Public Document Pack
Town Hall Royal Tunbridge Wells
Monday, 7 April 2014
To the Members of the Tunbridge Wells Borough Council
I request your attendance at a meeting of the Tunbridge Wells Borough Council to be held at the Council Chamber, Royal Tunbridge Wells, Kent TN1 1RS, on Wednesday, 16 April 2014, at 6.30 pm, when the following business is proposed to be transacted.
1 Apologies for absence
2 Declarations of Interest To receive any declarations of interest by Members in items on the agenda.
For any advice on declarations of interest, please contact the Monitoring Officer.
3 Announcements To receive announcements from the Mayor, the Leader of the Council, members of the Cabinet and the Chief Executive.
4 The minutes of the previous meeting dated 26 February 2014 (Pages 1 - 16) The minutes of the previous meeting held on 26 February 2014 to be approved as a correct record.
5 Questions from members of the public To receive questions from members of the public, of which due notice has been given, pursuant to Council Procedure Rule 8, to be submitted and answered.
6 Questions from members of the Council To receive questions from members of the Council, of which due notice has been given, pursuant to Council Procedure Rule 10, to be submitted and answered.
7 Our five year plan 2014 -2019 (Pages 17 - 84)
8 Appointment of Mayor and Deputy Mayor Elect 2014/15 (Pages 85 - 88)
9 To record the Council's appreciation for the Mayor To record the Borough Council’s appreciation of the valuable services rendered by the Mayor and the assistance given to him by the Mayoress during his period of office.
10 Urgent Business To discuss any business the Mayor has decided is urgent.
11 Comm on Seal of the Council
To authorise the Common Seal of the Council to 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.
William Benson Chief Executive
Agenda Item 4
TUNBRIDGE WELLS BOROUGH COUNCIL
MINUTES of a meeting of the Tunbridge Wells Borough Council, duly convened and held at the Council Chamber, Royal Tunbridge Wells, Kent TN1 1RS, at 6.30 pm on Wednesday, 26 February 2014
PRESENT:
The Mayor Councillor Dr Ronen Basu (Chairman) Councillors Backhouse, Barrington-King, Bulman, Chapelard, Mrs Cobbold, Mrs Crowhurst, Cunningham, Derrick, Elliott, Dr Hall, Hastie, Hill, Hills, Holden, Horwood, Jukes, Lewis, March, Mrs Mayhew, McDermott, Neve, Noakes, Ms Palmer, Patterson, Poile, Price, Rogers, Rook, Rusbridge, Scholes, Scott, Smith, Mrs Soyke, Stanyer, Mrs Thomas, Tompsett, Wauchope, Ward, Weatherly, Webb, Weeden, Williams and Woodward
IN ATTENDANCE: William Benson (Chief Executive), Paul Cummins (Legal Services Manager/Monitoring Officer) and Wendy Newton-May (Democratic Services Officer)
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENC E
FC46/13 Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Bothwell, Hall (G), Lockhart and Waldock.
DECLARATIONS OF INTE REST
FC47/13 There were no declarations of interest.
ANNOUNCEMENTS
FC48/13 The Mayor made the following announcements: (a) Since the last Full Council meeting he had attended approximately 40 events, the important ones being:
• Speech days at various schools. • The Holocaust Memorial on 27 January 2014, along with the Leader and Councillors Backhouse and Tompsett, as well as Mr and Mrs Wakefield and a few others. • Celebrating the success and enthusiasm of the High Street Traders. • Welcoming the Wiesbaden students and a visit from Italian students. • Welcoming his Excellency the Indian Ambassador who took over in January this year and conveyed greetings from Tunbridge Wells Borough Council. • The collection of the Commonwealth Flag from Viscount De L'Isle from Maidstone which will be raised on 10 March 2014 along with all the Councils in Kent – a total of 500 flags throughout the country. The Mayor invited all other members to attend the event if they so wished. • A visit to Mascalls School along with the Mayor of Tonbridge to join a discussion about remembering the 1 st World War. The Mayor advised that a sculpture of a life size statue would be installed in Tonbridge Park and possibly, subject to sufficient fund raising, at Dunorlan Park.
Page 1 Agenda Item 4
(b) The Mayor informed members that he had visited Councillor Bothwell in Pembury Hospital, who sent his good wishes to all.
