Proposer: Councillor David Hayward
Seconder: Councillor Christian Atwood
“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 these projects.”
Minutes:
Councillor Atwood moved, and Councillor Hayward 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 these projects.”
The following points were made in moving the motion:
· The recent election results showed a clear lack of support for the project and the Council should respect the vote.
· Expert advice was based on restricted and biased briefs.
· There was no purpose is waiting for the RIBA Stage 4 report as this would not address the fundamental problems.
· There was no evidence that a new theatre was the only way to grow the economy and protect services. The cost of £2.3m would be covered by cuts to services and increasing charges.
· The Council had an obligation to make evidence based decisions but the evidence relied upon was flawed.
· Whilst the wording of the motion was in the form of a request due to technical reasons it was expected that the view of Full Council would be respected.
Dr Robert Chris had registered to speak, which included the following comments:
· The previous administration had become complacent and this was an opportunity to put right past mistakes.
· Evidence in support of the project had been cherry-picked and/or misrepresented.
· Evidence presented at public enquiry demonstrated that the public had been treated shoddily.
Robert Atwood had registered to speak, which included the following comments:
· The debate was likely to include detailed and conflicting views but the public objection was clear.
· The project was not the only way to grow the economy.
· Businesses owners may support the project but as they did not pay Council Tax they were not responsible for the cost.
· It was not the job of opponents to provide alternatives.
· There was no silent majority in favour of the project and failure to stop would be reflected in future election results.
Peter Dunlop had registered to speak, which included the following comments:
· Rural areas needed a vibrant town for economic viability.
· There had been a lack of investment in the town.
· A new theatre in town would be preferable to having to travel into London.
Kim Freeman had registered to speak, which included the following comments:
· The town centre was not vibrant and needed investment. Plans for major investment had been reassuring.
· A theatre would both grow the economy and add to the cultural wellbeing of the town and surrounding areas.
· Tunbridge Wells was a ‘destination town’ but was at risk of losing that status.
· The current theatre was not able to meet the demands of audiences or producers. Reconfiguring the theatre could not fix its fundamental limitations.
· The decision to proceed with the project had been made following years of evidence gathering and public debate.
· It was easy to stir up opposition but fear of change and a vocal minority should not be allowed to derail plans.
Councillor Scott moved, and Councillor McDermott seconded, an amendment to add and remove words so that the motion reads:
“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:
· A three point plan had already been put in place to ensure alternatives to the project could be properly considered: 1) A Councillor Convention bringing together Parish, Borough and County Councillors would include a review the Borough’s main challenges and opportunities; 2) A small panel consisting of representatives of residents and businesses would be established to look at the concerns and aspirations of the community in a non-political fashion and report back to Cabinet. 3) The Cabinet would work with a number of financially trained members to review and set out in a simple form the economics and wider benefits of any proposed alternatives.
Councillor Chapelard raised a point of order in relation to council procedure rule 13.6.1(e) in that an amendment may not negate a motion. The Monitoring Officer advised that the amendment was in order.
The debate on the amendment included consideration of the following additional matters:
· The nature of the referenced ‘alternatives’ was unclear.
· The amendment could be supported on the basis that it was the beginning of the end of the project.
· Involvement of all parties in the consideration of any alternatives was welcomed.
· Consideration of any alternatives should be prefaced on the current plan being cancelled.
· Tax payers had strongly indicated that they did not accept the liabilities of the project regardless of any other considerations.
· The economic arguments for the project were strong and convincing.
· It was reasonable and expected that buildings should come to the end of their usable lives.
· The Council had had a plan since 2014 to encourage economic growth and investment into the Borough through the promotion of cultural and leisure activities.
· Council finances had changed significantly and used to depend on £5m per year in government grants. This had reduced to zero, and with Council Tax capped, the only option was to make up most of the shortfall through business rate retention. Further cuts to services and efficiencies were no longer sustainable and investment was necessary.
· Business Rate income was increasing and could be expected to continue to increase with several major private-sector developments due to start in the near future.
· The promotion of cultural and leisure activities, which initially enjoyed cross-party support, included provision of a modern theatre, the Amelia Scott centre and increased parking.
· Extensive work had been carried out to asses the options for redevelopment. Theatre users were keen to avoid closure of the theatre during any redevelopment.
