Venue: Council Chamber, Royal Tunbridge Wells, Kent TN1 1RS
Contact: Mathew Jefferys Democratic and Electoral Services Manager
No. | Item |
---|---|
Apologies for absence Minutes: Apologies were received from Councillors Bland, Elliott, Gray, Hannam, Hastie, Holden, Oakford, Palmer, Rankin and Thomas |
|
Declarations of Interest 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. Minutes: There were no declarations of interest made, within the provisions of the Code of Conduct for Members. |
|
Announcements To receive announcements from the Mayor, the Leader of the Council, members of the Cabinet and the Chief Executive. Minutes: The Mayor advised that a written summary of her past and future engagements would be made available to members.
Councillor Jukes advised that the Council had received a very good planning application from developers Altitude for the old cinema site. He was fairly confident, should they be granted planning permission, that they would start building sometime in late 2018. Councillor Jukes commented that one of the reasons that the developers had come to Tunbridge Wells to build the project was because they were very impressed with the Borough Council's forward plans for the area.
There were no announcements from either Cabinet members or by the Chief Executive. |
|
The minutes of the previous meeting PDF 189 KB The minutes of the previous meeting held on 24 May 2017 to be approved as a correct record. Minutes: The minutes of the Annual meeting, dated 24 May 2017, were submitted.
RESOLVED – That the minutes of the meeting dated 24 May 2017 be approved as a correct record. |
|
Questions from members of the public To receive questions from members of the public, of which due notice has been given, pursuant to Council Procedure Rule 8, to be submitted and answered. Minutes: The Mayor advised that no questions from members of the public had been received under Council Procedure Rule 8. |
|
Questions from members of the Council To receive questions from members of the Council, of which due notice has been given, pursuant to Council Procedure Rule 10, to be submitted and answered. Minutes: The Mayor advised that there were two questions pursuant to Council Procedure Rule 10 which would be taken in the order in which they were received.
1. Question from Councillor Chapelard
“The county cricket match between Kent and Sussex during the Tunbridge Wells 2017 Cricket Festival was nearly cancelled due to poor grounds maintenance by its contractor Sodexo. What action has Tunbridge Wells Borough Council (TWBC) taken and what action will TWBC take to ensure this never happens again?”
Answer from Cllr March
“The condition of the outfield was not up to the usual standard. The preparation of the county wicket, which had been progressing, did falter in the two weeks prior to the start of the Festival leading to KCCC staff being required to oversee the final preparations.
The Council has issued a default notice against the contractor and they have responded with an action plan, which includes the recruitment of a new Head Groundsman for the Nevill Ground.
In the meantime, additional contract supervision will also be carried out to ensure that the required standards at the ground continue to be achieved.”
Supplementary question from Councillor Chapelard
“As the Portfolio holder responsible for the Sodexo contract, how satisfied are you with their work given that we have had issues with the Cemetery, parks, allotments and now the county cricket ground?”
Response from Councillor March
Councillor March responded to say that with the assistance of KCCC, the Nevill Ground did look very picturesque, the end of the season work on the football pitches had been completed to plan and the pitches were in good condition ready for the start of the new season. The parks had once again achieved ‘green flag’ status with an improvement on marks at all sites. With the help of the Council’s contractor and volunteers, Dunorlan Park had also achieved ‘green flag’ status. She felt that when default notices were needed then they were issued and then the contractors put in an action plan and that from the positive things that have come out of it she was very happy that the council was achieving progress with the contractors.
2. Question from Councillor Lidstone
“Can the Leader confirm that there is still to be a review of the CCTV operation, and when does he anticipate it will be completed?”
Answer from Councillor Weatherly (as the relevant Portfolio-holder)
“I am sure that Cllr Lidstone already knows the answer to this question. As the Leader of the Council stated at Cabinet on 22 June, CCTV will continue to be actively monitored and we are carrying out a review of our cameras and all possible options with regards to future operation and funding.
I have already written to local councils and a number of organisations that are interested in CCTV. The response so far has been positive and I asked for initial replies to be returned by 4 August 2017.
I will then review the responses and bring forward an approach later in the year.”
Supplementary question from ... view the full minutes text for item FC14/17 |
|
Amendment to the Constitution - Agreement of Planning Call-In wording PDF 119 KB Additional documents: Minutes: Councillor March opened the item to explain the process that had been undertaken and proposed the motion.
