Agenda and minutes

To receive any apologies for absence.

There were no apologies.

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.

There were no disclosable pecuniary or other significant interests declared at the meeting. 

To note any visiting Members and members of the public wishing to speak, of which due notice has been given in accordance with Council Meeting Procedure Rule 18 and 19 and which items they wish to speak on.

There were no visiting Members or members of the public who had registered to speak. 

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 11 October 2022 be approved as a correct record. 

To note forthcoming items as set out in the Forward Plan

No amendments were proposed.

RESOLVED – That the Forward Plan as at 7 November 2022 be noted. 

To consider and provide a recommendation to Cabinet on the proposals set out in the attached report. 

Lee Colyer, Director of Finance, Policy and Development introduced the report set out in the agenda.  Ben Garland from JIRP Panel provided a brief summary of the report.

Discussion and questions from Members included the following:

-       The review exercise started in July 2022 with the report being finalised in October/November.

-       When considering the level of special responsibility allowance, the panel reviewed other authorities and if the mean average was higher then the recommendation to TWBC was to raise the level of allowance to a similar amount.  This was the reason for the recommendation for the Overview and Scrutiny special responsibility allowance to be raised from £2,000 to £2,500.  

-       Member’s allowance of £5,500 came into effect in 2016.  This amount remained in line with other Councils so the recommendation was that this remained unchanged.  However, for future years, it was recommended the allowance was indexed linked in line with Council staff pay increases.

-       Special responsibility allowance was paid in addition to the basic Members allowance.

-       The Opposition Group Leader recommended allowance was £5,500 and would be paid only if the Opposition Leader was not in Cabinet (i.e. they would not receive both the Cabinet allowance and the Opposition Leader allowance).  In total therefore, they would receive the Members allowance of £5,500 plus the Opposition Leader allowance of £5,500. 

-       The method used for setting allowances was by comparative analysis.  The panel looked at groups of Councils to ensure that there was parity within the group. 

-       Workload levels did not form part of the assessment process.

-       From discussions, it was determined there was a higher burden of workload for the Chair of Planning which was why it was held at its current level of £5,500. The amount was also comparable with other Councils.

-       In terms of the Opposition Group Leader the amount was set in part due to a historic anomaly where previously you could be in Cabinet but also receive an Opposition Leader allowance.  This had now been removed and the amount was now comparable with other Councils.

-       The panel must assess the allowances as per the current composition.  They could not predict what changes may or may not occur as a result of any changes to the boundaries or to the number of Councillors.

-       The decision on what allowances were appropriate rested with Full Council.  As such, if a review took place and boundaries changed, the Council could request a reassessment of allowances.

-       There was concern that the drop in allowances was untenable and would not be allowed in other sectors. 

-       It was suggested that there should be no change in the schedule of allowances, that they remained fixed until the Council determined otherwise – i.e. that they didn’t rise in line with increases given to Council staff (indexation).

-       There was recognition that TWBC were slightly out of sync with other Councils and so there was a need to readdress the balance.

-       In terms of the  ...  view the full minutes text for item FG55/22

To consider and provide a recommendation to Cabinet on the proposals set out in the attached report. 

Lee Colyer, Director of Finance, Policy and Development introduced the report set out in the agenda.

Discussion and questions from Members included the following:

-       Each of the Portfolio Holders were currently in discussion with officer groups to find savings and/or increase revenue within their Portfolios. 

-       The Council were already going some way to reduce the deficit and it was hoped this would continue in subsequent years.

RESOLVED – That the recommendations to Cabinet as set out in the report be supported.

To consider and provide a recommendation to Cabinet on the proposals set out in the attached report.

Jane Fineman – Head of Finance, Procurement and Parking introduced the report set out in the agenda.

Discussion and questions from Members included the following:

-       Car Park payment machines were all now card only payments.  The car park in Southborough was the last car park to have a card only payment machine installed.  Once familiar with the machines, it should become easier to navigate.  There was an issue with the lighting which the Council agreed to investigate. 

-       It was unfortunate that there was little expenditure available for marketing the Community Centres within the Borough. It would be helpful to have some resources available as they were a valuable Community resource.

RESOLVED – That the recommendations to Cabinet as set out in the report be supported. 

To consider and provide a recommendation to Cabinet on the proposals set out in the attached report. 

Jane Fineman, Head of Finance, Procurement and Parking introduced the report set out in the agenda.

RESOLVED – That the recommendations to Cabinet as set out in the report be supported. 

To consider and provide a recommendation to Cabinet on the proposals set out in the attached report. 

Jane Fineman, Head of Finance, Procurement and Parking introduced the report set out in the agenda.

Discussion and questions from Members included the following:

-       The Council were carrying a lot of vacancies and recruitment continued to be very challenging.

-       There were many occasions where a vacancy had been advertised on more than one occasion, but had received no applicants.

