Agenda and minutes

To receive any apologies for absence.

Apologies were received from Councillor Rogers.

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.

Councillor Matthew Bailey had registered to speak on Agenda Item 9 – Asset Management Plan 2023/24.

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 15 November 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 12 January 2023 be noted.

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

Councillor Ben Chapelard, Leader of the Council introduced the report set out in the agenda.

Discussion and questions from Members included the following:

-       The Plan, whether the 5-year plan or an Interim Plan was the purview of the Council, not the administration.  This had been raised at Overview and Scrutiny and would be taken back to Cabinet Members and considered before going forward to Cabinet.

-       The version of the plan was a final version for the purposes of presenting it to the Cabinet Advisory Boards.  The document was a live document and would be updated as projects were started/taken forward.

-       A draft Strategic Plan would be available by spring 2024.

-       The Plan should read towns not town and this would be rectified for the next version.

-       It was hoped that staff would be comfortable approaching Members to discuss and share their roles.  A number of days had already been spent back on the ‘shop floor’ to gain a better understanding of what officers did. 

-       The Council was hoping to recruit a new Head of Human Resources that would look at how to better recruit, support and develop staff. 

-       How the Council handled enquiries etc. was currently done in person by Call Centre staff.  Consideration would be given as to whether this was the most effective way of handling calls or whether the Council should consider giving higher permissions to the Call Centre staff to see whether this would make the system more efficient.   

-       An example of where cost efficiencies had been achieved was the de-carbonisation of the Weald Sports Centre.

-       Following the submission of the draft Local Plan, the Council had now received an initial findings letter from the Inspector.  The letter included a number of modifications which the Inspector had suggested either needed to be adopted or considered by the Council.  The Council now had time to consider the modifications before submitting a revised draft Plan.  Due to the complex nature of this work there was currently no timescale, but work was ongoing. 

-       The Community Safety Unit (CSU) was not included as a specific priority  but would continue ‘business as usual’.   

-       Reference was made to the Budget Report (Agenda Item 7) and in particular paragraphs 2.65 and 2.66.  Paragraph 2.65 gave details of three improvement recommendations made by the external auditors:

o   A new corporate plan be brough forward, this will provide the focus required to help meet the challenges ahead.

o   In line with the new corporate plan, the Council should develop a long-term savings plan, failure to do so could lead to an unsustainable financial position developing; and

o   A Human Resources Strategy should be prepared, formally approved; and circulated to appropriate officers. 

-       Paragraph 2.66 stated that the recommendations were welcomed and would address the issues faced by the Council without a Corporate Plan.

-       It was suggested that the auditors would want the Council to produce an Interim Plan, pending the creation of a  ...  view the full minutes text for item FG72/22

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.

A verbal summary of the results of the budget survey were provided.  Full details would be included in the report going forward to Cabinet and Full Council. 

-       The budget survey closed on Friday 20 January 2023.

-       1,160 people responded to the survey, which made the budget survey statistically significant.

-       Rubbish and recycling came top of the list of statutory services residents valued the most.  Housing and Street Cleansing were 2^nd and 3^rd respectively.

-       Residents were asked to allocate funding across the services to see how they compared to what had been included the in the draft budget.  The areas residents were most likely to reduce the budget were:

o   The Amelia Scott

o   Property

o   Assembly Hall Theatre

-       The public were also asked to weight the Focus on Five – Vibrant and Safer Towns and Villages and Safeguarding Finances came out on top.

-       68% of residents replied that they thought the Council provided value for money.

-       57% supported an increase in Council Tax.  However 67% were not prepared to make voluntary contributions on Council Services.

Discussion and questions from Members included the following:

-       The £17.2m of employee costs shown on the graph on Page 54 of the budget report was the cost of a fully costed establishment i.e. it included all the current staff vacancy costs.

-       Staffing levels at the Council was currently running at about 85%.  The Council was currently experiencing very difficult staff retention issues, with a current staff turnover rate of about 25%. 

-       The information included in the Core Spending Power (Page 58) came from Central Government.  The graph summarised the amount of income available from Council Tax and Government Grants.  TWBC had been locked into  a very low level of Council Tax rate, which when you multiplied it by the Council Tax Base, you then got the total Council Tax income.  As an example, TWBC received between £2-3m less than Sevenoaks and Tonbridge and Malling, but were very similar types of authority.

-       The 2022-23 budget was prepared following the pandemic which had significantly impacted on the Council’s finances.  The financial focus was therefore more to see how income levels would recover and at what levels they would plateau before consideration should be given to addressing any deficit.