Councillor March advised members that the Constitution Review Working Party had met in 2016 and discussed the procedure for calling in planning applications. She said that members used to be able to call in planning applications for consideration where there was a planning issue that warranted consideration by a planning committee or where there was significant level of local concern. This significant level of local concern had been omitted from paragraphs in the constitution and so what was discussed was that it be re-introduced and officers had been asked to revise and include this element.
Councillor March advised that there had been a further meeting on 10 March 2017 that clarified the proposal after receiving feedback from various groups. On 27 June 2017 the Audit and Governance Committee unanimously supported the recommendations.
Councillor March believed the recommendations would benefit members, members of the public and particularly parish councils who would now be able to bring forward applications where there was a significant level of local concern.
Councillor Heasman seconded the motion and reserved his right to speak.
Councillor Stanyer supported the proposal but said he would like to see further discussions on changing the criteria so that parish and town councils had a right of calling in applications.
RESOLVED –
1. That paragraph 8 of Table 3 of Annex C to Part 3 of the Constitution be replaced with the text as follows:
8. Determine all forms of planning and other applications and all notifications submitted under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, the Planning (Hazardous Substances) Act 1990, Localism Act 2011 or under any related principal or secondary legislation, except the following:
8.1 those applications where any Member has requested in writing that the application be “called in” to be determined by the Planning Committee, and the “call in” and reasons for the “call in” have been agreed as valid by the Portfolio Holder for Planning and Transportation following discussion with the Head of Planning (or delegated deputy).
8.1.1 The reasons for which an application can be called in must include:
A) the material planning issue(s) that warrant(s) the application being determined by Committee; and/or
B) evidence and the reason(s) of significant local concern that warrant(s) the application being determined by Committee.
8.1.2 The request for the “call-in” must be received in writing addressed to the Head of Planning Services within five weeks (35 days) of the date that the application is originally made valid.
2. That paragraph 5.1 of the Planning Committee Procedure Rules in Part 4 of the Constitution be replaced with the text as follows:
5.1 The Constitution provides at Paragraph 8 in Table 3, of Annex C of Part 3 that any member may “call in” any planning application – i.e. require that an application be determined by the Planning Committee rather than by an officer under delegated ... view the full minutes text for item FC15/17 |
|
Amendment to the Constitution - Amendment to Contract Procedure Rules PDF 176 KB Additional documents:
Minutes: Councillor March introduced the report and said that this was a matter of good housekeeping, adding that the Audit and Governance Committee had unanimously supported the recommendations on 27 June 2017.
Councillor March commented that the current proposals were written six years ago and that there had been major legislative changes since that time. She added that these new proposals would enable smaller contracts of low risk to be procured more efficiently.
Councillor March moved the motion.
Councillor Reilly seconded the motion and reserved his right to speak.
Members of the Council supported the recommendations without comment.
RESOLVED – That the updated Standing Orders on Procurement and Contracts, as set out at Appendix A to the report, be approved. |
|
Request to waive the six month attendance requirement - Cllr Hastie PDF 103 KB Minutes: Councillor Jukes introduced the report and said that Councillor Hastie had been offered the opportunity to enhance his career quite considerably and that he had asked if the Council would allow him to continue to be absent from Council duties until February 2018.
Councillor Jukes moved the motion.
Councillor Dr Hall seconded the motion.
Councillor Neve understood that Councillor Hastie’s career was valuable but expressed concern that he could not come back and fulfil his commitments to the Council and the people he represents. He concluded that he would abstain but was minded to vote against and have a by-election.
Councillor Backhouse supported the comments of Councillor Jukes.
Cllr Neve's and Chapelard’s abstentions were noted.
RESOLVED – That, pursuant to Section 85(1) of the Local Government Act 1972, the employment reason set out in the report in respect of Councillor Hastie’s failure to attend meetings of the authority during the period 23 February 2017 to 21 February 2018, be approved. |
|
Audit and Governance Committee Annual Report PDF 156 KB Additional documents: Minutes: The Chairman of the Audit and Governance Committee, Councillor Moore, introduced the report and commented that the Committee was an essential part of the corporate checks and balances, independent from the Cabinet and with the power to refer any matters it feels are relevant to any part of the Council. She noted that not all councils had independent members but she endorsed the value of independent members in questioning and helping to hold the Council to account.
Councillor Moore said that the business of the Committee had been conducted with openness, transparency and professionalism. This was the sixth year in a row where a clean audit letter had been received from the external auditors and that corporate governance training for all members of the Committee had just started.
