Agenda item

To consider and, if thought fit, to approve the Motions on Notice as set out in the report, in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 11.

The Mayor advised that in a change to the agenda papers, an alternative cross-party motion had been put forward to replace Motion 1 and Motion 2. The meeting consented to the change by affirmation.

 

The Mayor further advised that in taking this forward, and to allow the six members of the public who had registered to speak on the two previous motions, it was necessary to pass a motion to suspend and replace the procedural rules on speaking to extend the time.

 

Councillor Scholes moved, and Councillor March seconded, the motion: “That during the consideration of the alternative motion at item 11 on the agenda, Council Procedure Rule 19.2.1 be suspended and replaced as follows: The total time limit allocated to members of the public for speaking on an item on the agenda is 18 minutes.”

 

The Mayor took a vote on the motion by affirmation.

 

RESOLVED – That during the consideration of the alternative motion at item 11 on the agenda, Council Procedure Rule 19.2.1 be suspended and replaced as follows: The total time limit allocated to members of the public for speaking on an item on the agenda is 18 minutes.

 

 

Alternative Motion (combined Motion 1 and Motion 2)

 

Councillor March moved, and Councillor Everitt seconded the motion: “Tunbridge Wells Borough Council recognises the overwhelming weight of scientific evidence pointing to man-made climate change and the harmful impacts this is having on natural habitats and ecosystems, biodiversity and our lives in general. It notes the early work undertaken to date by the Council including efforts to promote active travel, increase recycling and the reduction of plastic usage in the Town Hall but understands it needs to do more. It recognises that it has a responsibility to take a firm lead on reducing the council’s and the wider borough’s carbon emissions and in furtherance of this responsibility agrees to:

·         Declare its recognition of global climate and biodiversity emergencies;

·         Set up a climate cross party task force to start a dedicated report within the fiscal year with actions that it needs to take to address this emergency including how the wider community including businesses, organisations and individuals can be encouraged to make their own contributions to meeting a goal to make the Borough carbon neutral by 2030. This report will include a plan to conduct a green audit of all council services to ensure that weight is given to the environmental and sustainability impact as well as cost and which will inform the next iteration of the Council’s five year plan;

·         Ensure that forthcoming plans and strategies (including the Local Plan and the next iteration of the Five-Year Plan) set out ways in which the Council can make its contribution to reduce carbon emissions, the degradation of the environment and combating climate change by agreeing an ambition to make the Council’s operations carbon neutral by 2030;

·         Lobby central government to provide additional resources and to grant the necessary freedoms to deliver the above.

·         Take steps with partners to proactively include young people in the process, ensuring that they have a voice in shaping the future by setting up a Citizen’s Assembly as a way of also involving residents and businesses in the process as Climate change will have implications for generations to come.”

 

The following points were made in moving the motion:

·         Tackling poor air quality to lower emissions had multiple benefits.

·         Promoting active travel (walking and cycling) helped reduce congestion.

·         Sign up to the Kent and Medway Lower Emissions Strategy that included a task to lobby Government to promote a change in behaviour by residents.

·         There were a number of strategies and initiatives that the Borough could be involved to help achieve a carbon neutral status by 2030, including:

o   the Government’s Roads to Zero Strategy that includes a commitment for 50 per cent of new cars sales to have ultra low emissions;

o   the Carbon Literacy Project that helps promote awareness;

o   a Cross Party Task Force that will invite experts to help with the Committees aims; and

o   the Citizens Assembly that will target young people.

·         There were only 11 years to achieve the objectives.

 

Dr Robert Chris had registered to speak, which included the following comments:

·         Motion supported, welcomed the report that included an Audit of emissions across the Borough – essential precursor to seeing climate change targets and outlining the actions that can be sensibly achieved.

·         Carbon Neutral – not possible to eliminate all emissions therefore suggest this statement is removed.

·         Understanding the difference between climate change and environmental degradation – Improvements to the environment (walking, cycling, recycling etc.) help improve environment degradation and increase biodiversity, but no impact on reducing climate change.  To consider these together would undermine both sets of objectives.

