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 there were six questions from members of the public had been received under Council Procedure Rule 8.2.

 

Question 1 from Aaron Brand

 

“Will the developments in RTW help to rejuvenate the town centre?”

 

Answer from Councillor Scott

 

“There are a number of proposed and actual developments all currently being worked on and invested in by this Council and private developers and companies.

From the top of the hill down we have:

1.    The Elite Leisure development in the BHS store and is designed to bring in people particularly younger adults which will add in younger footfall

2.    The Amelia Scott which will be opening tomorrow to the general public with a range of events and exhibitions which will bring new activity and vibrancy to the town centre attracting up to 480,000 visits each year, with 18,000 learners coming to the centre per annum.

3.    The Coworking Space, and facilities in this space, the Council Buildings. The Council have announced the selection of Town Square Spaces Limited as our partner and will be working with the provider to bring forward the planning application for the development of the co-working space over the next few months.

4.    The AXA / Retirement Villages development of the ABC-Cinema site

5.    The many shops, vacated during the pandemic and currently being redeveloped up and down our town centre. As an example Royal Victoria Place Shopping Centre are experiencing strong demand for space in the centre. As you would expect these take a while to convert. 12 business renewals, 7 new businesses and 6 other units under discussion of which 3 are businesses upsizing. In Ely Court potentially a new operator will see four of the businesses which are staying, joined by nine other units being filled.

6.    The High Street scheme has been retained and new planters are being introduced to the Calverley Precinct.

7.    And within The Pantiles, The Chalybeate Spring where a new opportunity is being developed and planning permission has recently been given.

 

So yes. Each of these developments will bring additional people to Tunbridge Wells town centre to spend money here. This will help not only these developments but the many hospitality and shopping venues across the town in the day and evening economies. Each of the development will help substantially in the post-Covid rejuvenation of Royal Tunbridge Wells.”

 

No supplementary question.

 

Question 2 from James Tansley

 

“On 6 April, the Chair of Overview and Scrutiny claimed that the latest increase in the Amelia Scott budget could not be called in for debate as 'delay would seriously prejudice the Council’s or the public’s interest'. Please can Councillor Thomson explain to me, and other local taxpayers, how democratic scrutiny of the additional expenditure of £468,000 of public money – which is more than 5% of the money the Council will receive in Council tax this financial year – prejudices, seriously or otherwise, the public’s interest?”

 

Answer from Councillor Dawlings

 

“I take the need for democratic scrutiny very seriously. The report and decision were subject to scrutiny at Cabinet on the 14 April which is a public meeting. As much of the report as possible, while protecting the Councils commercial position was in the public domain and published at the time of the full agenda. The professional advice was and remains that the council should ensure it had authority and capacity to enable it to finalise negotiation on the final account. The O&S Committee procedure can add a couple of weeks to the decision making process and with the Council finalising its legal position with the contractors delivering the Amelia Scott, it was therefore essential that prior to works completing the budget was in place.

 

As you will be aware the Amelia Scott is due to open tomorrow therefore ensuring final works were in place was essential to maintaining and securing the opening. At late notice the users of the Amelia Scott if it had not opened would have struggled to find alternative space and it should be noted the additional costs, over and above the construction costs which would be significant, would be borne by the Council.

 

The issues have been brought to wider members attention and discussed with councillors through the ASMOP (Amelia Scott Members Oversight Panel) and with the group Leaders. On this occasion the group Leaders reluctantly agreed to the approach. I recognise this is not ideal but there will be additional reports after the opening of the Amelia Scott and wider scrutiny of the delivery of the scheme once the contractual position is finalised.

 

I think I should also make clear that the funding is as outlined in the report is capital and not revenue funding and does not impact on the delivery of the Councils services.”

 

Supplementary question from James Tansley

 

“As councillors will be aware the Amelia Scott was originally scheduled to open in summer 2021, it is already more than 9 months late and some £8m over budget would it, given that this position would it not of made sense to have proper scrutiny of the significant under budgeted expenditure on the project, or was the primary consideration was to ensure the Amelia Scott was opened by the 5th may the date of the local election.”

 

Supplementary answer from Councillor Dawlings

 

“The opening of the Amelia Scott was to schedule to fit in with the opening of the  summer term of the adult education which started sometime this week. The reference to Overview and Scrutiny was just a reference to withhold the call in facility and did not impact at all on the scrutiny of the decision. I think I probably ought to make clear  the council secured over £9.5m of the costs of the Amelia Scott development from external sources the National  Lottery Heritage Fund, the Arts Council , KCC and the Government ‘Get Building Fund.”

