235

TUNBRIDGE WELLS BOROUGH COUNCIL

MINUTES of a meeting of the Tunbridge Wells Borough Council, duly convened and held at the Town Hall, , at 6.00pm on Wednesday 15 February 2006.

PRESENT

The Mayor (Councillor Mrs Paulson-Ellis) (in the Chair) Councillors Baker, Bannister, Barrington-King, Bullock, Mrs Cobbold, Crawford, Cunningham, Davies, Ekins-Daukes, Gillmore, Dr Hall, Horwood, Howell, Jukes, Marriott, Mrs Mayhew, Mills, Neve, Mrs North, Oliver-Smith, Ooi, Ms Palmer, Patterson, Poile, Price, Ransley, Rusbridge, Scholes, Smith, Symondson, Mrs Thomas, Wakefield, Waldock, Weeden, Williams and Wratten.

IN ATTENDANCE: The Chief Executive, Ms S Wheeler

SUSPENSION OF COUNCIL PROCEDURE RULE 21.1 – STANDING TO SPEAK

FC69/05 RESOLVED – That Council Procedure Rule 21.1 be suspended for the duration of the meeting.

APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

FC70/05 The Chief Executive reported apologies for absence from Councillors Bothwell, Bulman, Fairrie, Mrs Lewis, Mayall, Noakes, Simmons and Ward.

MINUTES

FC71/05 It was moved and seconded – That the minutes of the meeting held on 7 December 2005 be confirmed as a correct record.

CARRIED

ANNOUNCEMENTS

FC72/05 The Mayor announced: (i) that her charity quiz event had successfully raised over £3,000 towards her charities; and (ii) that the next Council meeting (taking place on Tuesday 28 February) would start at 6.30pm and be preceded by a Member Briefing on how to access the authority’s IT systems, remotely; this Briefing, the Mayor announced, would begin at 5.15pm.

The Mayor then introduced Dr Ian Beavis from Tunbridge Wells Museum and Art Gallery, who provided Members of the Council with a short history of Royal Tunbridge Wells, as part of the 400th anniversary of the town, being celebrated throughout 2006. Councillor Davies, as the relevant portfolio-holder, then summarised the events which would be taking place during 2006 – organised by the Council and by local groups – to mark this historic event. These included the opening of a Heritage Trail on 11 April, the provision of a Heritage Plaque scheme, the enhancement of the Victoria Cross Grove in Dunorlan , including the commissioning of a poem by the Poet Laureate, Andrew Motion, a service of thanksgiving on 12 September, presided over by the Bishop of Rochester, and a fire show on 23 September. Members noted that the Mayor of , (Tunbridge Wells’ twin town), would also be visiting the town in June, as part of the celebrations. All Members of the Council were encouraged by the Deputy Mayor, Councillor Weeden, in his capacity as the 400th Anniversary Champion, to join in and support the year’s events, to help ensure a memorable and successful year of celebration.

QUESTIONS FROM MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL

FC73/05 One question was asked by a member of the Council and the reply given, as set out in the appendix to these minutes. 236

GENERAL PURPOSES COMMITTEE

FC74/05 It was moved and seconded – That the report of the General Purposes Committee, dated 30 November 2005, be received.

CARRIED

LICENSING COMMITTEE

FC75/05 It was moved and seconded – That the report of the Licensing Committee, dated 1 December 2005, be received.

CARRIED

OVERVIEW & SCRUTINY COMMITTEE

FC76/05 It was moved and seconded – That the reports of the Overview & Scrutiny Committee, dated 6 December 2005 and 3 January 2006, be received. CARRIED

CABINET

FC77/05 It was moved and seconded – That, so far as they may require approval, the reports of Cabinet, dated 15 December 2005, 5 January and 2 February 2006, be approved.

CARRIED

PORTFOLIO-HOLDER RECOMMENDATIONS

FC78/05 RESOLVED – That the recommendations of the Portfolio-holder for Finance, Resources and Administration, dated 16 December 2005 and 20 January 2006, be approved, subject to the appointment to the Upper Medway Internal Drainage Board being deferred.