·         Promotion of the reduction of emissions by local businesses and residents. Suggest greater reductions could be achieved in the wider community.

·         Council needs to be realistic as to what it can achieve.  Cannot compete at the national level.

·         Task Force with a sensible remit and the necessary expertise to assess and report back in 6 months.  Believe much of the information is already available.  Report in 2 stages – 1^st, report on the nature of the Borough’s carbon emissions and ways to reduce them, 2^nd stage, follow this with a consultation, public engagement with a way forward with support of the community. 

 

Mr James Tansley had registered to speak, which included the following comments:

·         Construction work at Calverley Square would show a considerable increase in emissions and the Council’s carbon footprint.

·         The continuation of the scheme would mean the Council could not abide by the terms of the motion. As such, the motion was good news and the termination of the Civic Complex would tackle the global climate and biodiversity emergencies and save tax payers money.

 

Dr Charlie Gardner had registered to speak, which included the following comments:

·         United Nations body, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change states that global heating should be limited to 1.5 degrees above pre industrial levels. Current projections using best available science states we were heading for 3.4 to 4.9 degrees of heating by the end of this century. The upper end of this range widely considered that organised human society would be impossible.

·         Only way to keep global heating below or limit to 1.5 degrees is to achieve zero carbon emissions as soon as possible.

·         Technology, skill set and public support all available now to achieve targets by 2030. Other nations moving quicker than UK to achieve a zero carbon economy.

 

Mr John Hurst had registered to speak, which included the following comments:

·         Support the motion, and as a member of the Green Party offer their support and assistance as needed.

·         Encourage the Task Force and Citizens Assembly working party is set up as quickly as possible as only when they start will details of the work needed emerge.

 

Ms Marieke de Jonge had registered to speak, which included the following comments:

·         Support the motion.

·         Agreeing to the motion will be seen as very positive in the community.

·         Creating a cross party task force pivotal to creating support and firm dedication to setting out a strategy and action plans to reducing carbon emissions. And whilst becoming carbon neutral might be unachievable, setting a robust and ambitious target to give the motion a sense of urgency.

·         Welcomed the Green Audit to identify the base line for progress in the reduction of carbon emissions.

·         Friends of the Earth has set up a citizens advisory group and would be very happy to be included as part of the Citizens Assembly.

 

Miss Lily Winter had registered to speak, which included the following comments:

·         Support the motion

·         Would welcome the introduction of charging points throughout the Borough to encourage the use of more electric vehicles.

·         Encourage the reduction of plastic by using more paper or reusable bags, including encouraging producers to use less packaging.

·         Encourage the introduction of facilities that allows for the use of reusable water bottles.

·         Encourage the use of solar panels and wind farms as a source of reusable energy.

 

The debate on the motion included the following points:

·         Plans for new housing across the Borough between now and 2036 would be a challenge to persuade developers to go carbon neutral.

·         Can count on the support of the Liberal Democrat Group. Recognise the importance of this issue at both national and local level. Would prefer the use of commitment rather than ambition around the term carbon neutrality but accept it in the broad intent of the motion.  Council has direct control of the Borough’s emissions and much more within the Borough’s indirect control – clear message that there is a need to get own house in order. Various other initiatives that would help in this respect including:

o   Keen to carry on the discussion about linking vehicle emissions to the cost of residential parking permits – polluters pay more;

o   Introduce a clean air zone.  A26 has illegal levels of air pollution;

o   Look at where the pension pot is being invested – investing in the extractors industry whilst at the same time spending public money on reducing carbon emissions;

o   Looking at national policies that can be implemented at the local level, including fuel duty, infrastructure investment and targeting polluters to pay; and

o   Borough in a strong position to lobby Central Government through local MP.

·         Need robust and achievable targets that can be measured through the 5-year Plan. Currently slightly behind what some other councils are doing – Stroud declaring themselves carbon neutral on 2015, with plans to have area wide carbon neutrality by 2030. Nottingham City Council to be carbon neutral by 2028.

