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 five questions from members of the public had been received under Council Procedure Rule 8.

 

1.    Question from Terry Cload

 

Mr Cload was not present at the meeting, therefore the question was asked and answered separately in writing outside the meeting.

 

“I was informed by the Council in February, in answer to a question, that it was hoped that public toilets at the Pantiles Pump Room would be opened 'immediately'. These facilities are still not available despite the development being completed many months ago.

 

The height of the tourist season is nearly here. When will these much-needed lavatories be opened?”

 

Answer from Councillor Rutland

 

“Dandara, developers of 1887 the Pantiles, have confirmed that the toilets have been completed and are accessible to the public via either the Pump Room managed by Trinity Theatre or via the concierge. A Pump Room Management Plan has been agreed and this states that the toilets will be available to the public between 9.00am – 5.30pm (7 days a week) and also later in the evening to coincide with any specific events held on The Pantiles.

 

Unfortunately, access to these public toilets is not straightforward. First, I would like to mention the concierge access. Yesterday, one of the council’s Enforcement Officers visited the site, asked at the concierge desk and was shown to the toilets and confirmed that they were open and operational.

 

Unfortunately, that was not my experience on Monday when I asked the concierge and was told that a key was required to access the public toilets, and that the key was not available.

I am not convinced that ‘public toilets’ is compatible with having to ask a concierge for access or knowing that one had to go into a residential building and ask the concierge. Moreover, there is not yet any signage to indicate the presence of any toilets in the vicinity.

 
Second, I would like to explain access via the Pump Room. I am very grateful to the management of Trinity Theatre who have updated me today regarding the Pump Room. The theatre is not yet in possession of the space. Their statement reads:

“We are excited to take on occupation of the Pump Room and to use it to further our artistic aims and to support the community of Tunbridge Wells. We hope to complete acquisition of the site shortly and once opened would naturally wish to make it open to the community like our existing site on Church Road; this would extend to providing access to the toilets adjacent to the site. However, as we will not be open at all hours and sometimes the events taking place will be private (whether our own or external groups hiring the space) we would not be able to guarantee access to the facilities at all times and therefore other arrangements would need to be made in order to ensure continued public access to the facilities.”

 

To conclude, the toilets now appear to technically be open and the problem is one of access. There are two ways to access them and neither is straightforward. Please rest assured that I will work to make these public toilets more accessible and more visible.”

 

2.    Question from James Tansley

 

“Having previously been told in response to Freedom of Information request EIR F10683 that I could expect to see the Urbaser contract (the one which was so difficult to locate) on 11 May, I was surprised to receive an e-mail from the Council’s Freedom of Information Team that they could not reveal it “for reasons which are confidential”. Please can the Council explain what it is about this domestic waste collection contract that merits such secrecy?”

 

Answer from Councillor Everitt

 

“Thank you for your question Mr Tansley, it relates to one our priorities which is to review and promote Digital Access and Transparency. I understand that full and detailed reasons for the outcome of your information request were provided in the response provided to you.

 

Since then you have requested a review of this decision and this is currently being undertaken. As the review is ongoing, any comment I could make at this time could endanger the process and robustness of your requested review.

 

As the review is ongoing it is not correct for me to offer a comment at this stage and I know the review once concluded will provide you with a detailed response.

 

I want to reiterate that one of our Partnership priorities concerns greater transparency and I know that my colleague Cllr Hayward will be developing and improving access to information.

 

Supplementary Question from James Tansley

 

“When the Council responded first to my request, I was told the review would take 20 working days. I received an email in response 31 working days after I sought a review and was told the review was not going to be ready until 40 working days.  Given that my original Freedom of Information request, the negative answer to which was passed to be 40 working days after the date of my request, instead of the 20 working days stipulated in the Freedom of Information Act 2004. Can I impress on this new Council the importance of changing the culture, which was one of secrecy and emphasis that they are spending local residents money, and local residents expect to have full clarity on what that money is being spent on.”

 

Supplementary Answer from Councillor Everitt

 

The feedback was welcomed and it was agreed that further information on timing would be reverted to Mr Tansley after the meeting.

 

3.    Question from James Tansley

 

“At the meeting of Full Council on 27 April, the then relevant Portfolio holder,

Councillor Fairweather, declined to provide a response to the following question:

“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?” Councillor Fairweather argued, incorrectly, that this was related to Freedom of Information request EIR F10683. Given that the two issues are separate, please can the Council provide a response now?”

 

Answer from Councillor Everitt

 

“Once again thank you for your question.

 

One of the services where we are seeking immediate improvement as a Partnership has been the waste contract, and we have already had a number of productive and positive meetings with our partner authority for this contract - TMBC.

