Agenda item

To receive any questions from members of the public, of which due notice has been given in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 8, to be submitted and answered.

The Mayor advised that seven questions from members of the public had been received under Council Procedure Rule 8.

 

1. Question from Dr Robert Chris

 

In relation to climate change, does the Council have any policies regarding greenhouse gas removal or adaptation?

 

Answer from Councillor Dr Basu

 

The Council adopted the Kent Environment Strategy in October 2016 and through the strategy we aim to address the risks, impacts and opportunities from environmental and climate change, whilst delivering wider economic and health opportunities. To this end we have worked in partnership with Kent to develop the draft energy and low emission strategy, which is currently out for public consultation, with actions aimed to reduce our carbon emissions not just across our Borough but for our own activities.

           

The draft Local Plan, on which consultation will take place from September to early November 2019, proposes a strategic climate change objective and draft policies that cover a range of issues including climate change adaptation, sustainable design and construction and transport design and accessibility.

 

Supplementary question from Dr Robert Chris

 

How could carbon neutrality be achieved without greenhouse gas removal? If there was not a policy for adaptation, what did the Council consider its responsibility to be to mitigate the effects of climate change?

 

Answer from Councillor Dr Basu

 

The International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report which I suggest you might like to read. The Government is taking full action from what the IPCC are asking – which is quite right, if we don’t take this forward, and go at the rate we are going, the temperature will go up by 3 degrees. A 2 degrees rise would cause havoc all round. The Government has got a very big plan. Kent County Council and Medway Council have joined in and are planning in great depth. Also, we have to understand that by 2031 it is anticipated that there will be 180,000 new homes and nearly 400,000 extra people, a 24 % increase from 2011 levels. Increase in local economy 170,000 jobs by 2031, a 21% increase from 2011 levels in line with forecast operation growth. If it is a clean growth – which you are aiming for, which hopefully I also think will probably take place – this will be very good for us. Basically we, as individuals and as a Council, are trying our best to do things, but it will be a huge effort by all people and that should take place which includes promoting walking, cycling and in London they have started using scooters. I suggest you read the article because the Government has got a detailed plan, not the scope of this place, if you want to know something you can ask our officers, they will be able to tell you.

 

2. Question from Robert Atwood

 

Whilst the Council is to be congratulated on finally including in its risk register under the risk scenario no 10 – Calverley Square -  the following risk “Lack of political support to deliver the scheme”, not having included it in its previous report only recently considered in April this year, am I right in assuming that the impact of the local elections has at last caused members and officers alike to wake up to the very real fact that there is significant public opposition to the project, and that steps will be taken immediately to mitigate that risk?

 

Answer from Councillor Dawlings

 

The Risk Register is reviewed on a regular basis and changes to the risk, implications and mitigations are considered each time. The revised strategic risk register was published at the last Audit and Governance meeting on 2 July. Also published was the April refresh report on the risk registers which retained for example Calverley Square but removed a number of strategic risks with new strategic risks being identified. It was highlighted in the April refresh report that there was good engagement and flow of information to local residents. As a result the Resident Engagement risk was removed. Calverley Square was also updated accordingly recognising that the wider community and political engagement. You will also note that the CPO risk was changed to legal challenge to the CPO. The next strategic risk register will see this removed as no legal challenge to the CPO was made.

 

In terms of mitigation and responding to the motions agreed by Full Council on the 17 June 2019, the Leader has already written to and met with opposition groups who agreed that it was sensible to take no decision either way on Calverley Square until the information on the RIBA Stage 4 designs, construction cost and future of the existing Civic Complex has been received. The Leader of the Council has also invited opposition group leaders to provide their thoughts and ideas on how the Council can improve its engagement in this area.

 

I also understand that the Chairman of the Town Forum is seeking to set up an ‘Advisory Panel’, bringing together representatives of parish and town councils and businesses to look independently into the Calverley Square proposals, possible alternative solutions to addressing the issues associated with the Town Hall and Assembly Hall, to understand the concerns associated with the Calverley Square project and what can be done to address those concerns. We welcome this initiative and will seek to support the Panel in its work. Given the full Council motions we would expect other parties to engage in the process as well.

