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 nine questions from members of the public had been received under Council procedure rule 8.

 

1. Question from Mr James Tansley

 

“In February 2017, the Council claimed the Civic Complex would cost £72m (before financing costs). In December 2017, it claimed it would cost £90m (again, before financing costs). Today it says it will cost £108m (before financing costs). How much higher will the bill for this project have to rise before the Council recognises it is not worth proceeding with it?”

 

Answer from Councillor Scott

 

“As explained throughout the reports this is a design and build contract. A contractor has now submitted their final offer to deliver Calverley Square which is a fixed sum and will only change if the Council changes its mind or delays on what it wants.”

 

Supplementary question from Mr James Tansley

 

“In June 2018, the last Leader of the Council, Councillor Jukes, claimed that Mace, the primary contractor for this project, was known for completing construction on time and within budget. He sited the example of The Shard next door to Guy’s Hospital. A little research would have revealed that after the contract was signed in 2007, Mace had to return requesting a 25 per cent increase in the cost and payment to complete the project. It was only on the basis of that 25 per cent uplift after the contract had been signed that the work went ahead. Why should we believe the figure of £108m plus financing costs – which brings it to, according to the Council’s own figures, £140m? Why should we believe that is the final figure given Mace’s record in the past and the record of the Council in not revealing the full picture about costs of the Calverley Square project?”

 

Answer from Councillor Scott

 

“Having had a huge amount of experience in risk management in another major contractor who completed multi-billion pound projects – actually one very close to here, the Channel Tunnel which came in on budget, on time – there are so many different styles of fixed price contracts, depending on a range of contractual terms. Each one has got to be examined quite separately and quite uniquely to those terms. The terms on this one are strong terms, they have been reviewed and will continue to be reviewed during the forthcoming month before signature to make sure that they are legitimate and tied down as required by the Council to minimise any risk to exactly where we are. The offer here is due, as mentioned, because of various economic things that have been happening with Brexit, etc. One of the key advantages of that is the substantial reduction we’ve had in financing costs – as of today it is only 1.8 per cent. These things do balance out, partly because of Brexit, etc. but, in fact, the overall cost remains the same. If costs were substantially higher then, of course, there would be other concerns.”

 

2. Question from Dr Robert Banks

 

“On which date were Counterculture Partnership appointed to provide the report on the Evaluation of Fundraising Prospects for the Calverley Square project and what is the cost of their consultancy fee?”

 

Answer from Councillor Scott

 

“Counterculture were appointed in April 2019 for theatre and culture fundraising advice. They were subsequently paid £4,000 in July 2019 in relation to theatre fundraising.”

 

Supplementary question from Dr Robert Banks

 

“In their report, they say that they were commissioned in July of this year but, in fact, you say it was April. Is that correct? In their report in July, they say they were asked to evaluate at least £3m of public fundraising. As the RIBA Stage 4 report was not available at that time, how did you know exactly the figure that they needed? Because it would seem that the Council probably knew in July at the Full Council meeting when we were told that the RIBA results were not available that there was going to be this shortfall.”

 

Answer from Councillor Scott

 

“The appointment was in April 2019, they were asked various questions throughout that appointment. I can only assume that was referred to as one of those questions that was asked of them at that point in time. In respect of the amount of money, it had always been assumed we will be looking for additional funds and that was the level of funds we felt at that time to be appropriate to be looking for.”

 

3. Question from Mr James Tansley

 

“Given the Council’s claims that it has been transparent with the public about the Civic Complex, when can I expect substantive responses to the questions in my emails to the Leader of the Council of 15 September 2019, 6 September 2019 and 28 August 2019, and to his predecessor of 7 March 2019, 25 November 2018, 28 August 2018, 1 March 2018, 2 November 2017, 29 October 2017, 23 September 2017, 9 August 2017, 31 July 2017, 28 March 2017 and 8 March 2017?”

 

Answer from Councillor McDermott

 

“I did respond to the e-mail dated 28 August. You obviously didn’t see the email so I will read it out. ‘Thank you (and to whoever has helped you put this together) for the email. It is great to see that you maintain an interest in Borough affairs so long after your brief stint as a Borough Councillor.’ I apologise as you were never a Borough Councillor, you were a County Councillor. ‘I will carefully consider the points you have raised as the Calverley Square project works its way through the Council’s committee cycle and I am sure that colleagues will do the same.’

