Agenda and minutes

The Council observed a minute silence following the death of former mayor Elizabeth Thomas. Elizabeth served as a Councillor for Paddock Wood West from 2002 until March 2021 and was Mayor in 2011/12.

To receive any apologies for absence.

In response to increased covid restrictions, members agreed before the meeting to only attend in reduced numbers in proportion to their overall share of seats on the Council. Consequently, apologies were received from Councillors Allen, Atkins, Atwood, Backhouse, Barrington-King, Britcher-Allan, Fitzsimmons, Goodship, Dr Hall. L, Hickey, Hills. B, Holden, Knight, Lewis, Lidstone, McDermott, Morton, Ms Palmer, Patterson, Poile, Pope, Roberts, Rutland, Scholes, and Warne.

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 extraordinary meeting dated 06 October 2021 be approved as a correct record.

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 ordinary meeting dated 06 October 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 any announcements from the Mayor, the Leader of the Council, members of the Cabinet and the Chief Executive.

The Mayor announced:

·         Details of mayoral engagements had been circulated under separate cover.

The Leader of the Council announced:

·         A Covid update had been planned but this would now be provided as part of an answer to the questions on the agenda.

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 2 questions and 1 urgent question from members of the council had been received under Council Procedure Rule 10.

1. Question from Councillor Chapelard

“What is the total loss of income to Tunbridge Wells Borough Council for each missed fortnightly garden waste collection due to the current suspension of this service?”

Answer from Councillor Bailey

“We took the difficult decision to suspend the garden waste service to protect our main waste and recycling collections that all households in our borough – regardless of income level – need and expect the council to provide. This decision to prioritise our statutory services has come at a financial cost to the council with gross income reduced by approximately £45,000 each fortnight whilst the suspension continues.”

Supplementary question from Councillor Chapelard

“With that £45,000 loss of income, what is the split between Tunbridge Wells Borough Council and its contractor Urbaser?”

Answer from Councillor Bailey

“That £45,000 figure is the figure for Tunbridge Wells Borough Council.”

2. Question from Councillor Wormington

“In light of the huge public outcry against violent crimes towards women and a clear public desire for safer spaces for women, do you agree that Tunbridge Wells Borough Council’s long standing custom and practice, which is simply to repair and replace park lights, not to install new ones, is no longer fit for purpose?”

Answer from Councillor Scott

“Freedom from fear of attack is extremely important, a matter I take very seriously and have discussed this internally and with the Police. We are very keen to act together with the Police and through our community groups. We have considered various steps to actually assist in this, in terms of looking at various systems in determining areas of concern and, in fact, working with the Police in that and we hope to have details of that system we are developing soon. The question of lights in the parks is quite a complex question which I’m more than happy to go through. The actual responsibility for street lights and parts of the park actually is subdivided between Kent County Council, Tunbridge Wells Borough Council, Housing Associations and private landowners. We have some responsibility for repairing and maintaining lights for which we are responsible. We have not actually had a request from the Friends Groups of the parks yet for change of those lights. I am concerned about them, however, we also have various other conflicting interests in terms of heritage of the various units, etcetera. Some of our parks do not actually have any lights and whether we want to actually move to a point where lights are there, or not, is an open question of some concern to a lot of people who prefer darkness. So, I think that the question of heritage, how we’re actually dealing with the lights is an open question and one that is not a simple rush to actually replace all heritage lights or add a large number of additional lights when the public may  ...  view the full minutes text for item FC56/21

To note the name(s) of persons elected Borough Councillor as set out in the associated notice.

The Chief Executive, as Returning Officer for the election held on Thursday 25 November 2021, submitted the return of persons elected to the Borough Council as set out in the agenda report.

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

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

The report was taken as read.

The Mayor took a vote on the motion by affirmation.

RESOLVED –

1.    That the allocation of seats to Committees (political balance), as set out at paragraph 3.7 of the report, be approved.

2.    That the appointments to Committees, nominated by Group Leaders, including the Chairmanships and Vice-Chairmanships of the Committees as set out at appendix A to the report, be approved.

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

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

Debate included:

·         Meetings which had been moved to the day-time during the restrictions had returned to their usual evening times.

The Mayor took a vote on the motion by affirmation.

RESOLVED – That the Timetable of Meetings for 2022/23, as at Appendix A to the report, be agreed.