·         Labour group of Councillors support the motion. All have a responsibility to affect change – climate change having a detrimental effect on plant and animal life with the knock on effect of having an impact on future food supplies. Bromley aims to be carbon neutral by 2029, Tonbridge and Malling by 2030. Aspire to make Tunbridge Wells Borough Council a green borough and carbon neutral also by 2030.

·         Around 40,000 deaths were attributed to outdoor air pollution in the UK. Urge the Council to develop action plans on air quality. Kent County Council and District Councils already working together on air quality through the Kent and Medway Air Quality Partnership.

·         In 2011 the council was asked to support a carbon neutral target and achieved a 6% reduction in 2009/10 with a further 11% expected the following year.

·         The Council should look to lobby to ensure that developers use materials that carbon capture rather than carbon release.

·         The Council should lead by example and look at own carbon footprint and within the same timeframe look to reduce to zero.

·         Hawkhurst NDP specifically states that resources have to be reserved.

·         County-wide aim was to reduce emissions by 34 per cent by 2020 and by 60 per cent by 2030 from 2005 baseline. Latest data suggested that emissions had already been reduced by 36 per cent which has largely been achieved by UK wide decarbonisation of the National Electricity Grid and the closure of small energy intensive industrial plants in Kent. However little progress has been made in the transport sector. Emissions for Buses and HGV’s have seen very little reduction; in fact there has been a rise in 2016, the highest since 2007.

·         Danger of climate change and the rapid increase in temperatures across the world – threat to 8 per cent of wildlife, de-icing of Greenland and Antarctica and rising sea levels. See Report as a call for action, action plan needs to be ambitious. Council to recognise that it needs financial support and relevant expertise to take this forward. Some of the answers are an easy fix, e.g. planting more trees – making the planting of them mandatory to developers working on new housing estates.

·         Important for the Council to aim for carbon neutrality – Stroud District Council was a good example. House building an issue and likely to raise Council’s carbon footprint, so important to have measures included in the Local Plan and the 5 Year Plan to help address this and still keep to the target of 2030.

·         Crisis needed to be addressed from international body level right down to individual level. Borough had a responsibility to take action, and this Motion started the action.

·         Cross Party initiative and informed by local groups and residents. The concept of the Green Audit, a need to confirm scale of contribution, identify the easy fixes and plan for those beyond the Borough’s current ability.

·         Motion also included ground work for a Citizens Assembly – which was crucial for resident engagement.

 

Councillor March requested a recorded vote on the motion.

 

Members who voted in favour of the motion: Councillors Atkins, Atwood, Backhouse, Bailey, Barrington-King, Dr Basu, Bland, Chapelard, Mrs Cobbold, Dawlings, Ellis, Everitt, Funnell, Hamilton, Hayward, Hickey, Hill, Horwood, Lewis, Lidstone, Mackonochie, March, McDermott, Morton, Neve, Noakes, Ms Palmer, Pope, Poile, Pound, Rands, Reilly, Scholes, Scott, Mrs Soyke, Stanyer, Mrs Thomas, Thomson, Warne, Williams, Willis and Woodward. (42)

 

Members who voted against the motion: None.

 

Members who abstained from voting: Councillor Bruneau. (1)

 

RESOLVED – Tunbridge Wells Borough Council recognises the overwhelming weight of scientific evidence pointing to man-made climate change and the harmful impacts this is having on natural habitats and ecosystems, biodiversity and our lives in general. It notes the early work undertaken to date by the Council including efforts to promote active travel, increase recycling and the reduction of plastic usage in the Town Hall but understands it needs to do more. It recognises that it has a responsibility to take a firm lead on reducing the council’s and the wider borough’s carbon emissions and in furtherance of this responsibility agrees to:

·         Declare its recognition of global climate and biodiversity emergencies;

·         Set up a climate cross party task force to start a dedicated report within the fiscal year with actions that it needs to take to address this emergency including how the wider community including businesses, organisations and individuals can be encouraged to make their own contributions to meeting a goal to make the Borough carbon neutral by 2030. This report will include a plan to conduct a green audit of all council services to ensure that weight is given to the environmental and sustainability impact as well as cost and which will inform the next iteration of the Council’s five year plan;

·         Ensure that forthcoming plans and strategies (including the Local Plan and the next iteration of the Five-Year Plan) set out ways in which the Council can make its contribution to reduce carbon emissions, the degradation of the environment and combating climate change by agreeing an ambition to make the Council’s operations carbon neutral by 2030;

·         Lobby central government to provide additional resources and to grant the necessary freedoms to deliver the above.