 

I will add to that, that you will find further answers to all your emails in the CPO Inspector’s report. It is unfortunate that having attended the public inquiry you chose not to register to speak and face cross examination. Unfortunately, I cannot answer for Mr Jukes but I am sure that, as a private individual now, he may well contact you.”

 

Supplementary question from Mr James Tansley

 

“Can you tell me, who in the Council thought it appropriate to share the contents of the RIBA Stage 4 report with a local newspaper in advance of releasing it to democratically elected Councillors? I note that you are quoted in the Times of Tunbridge Wells article, as is Councillor Scott.”

 

Answer from Councillor McDermott

 

“I think you have answered your own question, as Councillor Scott and myself were in the paper. That’s it.”

 

4. Question from Mr James Tansley

 

“What is the Council’s current estimate of the number of the Borough’s residents who are in favour of the Civic Complex project proceeding?”

 

Answer from Councillor Scott

 

“There is no substantive figure, though I do note from the report of the Independent Panel that all those they interviewed wanted to see something happen in the centre of the town to enable it to flourish. They went on to conclude that there was a desire to revitalise the town centre to enhance its prosperity via employment and culture and to enhance the cultural offering of Tunbridge Wells to broaden its creative economy. All members of the cross-party group recognise that the Assembly Hall and Town Hall are past their sell-by date.”

 

Supplementary question from Mr James Tansley

 

“Councillors should be aware that some 5,900 local residents have signed a petition opposing the civic complex compared to, as of Monday, 208 who signed a petition in favour. Informal polls conducted by the handful of councillors who believe they should listen to the people they purport represent – hat tipped to Councillors Williams and Simmons – demonstrate an overwhelming majority opposed to the project. In this year’s May elections, the Conservatives lost 72 per cent of their seats in Tunbridge Wells compared to six per cent in Sevenoaks and 19 per cent in Tonbridge and Malling. Why is the Council acting against the wishes of the people of this Borough?”

 

Answer from Councillor Scott

 

“In a representative democracy, councillors exercise their judgement on behalf of residents and it is a fact that the Calverley Square scheme was conceived and progressed through all its initial decision points with cross-party support. I continue to believe that investment in our cultural facilities and increased employment space is vital to support our status as a destination town and to make the Borough a great place to live, work and visit. It is also important to match the housing growth with cultural and leisure facilities of the town.

 

I also note that there are approximately 150k tickets sold at the Assembly Hall each year which is somewhat larger than the 5,900. I also note that in the Courier [cutting distributed by a speaker], the main two concerns that are listed in the paper are: we need more shops, its like a ghost town; we want Tunbridge Wells to succeed, to improve on the shops in our town. They also talk about car parking, which is another major issue as far as I’m concerned, and dealing with congestion. The key elements here are about regeneration of the town, and that is the number one concern that we should all have for the future of this town. How are we going to progress as a town as this shopping changes, as things deteriorate as far as most of these shops are concerned? We need to actually see growth in this town to ensure its wellbeing. I am concerned, very much, about the welfare of the individuals here, the welfare of this town, to ensure that we can actually address those issues which are overwhelmingly more important than the points that you have made.”

 

5. Question from Mr James Tansley

 

“What is the Council’s operational boundary for external debt?”

 

Answer from Councillor Dawlings

 

“This is set out in the report at Appendix M paragraph 5.2 (page 393 of the agenda pack). The limit is currently £97m.”

 

Supplementary question from Mr James Tansley

 

“The RIBA Stage 4 reports on the civic complex states that the Council is looking to borrow a further £90m, and possibly more if it is unable to secure £8m from Kent County Council and other fundraising to cover the costs of the civic complex project. According to the Council’s 2018/19 Financial Statements (section 16.1) the Council’s external borrowing, as at 31 March 2019, was just under £12.998m. £13m plus £90m, according to my calculations, comes to £103m or £6m more than the Council’s operational boundary for external debt. Please can you advise why the Council is proposing to have a vote on a project which has demonstrated it has not provided adequate funding for?”

 

Answer from Councillor Dawlings

 

“I think the Council’s present borrowing is £3m which would be paid off in the course of this year. I am confident that the Council is embarking on a project that will be within the limits of its borrowing capacity.”

