Agenda and minutes

Apologies were received from Councillors Dr Hall, Hastie, Huggett, Jukes, Lewis-Grey and McDermott.

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.

No declarations of disclosable pecuniary or significant other interest were made.

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

The Mayor noted that Royal Tunbridge Wells had received 12 awards in the South East in Bloom competition including winner of the Kent County award and gold award recipient and overall winner in the Large Town category. Royal Tunbridge Wells had been entered into the Britain in Bloom competition for 2018.

Councillor March, on behalf of the Leader and members of the Cabinet, congratulated the Mayor on her successful programme of events. She advised that the Council had recently hosted the second jobs and training fair which was held at the Assembly Hall Theatre on 17 September 2017. The fair attracted over 30 employers and 330 job seekers. She added that there were 645 recipients of Job Seekers Allowance in the Borough meaning an unemployment rate of 0.9 per cent.

The Chief Executive had no announcements.

The minutes of the meeting held on 26 April 2017 to be approved as a correct record.

The Mayor noted that the minutes dated 26 April 2017 should have been approved at the previous meeting but were omitted in error. No amendments were proposed.

RESOLVED – That the minutes of the meeting dated 26 April 2017 be approved as a correct record.

The minutes of the previous meeting held on 26 July 2017 to be approved as a correct record.

Councillor Williams commented that he had made a deliberate statement at minute FC20/17 which highlighted that £15 million capital had been received through land sales and that amount was approximately what was needed to fund renovations to the existing Town Hall as an alternative to the proposed new Civic Centre. He wished that this be included in the minute. The Mayor advised that the minutes were a summary and not intended to provide a verbatim record. The Chief Executive suggested that, as the minute was not incorrect, Councillor Williams’ comments be noted in the subsequent minutes. Councillor Williams agreed.

No further amendments were proposed.

RESOLVED – That the minutes of the meeting dated 26 July 2017 be approved as a correct record.

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.

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

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.

The Mayor advised that there were three questions pursuant to Council Procedure Rule 10.

1. Question from Councillor Bulman

“Given the overwhelmingly negative response from a recent survey undertaken in one of the wards in Tunbridge Wells concerning the current proposals for a new Civic Centre and Theatre, why does the Council persist in not allowing the residents of the Borough a proper say in the matter through a referendum, instead of relying on consultations that merely purport to provide a balanced and unbiased view? 

If the leadership is to assume that the recent survey was in some way unrepresentative of the views of the whole Borough – notwithstanding the recent 2000 strong petition and the many negative letters in the press – how is the Council going to really judge whether the citizens of the Borough are supportive of this scheme?”

Answer from Councillor Moore

“As councillors we must balance the needs of our local area, our residents and voters, community groups, local businesses and the Council.

Ours is an important community leadership role and one where we must respond to and investigate day-to-day concerns within our ward whilst also planning strategically for the long term good of the Borough.

As Councillor Bulman knows, at the last Full Council meeting in July all councillors debated whether to hold a Borough-wide referendum before making their final decision on the proposed civic development. Twenty five councillors voted against doing so, eight voted in favour.

?

Throughout the process the Council has engaged with various stakeholder groups to seek their views on the proposed development and indeed a number of changes have been made to the project to address concerns voiced by local residents.

Since becoming Portfolio Holder for Civic Development Communications I have worked with officers to ensure we hear from our diverse communities across the Borough, providing them with the facts to offer an informed opinion.

As ward councillors we should be replicating this within our wards and speaking to residents to understand and address their concerns. Through the Five Year Plan we have a mandate for this project and we should now manage it to ensure the best outcome for the Borough.”

Supplementary question from Councillor Bulman

Councillor Bulman acknowledged that the Council had engaged in consultation and sought the views of many people, but felt that there had not been a proper mandate from the people. He asked why the Council was afraid of finding out what the people want.

Response from Councillor Moore

Councillor Moore commented that councillors were elected in a representative democracy to represent the people and make informed decisions, taking together the views of residents and the available evidence. It was a councillor’s duty to make an informed, evidence based decision after receipt of the RIBA Stage 3 report at the December 2017 meeting.