· Thirteen options for new and existing sites had been considered in detail from which the current scheme had emerged which would also provide new income streams.
· The sustainability of repaying the cost of borrowing had been confirmed by the Council’s auditors, the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy and the Inspector following the CPO Enquiry.
· The Council was already committed to producing the RIBA Stage 4 report. It was sensible to await the report and in the meantime to review the options, including termination of the project. This was the purpose of the amendment.
· There was no option that did not include some expenditure and therefore borrowing.
· Refurbishment of the current Town Hall would cost £12m plus £3m relocation costs.
· Refurbishment of the current Assembly Hall would cost £31m and the result would still have most of its shortcomings.
· The amendment was a dilution of motions 1 and 4. Voting for motions 1 and 4 would achieve a similar outcome except it would be on the basis of a fresh start.
· The amendment put power in the hands of Cabinet and this was unacceptable.
· At the Overview and Scrutiny Committee meeting on 10 June officers were asked what were the ongoing liabilities should the project be cancelled after RIBA Stage 4. The answer had been that such eventuality had not yet been fully explored. Therefore, it was impossible to commit to no new expenditure as the Council’s full undertakings were unknown.
· Opposition members had not had the time or resources to propose alternatives. The project should stop to allow full consideration of alternatives and the amendment did not meet this need.
· Climate Change was a significant concern and action was needed urgently. Offices were required to have a minimum energy efficiency rating of ‘C’. The current Town Hall was rated ‘D’ and used 526 tonnes of carbon per year. The new development could reduce this to 248 tonnes.
· The project could not continue in spite of the election results. However, the Council operated in a framework of statutory processes and had to honour existing contracts and proceed with an orderly wind-down.
· There should be a referendum on the outcome of any consideration of alternatives.
· Tunbridge Wells voted ‘Remain’ in the EU Referendum which could have affected the local election results.
· Few comments relating to Brexit had been made whilst canvassing for the local elections, most people were concerned with local issues.
· The alternatives now being proposed were worthy of due consideration.
· The amendment read as a list of past mistakes and could not be trusted as a way forward.
· Whilst recognition of a climate emergency was welcomed, this alone did not justify the development and the Calverley Square scheme would not address problems of a failing high street and funding cuts.
· The expert opinions should be respected but they may not have been asked the right questions.
· There was a lack of surety of purpose to the amendment.
· All options had a cost, borrowing either £77m for Calverley Square or £50m to stand still. Calverley Square would deliver new assets and new investment in the economy.
· The project initially enjoyed support from many groups including the Friends of Calverley Grounds which noted that the proposed site was good in the centre of town and near the train station.
Councillor Chapelard requested a recorded vote.
Members who voted in favour of the motion: Backhouse, Bailey, Bland, Mrs Cobbold, Dawlings, Fairweather, Dr Hall, Hamilton, Holden, Horwood, Mackonochie, March, McDermott, Noakes, Ms Palmer, Podbury, Scholes, Scott, Simmons, Mrs Soyke, Stanyer, Mrs Thomas, Thomson and Woodward. (24)
Members who voted against the motion: Atkins, Atwood, Bruneau, Chapelard, Ellis, Everitt, Funnell, Hayward, Hickey, Hill, Lewis, Lidstone, Morton, Neve, Poile, Pound, Rands, Warne, Williams and Willis. (20)
Members who abstained from voting: None.
AMENDMENT CARRIED
The amendment became the substantive motion.
Councillor Chapelard requested a recorded vote.
Members who voted in favour of the motion: Backhouse, Bailey, Bland, Mrs Cobbold, Dawlings, Fairweather, Dr Hall, Hamilton, Holden, Horwood, Mackonochie, March, McDermott, Noakes, Ms Palmer, Podbury, Scholes, Scott, Simmons, Mrs Soyke, Stanyer, Mrs Thomas, Thomson and Woodward. (24)
Members who voted against the motion: Atkins, Atwood, Bruneau, Chapelard, Ellis, Everitt, Funnell, Hayward, Hickey, Hill, Lewis, Lidstone, Morton, Neve, Poile, Pound, Rands, Warne, Williams and Willis. (20)
Members who abstained from voting: None.
RESOLVED – That 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.