·         Take steps with partners to proactively include young people in the process, ensuring that they have a voice in shaping the future by setting up a Citizen’s Assembly as a way of also involving residents and businesses in the process as Climate change will have implications for generations to come.”

 

Councillor Hayward raised a point of order regarding an amendment to a motion considered at a previous meeting. The Mayor, on advice of the Monitoring Officer, ruled that it was not a valid point of order.

 

 

Motion 3

 

Councillor Hayward moved, and Councillor Atwood seconded, the motion: “Cabinet be requested to terminate the Calverley Square project with immediate effect and will not enter into any further commitments other than to manage an orderly termination of this project.”

 

The following points were made in moving the motion:

·         RIBA Stage 4 reports had been received but were irrelevant as RIBA Stages were not concerned with the benefits of the project.

·         The project had been value engineered.

·         Earlier consultation could have saved significant wastage but a decision to proceed should not be based on sunk costs.

·         Calverley Square was not the only way to invest in the economy.

·         Top touring shows demanded guaranteed incomes which reduced the income for the theatre operators and there was an overreliance on certain shows.

·         SELEP had refused funding for the project on the grounds of flaws in the plan.

·         Plans were in train to consider alternatives.

 

Dr Robert Chris had registered to speak which included the following comments:

·         Overwhelming objection to the scheme from the Borough. There would need to be only very compelling arguments for keeping the scheme going under such opposition, including:

o   The need to show no alternative proposal for dealing with the issues that Calverley Square is designed to address;

o   Calverley Square promoted as a building project and did not look at the policy outcomes that it was to deliver until a later date;

o   Policy outcomes are not the buildings but the benefits that new infrastructure is designed to bring in; and

o   Now have the opportunity to ask what the town wants to create for future generations and how that would fit in with the Borough as a whole.

·         Scheme should now be terminated.

 

Mr Robert Atwood had registered to speak which included the following comments:

·         17 June 2019 an amended motion was passed by the council to suspend the work on Calverley Square project with a call for cross party talks in direct response to the continuing public criticism of the project. To date no meaningful meetings have been held between Cabinet and representatives from opposition parties, and little has been achieved in setting up discussions with other relevant stakeholder groups. An unacceptable position.

·         Suggest that the motion was seen as a delaying tactic. Minutes of the Audit Committee meetings suggest the Council believed the project was subject to misconception by the public (minutes dated 27 November 2018).

·         Talks had been offered to discuss the analysis of the project and possible alternatives – but this step has long since passed. Now time to draw scheme to a close, to admit the deficiencies and to concentrate instead on the existing Civic buildings.

·         To finally remove the Calverley Square project from the agenda.

 

Mr Jim Kedge had registered to speak which included the following comments:

·         Chairman of the friends of Calverley Grounds and speaking on their behalf and on behalf of the Defenders of Calverley Grounds to support the motion to abandon the Calverley Square Development and avoid the harm the Council are planning to inflict on the Grade 2 registered Park and Garden.

·         Inspector appointed to adjudicate on the CPO supported the Council’s proposals. But remit could not include reconsideration of the planning permission that was approved by the Council’s own planning officers.

·         Consequences of the decision include:

o   the destruction of 67 trees releasing their stored carbon back into the atmosphere;

o   environment around Calverley Grounds would be seriously degraded and replaced by tall buildings that will dominate the grounds;

o   the Theatre would overshadow the south west quadrant, with the offices partly in the grounds themselves resulting in a permanent loss of green open space; and

o   the car park would form a steep bank.

·         Environmental degradation contrary to Council policy.

 

Mr Brian Bissell had registered to speak which included the following comments:

·         A long term resident that had seen the evolution of this project and the vision of the project, including generating income.

