To receive any questions from members of the Council, of which due notice has been given in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 10, to be submitted and answered.
Minutes:
The Mayor advised that there were eight questions pursuant to Council Procedure Rule 10.
1. Question from Councillor Stanyer
“Our newspapers are full of stories of 'horrors on the High Street' and speculating as to who will be next. Is the cabinet member able to give us a more positive insight as to why we should harbour no such fears here in Tunbridge Wells?”
Answer from Councillor Moore
“I agree that our newspapers are full of such horror stories but I agree with the likes of Mary Portas and Bill Grimsey who have concluded that high streets are not dead, just changing and that retail is not dead, boring retail is dead.
When we heard from British Land they explained that physical stores play a vital role in retail – holding stock, allowing for click and collect and returns as well as offering a chance to browse. 89 per cent of UK retail sales touch a physical store.
Put simply, our challenge – as outlined by the Portas and Grimsey reviews is to do what Amazon can’t – to provide a rich mix of cultural and leisure opportunities that encourage people to visit the town and to lengthen dwell times and to make it a great place for businesses to base themselves and for residents to live.
British Land also described the phenomenon of ‘polarisation’ – namely the concept that not all town centres will be able to remain ‘destination towns’. Many towns will be relegated to convenience towns. This is something that we are keen to avoid. Standing still is not an option when towns around us are investing in their cultural and leisure offer.
We have the advantage of already being one of the top 100 retail destinations and of having a great brand. Royal Tunbridge Wells is strengthened by its unique offer including the presence of large percentage of independent retailers, some examples include The High Street, Chapel Place and The Pantiles as well as in Camden Road.
Although we have seen some of the big name multiples close down we are aware that many retailers in the town centre continue to trade well and in addition there has been a steady number of new starters. Building on the success of the town centre partnership becoming a Business Improvement District that will be funded by local businesses to implement their priorities on the themes of marketing and promotion events, business support, access and parking.
So there are threats and opportunities facing our town and we mustn't be complacent but our strategy has been universally welcomed amongst the hundreds of businesses I have engaged with and was consistently mentioned as a reason why developers are putting close to £500million worth of investment into our town.”
2. Question from Councillor Chapelard
“Could the Portfolio Holder confirm that the costs for the Civic Complex are £94.1m?
The breakdown for this figure is as follows: £90m as set out to Full Council in December 2017; £3.25m for Crescent Rd carpark extension; £850k for 2 of the 3 Grove Hill House flats; making a total of £94,100,000.”
Answer from Councillor Moore
“No.”
Supplementary question from Councillor Chapelard
“Could the Portfolio Holder review her answer please?”
Answer from Councillor Moore
“Throughout last year, reports showed the gross cost of the scheme at the end of RIBA 3 as being £90m. There have been numerous update reports on Calverley Square since then to Overview and Scrutiny Committee, Finance and Governance Cabinet Advisory Board and Cabinet and these all explain that the project is on programme and on budget.
Regular updates have been given on Calverley Square which you are either welcome to attend or have attended. In the last month alone reports were presented to Finance and Governance on the 13 November, Overview and Scrutiny on 19 November and Cabinet on 6 December.
By way of background information, the Grove Hill House properties were purchased as investment properties and meet the Council’s investment criteria. They were purchased following an approach to the Council. So not only were these property investments assessed objectively by our in-house property team but one of our newly elected Councillors chose to purchase a flat in Grove Hill House in the spring of last year and as a representative of a stakeholder group he had full knowledge that Calverley Square project was proposed next door. So I suppose that choice also endorses the view that property in that location objectively stacks up as a good investment.
Regarding Crescent Road, that car park extension meets one of the Council’s 8 priorities in the Five Year Plan and was approved by Full Council. When I meet businesses they tell me that parking is important to them and that we need more and better car parks given that no new car parks have been provided in the last 25 years.”
3. Question from Councillor Lidstone
“During the purdah period in the run up to May 2018 elections, the inaugural edition of Viewpoint magazine was produced and printed in association with Tunbridge Wells Borough Council. This runs contrary to the Local Government Act 1986, section 2, which states: “A local authority shall not publish, or arrange for the publication of, any material which, in whole or in part, appears to be designed to affect public support for a political party”. Can the Council confirm when the next edition of Viewpoint magazine is expected to be produced and circulated?”
Answer from Councillor Moore
“Thank you for the question. In response to your preamble, I would note that Viewpoint was published by One Media, not the Council. If you feel there has been a breach of electoral law you should report this to the appropriate authorities.
