Agenda and minutes

To receive any apologies for absence.

Apologies were received from Councillors Ellis, Funnell, Morton and Roberts. Councillor White was 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.

No amendments were proposed.

RESOLVED – That the minutes of the meeting dated 07 July 2021 be approved as a correct record.

To receive any declarations of interest by members in items on the agenda in accordance with the Members’ Code of Conduct. For any advice on declarations of interest, please contact the Monitoring Officer before the meeting.

No declarations of pecuniary or other significant interest were made. 

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

The Mayor announced:

·         A new officer supporting the directors and mayoralty had joined the Council.

·         In August, the Mayor had attended the commemoration of the opening of a pair of war memorial cottages in Capel which were available to locals in need.

·         In September the Mayor had attended the Big Thank You event in Calverley Grounds to recognise volunteers who gave their time to support their communities.

The Leader announced:

·         Accounts for 2020/21 had been completed and received an unqualified external audit for the twelfth successive year. This was against a background of significantly increased workloads due to the administration of Covid grants.

·         Tunbridge Wells was one of the few councils to have completed on time, the Finance team were commended.

The Portfolio Holder for Economic Development announced:

·         Tunbridge Wells had again been voted by ‘Which?’ as the best place to live in Kent.

·         Those involved in running local events were commended for helping to get back to normal life. The Puppetry Festival started 9 October.

The Portfolio Holder for the Environment announced:

·         With the effects of climate change increasing, the delegates to COP26 were urged to show leadership in tackling the challenges.

·         A new Climate Change officer had joined the council to drive forward local progress.

The Portfolio Holder for Culture and Leisure announced:

·         Royal Tunbridge Wells had won gold and category winner in the Large Town category of Britain In Bloom.

·         A large number of other prizes had been won in Tunbridge Wells In Bloom.

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 no questions from members of the public had been received under Council Procedure Rule 8.

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 six questions from members of the council had been received under Council Procedure Rule 10.

1. Question from Councillor Rutland

“In June of this year, you told the Courier newspaper that you were pushing for a meeting with the owners of the former cinema site in the middle of Tunbridge Wells. In the latest edition of the council’s Local magazine, you stated that you wished ‘to see if there is anything we can do about the cinema site’. What actions, meetings and conversations have taken place with the owners or other relevant parties since you were elected leader of the council in June?”

Answer from Councillor Dawlings

“In July I met with the owner and their agents as I indicated I intended to do. I emphasised the importance of the site to the town, the impatience we all feel at the site remaining undeveloped and the need for a quality development in such a key central part of the town. This meeting had led to further meetings with our planners, but pre-application planning meetings are in confidence and I’m afraid we must respect the confidence of those pre-application meetings.”

[No supplementary question.]

2. Questions from Councillor Hayward

“The black bins were purchased via ESPO which is a public sector owned professional buying organisation. The cheapest on the price list was taken and the Craemer bins with no virgin material purchased. The price quoted on ESPO and paid was that for a single order of 780 bins. About 44,000 were actually purchased. There is no option for suppliers to offer reduced pricing for larger quantities on the ESPO platform. Given the scale of the order and the need to demonstrate Value for Money, did the administration seek a reduced rate which, under the framework and required by procurement rules, reopens the competition to all suppliers?”

Answer from Councillor Dawlings

“I think you’re mistaken. The black bins purchased are a blend of virgin material and recycled plastic. The Council utilised the ESPO – the Eastern Shires Purchasing Organisation – framework which is a fully compliant and approved route to the market. A full supplier engagement process was undertaken to ensure manufacturing timescales were achievable and that Brexit would not cause any adverse supply issues – this procurement process was undertaken in late 2018 when Brexit at that time was a very imminent problem. The Council requested best and final pricing from framework providers following our supplier engagement event and then placed call-off orders via the framework. A mini-competition would not open competition to the wider market, only to those suppliers approved under the ESPO framework. The blended bins which included recycled material were slightly cheaper than those with no recycled material.”

Supplementary question from Councillor Hayward

How many [defective] bins have been refunded under warranty and will they be replaced by better-quality bins from a different supplier to avoid the repetition of the very expensive officer time in dealing with defective bins, of which there must be hundreds?  ...  view the full minutes text for item FC37/21

To note the use of the Council’s Urgency Procedures in accordance with the Constitution.

Councillor Woodward moved, and Councillor Bland seconded, the recommendation set out in the notice on the agenda.

The Mayor took a vote on the motion by affirmation.

RESOLVED – That the use of the Call-In and Urgency procedure in accordance with Overview and Scrutiny Procedure Rule 14 in respect of Cabinet decision: PSPO 2021 – Three-month extension of two 2018 measures and formal approval of other three-year extensions made on 23 September 2021 be noted.

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

Councillor Simmons moved, and Councillor Backhouse seconded, the recommendation set out in the report on the agenda.

Debate included:

·         Sealing of documents was a necessary process but difficult to implement securely with remote and flexible working practices.

·         The proposed amendments were minor in nature.

·         The recommendation was approved by the Audit and Governance Committee.

The Mayor took a vote on the motion by affirmation.