The Leader of the Council, Councillor Jukes, had the following announcements to make:
(a) He advised that on 10 February 2014 the Council completed the sale of the former council office site in Cranbrook to McCarthy and Stone Ltd. The sale for £2,159,581 brought the total raised from the sale of non-performing, surplus land assets to over £3.57 million. Councillor Jukes re-iterated that his priority was to get the best deal for residents after the collapse of the Regeneration Company and he expressed his delight that this had been achieved. He advised that planning permission had been granted for McCarthy and Stone Ltd to build a 26 unit assisted living complex on the High Street site and work on this was expected to begin later this year.
(b) Councillor Jukes informed members that the draft Vision for the town of Tunbridge Wells and the wider borough had been published on 14 February 2014 for a six week public consultation. The document set out what the Leader wanted the Council to achieve in the next five years to ensure Tunbridge Wells remained a prosperous, green and confident borough. Councillor Jukes pointed out that the graphics used in the document were for illustration purposes only and not what the end product would look like.
The Portfolio Holder for Housing, Health, Wellbeing and Rural Communities, Councillor Cunningham, encouraged members to attend a charity Frog Race on 15 March 2014 at the New Swan Pub in Sandhurst at 7.30pm.
The Portfolio Holder for Tourism, Leisure and Economic Development, Councillor March, reminded members of the Birdsong production currently at the Assembly Hall Theatre until the 1 March 2014, which marked the 100 th anniversary of the start of the First World War.
Councillor Horwood spoke of a charity golf day on 26 March 2014 organised by Tunbridge Wells Mental Health Resource, of which he was Chairman. He invited members to enter as they were currently short of teams.
Councillor Holden congratulated the Leader on the sale of the former council office site in Cranbrook was very good news for the town.
THE MINUTES OF THE P REVIOUS MEETING DATE D 11 DECEMBER 2013
FC49/13 The minutes of the meeting dated 11 December 2013 were presented for approval. Councillor Bulman referred to a typographical error in minute reference FC43/13 where the word ‘weary’ appeared instead of ‘wary’.
RESOLVED – That the minutes of the meeting dated 11 December 2013 be approved as a correct record, subject to the above typographical error being amended.
QUESTIONS FROM MEMBE RS OF THE PUBLIC
FC50/13 There were no question from members of the public.
Page 2 Agenda Item 4
QUESTIONS FROM MEMBE RS OF THE COUNCIL
FC51/13 Question 1 from Councillor Patterson (read out by Councillor Neve)
Is the Leader of the Council satisfied with the quality of the out of hours emergency contact service used by Tunbridge Wells Borough Council?
If not, what is being done to improve it?
Response from Councillor March, Portfolio Holder for Tourism, Leisure and Economic Development
On 1 October 2013 we transferred our out of hours call handling to Medway CCTV Control Centre as a result of our previous provider, KCC, having withdrawn the service at end September.
We have been working very closely with Medway since the start of the new contract to ensure as smooth a transition as possible and they have responded positively and quickly to any concerns we have raised. As with any new service there will always be a period of bedding in and adjustment and Medway have demonstrated a willingness to resolve issues as they arise. Medway also provide an out of hours service for Swale and Maidstone and during the recent period of extreme weather they had to cope with a sudden significant increase in the number of emergency calls. When the Council became aware of this it immediately opened its own emergency centre.
We are now reviewing arrangements with Medway however in the event of major emergency situations arising out of hours the Council will always have staff on standby ready to invoke our own local arrangements. I am satisfied that everything is being done to remedy the problems and I am confident that Medway have the ability to provide the service to the standard we require.
There was no supplementary question.
Question 2 from Councillor Backhouse
What support will Tunbridge Wells Borough Council be giving to Sherwood's Jobs Fair on Friday 21 March 2014?
Response from Councillor Jukes, Leader of the Councillor
I am fully supportive of the Jobs Fair that is being organised in Sherwood at the TN2 centre and the support being given by the Sherwood Councillors. The Borough Council via the Sherwood project is providing support. Initiated by Greg Clark and the Job Centre Plus, other Stakeholders are now fully engaged.
Six or seven companies have already agreed to attend the event and all job seekers and NEETs (not in education, employment or training) in Sherwood will be required to attend the Jobs Fair on the 21 March which is excellent news. With taster sessions from Adult Education, CV support and money advice the event is about preparing for work as well as getting work. In the week running up to the event all local partners will be handing out leaflets proactively to clients and at key venues.