In response to your question itself, One Media have been in touch with the Council about a further edition of Viewpoint early in the new year. Given all the early exciting developments about to take place and the huge amount of external investment coming into the town, I think this is a great idea. I know that the last edition was widely circulated both locally and amongst city investors and I am excited to see what the next edition might contain.”
Supplementary question from Councillor Lidstone
“Thank you, I share your excitement about the next edition of Viewpoint magazine. Can I ask for you assurance therefore that you will communicate to One Media the dates of the purdah period and insist that they avoid publishing during that period?"
Answer from Councillor Moore
“You have my assurance that I will communicate the deadlines to One Media.”
4. Question from Councillor Pope
“Has the Council underestimated the costs of the Civic Centre Development now named Calverley Square?”
Answer from Councillor Jukes
“I thought we would never hear from you, in a word ‘no’. We have employed one of the best cost consultants in the world, AECOM, to thoroughly budget this particular project. We have gone out to tender to some of the best contractors in the country. The winning contractor came in just under budget. The two remaining contractors came in just on budget. I don't think they were wrong.
This project has been going on for three or four years, you have been on the Council for six months. You could have gone to the Director of Finance and asked this question, you could have gone to the Development Manager and asked similar questions, you could have gone to the Project Manager and asked the questions, it is no good coming here and just grand standing and saying is it going over budget. What makes you think the project is over budget? This is not a question and answer forum but if you have an organisation which is feeding you information, which is legitimate information, and a recognised professional organisation that reckons that we have under budgeted for this job, please let me know because I will be delighted to engage with them using more of the ratepayers money to convince you that we are on target.”
Supplementary question from Councillor Pope
“If the budget increases above the £90m will it come to the Full Council to vote on whether this project should proceed or not?”
Answer from Councillor Jukes
“I don’t know whether you are offering an opinion on what you think may happen, or you have got some facts that we don't know about. My information so far, is that we are on budget in all areas. This job is contracted to be £90m which will include all the compensation costs because we have, if you have looked or take the trouble to look at the breakdown of the costs, you will see that there are contingency figures in there. These contingency figures are to be spent on contingencies, which is ten per cent of the value of the project, in fact it is twelve and a half percent if you look at the gross value but there you go. I don't quite know how to answer your question because it is just your opinion, you haven’t got any facts behind it and its very difficult, I am a fact based person. As I have told you before, if you want to know the truth come and see me.
This was explained some time ago and the Calverley Square project remains on programme and on budget. The Council has employed, as I said in my earlier statement, the best qualified cost consultants probably in the world. They remain confident that our estimated costs of the project are realistic and appropriate and bearing in mind we have also been audited by CIFRA on this particular project as well. I don't know what else I can tell you to convince you.”
5. Question from Councillor Podbury
“In view of the recent media reports about Bereavement Services and crematorium charges. Will the Portfolio Holder explain how Tunbridge Wells Crematorium is dealing with this?”
Answer from Councillor March
“The overall cost to families of a funeral service is made up of a number of elements including the Funeral Director, florist and burial and cremation charges. When families use the council bereavement services we are able to offer a range of choices to help them manage the overall cost of the funeral service.
The crematorium grounds provide a beautiful setting and we have improved our facilities over recent years to include the choice of the refurbished Cemetery or the Crematorium chapel. We have introduced lower cost chapel time slots and an even lower cost cremation option for families that don’t want or need to hold a service in one of our chapels.
We have also invested significantly to improve the Cloister Garden and provide the new Memorial Wall, increasing the choice of memorial products that are available to families to commemorate their loved ones at a wide range of prices to fit their budget.”
6. Question from Councillor Stanyer
“A number of the world’s great cities are banning cars and becoming pedestrian friendly. Can the cabinet member confirm whether there is scope for adopting such measures locally. Is it the Council’s aim, for example, to encourage further pedestrianisation in Tunbridge Wells?”
Answer from Councillor Jukes
“Thank you for the question. I’m afraid I am struggling to think of a single city that has banned cars.
You are right that the nature of the high street is changing and the Council has been at the forefront of this with the work we carried out at Five Ways a few years ago. Whilst we received complaints at the time, it has transformed that area of town and I am pleased to see the number of coffee shops and restaurants that have sprung up in the area and the number of people taking time to pause and dwell in an attractive environment.