 

With an aim to deliver an improved service for residents and one that enables us to continue to keep our commitment to safeguard this Council’s finances. Something I know we are already on the path to delivering.

 

At this time there is no monetary value of the defaults we have raised. I can confirm that we have raised them and they have, at this time, not been accepted by our contractor and have no agreed value. This matter forms part of our immediate discussions with TMBC and Urbaser to improve the service for residents.”

 

4.    Question from James Tansley

 

“Please can the Council say how much it received in extraordinary central Government funding due to the Covid-19 crisis in financial years 2020/21 and 2021/22 and provide figures for the Council’s total financial reserves at the end of the 2019/20 financial year and at the end of the 2020/21 financial year?”

 

Answer from Councillor Hickey

 

“The information is set out in the Draft Financial Report for 2021/22 which is available on the Council’s website by searching ‘Transparency’ and selecting Draft Financial Report. I will ask the Comms team to tweet a link to the document for easy access.

 

Covid Grant Income for 2020/21 was £7.63 million, this includes Sales, Fees and Charges Support, Emergency Covid Funding, Cultural Grant, Furlough Income and Business Rates/Council Tax Compensation. It does not include New Burdens Grants and the monies that we were asked to distribute on behalf of the Government.

 

Covid Grant Income for 2021/22 was smaller at £1.53 million – this also included Sales, Fees and Charges Support, Emergency Covid Funding, Cultural Grant and Furlough Income. Again, this does not include New Burdens Grants and all the monies that we were asked to distribute on behalf of the Government.

 

Usable reserves for 2019/20 were on Page 43 of the Annual Financial Report and were £21.2 million.

 

Usable reserves for 2020/21 were on Page 47 of the Annual Financial Report and were £39.5 million; £15.4m of which was Business Rates and Council Tax Grants in Advance from Central Government which will be repaid over the following 2 years. The real Usable reserves for 2020/2021 were therefore £24m.”

 

Supplementary Question from James Tansley

 

“An undertaking to increase transparency of financial information was to be applauded. Would improved transparency include looking at the way the information was presented? Details of the incoming and outgoing payments and assets were difficult to understand in the current format.”

 

Supplementary Answer from Councillor Hickey

 

“The Council would endeavour to present information that was easily understood. However, the way the Council’s financial information was produced was complicated. Discussions were taking place with the S151 Officer and the Council’s digital team to make the dissemination of financial information more transparent and easier to understand.”

 

5.    Question from James Tansley

 

“Given that the new Leader of the Council has said that there is a £20 million black hole in the Council’s finances, does he support the current Tax Payers’ Alliance campaign to stop council tax rises, eradicate wasteful spending, and scrap pay rises for town hall bosses?”

 

Answer from Councillor Chapelard

 

“Thank you, Mr Tansley, for your question. Today Wednesday 6 July 2022 marks day 43 of the Borough Partnership administration. Within minutes of being elected Leader of the Council I set out our new administration’s priorities which are called Focus on Five. Priority one is Safeguarding the Council’s finances.

 

We have done an In Year Budget Review which has identified the following deficits in the next 5 years:

£944k in financial year 22/23,

£2.649m in financial year 23/24

£2.832m in financial year 24/25

£3.138m in financial year 25/26

£3.491m in financial year 26/27

 

As you can see the deficits get bigger and bigger. By 2026 the deficit will be 3.5 times bigger than this year’s, if left unmanaged.

 

The Borough Partnership had made proposals to begin to safeguard the Council’s finances, on Monday, as part of our Inherited Deficit Reduction Plan. In addition to the Inherited Deficit Reduction Plan, our new administration would begin planning for the 2023/24 budget.

 

In terms of the three measures mentioned in your question, our Borough Partnership cannot rule out or rule in anything at this stage.”

 

Supplementary Question from James Tansley

 

“Given that we are facing a cost of living crisis, reducing the cost of taxation must be a priority for any politician. Does Councillor Chapelard agree with his counterpart in Maidstone that it is time to axe the daft County Council and set up a Unitary Authority for West Kent, saving on bureaucracy and setting out clearer lines of responsibility for the delivery of public services within this part of Kent.

 

Supplementary Answer from Councillor Chapelard

 

“A first meeting had taken place yesterday with my counterpart Councillor David Burton, where this issue was discussed. Many councillors share the frustration that there was a two tier system of government. Many things the Council wanted to undertake were outside its control, responsibility instead resting with Kent County Council. No commitment at this time would be made as to whether the Council would support a proposal to go to a super unitary. However, the Cabinet Member with responsibility for Governance and Transparency would be undertaking a review of Local Government.”