To consider and, if thought fit, to approve the recommendations set out in the associated report.
Minutes:
Councillor Scott moved, and Councillor Hickey seconded, the recommendations set out in the report.
Mr Adrian Berendt had registered to speak, which included the following comments:
· Was pleased the working party had developed the ideas of the earlier independent panel and identified a road map for the future.
· This was a community project with the Council as a key but not only stakeholder.
· The working group was not in position to provide solutions, this would require significant further work.
· The integrity of the decision making process was equally as important as the final decision.
· The Council should take advantage of the present good will in looking to the future.
Debate on the motion included the following comments:
· Members of the working party were thanked for working together in good faith.
· The report was only interim and work would continue taking account of the wider borough context.
· The Council had a facilitating role in emerging strategies, it could not do it all in isolation but must work with a wide range of community stakeholders.
· The work of the working party should continue alongside other work to develop new aspirations, particularly the new Five Year Plan.
Councillor Bruneau consulted the Chief Executive concerning the wording of an amendment to the motion.
Councillor March objected to members leaving their seats and discussing matters privately.
Councillor Bruneau moved, and Councillor Pope seconded, an amendment to remove words and add words to the effect that paragraph 2 of the motion read: “That the working Group continues with its work and collaborates with residents, businesses and appropriate professionals borough-wide to further examine and refine the recommendations and to make a further report to Full Council seeking approval of the final recommendations.”
Debate on the amendment included the following comments:
· It was too soon to be making decisions and it needed to be clarified that any affirmative actions should come back to Full Council.
· The working party was already engaging with relevant parties and the report mentioned engaging with the public therefore the amendment was superfluous.
· The Audit and Governance Committee had recently commenced an audit of the Calverley Square business case, its findings should be taken into account in the future planning process.
· The interim report started the future planning process, rather than proposed decisions to be made.
· The amendment did not add anything substantive.
· The purpose of the amendment was to clarify that the recommended actions in the interim report where not ready to be acted on.
· Collaboration with stakeholders was different to engaging with stakeholders.
· Lessons had been learnt and the future process would be more open.
Councillor Hamilton requested a recorded vote on the amendment.
Members who voted for the amendment: Councillors Bruneau, Pope, Williams and Willis. (4)
Members who votes against the amendment: Councillors Atkins, Backhouse, Bailey, Barrington-King, Bland, Chapelard, Mrs Cobbold, Dawlings, Ellis, Everitt, Fairweather, Funnell, Dr Hall, Hamilton, Hickey, Hill, Holden, Lewis, Lidstone, Mackonochie, March, McDermott, Morton, Neve, Noakes, Podbury, Poile, Pound, Rands, Reilly, Rutland, Scott, Simmons, Mrs Soyke, Stanyer, Mrs Thomas, Thomson, Warne and Woodward. (39)
Members who abstained from voting: Councillors Atwood, Hayward and Scholes. (3)
AMENDMENT NOT CARRIED
Debate returned to the original motion.
Councillor Pound raised a point of order and noted there was no procedure rule preventing members from leaving their seats and discussing matters privately. The Mayor would seek advice for future meetings.
Councillor Ellis consulted the Chief Executive concerning the wording of an amendment to the motion.
Councillor Ellis moved, and Councillor Lidstone seconded, an amendment to add a third paragraph to the motion which read: “This Council additionally recommends that any Council owned building mentioned in the report can only be sold or developed with the consent of Full Council after a formal and public consultation process.”
Debate on the amendment included the following comments:
· The purpose of the amendment was to ensure due process regarding any property assets.
· The recommendations set out in the report were agreed amongst the cross-party group and therefore it was surprising that the motion was being amended.
· Requiring a full public consultation for the disposal of any council assets would set a restrictive and burdensome precedent.
· There may be unintentional consequences arising from the amendment, including implications of maintenance costs.
· The Working Group was not a decision making body, any actions would be subject to due process.
Councillor Holden moved, and Councillor McDermott seconded, a closure motion that the question be now put.
The Mayor took a vote on the closure motion by show of hands. There were 37 votes for, 2 against and 2 abstentions.
RESOLVED – That the question be now put.
Councillor Hamilton requested a recorded vote on the amendment.
Members who voted for the amendment: Councillors Chapelard, Ellis, Everitt, Funnell, Hickey, Lidstone, Morton, Poile, Pope, Rands, Rutland, Williams and Willis. (13)
Members who votes against the amendment: Councillors Atwood, Backhouse, Bailey, Barrington-King, Bland, Bruneau, Mrs Cobbold, Dawlings, Fairweather, Hamilton, Hayward, Hill, Holden, Mackonochie, March, McDermott, Neve, Noakes, Podbury, Reilly, Scott, Simmons, Mrs Soyke, Stanyer, Mrs Thomas, Thomson, Warne and Woodward. (28)
Members who abstained from voting: Councillors Atkins, Dr Hall, Lewis, Pound and Scholes. (5)
AMENDMENT NOT CARRIED
Debate returned to the original motion.
Debate on the motion included the following comments:
· The recommendations set out in the interim report were robust.
· Cross-party working was to be welcomed.
· The external audit into the Calverley Square project would provide useful insight into decision making processes.
· Future work must avoid the failures of the past.
· There was a lack of information on the cost of potential future plans, costs must be closely managed.
· ‘Placeshaping’ must extend beyond Royal Tunbridge Wells.
· The report lacked reference to the town’s heritage which was the main draw of the town. Rejuvenation should not erase the heritage of the town.
· The future of the town centre sites would be a sensitive matter, regardless of the final outcome.
· The success of Royal Tunbridge Wells benefitted the whole borough.
· Members of the council were not necessarily qualified to take the decisions on the future of the town and a framework for collaborative planning with the community, who may have relevant expertise, should form part of the future process.
· The brief for the cross-party group was to examine the business case for each of the sites that made up the Calverley Square project. It was not for the working group to define the cultural strategy for the Borough.
· Ambitions to be more open were yet to be fully realised.
· The report showed that the Council was addressing the concerns of the public on openness and responding to the key concerns following the Calverley Square project.
· The Council would be engaging with the public on developing future plans.
· Heritage was important but outside the remit of the working group’s report.
· The report is only the start of a new collaborative approach.
The Mayor took a vote on the substantive motion by affirmation.
RESOLVED –
1. That the interim report of the Working Group, as set out at Appendix A to the report, be noted; and
2. That the Working Group continues with its work in accordance with the recommended actions set out at paragraphs 25 to 28 of the interim report and to engage with Councillors and the general public.
Supporting documents: