to assemble expert advice and public opinion to inform the recommendations as to the way forward.

·         The only recommendations it should be making were about process and nothing else.

Answer from Councillor Scott (summarised)

·         This was an extensive list of questions, that if answered in full would take most if not all the allotted time of 30 minutes.  Whilst I believe strongly that the public have the right to ask questions, I feel the process here has been stretched beyond breaking point and we need to come up with a better way to deal with multiple questions such as this. 

·         I will aim to do what I can in the time permitted, but it should be noted that I do not agree with much that has been written. 

·         The Committee was originally set up, under my authority as a non-official group which I asked to provide direct assistance to review the situation.  It is akin to a non-executive director of a company consulting with a group to help explore the questions and assumptions and alternatives.  Its primary focus is to determine if any consensus was possible across parties in the Council.

·         It was important for the group to have a wide variety of views. I can confirm that all parties provided their best endeavours to the process, for which I congratulate them.

·         The cross-party group was formed in June 2019, and I asked Adrian Berendt to form a non-political group to summarise the views of the public.

·         A Council conference was also set up to bring forward the Five-Year Plan by one year. 

·         Each of these three initiatives have brought positive engagement to the process and have identified that consensus over a wide range of issues is possible. These are the cornerstones for investigating possible alternatives that could then be put forward to councillors and the general public.

·         My own view and that of the non-political group was that the project had become too large and complex – making it impossible to obtain agreement. The project was designed as a single large project which could not at the final stage be sub divided into smaller projects.

·         Disaggregation of the project was now needed that would allow each part to be reviewed.

Supplementary Question from Dr Robert Chris

“Can you confirm that the cross-party groups remit is restricted to making recommendations about how the post Calverley Square decisions should be made and not what those decisions might be.”

Answer from Councillor Scott

“Yes.”

2. Question from Mr James Tansley

“What was the authorised  ...  view the full minutes text for item FC83/19

To receive any questions from members of the Council, of which due notice has been given in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 10, to be submitted and answered.

The Mayor advised that four questions from Members of the Council had been received under Council Procedure Rule 10, full details of which were set out in the supplement to the agenda.

1. Question from Councillor Williams

 “There are ten cycle parking bays in RVP, and of these six are now seemingly used permanently, that is to say most were cleared after the warning in January but now appear to be reverting to long-term parking to the detriment of those cyclists who work daily in the town and need somewhere to park their bikes safely.

Can the Council advise frustrated cyclists what measures it is taking to ensure current provision is actually available for daily use?”

 Answer from Councillor McDermott

“Officers check the cycle huts on a daily basis as part of their routine patrol of our car parks, and if they suspect that the facility is being abused will put warning signs up prior to breaking the padlock and removing the contents.

It became apparent that one of the huts was being misused in January this year, and officers followed this process, which resulted in the contents being removed by the person using the hut before further action was necessary.

On two occasions in the last few weeks, when officers were specifically asked to check, there were four vacant huts on one day and two vacant huts on the other. The additional cycle locking points were mostly unused.

If the public suspect that the facility is being used permanently by one person, and bikes are being left for a long period of time or the huts are locked while empty, they can email carparks@tunbridgewells.gov.uk and officers will investigate and take the appropriate action.”

2. Question from Councillor Pound

“Can the Portfolio Holder confirm that the investment criteria for property acquisitions that the Cabinet committed to in October 2013 have remained unchanged since that Cabinet Meeting and that members have not been advised at any time since that date of any alteration to those property investment criteria?”

 Answer from Councillor Scott

“Yes.”

Supplementary Question from Councillor Pound

“If the answer is yes, they have remained unchanged, can the Portfolio Holder therefore, on behalf of the Council confirm one or both of the following outcomes:

That the Council publically confirms as some residents believe, that the purchase of the 4 flats in Grove Hill House, all of which overlook the site of what would have been the new theatre was a purely political decision to quell opposition to the Calverley Square project and therefore should be included in the overall cost of the Calverley Square project; or

If they can’t acknowledge that, that the Council now needs to advertise its change in property investment criteria so that all of the Borough’s residents are aware of the Councils willingness to buy residential, leasehold properties if approached by individual owners, and that all will be considered against the same criteria as he says was used in considering the purchase of the 4 flats  ...  view the full minutes text for item FC84/19

To consider and, if thought fit, to approve the recommendations set out in the associated report.