·         No alternative options have been brought before the Council until now – suggest that careful consideration be given before agreeing the motion to kill the project in its entirety.

 

Debate on the motion included the following points:

·         Wording of the motion passed on 17 June increased during the debate from 30 words to 46 words. A response to clarifications had not been received.

·         Members had had a number of useful discussions with Councillor Scott who had been available and transparent.

·         A joint statement was emerging that Labour Group not able to sign up to as it did not allow for political issues to be raised with the public about the Calverley Square project. Believe it was a political decision not an economic, social or environmental decision.

·         Cultural Strategy and Economic Development Strategy should be separated.

 

Councillor Scott moved, and Councillor McDermott seconded, an amendment to add and remove words so that the motion reads: “That the Cabinet be requested to stop all new expenditure on the Calverley Square Project with immediate effect and to not enter into further commitments other than with the involvement of all political parties and other relevant stakeholder groups to manage an orderly consideration of all alternative proposals.”

 

The following points were made in moving the amendment:

·         RIBA stage 4 reports had not yet been received.

·         The intention was to find a collaborative way of moving forward and looking at the various options – statement referred to was a draft statement intended for discussion to hopefully agree a collaborative conclusion. Taking one option off the table is not a good way forward, need to look at all the options in the round. Want to improve engagement and put together a meaningful framework to consider alternatives in a fair and balanced way.

·         Waiting for a report on the current offices including what alternatives options might be available and how they might be financed.

·         Would like members of the opposition to engage with this with the aim of finding a collaborative way forward.

 

Councillor Pound raised a point of order relating to whether an amendment could be moved that was the same as a motion that had already been passed by Council. The Mayor, on the advice of the Monitoring Officer, ruled that, in reference to Council Procedural Rule 14.2, a member cannot move a motion in similar terms to one that has been rejected at a meeting of the council within a 6 month period unless signed by 10 members – which this was duly signed. This is an amendment which wasn’t rejected so was acceptable both as a motion to be moved and an amendment to be moved.

 

Debate on the amendment included the following points:

·         The Council was keen to purchase the police station. However, the District Valuer had valued it at around £500,000, this was well above but it was being sold for £2m. Not able to purchase a property over the value given by the District Valuer. Bringing the police station into the equation was a red herring.

·         Those wanting to stop the project should vote against the amendment.

·         The Council had maintained that the public enquiry had engaged widely with businesses and stakeholders. No public consultation was done to explore views and consider alternatives, to consider the merits of a 1200 seater Theatre, including whether the existing theatre should remain open until the new one was delivered, to consider the  redevelopment of existing Civic Centre Complex and whether only Council own land should be considered. An opportunity missed that would have allowed for public consideration of these issues and would not now be in a position proposing the cessation of the scheme as it currently stands.

·         The Borough included many qualified people that would have been able to contribute in a meaningful way.

·         Incorrect figures from GVAG were still appearing on the website and in Conservative Party literature.

·         Concerns relating to the possible collapse of the Woodford Equity Income Fund affecting Council Pension Fund. These risks had not been accounted for.

·         Experts had not considered the wider political dynamics of the Borough, how proposal fits with future housing needs, climate change and pollution obligations, changes in demographics (both rural and urban). Not asked if there were better ways of delivering the Council’s goals, suggest there is more at stake.

·         Theatre would fail to deliver – lacking in space to accommodate requirements needed for a fully functioning theatre.

·         Need for transparency in order to achieve the Council’s aims and to be able to work with the community – integral to being successful and ensuring the right decisions were made.

·         The Woodford Equity Fund was a matter for Kent County Council and not a matter for the Borough.

·         Carbon footprint on the Assembly Theatre and Town Hall would be 3 times greater than for the new theatre.

·         £2.5m cost for the Public Works Loan Board interest would come out of Commercial rent, and nothing to do with a cut in services.

·         67 trees due to be cut down will be replaced with 72 specimen trees.