-       The Council were looking at different options, e.g. restructuring jobs to help try and attract applicants.

-       Details related to business rate collections were not available at the meeting but could be reverted after the meeting.

-       Targets for business rates were difficult to forecast as businesses could choose to settle at different times during the year.  Figures could also be distorted due to the payment of Government Grants.  Appeals were also a factor.

-       The Council’s process for recovery of business rates was robust and would ensure that any monies owed would be recovered.

-       Due to financial pressures the maintenance budget was limited to an amount that was affordable. 

-       The budget dealt with both major and minor maintenance demands e.g. Crescent Road car park, Royal Victoria Place shopping centre refurbishment work.

-       The Asset Management Plan included how the maintenance budget would be used.

-       There was also an option to bid for capital investment for major maintenance requests/requirements.

-       The grant volitivity reserve was created a while ago when the revenue grant was taken away.  The Council started to put away the New Homes Bonus so that if it was ever removed, or if there was a need to move money should the Government change the way the grant money was paid, the volitivity reserve would give the Council the means to do this. 

-       Due to Covid the way in the which the Government gave discounts changed significantly.  The Government gave the Council a lot of money up front (currently about £6.9m) and this was put in the volitivity reserve.  Some of the money had to be returned to Government (March 2023), but some was Council money that would be used to balance the budget. 

RESOLVED -  That the recommendations t Cabinet as set out in the report be supported.  

To consider and provide a recommendation to Cabinet on the proposals set out in the attached report. 

Jane Fineman, Head of Finance, Procurement and Parking introduced the report set out in the agenda.

RESOLVED – That the recommendations to Cabinet as set out in the report be supported.

Verbal Update.

Jane Fineman, Head of Finance, Procurement and Parking provided a verbal update which included the following:

-       Statute dictated that the calculation of the Council Tax Base must be calculated on 1 December.   

-       The calculation was prescriptive, the details of which were laid out in the Statutory Instrument with no scope to vary. 

-       The report would be published on 1 December and presented to Cabinet on 8 December 2022. 

RESOLVED – That the update be noted. 

To consider and provide a recommendation to Cabinet on the proposals set out in the attached report. 

Pamela Grover-Morgan, Performance and Governance Manager introduced the report set out in the agenda.

Discussion and questions from Members included the following:

-       It was noted that an updated version of the report and appendices had been produced and would be made available after the meeting. The updated information formed the basis of the presentation to Members. 

-       It was made clear, the report referred to the indicator or measure of performance that was performing or underperforming, not the efforts of staff who were certainly not underperforming, but who all worked incredibly hard under difficult circumstances.

-       As an example, an appeal relating to a housing matter was being held up because the Planning Inspectorate in Bristol had not yet allocated an inspector, and this had been since February 2022.

RESOLVED – That the recommendations to Cabinet as set out in the report be supported. 

To consider and provide a recommendation to Cabinet on the proposals set out in the attached report. 

Pamela Grover- Morgan, Performance and Governance Manager introduced the report set out in the agenda.

Discussion and questions from Members included the following:

-       Clarification was provided when comparing comparable periods – the comparisons compared period 1 of 2021/22 with period one of 2022/23.

-       It was noted there was an error in paragraph 2.18, it should read that was an ‘increase’ not decrease.  The associated graph also needed to be amended.  This would be corrected for Cabinet. 

RESOLVED – That the recommendations to Cabinet as set out in the report be supported. 

To consider and provide a recommendation to Cabinet on the proposals set out in the attached report. 

David Candlin, Head of Economic Development and Property introduced the report set out in the agenda.

Discussion and questions from Members included the following:

-       The Crescent Road car park underwent a major refurbishment of the main structure relatively recently.  Providing the car park continued to be maintained it should remain operational for another 50 years. 

-       Similarly, providing the other multi-storey car parks were maintained they should all have a significant life span.

-       The revenue received from car parks would help cover the costs to ensure they were adequately and appropriately maintained.

-       The increased maintenance costs at the Tunbridge Wells sports centre was due both to the age of the building and the need to replace the systems within which were coming to the end of their life span. Leisure centres were not cheap to operate, especially in terms of energy use and the fabric of the buildings. 

-       The current total maintenance budget was about £1m.  The Council could usefully spend about £2m to £2.5m per year.  The money therefore had to be carefully managed to ensure all the Council’s assets were maintained to an acceptable level.

-       It was noted that the planned maintenance plan was based on a 10 year projection.  For example, in terms of a roof, the Council would make an assessment on its projected life span.  If the life span of the roof exceeded that projection, then the plan would be adjusted accordingly.  The plan was fluid and reviewed according to need.

RESOLVED – That the recommendations to Cabinet as set out in the report be supported. 

To consider any other items which the Chairman 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 note that the date of the next scheduled meeting is Tuesday 24 January 2023, at 6.30pm. 

The next meeting is scheduled for Tuesday 24 January 2023 at 6:30pm.