Councillor Moore also took the opportunity to thank Councillor Horwood for his excellent work as Chairman of Audit and Governance Committee in the previous civic year and moved the motion.
Councillor Simmons seconded the motion and reserved his right to speak.
Members of the Council supported the recommendations without comment.
RESOLVED – That the Annual Report of the Audit and Governance Committee 2016/17 be noted. |
|
Overview and Scrutiny Committee Annual Report PDF 109 KB Additional documents: Minutes: The Chairman of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee, Councillor Dawlings, introduced the report and commented that it covered the last year of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee under Councillor Rankin's chairmanship. He took the opportunity to thank Councillor Rankin for her leadership of the Committee over the last few years.
Councillor Dawlings advised that it was a very comprehensive report and at the next meeting in August the work programme for the coming year would be determined. He added that if there were any matters that any member would like the Committee to include then they should liaise with him.
Councillor Dawlings proposed that the Overview and Scrutiny Annual Report be approved.
Councillor Hills seconded and reserved his right to speak.
Councillor Chapelard reminded members that the Task and Finish group had made a recommendation that glass recycling should be introduced for residents as part of the new waste contract when it comes up for renewal in 2019. That recommendation had been approved by Cabinet on 13 April 2017 and he hoped that members would all be pressing to make this happen for residents when it comes up for discussion.
RESOLVED – That the Overview and Scrutiny Committee’s Annual Report 2016/17 be approved. |
|
Petition - Civic Development PDF 117 KB Additional documents:
Minutes: The Mayor, Councillor Soyke, advised that a petition had been submitted to the Council, containing 2,016 signatures (received both on-line and in paper format).
The wording of the petition was as follows:
“We the undersigned petition Tunbridge Wells Borough Council to stop the proposed development of a new theatre and offices in Calverley Grounds and to consider again the redevelopment of the existing Town Hall and Assembly Hall.”
The petition organiser, Dr Chris Gedge, along with Mr Nick Pope and Dr Robert Chris, were invited to address the Council for a maximum of ten minutes, in order to highlight the key points of their argument.
Dr Gedge said that the main thrust of the petition was that the plan was deeply flawed and that the community deserved much better. He said that people felt very strongly about these plans. He continued that the campaign was not against progress but it must be properly considered. He felt that the costs had been ignored along with considerations relating to noise and air pollution and congestion.
Mr Pope questioned the transparency of the project. He said the site selection, the most important decision in this project was not a consultation but a presentation of slides showing 13 site options, leading to the final selection of the Calverley Grounds site. He felt that this was a selection based on weak criteria and that detail on the decision process had not been forthcoming.
Mr Pope added that there had been concerns all along from The Friends of Calverley Grounds, however when the land take increased to 993 square metres these concerns increased. He said that building on 993 square metres of a Grade II Listed park was not acceptable.
Dr Robert Chris said that there was an increasing clamour across the town from many people objecting for many reasons. He added that people who cared about this town had been treated with disdain and had never been consulted about what kind of theatre would best serve the town.
Dr Chris advised that Hooper’s had issued a press release that afternoon, that they saw any arrangement to share their service road and car park with the theatre as an existential threat to their store. This he considered meant that the proposed theatre development was now dead.
Dr Chris summarised that this now presented a welcome second chance to explore options that had been too quickly dismissed and others that had not been considered at all. He welcomed building a performing arts centre of excellence that would take root in the town, that would bring employment and creative talent and energy to the community. He added that everyone who wanted to participate in the process must be given an opportunity to do so.
Four members of the public had registered to speak to give their views on the petition: James Tansley, James Pickering, Jim Kedge and Ben Van Grutten.
(a) Mr James Tansley - Economist at Bank of England, was keen to point out that there is ... view the full minutes text for item FC20/17 |
|
Petition - Planning Decisions and Policy PDF 119 KB Additional documents:
Minutes: The Mayor advised that a second petition had been submitted to the Council, containing 1,017 signatures (received both on-line and in paper format).
The wording of the petition was as follows:
“We the undersigned demand that Tunbridge Wells Borough Council apply some joined-up thinking and develop a strategy for quality development. Stop saying yes to large, obtrusive developments that are not sympathetic to the town.”
The petition organiser, Ms Ellen Kent, was invited to address the Council for a maximum of ten minutes, in order to highlight the key points of her argument.
Ms Kent felt that the town’s infrastructure was not coping; that the traffic, parking and pollution were untenable. The petition was not anti-progress or change: it was not anti-development, it simply asked for the Council to do two things: 1. Use the power that it had to stop over-development and 2. Implement some joined-up thinking and fast.