Councillor Dawlings moved, and Councillor McDermott seconded, the recommendations set out in the report.

The report was taken as read.

The Mayor took a vote on the motion by affirmation.

RESOLVED –

1.    That the allocation of seats on committees as set out in paragraph 2.11 of the report be approved; and

2.    That the changes to the appointments to committees as set out at Appendix A to the report be noted.

To consider and, if thought fit, to approve the recommendations set out in the associated report.

Councillor Barrington-King moved, and Councillor Reilly seconded, the recommendations set out in the report.

The report was taken as read.

The Mayor took a vote on the motion by affirmation.

RESOLVED – That Mr Geoffrey Turner be appointed to the Audit and Governance Committee as an Independent Member for a term of four years.

To consider and, if thought fit, to approve the recommendations set out in the associated report.

Councillor Scott moved, and Councillor Dawlings seconded, the recommendations set out in the report.

Debate on the motion included the following comments:

·         Of the sixty-eight properties listed sixty-four met the investment criteria. It was not correct to say that the four flats in Grove Hill House met the property investment criteria. The Council had decided to ignore its own criteria and had not advised members that it had changed judgement on what those criteria are.

·         The Council had bought four flats in Grove Hill House quite purely for political reasons to quell opposition to the Calverley Square development. The Council had essentially become a private landlord propping up market rents within the middle of the town and that was wholly inappropriate. The four properties should be sold and some of the money should be used on other services.

Councillor Williams moved, and Councillor Pound seconded, an amendment to the motion to remove words and add words to the effect that the motion reads: “That the Asset Management Plan 2020/21 be adopted save for a recommendation to Cabinet that the properties in Grove Hill House be disposed of.”

Debate on the amendment included the following comments:

·         Any capital receipt from the sale of the properties could not be used in the revenue budget.

The Mayor took a vote on the amendment by show of hands: 12 For, 17 Against, 12 Abstain.

AMENDMENT NOT CARRIED

Debate returned to the original motion.

The Mayor took a vote on the original motion by affirmation.

RESOLVED – That the Asset Management Plan 2020/21 be adopted.

To consider and, if thought fit, to approve the recommendations set out in the associated report.

Councillor Dawlings moved, and Councillor McDermott seconded, the recommendations set out in the report.

The report was taken as read.

The Mayor took a vote on the motion by affirmation.

RESOLVED – That the amended Retail Relief Policy be adopted.

To consider and, if thought fit, to approve the recommendations set out in the associated report.

Councillor Dawlings moved, and Councillor McDermott seconded, the recommendations set out in the report.

Mr James Tansley had registered to speak, which included the following comments:

·         By any standards the council's performance in the last year had been dismal. It had wasted nearly £11m on the Calverley Sq. project. It had introduced a new waste collection scheme which provided a worse service at a higher cost than the one it replaced.  Its disruptive, costly and unnecessary civic space project had damaged hard-pressed businesses in Monson Rd, and it had imposed inflation busting increases in charges for virtually every service it provided.

·         The Council has lost the trust of residents who resented the lack of transparency at the way it spent their money.

·         The draft budget contained a lot of irrelevant detail, dubious statistics and meaningless comparisons.  It further sought to increase the amount of tax it received by close on twice the rate of inflation.

·         The Tunbridge Wells tax-payer was being asked to pay more for worse services. Councillors were not undertaking proper scrutiny and challenge on Council expenditure.  The draft budget should be thrown out.

Ms Anne Musker had registered to speak, which included the following comments:

·         1 in 10 people had a physical disability. In addition, there were those with physical restrictions due to broken legs, hip and knee replacements and other associated issues.  All were served by Shopmobility.

·         Wheelchairs were not automatically allocated, sometimes taking months to be assigned.  In addition, users had to be unable to use a manual wheelchair in order to be given a powered wheelchair. 

·         Powered wheelchairs offered independence.

·         Shopmobility benefited from an enormous amount of volunteer time, including free accountancy and admin.

·         Shopmobility scooters could be used across Tunbridge Wells and not just in the RVP.  Demand for scooters was close to 1,000 per year.