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

Councillor Dawlings moved, and Councillor Hamilton seconded, the recommendation set out in the report on the agenda.

The Chief Executive advised that the proposed amendments to the Constitution set out in appendices C, D and E to the report related to procedures for dealing with complaints against the Council’s statutory officers and as such said officers would leave the chamber during the debate on those items.

In relation to the proposed amendments to the Constitution set out in appendices A, B, F, G, H, I and J to the report, debate included:

·         There was no need for the word limit on motions, this was solving a problem that did not exist.

·         The accumulated effect of the changes was to transfer too much power to officers.

·         Notwithstanding the honourable intentions of the current officers, the changes could reduce accountability in future.

·         The Climate Emergency declaration was an example of a motion that was too long and encompassed too many different aspects.

·         Motions should be more succinct and specific.

·         The Climate Emergency declaration was one of the most strongly supported motions in recent business and, owing to the complexity of the subject, was an example of why a word limit could be counterproductive.

·         The wording of the word limit on motions deliberately stated that motions should not ‘normally’ exceed 250 words, leaving that discretion where appropriate.

·         Multiple short motions was preferable to long multi-part motions.

·         Short motions would help public comprehension.

The Mayor took a vote on the proposed amendments to the Constitution as set out in Appendices A, B, F, G, H, I and J by show of hands. Votes cast were 16 for, 4 against with 3 abstentions.

PART MOTION CARRIED

In response to several questions of clarification, the Monitoring Officer advised that it was not possible to define what might be considered as trivial in respect of complaints against the statutory officers but that it would be for the Monitoring Officer to determine whether a complaint against the Chief Executive was serious. Furthermore, there was no legal definition of ‘vexatious’ within the context of these proposed amendments to the Constitution. The Chief Executive and Monitoring Officer left the chamber.

In relation to the proposed amendments to the Constitution set out in appendices C, D and E to the report, debate included:

·         It was unclear whether the Monitoring Officer would determine whether a complaint against the Chief Executive was serious before or after consulting Group Leaders and the Head of Human Resources.

·         The wording relating to the sequence of consultation when determining whether a complaint against the Chief Executive was serious implied that consultation would occur before determination.

·         Group Leaders should not be involved in the determination whether a complaint against the Chief Executive was serious.

The Mayor took a vote on the proposed amendments to the Constitution as set out in Appendices C, D and E by show of hands. Votes cast were 9 for, 11 against with 3 abstentions.

PART MOTION NOT CARRIED

The Mayor took a vote  ...  view the full minutes text for item FC60/21

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

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

The report was taken as read.

The Mayor took a vote on the motion by affirmation.

RESOLVED – That the Council opt into the national arrangement for the procurement of external audit.

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

Councillor Bailey moved, and Councillor Thomson seconded, the recommendation set out in the report on the agenda.

The report was taken as read.

The Mayor took a vote on the motion by affirmation.

RESOLVED – That the revised Statement of Licensing Principles for Gambling Act 2005 Policy 2022-2025, as set out at Appendix A to the report, be adopted with effect from 7 January 2022.

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

Councillor March moved, and Councillor Fairweather seconded, the recommendation set out in the report on the agenda.

The report was taken as read.

The Mayor took a vote on the motion by affirmation.

RESOLVED – That a Civic Medallion be awarded to the individual set out at Exempt Appendix A to the report.

Note: The matter was decided in the public session taking the exempt information set out in the agenda as read.

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

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

Debate included:

·         Paragraph 1.1 and 1.2 of the covering report contained a typographic error and should be read as referring to municipal year 2020/21.

·         The report referred to the committee being able to return to its normal work thanks to the ‘government’s’ vaccination programme, this should be to the credit of the NHS.

·         The committee’s request for a cross-party working group in November 2019 had not been heeded and subsequently the Chairman and Vice-Chairman were removed from their posts. The claim that the committee provided independent review could not be substantiated.

·         Notwithstanding the government’s role in initiating and funding the vaccination programme, no diminution of the efforts of the NHS was intended.

The Mayor took a vote on the motion by affirmation.

RESOLVED – That the Audit and Governance Committee Annual Report for 2020/21 as set out at Appendix A to the report be noted.

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 23 February 2022.

The next scheduled meeting was Wednesday 23 February 2022.