2. Question from Councillor Chapelard

“Can the Portfolio Holder give the number of days in which the legal limit for pollution was breached along the A26 for each of the last  ...  view the full minutes text for item FC32/17

The Mayor advised that this item was brought forward on the agenda as later business flowed from the Five Year Plan.

Dr Robert Banks, resident of Royal Tunbridge Wells, had registered to speak.

Dr Banks questioned the need for a new Plan given the incomplete work from the previous plan. The new Plan focused on the Civic Development despite no decision to proceed having been made. The supporting documents stated that any further projects arising from the consultation on the Plan would require a robust business case but there had been no such business case set out for the projects included in the Plan. Although there had been only six responses to this consultation there had been over 115 responses to the consultation on the Civic Development but there appeared to be no recognition of those responses in this Plan. There was little in the Plan for the rural areas. The revised Plan sought to retrospectively support projects which were already underway.

Councillor Dr Basu commented that the revised Plan set out the overarching aims of the Council. The revision was desirable as some of the projects had been completed ahead of schedule and there had been significant changes in the local government landscape. The Council could be proud of its successes including Grosvenor and Hilbert Park, dualing the A21 and North Farm improvements, The House flexible business space and working with Southborough Town Council to bring forward the community centre. The revised Plan had been subject to several rounds of consultation with Members, the public and partners, details of which were set out in full at the appendices. Members had had many opportunities to contribute to developing the Plan providing a robust and clear strategy. He moved the recommendations set out in the report.

Councillor March seconded the motion and reserved her right of reply.

Councillor Holden commented that the Plan was a manifesto for the town and included little for the rural areas; it also omitted anything of substance on the most pressing issues of overdevelopment and congestion. He disagreed with the proposals to alleviate housing demands by destroying the countryside, adding that whilst a new settlement was the least objectionable solution it should not be attributed the status of desirable. The Council should do more to resist the Government’s housing targets particularly in the face of broken promises on devolution and localisation. The Council’s commitments on assisting a community centre in Cranbrook did little to repair the damage caused previously and were paltry in comparison to the resources applied to the Civic Development.

Councillor Hannam commented that those parishes who responded to the consultation were less than supportive. Despite repeated calls, a recycling centre in the east of the Borough had not made it into the Plan on the argument that it was a Kent County Council matter. However, it was believed that the Borough Council could do more to lobby the County Council, mandate those Members who were also members of the County Council to push  ...  view the full minutes text for item FC33/17

Dr Robert Banks, resident of Royal Tunbridge Wells, had registered to speak.

Dr Banks believed that the consultation on the proposed Framework was flawed as only one of the 115 responses appeared to have been taken into account. He had been advised by the Planning service that many of the responses were in relation to the Civic Development which was a separate issue to the Planning Framework, he felt this distinction may not have been appreciated by those who attended the public exhibition or completed the online consultation. The relevancy criteria for accepting comments as part of the consultation were not set out in the consultation but were used to reject non-compliant responses. The previous Five Year Plan, which had been the main manifesto on which councillors had been elected since 2014, contained no reference to the Civic Development and thus there was no mandate for the project. The Framework consultation was the first public consultation to reference the Civic Development so was confusing at best and misleading at worst. He added that the Civic Development proposals were at variance with the Borough Site Allocation Plan, adopted in 2016, which stated that “any proposals affecting the Town Hall would be expected to retain significant features such as main entrance, staircase and council chamber in situ and allow for their continued use for civic functions and other compatible uses”.

Mr Nick Pope, Chairman of Friends of Calverley Grounds and resident of Royal Tunbridge Wells, had registered to speak.

Mr Pope commented that he had submitted comments to the consultation not fully understanding the separation between the Framework and the Civic Development. He added that he had conducted his own assessment of the feedback received and provided a summary which had been distributed to all members. There were an overwhelming number of negative comments, with the only area of positivity being in relation to the Culture and Learning Hub. It had taken a considerable amount of time to consider the consultation documents and provide feedback so if the comments were not to be taken into account in the Framework document they should at least be considered separately, otherwise, he questioned the purpose of the consultation.