Page 3 Agenda Item 4
In addition Greg Clark wrote to Dandara of the Knights Park Development and they have pledged to give apprenticeships and jobs to local people.
There was no supplementary question from Councillor Backhouse.
Question 3 from Councillor Backhouse
What is the latest progress on the North Farm Road improvements?
Response from Councillor McDermott, Portfolio Holder for Planning and Transportation
While the legal aspects of the land requirements are in their final stages, progress on the advanced works for the scheme are progressing. Anyone visiting North Farm can see the advanced tree and vegetation clearance has been underway since the 27 January and should complete in early March.
New public utility services work will take place in the next few months in advance of the North Farm highways improvements taking place. KCC have published a Section 58 notice to protect the scheme from being dug up for five years after it is completed. This means that the utility companies will carry out any planned work before construction of the scheme starts. KCC is co-ordinating this work to ensure that it is carried out with minimum disruption, with no planned road works to the network of roads approaching North Farm.
The scheme design is being finalised and the first stage of the procurement of the main contractor has been completed. Six contractors have been shortlisted and invited to submit a tender for the work. A key selection criterion was experience of similar schemes requiring a high level of public and business community liaison. It is anticipated that the Scheme Contract Award will be made in April with main construction due to start in June 2014. The programme is anticipated to be for 11 months completing in May 2015.
A business liaison event was held on Tuesday 4 February 2014 at the Mercure Hotel and a second event planned once the contractor is appointed. KCC are keen to ensure good communication between the business community and the contractors to minimise where possible the inevitable disruption.
Councillor Backhouse did not have a supplementary question.
Question 4 from Councillor Backhouse
What will be the effect on front line services by your budget proposals for 2014/15?
Page 4 Agenda Item 4
Response from Councillor Scholes, Portfolio Holder for Finance and Governance
Whilst there have been no major changes to services implied by this budget, how these are accessed will evolve as more efficient channels become available from receiving your Council Tax bill electronically to checking your weekly bin collection timetables on the website.
Question 5 from Councillor Chapelard
Councillor Jukes has claimed that a Compulsory Purchase Order of the former cinema site would cost £40m. Within that overall figure, he stated that "the costs to buy the site would be about £11 million". Where did Councillor Jukes get this figure from and can he provide evidence to support it please?
Response from Councillor Jukes, Leader of the Council
Thank you for your question. I am always grateful to you for the opportunity to discuss the Cinema site in public and to dispel some of the myths that have been built up over time about the procedure of Compulsory Purchase or CPO.
At the last Full Council meeting I gave the figure of £40 million pounds to CPO and develop the cinema site. My guess, on the cost to purchase and develop the site, was based on 50 years of experience in the construction business. You are aware of the full text of my reply as someone recorded the meeting without informing myself or the rest of Full Council that they were doing so. I have no issue with the meeting being recorded, I’ve said many times I like to be as open and transparent as possible. I just think they could have been polite enough to tell us in advance.
However, your question relates to what evidence I can provide to support my guess. As a scholar you are probably aware that the definition of a guess according to the Oxford English Dictionary is to make an estimate without measurement or to think likely or hazard an opinion, so there you have it, it was as recorded – my guess.
Over the past four years I have sought opinion from experts in respect of CPO and experts that would be prepared to back their opinions and judgement with professional indemnity, or for the less well informed - insurance, which let me tell you is extremely expensive.
I have been advised that the Council would have to have a detailed plan of what we wanted to do with the site before going to the Inspector with a CPO request. I have received all sorts of brilliant ideas for the site, mostly requests for it to be a park. A park which would only be 100 metres or so from the gold medal winning Calverley Grounds. I don’t think this is a very persuasive argument to put before the Inspector. We would also have to have a red line around the site, I am sure that you will know what that is after your extensive research.
The cinema site is owned by a private equity company called CEREP, based in Luxemburg. They purchased the site on the 12 August 2011 for the sum of £9.9m + VAT.
Page 5 Agenda Item 4
During the past two and half years their partner and developer, Bellhouse Joseph have been in constant contact with the Planning Department, the management of the Town Hall and myself in pursuit of their objective of developing the site with a food store, hotel, shops etc.