·         With regards to the Theatre, musicals bring in the highest revenue; seating for over 1,000 also brings in higher revenue. Existing theatre cannot generate the revenue as there isn’t sufficient space. Need to decide whether the theatre is wanted – consideration of the cultural regeneration and what it brings to the Borough.

·         There had been a lack of consideration of the rural community, why the scheme is not a priority and reasons for opposition.

·         The costs of the scheme have already had a negative impact upon the rural community of Cranbrook and Benenden. 10 years ago Cranbrook and District Age Concern were promised a brand new accessible community facility - £400,000 of S106 funds to date has not been forthcoming.  Essential services have also been cut, with threats of further cuts and new charges ever present.

·         Increases in fly tipping, introduction of charging for garden waste collection leading to an increase in bonfires and therefore air pollution.  Citizens Advice Bureau, Weald Information Centre and Tourist Office, funding and operation significantly restricted due to funding constraints. The damaging consequences for the whole Borough of proceeding with this project should be recognised by the Council.

·         Farming in the Weald of Kent always a subsistence activity. Diversification thriving across the Weald with a successful range of businesses across the Borough. Funding being focused on the Town Centre to the detriment of the rural community.

·         Transcript of previous debates were clear that decisions on Calverley Square would come back to Full Council – bearing this in mind, decision to halt the project not for this meeting.

·         Audit and Governance Committee concerned at reports that several key management reports had been withheld. If said reports had a bearing on the project then they should be made available. Cannot make a decision on a major project without having all of the financial, management and programme information.

·         Confirmation was sought that with this amendment all expenditure and commitments would be stopped while either a Full Council or complete cross-party committee analyse other relevant designs.

 

Councillor Hayward raised a Point of Order reiterating that following legal advice obtained the original amendment was negated by the original motion. The Mayor, on the advice of the Monitoring Officer, ruled that it was not a valid point of order.

 

Debate on the amendment continued and included the following points:

·         If the Calverley Square project did not proceed, costs to update existing properties were currently sitting at around £50m. There would be a need to borrow money regardless of what scheme goes ahead.

·         Once RIBA Stage 4 was published the Council would be in a better position to make a decision.

 

Councillor Chapelard requested a recorded vote on the amendment.

 

Members who voted in favour of the amendment: Councillors Backhouse, Bailey, Barrington-King, Dr Basu, Bland, Mrs Cobbold, Dawlings, Hamilton, Horwood, Mackonochie, March, McDermott, Noakes, Ms Palmer, Reilly, Scholes, Scott, Mrs Soyke, Stanyer, Thomson and Woodward. (21)

 

Members who voted against the amendment: Atkins, Atwood, Bruneau, Chapelard, Ellis, Everitt, Funnell, Hayward, Hickey, Hill, Lewis, Lidstone, Morton, Poile, Pound, Rands, Warne, Williams and Willis. (19)

 

Members who abstained from voting: None.

 

Councillors Neve and Mrs Thomas were not present to vote.

 

AMENDMENT CARRIED

 

The amendment became the substantive motion.

 

Councillor Chapelard moved, and Councillor Ellis seconded, an amendment to add and remove words so that the motion reads: “That the Cabinet be requested to stop all new expenditure on the Calverley Square Project with immediate effect and to not enter into further commitments other than, with the involvement of all political parties and other relevant stakeholder groups, to manage an orderly consideration of all alternative proposals. Cabinet is also requested to confirm that all Councillors will have a vote before any building work starts. Cabinet also needs to confirm that all new spending from all budgets and reserves on Calverley Square is stopped. Cabinet will instruct staff for a comprehensive update on Calverley Square commitments and penalties”.

 

The following points were made in moving the amendment:

·         The Liberal Democrat Group welcomed Councillor McDermott’s agreement to open up cross-party discussions on alternative options not excluding Calverley Square. A letter to the Council Leader had not been acknowledged or replied to – perhaps a breakdown in communications.

·         Cabinet could decline a request for Full Council to have a vote before the scheme goes to RIBA Stage 5. Hence the request for assurance that every Councillor will have a vote as to whether to proceed to RIBA stage 5.

·         With regards to spending, want to avoid any loophole that would allow any further money to be spent and to understand where we stand financially in terms of liabilities on contracts associated with Calverley Square.