STANDARDS COMMITTEE

FC79/05 It was moved and seconded – That, so far as they may require approval, the report of the Standards Committee, dated 10 January 2006, be approved.

CARRIED

MEMBERSHIP OF THE STANDARDS COMMITTEE

FC80/05 RESOLVED –

(1) That Peter Blackwell be re-appointed as one of the independent members of the Standards Committee for a further 4-year term of office, ending on 26 February 2010; and

(2) That David Coleman and Tom Crookall be re-appointed as Parish/Town Council representatives of the Standards Committee, for a (i) 3-year and (ii) 4-year term of office, ending on 26 February 2009 and 30 April 2010, respectively.

WORKING WITH

FC81/05 The Leader of the Council, Councillor Melvyn Howell, reported on Government proposals to review the structure of local government within two-tier areas and in particular the response of the Kent district Chief Executives, in conjunction with Kent County Council leaders. He advised that the initial agreed position within the County was to construct a model for better two-tier 237

working and demonstrate how the outcomes sought by Ministers could be delivered without the upheaval, cost and distraction inherent in major structural reform.

The Leader also advised on the work of the Lyons Inquiry into local government finance, whose remit had been extended to examine the strategic role of local government and how devolution and decentralisation could improve local services. He added that it had been announced that the Lyons Inquiry would be setting out its recommendations on the role and function of local government in the late Spring, with a report on the remainder of its work later in the year.

Members noted that the Minister of Communities and Local Government, David Miliband, had set out a number of ambitions for local government, in a series of speeches and articles. The Council was invited to say whether its preferred position was to await the anticipated publication of a White Paper on Local Government, due in the Summer, or to seek to influence the shape of the Government’s proposals by expressing views beforehand. It was noted that some of the misperceptions voiced by Mr Miliband in respect of local government had already been responded to on behalf of the Kent local authorities by the Chief Executive of Ashford Borough Council; a copy of a letter sent to the Minister, correcting some of the misunderstandings, was appended to the report.

A proposal was moved and seconded that the current review of NHS Strategic Health Authorities (for the region) and Primary Care Trusts (for the County) should be delayed so as to run concurrently with the review of local government. This was proposed so as to help assess what benefits might arise from a coterminosity of boundaries between local government authorities and the NHS. However, this proposal was not supported.

RESOLVED –

(1) That the consultations on the Lyons Inquiry, on Local Strategic Partnerships and on the future structure of local government in two-tier areas be noted; and

(2) That the proposal to draw up a model for better two-tier working in Kent be supported.

SEALING OF DOCUMENTS

FC82/05 RESOLVED – That the Common Seal of the Council be affixed to any contract, minute, notice or other document arising out of the minutes or pursuant to any delegation, authority or power conferred by the Council. 238

APPENDIX

QUESTIONS UNDER COUNCIL PROCEDURE RULE 11.2

QUESTION: Councillor Neve

To: Councillor Davies, portfolio-holder for Economic Development & Transport

“Following the recent Joint Transportation Board meeting I raised a question about various traffic regulation orders that had been advertised.

I checked on those orders within my ward of St James’ and found that both yellow lines and signs had indeed been erected or painted prior to the ratification of the Board.

Democracy, yet again, seems to have been done a disservice by this administration in its wish to have a ‘quick fix and solution’.

Does this action now mean that where no objections have been received the TROs could not have been ‘turned round’ by Councillors at the meeting which was supposed to discuss them?”

REPLY: Councillor Davies

“The process for introducing traffic regulation orders essentially has three parts, namely the development of proposals, advertising those proposals and determining objections. Before advertising, all new and changed orders are reported as a matter of information through the Joint Transportation Board. In certain cases, for example, residents’ parking zones, the views of the Board are sought, as an important part of the development of such schemes.

However, once any proposals are advertised, it is only on those TROs, to which objections have been received, that the views and ratification of the Board are sought. If no objections are received, then such orders are implemented as soon as possible and reported retrospectively for information only.

I would accept, however, that this distinction should have been more clearly made in the report. I shall ensure that in future this is done, and I would apologise for any confusion so caused on this occasion.”