 

6. Question from Mr James Tansley

 

“Given that a number of Tunbridge Wells voters were denied the right to vote in this May’s European elections due to the Council’s failure to deliver postal vote forms in time, will the Council replace it’s Returning Officer?”

 

Answer from Councillor Dawlings

 

“No the Council is not replacing the Returning Officer and, for the record, there were no issues with electors receiving postal vote forms.”

 

Supplementary question from Mr James Tansley

 

“I draw your attention to an article that appeared in The Guardian newspaper on 23 May which quotes a council official in an email to The Guardian saying that postal votes were not sent out on the grounds that: ‘our printers could not print out such a vast amount of ballot papers’ and also ‘we did it to the best of our ability’. I.e. voters were denied the right to vote because the council were unable to produce the postal votes in time. Given that the Returning Officer is the same individual as the Chief Executive of the Council who is responsible for the implementation of a £108m construction project, please can you say whether you have confidence that the Council is able to proceed within time and within budget with such a project?”

 

Answer from Councillor Dawlings

 

“The report you identify is news to me. I am aware that there were some difficulties with the European election. [Mr Tansley clarified that he was referring to the European election]. I thought you were talking about the May elections which were the Borough Council elections. The issue with the European elections was simply that the Government said for so long that we weren’t having any European elections and as soon as we received the notification of what was required, these things were immediately actioned. So, no. We do have entire confidence in our Returning Officer.”

 

7. Question from Mr James Tansley

 

“What breaches of the Council’s internal policies and procedures have taken place since the beginning of the 2017/18 financial year?”

 

Answer from Councillor Dawlings

 

“We are not aware of any.”

 

Supplementary question from Mr James Tansley

 

“The Council’s 2018/19 Pay Policy states that official’s salaries for each grade should run from 95 to 105 per cent of the market median. In the 2018/19 Financial Statement it says that the Chief Executive’s pay, once his Returning Officer allowance is excluded, was £133,587 in 2018/19 – a 10.6 per cent increase on the previous year and 111 per cent of the market median for his grade. Who was responsible for this breach of policy and why wasn’t it drawn to your attention?”

 

Answer from Councillor Dawlings

 

“This is a matter that I’m not aware of. I will get an answer to you.”

 

8. Question from Mr James Tansley

 

“In light of the number of accidents involving pedestrians at Carr’s Corner (18 in the last 12 months), what action will the Borough Council take with Kent County Council to reduce the risks and improve safety?”

 

Answer from Councillor McDermott

 

“Tunbridge Wells Borough Council has been in regular contact with Kent County Council (our Highway Authority) regarding the concerns of local residents about pedestrian safety at Carr’s Corner, including discussions at the Joint Transportation Board.

 

Within the last few months, KCC has carried out the following work at Carr’s Corner:

·         White road markings (destinations) added to the junction between Calverley Road and Calverley Park Gardens to encourage larger vehicles to continue straight ahead for access to the A21.

·         Directional signage placed opposite the junction of Calverley Road and Calverley Park Gardens to further discourage vehicles using Calverley Park Gardens and instead to continue straight ahead for the A21.

·         An advanced directional sign on Crescent Road, heading towards Carr’s Corner, has been altered to clarify the route that should be taken to access the A21.

·         Warning signage on Crescent Road has been upgraded to improve drivers’ awareness of pedestrians in the area.”

 

Supplementary question from Mr James Tansley

 

“At the recent CPO enquiry on the Calverley Square project, it was reported that if the project were to go ahead some 140-160 lorry movements per day would be required for 14 weeks to remove the material from the cut-and-fill exercise. Will the Council guarantee that none of these 15k additional lorry movements will be via Carr’s Corner?”

 

Answer from Councillor McDermott

 

“It is impossible to guarantee that. So, no I can’t.”

 

9. Question from Mr James Tansley

 

“How many residents have signed up for the Council’s garden waste removal scheme?”

 

Answer from Councillor McDermott

 

“As at the close of play yesterday: 19,689.”

 

Supplementary question from Mr James Tansley

 

“Please can you explain to me why Tunbridge Wells residents are being charged £12 a year more for exactly the same service provided by exactly the same provider than their neighbours in Tonbridge and Malling?”

 

Answer from Councillor McDermott

 

“My understanding is that Tonbridge and Malling are thinking of raising their figure at the moment. We started off at £42 which 17,260 people applied for, they got £10 off so you could say we charged for the early bird only £2 extra.”