Our Five Year Plan looks to build on this success and the Council has committed to improving the public realm in Tunbridge Wells and work will start in the new year on extending the public realm enhancements from Monson Road to the crossroads between Mount Pleasant Road and Church Road. This will improve the pedestrian-friendliness of the central spine of the town.
I should also emphasise that we are not about banning the car. In a rural district such as ours with limited public transport options the car is likely to be part of our lives for some time to come and we will provide a mixture of car parking options. As mentioned earlier on, we are also supporting a range of retail, leisure and cultural enhancements to the town.
I would like to think, at some stage in the distant future, other parts of the town will be pedestrianised and we can join the top of the town down to the bottom of the town but I don’t see that happening in the near future.”
7. Question from Councillor Chapelard
“Could the Portfolio Holder confirm that the introduction of the £52 garden waste charge will not be used to fund the repayment of the loan for £94m Civic Development?”
Answer from Councillor Reilly
“No.”
Supplementary question from Councillor Chapelard
I am a little bit bemused again because given the fact that on the agenda papers of 6 December 2017 the funding strategy for the Civic Development included £700,000 that was going to be raised from the garden waste charge. If that £700,000 is not going to be used to repay the loan how does he propose to fund that £700,000 gap?”
Answer from Councillor Reilly
“I am slightly surprised that this question had to be asked. The funding strategy for Calverley Square has been a matter of public record for over a year and has been subject to frequent updates and debates in Full Council and committee meetings. The funding strategy made clear that as well as income from service charges the procurement of the new waste contract offered opportunities for savings arising from the joint procurement such as eliminating collection rounds and also providing the most efficient way of reducing waste that needs to be sent to landfill or incineration. KCC have agreed to share any savings arising from this.
This type of contract has been successfully implemented across the South East and the country more generally and opt-in garden waste collections have operated successfully and to the satisfaction of residents for many years across the rest of the county.
I should add that I am personally delighted that as part of the new contract we are able to be doing something that residents have repeatedly asked for – namely the doorstep collection of glass and bottles.”
8. Question from Councillor Lidstone
“Following the recent U-turn by Tunbridge Wells Borough Council to remove a planned 67 per cent increase in Youth Football pitch hire, can the Portfolio Holder please explain why this increase was proposed in the first place and what the Council's long-term strategy is for youth football?”
Answer from Councillor March
“The Council is strongly committed to sports facilities and this is one of our eight strategic priorities.
Most hire fees increased by a small percentage amount. The intention for this increase was to mirror other charging differentials whereby youths pay a percentage amount of the adult fee but, in retrospect, the increase (for a small number of matches) was clearly a large one and the Council has listened to the views of players and clubs and reduced it to sit in line with other increases.
I would like to pay tribute to those such as the Foresters who brought this to our attention.”
Supplementary question from Councillor Lidstone
“When it comes to this time next year and we are reviewing the budgets, will the Council be adopting the same approach to youth football?"
Answer from Councillor March
“I would just like to add that if the Liberal Democrat Group were so interested in the fees and charges being paid by all users then their representative on the Finance and Governance Cabinet Advisory Board might have had the courtesy to stay until the end of the meeting and to have voted on the proposals rather than walk out before this item was fully discussed.”
9. Question from Councillor Chapelard
“Tunbridge Wells Borough Council has told hirers of the Camden Centre that they will now have to pay the ‘commercial rate’ rather than the ‘community rate’ from April 2019. Why were Councillors not informed of this change of policy as part of the Fees and Charges agenda item from the Finance and Governance Cabinet Advisory Board on 13 November 2018?”
Answer from Councillor March
“The report to Cabinet made clear that there are differential rates for businesses using the Camden Centre for a profit and charge users and community groups or those who are not-for-profit organisations.
We are seeking to achieve a balance between making the centre attractive to users and being fair for taxpayers who are, in effect, subsidising private businesses. In response to feedback from users, we will be maintaining existing users on the published community rates and holding discussions with them to try to strike that balance. Of course, any registered charity or not-for-profit group – be they new users or existing users – will only pay the community rate.”
Supplementary question from Councillor Chapelard
“You haven't actually answered the question, the question was why were Councillors not informed that those people currently pay the community rate were suddenly put on the commercial rate, which is a major change of policy, and why yesterday, these people were also told from April 2020 that would be reviewed again and do you propose to then bring that change of policy back to councillors at some point before they end up in the fees and charges for the following financial year?”
Answer from Councillor March
“I should also add that if he is so interested in the fees and charges being paid by users he might have had the courtesy to stay until the end of the meeting at which it was discussed.”