Proposer: Councillor Becki Bruneau
Seconder: Councillor Nancy Warne
“Tunbridge Wells Borough Council will create a borough-wide panel of experts and community stakeholders to generate alternative proposals to identify and address the requirements for new or refurbished office accommodation for both the Council and commercial use, and the realisation of the Cultural Strategy for consideration by the Council. No prior conditions will be set that might limit the range of options considered.”
Background papers:
TWBC Cultural Strategy 2014-24
Minutes:
Councillor Bruneau sought leave to table an alternative motion to that which was set out in the agenda. The Chief Executive advised that the alternative motion was not in order. Therefore, the motion as set out in the agenda was proposed.
Councillor Bruneau moved, and Councillor Willis seconded, the motion:
“Tunbridge Wells Borough Council will create a borough-wide panel of experts and community stakeholders to generate alternative proposals to identify and address the requirements for new or refurbished office accommodation for both the Council and commercial use, and the realisation of the Cultural Strategy for consideration by the Council. No prior conditions will be set that might limit the range of options considered.”
Dr Robert Banks had registered to speak, which included the following comments:
· The public had clearly shown its opposition to the current scheme.
· Conciliatory comments by members of the Cabinet were welcome but previous suggestions that there had been opportunities for public involvements were not fully realised. The Council needed to ensure the public were genuinely involved in any future decisions.
· Approval of the motion may go some way to restoring trust and it should not me ignored.
Robert Atwood had registered to speak, which included the following comments:
· It would be outrageous for Cabinet to ignore the will of the Council.
· There was precedence for a panel of the type suggested in the motion and there was a wide choice of appropriate people from which to populate such a panel.
· The report of the previous Tunbridge Wells Town Plan Advisory Board in 2012 may still be useful.
· Joined up thinking was needed and could be facilitated by such a panel.
Dr Philip Whitbourne had registered to speak, which included the following comments:
· The challenge was now, how to meet the economic and cultural aspirations in a way that enjoys the support of the public.
· At the top of the list of possible alternatives should be the refurbishment of the current Town Hall and suggestions that it was too big for current needs should help a phased development without the need to move out.
· A creative redevelopment would set an example to other owners of historic buildings.
Parish Councillor Antony Harris of Goudhurst Parish Council had registered to speak, which included the following comments:
· This was an opportunity to find a bi-partisan consensus.
· Despite the similarity between the amended motion 1 and motion 4 it appeared that members were voting along party lines.
· Tunbridge Wells had to move forward, otherwise its town centre and culture would die. A bi-partisan group which included parishes, residents and businesses would offer a good way forward for the whole Borough.
The debate on the motion included consideration of the following additional matters:
· Most Conservative members and all opposition members had supported calls for Full Council to take the decision on any future plans so to subsequently give control to an unelected body seemed counterintuitive.
· The motion wording was not specific enough.
· Any ideas generated by the proposed advisory board would be subject to Council decision making.
· The amendment to motion 1 was similarly vague in its use of the term ‘stakeholder’.
· The Council was already proposing to do that which was being asked for in the motion.
· Motion 1, as amended, covered the intention of Motion 4.
· The motion was too prescriptive for the current stage of proceedings and time was needed to generate alternatives.
· The Council’s decision making procedures were subject to a high degree of scrutiny which should be used to vet any alternative proposals.
· There were mixed messages coming from the Council’s leadership. The motion should be supported as it simply reinforced the Cabinet’s plans.
· There was little confidence that the Cabinet would act in accordance with the will of Council and the motion was intended to provide a positive way forward in a way that had previously been lacking.
· The Council needed the support of residents to make the best of its plans and strategies.
· Nine parishes had been progressing with Neighbourhood Plan which involved working with local residents and experts to ascertain the wants and needs of the community and how to achieve them. This could be a model for working together in future.
Councillor Chapelard requested a recorded vote.
Members who voted in favour of the motion: Atkins, Atwood, Bruneau, Chapelard, Everitt, Funnell, Hayward, Hickey, Hill, Lewis, Morton, Poile, Rands, Warne, and Willis. (15)
Members who voted against 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, Thomson, Williams, and Woodward. (24)
Members who abstained from voting: Ellis, Lidstone, Neve and Pound. (4)
MOTION NOT CARRIED