Ms Kent said that these could be achieved by: acting on expert advice; risking a planning appeal; use the Community Infrastructure Levy, a tool for local authorities in England and Wales to help deliver infrastructure to support the development of the area; and use Article 4 Directions to restrict permitted development rights brought into the realms of planning consent.
Four members of the public had requested to speak in support of the petition: Cliff Kilner, Paul Jenner, Janet Sturgis and Colin Godsave.
(a) Cliff Kilner addressed the issues of both parking pressure and increased traffic pollution in the town as a result of new developments. Mr Kilner said he had put a deposit on an electric car however he felt local authorities, by not providing sufficient charging points, were hindering residents from going electric. He said that he supported the petition and urged the Council to stop over-development and to fix the infrastructure by preparing an emergency strategic plan that demonstrated joined-up thinking.
(b) Paul Jenner said that the Council needed to have some cohesive thinking and that it needed to follow its own plans. He said that it was a good idea to have designated areas of change with the idea being that any development in the area must be integrated in to the proposals for the area as a whole however, the idea was not being followed by the Council.
(c) Janet Sturgis, Chairman of the Royal Tunbridge Wells Civic Society, felt that in 2017 this town faced the most severe threat to its arcadian character. Ms Sturgis said that dubious plans were being accepted as the Council felt that there were no alternatives and that they were powerless to refuse. She said the Council should accept that enough was enough and that the Borough could not accommodate 640 additional units a year.
(d) Colin Godsave, a resident of Paddock Wood and a member of Warrington Road action group, felt the Council were being held at gunpoint by central government to provide their quota of new houses in the Borough. He felt that the Council should have the ... view the full minutes text for item FC21/17 |
|
To consider one Motion on Notice, in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 11, submitted by Councillor Chapelard Minutes: Councillor Chapelard presented the following motion to Council:
“Before Tunbridge Wells Borough Council's Full Council takes the final decision on the Civic Complex Development (to build a new town hall, offices and theatre), Tunbridge Wells Borough Council will hold a borough-wide local referendum on this matter.”
Councillor Chapelard explained that the reason for submitting this motion was that there was going to be an unprecedented cost to local taxpayers with figures in excess of £100 million. The cost to hold a referendum would be about £66,000 if it were to be held on the same day as a Borough election. Councillor Chapelard also explained that there were concerns about saving £2.4million to pay back the loan every year and also there would have to be a council tax rise, to support this. He said that the idea that there would be no council tax rise was misleading and that there would be the maximum council tax rise allowed to pay for other Council services. He believed that everyone should have a say if this was the right direction for the Borough.
Councillor Lidstone seconded the motion and reserved his right to speak.
Councillor Hill said that the Labour group believed, given the monies involved, that there should be some sort of mandate from the people the councillors represented; the people would be paying for it should the proposals go ahead and at present there was no mandate. She agreed that the final proposals should be tested at the ballot box in a referendum.
Councillor Dr Hall supported this motion for a referendum as there was no mandate from the ratepayers to borrow such huge sums. She said that there would be cuts to services and that it would be irresponsible to decide to incur such significant costs on the basis of anecdotes or intuition that people supported the proposals without solid evidence of a vote that showed that the public did support it.
Councillor Neve advised caution as with a referendum there had been a system before that if you did not vote it was read that you were happy with the proposals; he felt that this aspect needed to be looked at.
Councillor Backhouse said that members were confusing fiscal and monetary decisions.
Councillor Jukes advised that members were here to manage policy, that they were elected to manage policy by the people that put them here and that there was a mandate to get on and do what was best.
Councillor Moore argued that the idea of a referendum was a seductive one but actually it undermined democracy. She said councillors had been elected to make informed decisions. She reminded members that there was a Five Year Plan and a Cultural Strategy that had been adopted three years ago, and for those arguing that there was no mandate these adopted documents set out the vision of the Council. She said the idea of a referendum was just an attempt to avoid making a decision.
Councillor Uddin said he ... view the full minutes text for item FC22/17 |
|
Urgent Business To deal with any business the Mayor regards as urgent due to special circumstances. Minutes: The Mayor confirmed there was no urgent business to consider within he provisions of Council Meetings Procedure 2.1.12. |
|
Common Seal of the Council 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. Minutes: 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. |
|
Date of next meeting Minutes: It was noted that the next meeting of the Full Council would take place on Wednesday 27 September 2017 at 6.30pm.
|