Councillor Reilly commented that the Framework was intended to supplement the existing planning guidance in relation to specific sites within the town centre area. If adopted, it would have the status of non-statutory guidance and would be a material consideration when determining any future planning applications. The Framework had been amended in response to relevant comments to the consultation and it was proposed that further amendments be made and a consultation be commenced giving the Framework statutory status as a Supplementary Planning Document. He moved the recommendations set out in the report.

Councillor March seconded the motion and reserved her right of reply.

Councillor Moore commented that the report had been through a robust democratic process, through several Council committees and public consultation. Whilst the number of consultation responses was higher than normal it was not statistically  ...  view the full minutes text for item FC34/17

(This item is associated with exempt appendices)

The Mayor noted two exempt appendices as part of the report and advised that if any member wished to discuss such information they would need to do so in closed session.

Mrs Jennifer Hemming, of Calverley Park Gardens Residents’ Association, had registered to speak.

Mrs Hemming commented that the Residents’ Association had been formed to address safety issues around Calverley Park Gardens and Carrs Corner. Kent County Council had acknowledged the seriousness of the issues and were undertaking a feasibility study in the area. Difficulties for pedestrians, congestion and damage to the road infrastructure would be made worse by increased traffic using the car park. The Council’s own strategies supported modal shift to sustainable travel; more car parking was contrary to that strategy. Investment should be to the benefit of all residents and businesses but further congestion would be detrimental and dangerous.

Mrs Jane Fenwick, Chair of the Transport Working Group, Royal Tunbridge Wells Town Forum, had registered to speak.

Mrs Fenwick commented that the additional car parking was not needed and any perceived need as a result of the Civic Development was premature. There was sufficient capacity in other car parks in the north of the town and adding traffic to this area would exacerbate the already congested routes. If just part of the money being spent on the extension was spent on supporting the sustainable travel modes agreed in existing transport strategies there would be a substantially lower demand for car parking and there would be greater benefit towards the Council’s priority of supporting healthy lifestyles. Cyclists would have difficulty accessing the proposed cycle stands positioned on a busy thoroughfare which should be enhanced rather than diminished. Vehicle usage was changing with a greater reliance on on-demand services and the investment could prove to have been wasted in the near future.

Mr Peter Wooster, resident of Tunbridge Wells, had registered to speak.

Mr Wooster commented that key parts of the report were exempt which prevented residents from having a meaningful discussion with their councillors. The framework for procuring a contractor was not specified. Claims for the need for more parking were not consistent with statements that there was ample parking capacity made in respect of a town centre hotel planning application, which gave the impression that arguments were arranged to suit the Cabinet’s agenda regardless of whether they were contradictory. Furthermore, such claims were not quantified and in large part attributed to the loss of parking as a result of the Civic Development leading members to make premature and subjective decisions rather than decisions based on evidence. The proposed feasibility study of alternative parking sites appeared to be incomplete and members were urged to reject the proposals until this was provided. If members were minded to approve the proposals they should, at least, ensure the electric bicycle stands were expedited and there be more than just lip-service to reducing pollution such as provision of more electric vehicle charging points.

Mr Ben van Grutten, resident of Tunbridge Wells,  ...  view the full minutes text for item FC35/17

Councillor Reilly moved the recommendations set out in the report.

Councillor Weatherly seconded the motion.

There being no comments, the Mayor sought the affirmation of the meeting.

RESOLVED –

1.    That Patricia Narebor be appointed as the Monitoring Officer for the Council with effect from 28 September 2017;

2.    That it be noted that Patricia Narebor was appointed as the Head of Mid Kent Legal Partnership on 1 September 2017; and

3.    That the Head of Legal Partnership be authorised to exercise the delegated functions and responsibilities relating to the Head of Legal Partnership as set out in the Council’s Constitution.

Councillor March moved the recommendations set out in the report.

Councillor Reilly seconded the motion.

There being no comments, the Mayor sought the affirmation of the meeting.

RESOLVED – That the Timetable of Meetings for 2018/19, as at Appendix A to the report, be agreed.

To deal with any business the Mayor regards as urgent due to special circumstances.

The Mayor confirmed there was no urgent business to consider within the provisions of Council Meetings Procedure 2.1.12.

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.

It was noted that the next meeting of the Full Council would take place on Wednesday 6 December 2017 at 6.30pm.