-       It had been suggested that the Council’s finances were in a shambolic state and this was refuted by some Members.  The Council had received 13 consecutive years of unqualified audit reports which was a remarkable achievement.

-       All local authorities were financially stretched, however TWBC were in a better position than most.  At Quarter 2, the Council was showing signs of recovery, with increases in car parking revenue and investment income.

-       Inflationary pressures, especially increasing energy costs and the inflators built into contracts were a major concern.  However the rush to implement higher fees and charges particularly in  ...  view the full minutes text for item FG73/22

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:

-       As set out in the Constitution, the Council employed independent, external valuers to determine the value of an asset.

-       Leases, once in place were based on ‘upwards only’ with increases bases on RPI (Retail Price Index).

To note, the matter was decided in taking the exempt information set out in the report as read. 

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. 

Councillor Matthew Bailey had registered to speak which included the following:

-       The decision by the administration to declare the Wesley Centre in Paddock as surplus asset and to consider it for sale or development.

-       The Wesley Centre was a historic building and was still widely used by children, youth and adult community groups and would be a big loss to these groups if it were no longer there.

-       The Wesley Centre was one of only two Council owned community facilities in Paddock Wood, the other being the Day Centre on Commercial Road which was very small.

-       The loss of the Wesley Centre would reduce the ability to properly manage the current needs of the town and future needs as the town expanded. 

-       There existed a small green space behind the Wesley Centre which the Council had previously considered for possible residential development.

-       This was not the appropriate time to sell off a small piece of Council land for housing, given the amount of greenspace already being lost in the area.

-       The provision for new housing was already unpopular in the area, and the loss of more greenspace in the town would further despair the local community.

-       Paddock Wood Town Council and the Borough Councillors for Paddock Wood were opposed to the selling of the Wesley Centre or developing the land to the rear of the building.  This position was also backed by Heritage Wood and by many local residents. 

-       It was understood that the Town Council had today written to the Portfolio Holder and further correspondence would be received in due course.

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

-       The Asset Management Plan (AMP) was still out to consultation, with a closing date of 9 February 2023.  Verbal updates of the responses received would be given to both the CAB and at Cabinet.  Full details would be submitted for Full Council.

-       To give an update of the responses received to date:

o   85 people had read the AMP, of which 44 had left comments.

o   7 comments were related to car parks in Tunbridge Wells.

o   1 comment on the Civic Complex

o   3 comments on the Council’s disposal policy

o   33 comments on an asset in Paddock Wood

o   All comments rested on assets not being disposed.

Discussion and questions from Members included the following:

-       Under the section titled ‘Assets Declared Surplus 2023/24’ the wording to be amended to read ‘The following assets have been declared surplus and identified for potential/possible disposal in 2023/24’.

-       Although the AMP was still out to consultation, it was possible to make a recommendation to Full Council, as the assets would still be reviewed before any decisions were taken. 

-       The AMP gave details of the procedures and mechanisms in place where assets were being considered for disposal.  This included the Property Asset Oversight Panel which it was hoped would be  ...  view the full minutes text for item FG75/22

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.

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

To consider and provide a recommendation 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.

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. 

Max Horgan, Estates Surveyor introduced the report set out in the agenda.

Discussion and questions from Members included the following:

-       It was current Council policy to transfer the freehold rather than lease the property. The Council had already transferred 6 public conveniences.

-       Parish Councils had the capacity to take on these properties  and as long as the assets were kept for community use, this policy would continue to be promoted.

-       One of the first public conveniences transferred was in Hawkhurst where the Parish Council subsequently decided to close the facility.  The Parish Council were able to provide facilities elsewhere and the site had now been redeveloped.  The money received from the disposal of the asset was being used in the community.

-       There were examples of when assets had been taken over and then closed.  There was no requirement for Parish Councils to provide public conveniences.

-       Brenchley and Matfield had indicated that they intended to retain the buildings as public conveniences.  However there was the freedom in the future for them to change the use, at which time the Council’s clawback would come into effect.

-       The public conveniences in Pennington Road was listed back in 2013 as a Council asset for disposal.  Southborough Town Council were asked to submit a business case to take on this asset, but the request was declined.  As such Cabinet at the time decided to dispose of the asset via an open auction. 

-       Ultimately it was the decision of the Town or Parish Council as to whether they wanted to take on the asset.

-       Clawback was based on 100% valuation.  As such if the asset was converted for any other use (residential, commercial etc.) that didn’t fit into the Community use bracket, then the Council would clawback 100% of the value. 

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. 

Dan Hutchins, Procurement Manager introduced the report set out in the Agenda.

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 7 March 2023, at 6.30pm. 

The next meeting is scheduled for Tuesday 7 March 2023 at 6:30pm