They have also been in contact with the press who have in turn kept most people informed of the progress, or lack or it, as the case may be. What is more they have publically stated that they will start to demolish the site in the spring.
This particular site is not like that of Hastings Pier where the owner couldn’t be found or the Dreamland in Margate where the owners didn’t want to do anything with the site. The project under the current owner is an ongoing project and is actually being worked upon, albeit at the planning stage, so that the chance of undertaking a successful CPO at this stage is virtually NIL. To bring this into perspective it is like forcing you to sell your house to the Council because your garden is untidy, it wouldn’t work. Furthermore if this Council were empowered to start the CPO process what would we do with the site that a series of private sector owners have so far failed to do. How much money would you invest in purchasing the site which could take years to obtain? I can assure you that the owners would appeal, and the cost in legal and professional fees would be open ended. To calculate the full figure of £40 million, I used the £9.9 million + VAT and used the example of the Marlowe which cost £26 million plus fees to develop.
This comes at a time when the Vision, which is now out for consultation, describes how in the immediate future the Council has to do all it can to invest wisely for the future of the citizens of this borough. Our projects have to produce revenue as we will be shortly at the point where we no longer receive central government funding.
Cllr Chapelard, I believe you have been on the Council long enough to realise that my aim here is to get things done in this organisation rather than talk about them. Do you really think that if a CPO was possible, I would not have already embarked on that course of action long ago?
So the key points for this lesson are: 1. We’ve had expert advice that if you want to CPO the site you need to know in advance what you are then going to do with the site. 2. The owners have been working on the site and committed to demolition. At this point in time this makes the chances of a successful CPO remote. 3. What evidence do you have to support the idea that if the Council did CPO the site we would succeed where the private sector has failed. 4. You need to think about the costs, know how much you’re going to invest and be prepared for big legal costs. 5. My estimate of £11 million is based on the fact the site was sold for £9.9 million + VAT.
In my opinion Councillor Chapelard you are conning the public with your petitions and if you are that confident that your ideas are correct I challenge you to put down a motion for the April Full Council when the matter can be debated and if endorsed by the majority of the Council we will suspend our economic plan for the next five years and concentrate all our efforts on trying to secure the cinema site by Compulsory Purchase.
Page 6 Agenda Item 4
Supplementary Question from Councillor Chapelard
I think you answered my question at the end, so the £11 million is based upon the amount the site was sold for. What we don’t know is the market value of a CPO. Has Councillor Jukes, or an external law firm, examined if the compensation paid to the owners would equal the value of the land now?
Supplementary Answer from Councillor Jukes
This could only be determined by an Inspector.
Question 6 from Councillor Woodward
According to latest crime statistics issued by Kent Police, the area of Showfields and Ramslye (that lies within the boundary of Broadwater Ward) has a higher rate of crime than Sherwood. It is already on record that Sherwood has been especially, financially and otherwise supported, by the Council, in terms of community development, to a significantly greater extent than Showfields and Ramslye over recent years.
Please can you explain the rationale that the Council has used to determine where it directs its attention and scarce resources with respect to community developments, and what it intends to do to try to provide a more balanced and rational approach to its support in the future.
Response from Councillor Cunningham, Portfolio Holder for Housing, Health, Wellbeing and Rural Communities
From our community grants programme, the only area in the Borough that gets any funding is Showfields - we give £13,000 per annum to the Number One Trust. The rationale behind this is the recognised deprivation statistics for that area. We also fund the running costs of the TN2 centre in Sherwood and the Camden centre in the town.
Supplementary Question from Councillor Woodward
My questioned has not been answered. I would like to know the rationale for how the Council direct scarce resources to community development.
Supplementary Response from Councillor Cunningham
£13,000 p.a is given to the number One Trust, but I can provide detail of how this is determined outside the meeting.
STRATEGIC PLAN 2014/ 15
FC52/13 The Leader of the Council, Councillor Jukes, introduced the report and proposed the recommendation. He advised members that the document had been amended following feedback received during the consultation period.
Councillor Scholes seconded the recommendation.
Councillor Webb stated that UKIP was opposed to funds being spent on the public realm enhancements, which was Project 10. He referred to the Town Forum’s feedback and questioned whether they considered that the Public Realm enhanced the area.
Page 7 Agenda Item 4
Councillor Webb maintained that this Council was not the highways authority and therefore should not fund something that it was not responsible for, and he did not agree its adoption.