·         The amount of money offered was not sufficient to sustain Shopmobility – something that TWBC should have been aware of through consultation with Shopmobility, its users and from TWBC’s own Equality Impact Survey. 

·         This budget should be should now be referred back to Committee to identify both emergency and long-term funding to ensure that injured, sick and disabled people were able to continue to make use of this valuable resource.

Ms Caroline Riddle, Chair of Tunbridge Wells Shopmobility, had registered to speak, which included the following comments:

·         The decision to close Shopmobility was not taken lightly.

·         The wheelchairs and scooters all belonged to Shopmobility and would now be sold.

·         Shopmobility was a charity with a number of Trustees.  Except for one member of staff who is required by the insurers to be paid, all those who work for Shopmobility were volunteers.

·         For many years Shopmobility felt wanted and supported by TWBC and was able to operate 9-5pm Monday to Saturday. This was no longer case with the grant being cut by £1-2k each year – this was now causing financial difficulties. Cash reserves were being used to pay the bills.

·         The last grant was  ...  view the full minutes text for item FC89/19

To consider and, if thought fit, to approve the recommendations set out in the associated report.

Councillor Dawlings moved, and Councillor McDermott seconded, the recommendations set out in the report.

Debate on the motion included the following comments:

·         Details of the Council’s ‘Go’ card would be distributed with Council Tax bills.

In accordance with Council Procedure Rule 15.7, the Mayor took a recorded vote on the motion.

Members who voted in favour of the motion: The Mayor Councillor Scholes, The Deputy Mayor Councillor Podbury, Councillors Atwood, Backhouse, Bailey, Barrington-King, Bland, Chapelard, Mrs Cobbold, Dawlings, Ellis, Fairweather, Funnell, Hamilton, Hayward, Hickey, Holden, Mackonochie, March, McDermott,  Morton,  Poile,  Pope,  Rands,  Reilly, Rutland, Scott, Simmons, Soyke, Stanyer, Thomson, Warne, Williams and Woodward. (34)

Members who voted against the motion: Councillors Bruneau, Everitt, Hill, Lewis, Neve and Pound. (6)

Members who abstained from voting: Councillor Atkins. (1)

RESOLVED – That the Council Tax for 2020/21 be approved as set out at Appendix A to the report.

To consider and, if thought fit, to approve the recommendations set out in the associated report.

Councillor Dawlings moved, and Councillor McDermott seconded, the recommendations set out in the report.

The report was taken as read.

The Mayor took a vote on the motion by affirmation.

RESOLVED – That the Treasury Management Policy and Strategy 2020/21, as set out at Appendix A to the report, be adopted.

To consider and, if thought fit, to approve the recommendations set out in the associated report.

Councillor Dawlings moved, and Councillor McDermott seconded, the recommendations set out in the report.

The report was taken as read.

The Mayor took a vote on the motion by affirmation.

RESOLVED – That the Capital Strategy 2020/21, as set out in Appendix A to the report, be adopted.

To consider and, if thought fit, to approve the Motion as set out in the associated notice.

Councillor Rands moved, and Councillor Rutland seconded, the motion set out in the report.

Debate on the motion included the following comments:

·         Road safety was a major concern for residents. Although responsibility for this sat mainly with Kent County Council, action could still be taken forward by TWBC.

·         The introduction of a near miss register would be a tool that would be able to assess where there was greatest risk and predict where most accidents were likely to occur. Action could then be taken before somebody was either killed or seriously injured.

·         This system was already in use by the Ministry of Defence and in aviation. It was also used extensively in Australia and New Zealand.

·         The term ‘near miss’ was a subjective and would always have to rely on the judgement of those who were involved.

·         Those involved in a ‘near miss’ should be provided with a means to report it which in turn would provide a set of data that could be analysed and if necessary remedial measures could be considered.

·         The motion asked that instruction be given to investigate the costs, means and viability of establishing and maintaining a near miss register to cover the roads in the Borough of Tunbridge Wells. This action to be taken forward and reported back to Full Council in April 2020.

Councillor Woodward moved, and Councillor Backhouse seconded, a procedural motion under Council Procedure Rule 12.4 to refer this matter to the Joint Transportation Board.