RESOLVED – That the amendments to the Constitution as set out in paragraph 1.5 of the report be approved.

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

Councillor Dr Hall moved, and Councillor McDermott seconded, recommendations one and two (not three) as set out in the report on the agenda.

Debate included:

·         Neighbourhood planning was widely supported.

·         The Plan balanced local history with sustainable development.

·         The efforts of the many people involved were commended.

·         Recommendation three in the report was not necessary as a Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) was not required for the purposes of this particular Neighbourhood Plan.

The Mayor took a vote on the motion by affirmation.

RESOLVED –

1.    That, following a favourable local Referendum result in relation to the use of the Lamberhurst Neighbourhood Development Plan to help in the determination of planning applications in the Parish Neighbourhood Area, the Lamberhurst Neighbourhood Development Plan be formally ‘made’ (adopted) and become part of the statutory Development Plan for the area with immediate effect; and

2.    That the Lamberhurst Neighbourhood Development Plan Decision Statement (post-Referendum) shown at Appendix A to the report be published.

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

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

Debate included:

·         This was a new scheme introduced in 2021/22 and had not yet completed a full year in operation.

·         Positive feedback had been received including from the Citizens Advice Bureau.

·         The new scheme was easy to understand.

·         The Council could choose to give 100 per cent relief to those most in need.

·         Those in receipt of maximum Universal Credit, the poorest, still had to pay £200-300 Council Tax under the scheme.

·         Availability of disposable income affected many other aspects of poverty.

·         Members should spend time at the Gateway to fully understand the issues affecting those on low incomes.

·         The Council should show leadership in increasing the relief and not just follow others.

·         Council Tax paid was taken into account when calculating other benefits.

In response to a request for clarification in the event that the motion was rejected, the Chief Executive and Director of Finance (Section 151 Officer) advised:

·         The report had been considered by the Finance and Governance Cabinet Advisory Board and Cabinet where detailed questions could have been asked of officers before being presented to Full Council.

·         The proposals had been consulted on and any change at this stage would require new consultation.

·         Any changes to the relief would need to be funded by the Council which would have significant implications.

·         It was a legal requirement to review the scheme each year. The motion would allow the current scheme to continue and a full review could be undertaken next year.

Debate continued:

·         The government had announced a Household Support Fund to further assist with food and energy costs.

·         The current scheme and the Council’s support of services such as Citizens’ Advice was generous.

·         TWBC only received ten per cent of Council Tax. The cost to unilaterally offer 100 per cent relief would need to be borne by the Council.

·         Relief between 75 and 85 per cent was normal.

·         A review should be undertaken once a full year’s data had been completed.

Councillor Pound requested a recorded vote on the motion.

Members who voted for the motion: Councillors Allen, Atwood, Backhouse, Bailey, Barrington-King, Bland, Chapelard, Dawlings, Fairweather, Goodship, C. Hall, Dr Hall, Hamilton, Hickey, B. Hills, Holden, Lidstone, March, McDermott, Ms Palmer, Poile, Rands, Rutland, Scholes, Scott, Simmons, Thomson, Warne and Woodward. (29)

Members who voted against the motion: Councillors Atkins, Britcher-Allan, Everitt, D. Hill, Lewis, Pound and Willis. (7)

Members who abstained from voting: Councillors Fitzsimmons, Hayward, Knight, Patterson, Pope and Wormington. (6)

RESOLVED –

1.    That the progress of the inaugural year of the income banded Council Tax Reduction Scheme be noted; and

2.    That no changes be made to the Council Tax Reduction Scheme for 2022-2023.

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

Councillor Barrington-King moved, and Councillor Holden seconded, the recommendations set out in the report on the agenda.

Debate on the motion included:

·         The recommendation from the General Purposes Committee for keeping the number of members at 48 followed several workshops and a public consultation.

·         The size of the Council should be based on the numbers needed for the council to function effectively.

·         The public consultation showed a majority favouring no reduction.

·         Partner organisations, including parish councils favoured the status quo.

·         The higher the ratio of representatives to electors the better.

·         Saving money or conforming to average ratios elsewhere were not sufficient reasons to change.

·         A reduction in numbers as a form of appeasing the Boundary Commissions in the hope of avoiding steeper cuts was not sufficient reason to change.

·         Workload of councillors had not reduced – contracted services still needed overseeing, ward work had not lessened and modern communication technology had increased the amount of contact with residents.

·         Retaining 48 members was justified.

Councillor Dawlings moved, and Councillor Pound seconded, an amendment that the Council’s submission to the Local Government Boundary Commission on Council Size be amended to recommend that the number of councillors be 39.

Debate on the amendment included:

·         The number of direct council functions had reduced significantly since the last review.

·         New communication methods had made it easier to engage with residents.

·         The loss of Revenue Support Grant and limited other sources of income put tight restrictions on the council’s resources.

·         Fewer meetings were being held and many meetings were now held online, reducing the time and travel required of councillors.

·         Considering the reduction in workload, maintaining the number of councillors was not justified.

·         39 members was justified and more likely to be accepted by the Boundary Commission.

·         The public consultation showed a majority in favour of keeping the same or increasing the number of members.

·         Councillor’s workload had not reduced.