Councillor Backhouse, as Vice-Chairman of the Town Forum, clarified that the Forum were in support of the Public Realm project at Fiveways.
In addition, Councillor Barrington-King stressed that the Town Forum and the Civic Society had both given their full support to the initiative. He added that evidence from the consultation process had indicated that the public wanted this to progress.
Councillor Neve stated that he supported the Strategic Plan, which sought to improve the town.
The Mayor then took a vote on the recommendation.
CARRIED
RESOLVED – That the list of community projects for delivery in 2014-15 be agreed.
REASON : To ensure the Council can effectively function and continue to strive for service improvement year after year.
BUDGET 2014/15 AND M EDIUM TERM FINANCIAL STRATEGY U PDATE
FC53/13 Before this item was introduced, the Mayor proposed a motion to suspend Council Procedure Rules 13.4.2 and 13.4.3 regarding the time limit for members speaking on agenda items, for this item only. Councillor Stanyer seconded the motion and this was agreed by all.
The Portfolio Holder for Finance and Governance, Councillor Scholes, introduced the report and moved the recommendations.
Councillor Jukes seconded the recommendations.
Councillor Scholes advised that the Council continued to be in an era of the greatest financial challenge ever faced by local government, and therefore needed to manage spending within the overall income available. He stated that although vast savings had been made between 2011 and 2014 in response to reduced government funding and the requirement to cover additional spending demands, additional demands on local authority services would continue, as well as transferring more responsibility to local government.
Councillor Scholes stated that the Council’s capital strategy was aimed at improving its asset collection by disposing of none strategic assets and replacing them with revenue generating strategic assets. He reminded members that the Council had the second lowest basic rate council tax in Kent and the lowest general expenses in England.
Page 8 Agenda Item 4
Members’ attention was drawn to three strategic financial objectives that underpinned the Medium Term Financial Strategy, namely reducing reliance on reserves over time; reducing reliance on investment income over time; and creating a balanced budget with no significant unplanned under or over spend. Councillor Scholes confirmed that these objectives had been met over the last three years.
Councillor Scholes informed members that since 2010 core government grant to the Council had been cut by £2.5 million (41%) and this was projected to increase to over 50% during the next year. He concluded that this was a prudent budget for a year which would not be without challenges, but he was confident that the Council was well placed to meet those challenges.
A summary of new applications to the capital programme was discussed and the budget report set the allocation of funding from reserves. It was noted that prior to procurement the approval of Cabinet would be required for each scheme in accordance with the Constitution. As part of the Medium Term Financial Strategy update the four-year capital programme would be rolled forward for another year.
Councillor Neve was then invited to speak. He accepted that government grants had been drastically cut but he considered that there was a need to raise the level of Council Tax. Reference was made to the proposed system for on street charging, which would fill the deficit in the budget. However Councillor Neve considered that this would not support a diverse and thriving local economy. He claimed that the Council’s dogma of making the user pay seemed to apply mainly to the motorist, which appeared unfair as the ice rink was being subsidised by £50,000 every year and the Assembly Hall currently received a subsidy of £150,000 p.a. Councillor Neve felt that the parking consultation was a sham as the income was required to manage the budget. He questioned whether residents would be prepared to pay a little more if they knew they would continue to receive essential services that had sufficient staff to give an excellent service.
Councillor Neve also mentioned that the budget assumed that parishes would pay for the amenity vehicle to visit and if they did not then this service would be cut. He expressed concern that more savings were needed to be made and these would come from each area of the Council’s operations and affect each department and the already stretched service provided. Councillor Neve suggested that the councillors could assist the dire financial position by reducing their numbers as part of a Boundary Commission review.
Other suggestions made by Councillor Neve to reduce spending included sharing the Director posts with Maidstone Borough Council, reviewing the ice rink contract, reducing the mobile phones usage to essential officer use only, and reviewing the Assembly Hall and Trinity Theatre events. He considered that this would reduce the need to make the usual increase in parking charges.
Councillor Neve concluded by stating that he would not be supporting the budget as it did more harm than good to residents, traders and visitors.
Councillor Ms Hill was then invited to address the meeting. She expressed her concern regarding the increase in parking charges, and the severe cuts from the Government.
Page 9 Agenda Item 4
However, she considered that the officers did a good job in maintaining the public services and confirmed that she would be supporting the proposed budget.