Debate on the procedural motion included the following comments:

·         The JTB consisted of Borough and County Council officers who would be best placed to consider this matter and to make recommendations to both Kent Highways and the Borough’s Cabinet.

Councillor Holden moved, and Councillor Backhouse seconded, a closure motion under Council Procedure Rule 13.10.4 that the question now be put.

Consent to the closure motion was inferred by the taking of the vote on the procedure motion.

Councillor Chapelard requested a recorded vote on the procedural motion.

Members who voted in favour of the procedural motion: The Mayor Councillor Scholes, The Deputy Mayor Councillor Podbury, Councillors Atkins, Atwood, Backhouse, Bailey, Barrington-King, Mrs Cobbold, Dawlings, Fairweather, Hamilton,  Holden, Mackonochie, March, McDermott, Pound, Reilly, Scott, Simmons, Soyke, Stanyer, Thomson, Williams and Woodward. (24)

Members who voted against the procedural motion: Councillors Bland, Chapelard, Ellis, Everitt, Funnell, Hayward, Hickey, Hill, Lewis, Morton, Poile, Pope, Rands, Rutland and Warne. (15)

Members who abstained: None.

RESOLVED – That the matter be referred to the Joint Transportation Board.

During the debate on a subsequent agenda item, Councillor Pound noted that his vote had been intended to be in respect of the closure motion, believing that the procedural motion would follow. He would have voted against the procedure motion.

To consider and, if thought fit, to approve the Motion as set out in the associated notice.

Councillor Hayward moved, and Councillor Pope seconded, the motion set out in the report.

Debate on the motion included the following comments:

·         To consider the introduction of a pilot scheme for a reuse facility that would allow goods that would have been discarded to be reused.

·         Consideration should be given to include organisations already involved in this, e.g. The British Heart Foundation and Hospice in the Weald.

·         Need to ensure the facility did not contravene the Sales of Good Act.

·         The site at North Farm was not big enough to include a recycling shop.

·         If the shop was at located at another venue, it would lose some of its convenience.

·         There were a number of organisations that already offered this service.  A council run alternative would result in loss of revenue to these other organisations/charities e.g. YMCA. 

·         Any work should be done in consultation with local charities.

·         Kent was one of the few councils that didn’t have a shop.

·         A new repair café was due to open at Trinity in early March.

The Mayor took a vote on the motion by affirmation.

RESOLVED – That following this Council's declared ambition to be carbon neutral by 2030 and its commitment to reduce waste, whilst recognising the emergence of 're-use' shops, this Council requests that Kent County Council explore the introduction of a pilot scheme for a re-use facility on or near to the North Farm Household Waste

Recycling Centre.

To consider and, if thought fit, to approve the Motion as set out in the associated notice.

Councillor Pound moved, and Councillor Hill seconded, the motion set out in the report.

Debate on the motion included the following comments:

·         The matter was not a case of grandstanding but should form part of the core responsibility of the local authority.

·         A large portion of the community was disenfranchised.

·         Whilst Tunbridge Wells was one of the lest deprived districts in Kent there were still 6,500 children living in poverty.

·         There were too many areas where too many people were living in poverty.

·         Poverty was just one of the measures in the Government’s indices of multiple deprivation.

·         It was not good enough to say the Council was not responsible for factors which contributed do deprivation so a public investigation into the extent of poverty would help the Council and its partners to identify what could be done.

·         Considerable resources had been spent on growth through investment in assets with insufficient investment in people.

Councillor Mackonochie moved, and Councillor Holden seconded, a procedural motion under Council Procedure Rule 12.4 to refer the matter to the Overview and Scrutiny Committee.

Debate on the procedural motion included the following comments:

·         This was a complex issue and Overview and Scrutiny Committee was the appropriate body to look into the matter and decide on the method of moving forward.

Councillor Holden moved, and Councillor March seconded, a closure motion under Council Procedure Rule 13.10.4 that the question now be put.

Councillor Pound requested a recorded vote on the closure motion.