·         Until these 3 questions had been satisfactorily resolved no discussion could take place on a way forward. 

 

The debate on the amendment included the following points:

·         The invitation to work collaboratively and to produce a document that reflects a collaborative approach was welcomed. Need to understand the various alternatives including their cost implications.

·         In a normal situation the decision to proceed or not would have been made and stood by 2 years ago. The intellectual capital spent over this period was expensive and should be considered as no less important that physical capital.

·         If the project went ahead the Council would end up with assets of £210m with a maximum debt of £77m. The value after initial spend was always higher, putting the Council in an extremely strong position for spending at a later date and addressing some of the issues that have been raised.

·         The amendment strengthened the commitment to collaborate and a need to build trust.

·         Transparency and openness across the Council including the receipt of all relevant information was important.

·         At the Overview and Scrutiny Committee meeting in June, details of the ongoing liabilities which would accrue if the project was stopped at the end of RIBA Stage 4 were requested but still awaiting a reply.

·         The answer to the issue around liabilities and risks would be included in RIBA Stage 4 which has yet to be received.

·         The wording included in the amendment to the substantive motion was not strong enough and should include the word ‘collaboration’.

·         In respect of including the word ‘collaboration’, an assurance could not be given that the Liberal Democrats would co-operate until the measures indicated earlier are adhered to. 

 

The Mayor advised that the meeting was running close to four hours and as a result a vote would be needed under Council Procedure Rule 4.2 for the meeting to continue. The meeting consented by affirmation.

 

Debate on the amendment continued and included the following points:

·         ‘In good faith’ was a better term than ‘collaboration’.

 

Councillor Chapelard, with the consent of the seconder and the meeting, altered the amendment to add and remove words so that the motion reads: “That the Cabinet be requested to stop all new expenditure on the Calverley Square Project with immediate effect and do not enter into further commitments other than with the involvement of all political parties acting in good faith and other relevant stakeholder groups to manage an orderly consideration of all alternative proposals. Cabinet is also requested to confirm that all Councillors will have a vote before any building work starts. Cabinet also needs to confirm that all new spending from all budgets and reserves on Calverley Square is stopped.  And finally that Cabinet will instruct staff for a comprehensive update on Calverley Square commitments and penalties”.

 

Debate on the altered amendment continued and included the following points:

·         Clear that it was important to have a rational and reasonable debate before the project moves to RIBA Stage 5. Conditions put in place to ensure that a trust is built up across all parties.

·         Concerns remained about the level of consultation since June when the motion was put forward. Agree that way forward included building trust.

 

Councillor Chapelard requested a recorded vote on the amendment.

 

Members who voted in favour of the amendment: Councillors Atkins, Atwood, Backhouse, Bailey, Barrington-King, Dr Basu, Bland, Bruneau, Chapelard, Mrs Cobbold, Dawlings, Ellis, Everitt, Funnell, Hamilton, Hayward, Hickey, Hill, Horwood, Lewis, Lidstone, Mackonochie, March, McDermott, Morton, Noakes, Poile, Pound, Rands, Reilly, Scholes, Scott, Mrs Soyke, Stanyer, Thomson, Warne, Williams, Willis and Woodward. (39)

 

Members who voted against the motion: None

 

Members who abstained from voting: None

 

Councillors Neve, Ms Palmer and Mrs Thomas were not present to vote.

 

AMENDMENT CARRIED

 

The amendment became the substantive motion.

 

The Mayor took a vote on the motion by affirmation.

 

RESOLVED – That the Cabinet be requested to stop all new expenditure on the Calverley Square Project with immediate effect and do not enter into further commitments other than with the involvement of all political parties acting in good faith and other relevant stakeholder groups to manage an orderly consideration of all alternative proposals. Cabinet is also requested to confirm that all Councillors will have a vote before any building work starts. Cabinet also needs to confirm that all new spending from all budgets and reserves on Calverley Square is stopped.  And finally that Cabinet will instruct staff for a comprehensive update on Calverley Square commitments and penalties.