 

Supplementary question from Robert Atwood

 

I understand the quote from the Audit Committee’s papers that there is no legal requirement for the authority formally to monitor risks, however would you not agree that it would be reckless not to do so and, having said that, can you explain why the Calverley Square Risk which is a Red Risk amongst a total of 5 Red and 5 Amber  strategic Risks has actually been downgraded from a Risk score of 15 to a score of 12 in the last quarter and despite the very real risk that the project may be aborted with significant wasted costs likely to amount to at least £10m or more and far exceeding the original budget.

 

Answer from Councillor Dawlings

 

I am sure I don’t have to explain to Mr Atwood the processes that the Council follows to monitor their risks. Clearly there is a risk in Calverley Square and that is why we monitor it. It is Red because it is a major risk and the process will continue. I think there is a point though, one of the risks for Calverley Square was a risk concerning the Compulsory Purchase Order and that has not been challenged so that is a risk that has now gone away. I can assure you that these risks are monitored and will continue to be monitored.

 

3. Question from Sue Diales

 

The Mayor advised that as the questioner was not present, a written answer would be given.

 

Please would you tell me why Calverley Park Gardens Resident Association has been to every JTB meeting, written untold emails, spent hundreds of hours in meetings and on the phone to county and borough councillors for 30 mph speed signs and no lorry signs and still nothing is in place? The councillors have all agreed they are needed. When will this council get its act together and listen and act FOR the residents? Will you help us?

 

Answer from Councillor McDermott

 

The Council is aware of the concerns of the residents of Calverley Park Gardens and has passed these concerns on to KCC which is responsible for Highways matters.

 

KCC had confirmed the following:

·         Two advanced directional signs were installed last week – directing traffic for the A228 and A21 via the A264 Calverley Road rather than through Calverley Park Gardens. One sign is at Carr's Corner and one is near the multi-storey car park exit on Crescent Road

·         Destination markings have also been painted on the carriageway at Carr’s Corner, again directing traffic heading for the A228 and A21 via the A264 Calverley Road and away from Calverley Park Gardens

·         A blue advisory HGV sign was also installed at the Pembury Road end of Calverley Park Gardens in the last year

·         There is still further work to do to replace a lit bollard and a replacement kerb near the bollard. No date for this work has been confirmed

 

In addition, TWBC Officers were currently preparing a Local Cycling & Walking Infrastructure Plan and this Plan will include proposed measures to improve walking and cycling along Calverley Park Gardens and Calverley Road into the town centre, as well as for a number of other routes around the town.

 

4. Question from Justin Fletcher

 

Could the Overview and Scrutiny Committee be instructed to examine why the Public Realm Improvement scheme in Monson Road and Mount Pleasant Road went ahead without proper and comprehensive consultation with town centre traders who form the backbone of this town?

 

Answer from Councillor Dr Basu

 

The Council’s Overview and Scrutiny Committee agrees its own work plan. The Council engaged with the public, businesses and local groups and the plans for the scheme were widely publicised in the local media, in LOCAL our own Council newsletter and on social media. The individual traffic restrictions were also the subject of formal consultation, the outcome of which was considered by the Joint Transportation Board.

 

Supplementary question from Justin Fletcher

 

Thank you for the blanket response and the social media and general areas where you advertise the changes you plan to make to our town. Do you not think it would have been better to actually consult with the residents who are going to be dramatically affected by the new rat run created, York Road, Dudley Road and Newton Road, and the businesses whose footfall will be dramatically affected, Monson Road, Camden Road and Mount Pleasant Road? And before you answer, I have spoken to all of the businesses and a lot of the residents, and no direct consultation was ever engaged by the Council.

 

Answer from Councillor Dr Basu

 

Actually that is not true, because I know personally, people not only from our Council, Kent County Council Officers have gone and discussed matters with many, many people who have businesses on that road, and we always do. We cannot escape public consultation; we have to do it for every case.

 

5. Question from Sue Luck

 

This question is asked on behalf of traders on Monson Road and area; would you do what we all want and not implement the restricted access proposed for Monson Road and Mount Pleasant Road under the Public Realm Improvement scheme until full completion of the Amelia Scott Project?