Councillor Smith thanked the Head of Finance and Governance for providing answers to his questions prior to the meeting. He explained that he had concerns regarding the on-going pension liabilities and the Council’s ability to maintain them; the budget forecast and outturn over the next four years; the impact on housing building and the Revenue Support Grant. Although he supported this year’s budget, Councillor Smith did not consider it was sufficient in the medium to long term. He therefore stated that he would not be supporting recommendation (6).
Councillor Webb endorsed what both Councillors Ms Hill and Smith had said and congratulated the Head of Finance and Governance for the work undertaken on the budget. However, he could not support the budget without an amendment, namely removing phase 1 of the Public Realm improvements from the list of capital schemes for 2014/15 – thereby saving £990,000.
Councillor Webb considered it unfair that the government grant given to this Council was half that awarded to Thanet and Canterbury and he encouraged the Finance and Governance Portfolio Holder to continue to make representations to the Government with regard to this. He also referred to the iESE recommendation regarding CCTV and agreed that the Crime Commissioner should be pursued to contribute towards the £230,000 cost. Councillor Webb mentioned that appeals in relation to business rates had not been taken into account.
Councillor Webb made reference to the deterioration of the Town Hall and considered that the maintenance of the building should be a higher priority.
He then proposed an amendment to recommendation (5) to remove the Public Realm improvements from the new capital schemes list for 2014/15, as he considered it an unnecessary expenditure. This amendment was seconded by Councillor Wauchope. The amendment was worded as follows:
“(5) That the budget be approved subject to the removal and postponement of the £990,000 capital expenditure on the public realm improvements .”
Councillor Barrington-King argued that the Public Realm was beneficial to Tunbridge Wells, and the residents and local businesses had demonstrated their support for it. He added that the funding was being used to improve the town’s appearance.
The Mayor advised members that following legislation made on the 29 January 2014 there was now a legal requirement that any vote on the Budget and Council Tax at Full Council must be a recorded vote showing the names of those Councillors who have voted for, against or abstained on the vote.
Therefore the Mayor took a recorded vote on the amendment to recommendation (5) as follows:
IN FAVOUR : Councillors Wauchope and Webb
Page 10 Agenda Item 4
AGAINST : Councillors Backhouse, Barrington-King, Basu, Bulman, Chapelard, Mrs Cobbold, Mrs Crowhurst, Cunningham, Derrick, Elliott, Dr Hall, Hastie, Ms Hill, Hills, Holden, Horwood,Jukes, Lewis, March, Mrs Mayhew, McDermott, Neve, Noakes, Ms Palmer, Patterson, Poile, Rogers, Rook, Rusbridge, Scholes, Scott, Smith, Mrs Soyke, Stanyer, Mrs Thomas, Tompsett, Ward, Weatherly, Weeden, Williams and Woodward.
AMENDMENT LOST
Councillor Holden stated that the budget proposed was a business like budget drawn up in very hard times and he was happy to support it. He considered that a good and effective job had been done by the officers involved and he congratulated them for enabling the Council to have the second lowest Council Tax in Kent.
Councillor Bulman felt that the proposed budget was good in parts and the Government’s reduced funding gave the Council huge scope for greater efficiencies. He maintained that the staffing reductions proposed did not result in much saving and more could be done to share services. In addition, Councillor Bulman stated that he was disappointed to see an increase in Council Tax, although he welcomed the fact that the Council was not using its reserves to balance the budget. Councillor Bulman considered that the Council should thoroughly review its services instead of undertaking a piecemeal approach.
In response to some of the points raised Councillor Jukes confirmed that the CCTV costs had been discussed with the new Chief Constable and the appeals process with regard to business rates would be taken up with Brandon Lewis, MP.
Councillor Scholes expressed his sincere thanks to the Finance Team and the senior management for all their hard work on producing the budget. He reminded members that Tunbridge Wells was in a better position than most other district councils in Kent and said that he was to blame for the low Council Tax as it was his decision to slash this when he was Leader of the Council.
The Mayor put the recommendations to a recorded vote as follows:
Recommendations 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 7:
IN FAVOUR : Councillors Backhouse, Barrington-King, Basu, Bulman, Mrs Cobbold, Mrs Crowhurst, Cunningham, Derrick, Elliott, Dr Hall, Hastie, Ms Hill, Hills, Holden, Horwood, Jukes, Lewis, March, Mrs Mayhew, McDermott, Noakes, Ms Palmer, Rogers, Rusbridge, Scholes, Scott, Smith, Mrs Soyke, Stanyer, Mrs Thomas, Tompsett, Ward, Weatherly, Weeden, Williams and Woodward.