 

Question 3 from Thomas Mobbs

 

“ As part of the next generation, the climate emergency is an issue that I hold close. Internationally, nationally and locally, institutions are making important decisions to combat this. I have seen that the borough has been at work to spread awareness to this ever growing issue, with the formation of the TWBC Climate Action Website. Since it went live how many people have visited the TWBC Climate Action website?”

 

Answer from Councillor March

 

“The borough council has indeed declared a climate emergency and adopted a carbon descent plan. Since its launch at the end of February our Climate Action Website has had 632 visitors of which 158 are returning visitors to the site, with just over 1,400 pages being viewed. The website will continue to be updated and more interactive features will be included to encourage greater participation.”

 

Supplementary question from Mr Mobbs

 

“What has the reception been to the Website?”

 

Supplementary answer from Councillor March

 

“So far it has been very good that is why we have had so many people actually look at different pages, we have not asked for any consultation type of feedback yet, that will come later one once we have put more and more pages onto the website and had more interaction. We will be reviewing this in at least six months.”

 

Question 4 from James Tansley

 

“The Council has claimed that it cannot respond to my freedom of information request reference F10683 asking for sight of the Council’s waste management contract with Urbaser within the statutory 20 working days on the grounds that ‘locating, retrieving and extracting” the contract is complex.’ How does the council manage this contract if even finding it is so difficult?”

 

Answer from Councillor Fairweather

 

“The Council’s operation team has easy access to the contract documentation, but as you are aware from your correspondence with the FOI Team our position is based on the Information Commissioner’s guidance and a response will be provided in due course.”

 

Supplementary question from Mr Tansley.

 

“Just for councillors information I should say the answer was promised on the 7th May which is 2 days after the date of the election and 40 working days after the receipt of my original request. On 7th January the council announced that it intended it would trigger financial penalties, in light of poor performance by Urbaser please can you tell me the precise value of the penalties triggered.”

 

Supplementary answer from Councillor Fairweather

 

“As I have said a response will be provided to you in due course if that question was part of your request it will be answered in the response.”

 

Question 5 from James Tansley

 

“Tunbridge Wells Cricket week has been a key fixture for local cricket enthusiasts for over a hundred years, and used to attract thousands of visitors to the town. What reasons has Kent County Cricket Club given for deciding not to play any fixtures at the Neville Ground this year?”

 

Answer from Councillor March

 

“When this season’s fixtures were announced in late January, Simon Storey, Chief Executive of Kent County Cricket Club issued a statement to explain that ECB’s requirements for Covid contingency plans meant that unfortunately the Neville Ground couldn’t be considered as a venue for this summer. He went on to say that the scale of the plans meant it wasn’t possible to move a complex first-class cricket operation to support out-ground cricket at a third venue, after Beckenham and Canterbury. Mr Storey concluded by saying that he hoped to return to The Neville in 2023. The council will continue to work closely with Kent Cricket and Tunbridge Wells Cricket Club to enable fixtures to be held next summer.”

 

No supplementary question.

 

Question 6 from James Tansley

 

“Given that the country is facing a cost of living crisis, and that councils as diverse as Lewes, Dover and Bromley employ no one with a salary greater than £100,000, why does Tunbridge Wells Borough Council feel it needs to pay three Town Hall officials more than £100,000 a year (at a total cost to local residents of £426,852)?”

 

Answer from Councillor Dawlings

 

“I presume your source is the council rich list 2022 from which you have mistakenly taken a blank to mean no officer is paid over £100k. Information contained in accounts for the councils concerned shows that for Lewes Council which shares a Management Team with Eastbourne the total remuneration cost of the Chief Executive for 2019/20 was £168,753, Director of Regeneration and Planning £146,201 followed by three other Directors circa £100k.

 

For Dover District Council the total remuneration cost of the Chief Executive for 2019/20 was £131,000, and two Directors costing £114,000.

 

For Bromley Council the total remuneration cost of the Chief Executive for 2019/20 was £216,145 and eight other Directors costing between £118k and £201k.

 

The statement of accounts published for these three councils are from the most recent available for 2019/20. Tunbridge wells borough council has published it accounts for 2020/21 and was one of the first in the South East to be successfully audited and one of just 9 per cent of councils nationally to meet the statutory reporting date.

 

The council’s pay policy for 2022/23 was approved at the meeting of Full Council held in February, my view is that we are fortunate in the Chief Executive and Directors we have in post and I think they are appropriately rewarded and I am grateful for their commitment to the council.”

 

Supplementary question from James Tansley

 

“In November 2020 the conservative chancellor announced a public sector pay freeze for financial year 2021/2022. Did the council follow the government guidance, and if not why not? particularly giving the current state of the councils finances.”

 

Supplementary answer from Councillor Dawlings

 

“I presumed the council followed its own pay policy.”