 

Answer from Councillor Dr Basu

 

Your suggestion has been considered in detail however the restrictions between 9am and 6pm are integral to the design of the scheme and the management of subsequent traffic flows. The scheme, with its wider pavements, narrowed road width and less through traffic aims to enhance the area for pedestrians, creating more footfall.

 

Not introducing the restrictions will create congestion during the daytime, with buses and cars utilising the same space – and particularly with cars and buses attempting to pass other buses picking up passengers.

 

The reduced carriageway width of the junction at the traffic signals would also create congestion without the planned change to traffic flows. Operating the scheme without the restrictions could also lead to issues with pedestrian safety due to a higher number of vehicles using the area than planned.

 

Joint Transportation Board meeting in January where the traffic restrictions had been approved TWBC and KCC had committed to undertake a review of the scheme following 12 months of operation. The review will consider traffic flows, pedestrian and shopper opinion as well as views from local businesses and residents.  

 

6. Question from Dr Robert Chris

 

How is the spending to date of more than £10 million on Calverley Square project justified in terms of the National Audit Office Value for Money effectiveness criterion?  Please note that a reference to past clean VfM certificates from the external auditors will not suffice as an answer to this question since these reports do not cover all the expenditure.  The answer should proceed from the NAO’s definition of effectiveness and identify the ways in which the Chief Financial Officer considers this expenditure to fall within that definition.

 

Answer from Councillor Scott

 

The Value for money of the Calverley Square project has been independently evaluated by a number of third parties including the Council's external auditors - not just through annual audit letters but also through a nine-month investigation in response to an objection submitted by Dr Chris, CIPFA (the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy) and the High Court. Most recently the issue was considered by an independent planning inspector at the CPO public inquiry and he concluded that: “the economic benefits of the scheme are significant and weigh in favour of the conclusion as to whether or not there is a compelling case in favour of the compulsory purchase order.”

 

Supplementary question from Dr Robert Chris

 

My question was explicitly to do with the effectiveness criterion. Councillor Scott hasn’t made any reference to that, the various supposed endorsements he referred to again do not actually do what he says they did. I would just like to ask him if he could explain to the Council now what exactly the National Audit Office effectiveness criterion says, what it means.

 

Answer from Councillor Scott

 

I think that your request is far better actually by looking at the actual detailed paperwork which I am more than happy to organise to have sent to you.

 

7. Question from Dr Robert Chris

 

This question concerns the properties acquired since 2018 as part of the Council’s income generating investment portfolio:

 

a)   How many properties has the Council bought since 2018 as part of its income generating investment portfolio and how much in total has been spent on them?

b)   Given the wide range of properties in the borough available to buy to rent, please describe the research undertaken to establish that the flats in Grove Hill House were more attractive investment properties than others available on the market.  Please confirm whether this research is in the public domain or is exempt and available for review by Councillors.

c)   Please list the benefits that the Council enjoys by letting these properties on 22 year leases to its wholly-owned company, Tunbridge Wells Property Holdings Ltd, which then rents them to tenants?

 

Answer from Councillor Scott

 

a)   The Investment Portfolio has been in place since around 2012 and is part of our wider strategy to diversify the Councils income streams. The Council has acquired 8 properties for investment purposes since 2018. Apartments 10,18,13, 23 Grove Hill House, 3-7 Camden Road, 45-53 Calverley Road, 5 Calverley Road and 6 Grosvenor Road. These properties represent a total investment of £2.69 Million.

 

b)   All properties that have been purchased have been purchased in accordance with the Constitution. Under that process officers of the Council prepare appropriate reports that Councillors decide upon. All the purchases made were approved by the Council. Officers in the Estates Team are constantly looking at the market place to identify any suitable investments that may become available. Independent valuations are obtained as part of this process.

 

c)   The Company provides assured shorthold tenancies, allowing flexibility for tenants and better management for the Council that will meet local demand for privately let housing.  These benefits will also apply to the Council’s existing property portfolio and Officers would be able to review which properties may be appropriate to lease to a company. By managing the properties through a separate legal entity, to minimise the risks associated with management of the dwellings, especially where the property letting is outsourced and the use of a company will help to ensure transparency of the costs of operation to the shareholder.