·         Population was expected to grow by 30,000 over the next 20 years.

·         A reduction in members would reduce the talent pool and range of experience from which to draw committee and cabinet members.

·         The fewer members the larger and less representative the wards.

·         Fewer members would increase the workload and time commitment which could deter those with work or childcare responsibilities from standing for election.

·         Reducing opportunities for those with work or childcare responsibilities would disproportionately affect young people and women, two groups already under-represented on the Council.

·         The work of the General Purposes Committee had demonstrated that the number of members needed for the Council to function was closer to 48.

·         The submission to the Boundary Commission should be based on evidence.

·         The submission to the Boundary Commission should not be based on what the Council thinks the Commission wants to hear.

·         Significant changes would be coming as a result of the earlier decision to retain elections by-thirds. Ward boundaries would change in any case.

·         Continuing efficiencies and new technology would reduce the workload on councillors.

·         Much of the work of councillors was ‘behind the  ...  view the full minutes text for item FC42/21

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

Councillor Dawlings moved, and Councillor Simmons seconded, the recommendations set out in the report on the agenda.

Debate included:

·         It was a legal requirement to have a Monitoring Officer.

·         An interim Monitoring Officer was being appointed pending the appointment of a permanent replacement.

·         Claudette Valmond was eminently qualified and well experienced.

The Mayor took a vote on the motion by affirmation.

RESOLVED –

1.    That Claudette Valmond be appointed as the Interim Head of Legal Partnership and Monitoring Officer for the Council, with effect from 24 October 2021; and

2.    That the Interim Head of Legal Partnership be authorised to exercise the Head of Legal Partnership’s delegated functions and responsibilities in the Council’s Constitution, with effect from 24 October 2021.

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

Councillor Dawlings moved, and Councillor Hayward seconded, the recommendations set out in the report on the agenda.

Debate included:

·         Space within the Town Hall was surplus to requirement.

·         Demand for co-working space was well established.

·         Three companies had set out different models of operating such a scheme which informed the preparation of an Invitation to Tender.

·         A full procurement process would be undertaken but at pace to maximise the opportunity.

·         Renting part of the Town Hall would provide much needed income.

·         Facilities would be improved, including for the Council’s own staff.

·         Wider economic benefits would come from attracting more workers to the town centre.

·         The Council would retain ownership of the building.

·         The cross-party working group would continue to be fully involved as work developed.

·         Major alterations to the building were not expected as the mixed-office arrangement seems to be in line with current market demands. Some investment would be needed.

·         The cost to the Council would depend on reaching an agreement to balance short-term investment and long-term returns.

·         The proposed budget was not the size of the investment by the Council but would provide a framework on which an agreement would be negotiated, in a process similar to the Council’s normal method of approving capital expenditure, subject to further decision-making procedures.

·         The proposals were an opportunity to improve the conditions and wellbeing of council staff.

·         Improvements would contribute towards the Council’s target to be carbon neutral by 2030.

·         The proposals were exciting and a tribute to cross-party working.

·         The majority of the council’s income came from sources other than taxes, so the council needed to increase alternative income.

·         Caution was needed over approving a large capital budget without a business case or forecasts and delegating the authority to raise and spend the budget to officers.

·         The decision to award a contract should be subject to formal decision-making.

·         The budget was to indicate the seriousness of the Council in moving forward and to strengthen the Council’s negotiating position.

The Mayor took a vote on the motion by affirmation.

RESOLVED –

1.    That a capital budget of up to £5m be established to enable the conversion of the Town Hall for co-working;

2.    That the Head of Economic Development & Property, s151 Officer and Monitoring Officer in consultation with the Portfolio Holder for Finance & Governance be delegated authority to release the budget subject to the Council entering into contract with a co-working provider who has satisfied the Council’s due diligence and provided a sound business case; and

3.    That the s151 Officer in consultation with the Portfolio Holder for Finance and Governance be delegated authority for the identification of the source of the funding which may include borrowing or external funding.

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

Councillor Chapelard moved, and Councillor Everitt seconded, the motion set out in the notice on the agenda.

Debate included:

·         Motion reaffirms the motion agreed by the Council on 7 January 2015.

·         Gatwick proposed to bring its northern emergency runway into regular use. This would increase aircraft noise and pollution.

·         The proposals would mean Gatwick accounted for 5.5 per cent of the total UK carbon dioxide emissions.

·         Air capacity would be increased by a third runway at Heathrow so there was no need for expansion at Gatwick.

·         Noise was the greater concern in this matter as emissions from cars were more polluting.

·         The previous motion was well debated and there appeared to be no material change on the issues since.

·         The motion was a worth expression of leadership from the Council and in line with the Council’s targets on climate change.

The Mayor took a vote on the motion by affirmation.

The motion was carried unanimously.

RESOLVED – Tunbridge Wells Borough Council continues to oppose any further expansion of Gatwick Airport. This council does not support the airport’s proposal to use its northern runway for routine use as it will lead to more flights and more pollution for our residents. The environmental damage this will cause goes against tackling the climate change emergency.

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 15 December 2021.

The next scheduled meeting was Wednesday 15 December 2021.