Members who voted in favour of the closure motion: Councillors Atwood, Backhouse, Bailey, Dawlings, Fairweather, Holden, Mackonochie, March, McDermott,  Scott, Simmons, Thomson and Williams. (13)

Members who voted against the closure motion: Councillors Atkins, Chapelard, Ellis, Everitt, Funnell, Hayward, Hickey, Hill, Lewis, Morton, Poile, Pope, Pound, Rands, Rutland and Warne. (16)

Members who abstained: The Mayor Councillor Scholes, The Deputy Mayor Councillor Podbury, Councillors Atwood, Barrington-King, Bland, Mrs Cobbold, Hamilton, Reilly, Simmons and Woodward. (10)

CLOSURE MOTION NOT CARRIED

Debate returned to the procedural motion (to refer the matter to the Overview and Scrutiny Committee).

Debate on the procedural motion included the following comments:

·         A complex issue.  A lot of work was already going on at County level. 

·         A great deal of work would be involved so there was a need for in-depth discussion to decide how best to proceed.

·         Councillor Hamilton extended an invitation to Councillor Pound to see some of the work being undertaken at County level.

·         There was concern that taking it direct to Overview and Scrutiny Committee was inappropriate and would seriously delay any action taking place.

·         Additionally, concern was raised over the level of resources available to take this forward at Overview and Scrutiny.

·         If the issue were referred to Overview and Scrutiny it should be dealt with as a matter of priority.

·         It was suggested that those Councillors representing the highlighted areas of concern be included in any discussions going forward.

·         The Overview and Scrutiny was not representative of all Councillors affected by this issue.

·         The Committee had powers  ...  view the full minutes text for item FC95/19

To consider and, if thought fit, to approve the Motion as set out in the associated notice.

Councillor Everitt moved, and Councillor Morton seconded, the motion set out in the report subject to an alteration of the motion under Council Procedure Rule 13.7.1 to replace “Full Council on 8 July 2020” in paragraph 4 with “Cabinet on 10 September 2020”. The meeting consented to the alteration by affirmation.

Mr David Mooney had registered to speak, which included in the following comments:

·         The question now was not whether we should act, but what action could be taken and how quickly.

·         Now the owner of an electric car, but with no driveway.

·         Kent County Council suggested use of the Olaf Government Grant for the installation of home and on street charging points.

·         The recent Kent Energy and Low Emissions Strategy consultation identified transport as the biggest problem producing 41% of carbon emissions.

·         Funds were available that would allow councils to take the first steps to meet projected need, which was anticipated to be 50-70% of new cars by 2030.

·         Westminster and Southwark Council were using lamppost charging systems. Oxford Council had installed pop up chargers that emerged from the pavement.

·         There had been stories that sited potential problems with power capacity. In 2017 there was an implication that 6 nuclear power stations would be needed to meet the new demand. This statement had since been withdrawn and apology given.

·         The use of better charged storage systems and smart charging that would regulate demand to off peak periods would provide a much higher set of efficiencies.

·         Council car parks had been identified as potential new locations.

Debate on the motion included the following comments:

·         The Borough’s infrastructure for the use of Electric Vehicles was behind the level of demand.

·         Tiered authorities contributed to a lack of responses to new resident demands.

·         Central Government applications for funding were not restricted to Highway Authorities.

·         TWBC should be proactive and put together a funding plan and a resident led list of charging point locations that could be submitted to Kent CC. 

·         The reference to 6 nuclear power stations was put forward as the necessary increase in output to fuel 30 million cars if all the cars were replaced that were currently on the road.  Alongside this statistic was the need for 3 million charging points.  Based on population, Kent would need 70,000 charging points. 

·         The current method for ‘fuelling’ was to go to a petrol station – should one consideration be to turn these to electric stations.

·         The issue was too big to be restricted to discussions within the Borough.  It needed to be County wide and include a wide range of relevant organisations.

·         The Chinese had incorporated solar panels into the roofs of their cars as an alternative to using dedicated charging points.

·         The Council had a duty to provide an option that would allow people to drive around in an environmentally friendly way.

Councillor Bailey moved, and Councillor Woodward seconded, an amendment to the motion, to remove paragraphs 4-7 and add in its place: “The Council recognises that the draft Local  ...  view the full minutes text for item FC96/19

To consider any other items which the Mayor decides are urgent, for the reasons to be stated, in accordance with Section 100B(4) of the Local Government Act 1972.

There was no urgent business.

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.

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.

To note that the date of the next meeting is Wednesday 22 April 2020.

The next scheduled meeting was Wednesday 22 April 2020.