AGAINST : Councillors Chapelard, Neve, Patterson, Poile, Rook, Wauchope and Webb. CARRIED
Page 11 Agenda Item 4
Recommendation 6:
IN FAVOUR : Councillors Backhouse, Barrington-King, Basu, Bulman, Mrs Cobbold, Mrs Crowhurst, Cunningham, Derrick, Elliott, Dr Hall, Hastie, Hills, Holden, Horwood, Jukes, March, Mrs Mayhew, McDermott, Noakes, Ms Palmer, Rogers, Rusbridge, Scholes, Scott, Mrs Soyke, Stanyer, Mrs Thomas, Ward, Weatherly, Weeden, Williams and Woodward.
AGAINST: Councillors Smith, Tompsett, Wauchope and Webb.
ABSTAIN : Councillors Chapelard, Ms Hill, Lewis, Neve, Patterson, Poile and Rook.
CARRIED
RESOLVED:
1) That the actions identified to achieve a balanced budget be endorsed; 2) That the creation of an ‘Establishment Reserve’ and a ‘Grant Volatility Reserve’ into which the Year 4 New Homes Bonus of £96,350 be placed be approved; 3) That the allocation of the Council Tax Benefit Support Grant set out in Appendix B of the report to be passed on to town and parish councils be approved; 4) That Council continue the existing Members’ Allowances Scheme but does not uplift the allowances for inflation; 5) That the 2014/15 Budget be approved; 6) That the update to the Medium Term Financial Strategy be approved; and 7) That the 2014/15 Pay Policy Statement be approved.
REASON: A legal budget must be set for the forthcoming financial year and resources need to be made available to deliver the Council’s priorities.
COUNCIL TAX 2014/15
FC54/13 The Portfolio Holder for Finance and Governance, Councillor Scholes, introduced the report and proposed the recommendation. This was then seconded by Councillor Jukes.
No-one else wished to speak on this item.
The Mayor announced that, due to new legislation, a recorded vote must be taken showing the names of those councillors who had voted for, against or abstained on the vote relating to setting the Council Tax.
Therefore the Mayor took a recorded vote on the recommendation.
CARRIED
RESOLVED – That the Council Tax 2014/15 be approved as set out in the resolution in Appendix B of the report.
REASON: The Council has a statutory requirement to set the Council Tax.
Page 12 Agenda Item 4
IN FAVOUR : Councillors Backhouse, Barrington-King, Basu, Bulman, Mrs Cobbold, Mrs Crowhurst, Cunningham, Derrick, Elliott, Dr Hall, Hastie, Hills, Holden, Horwood, Jukes, March, Mrs Mayhew, McDermott, Noakes, Ms Palmer, Rogers, Rusbridge, Scholes, Scott, Smith, Mrs Soyke, Stanyer, Mrs Thomas, Tompsett, Ward, Weatherly, Weeden, Williams and Woodward.
AGAINST: Councillors Chapelard, Ms Hill, Lewis, Neve, Patterson, Poile, Rook, Wauchope and Webb.
ASSET MANAGEMENT PLA N 2014/15
FC55/13 The Leader, Councillor Jukes, introduced the Asset Management Plan 2014/15 and proposed the recommendation. He reminded members that the plan had been subject to formal consultation and the final version addressed the comments received from this process.
Members were advised that the Asset Management Plan was a key strategic planning document that would support the Council in delivering its priorities by complementing the Strategic Plan, Medium Term Financial Strategy and the People Strategy. In addition adoption of the Asset Management Plan would help the authority to improve its efficiency and focus on delivering its objectives, aiding the decision making process.
Councillor Jukes congratulated the Property Services Team for their achievements.
Councillor McDermott, in seconding the recommendation, requested a recorded vote.
Councillor Webb congratulated Councillor Jukes for successfully raising income by identifying and disposing of the non-performing assets. However he referred to the maintenance backlog on the Town Hall and considered that funds should be directed towards protecting that asset.
The Mayor then took a recorded vote on the recommendation. CARRIED
RESOLVED – That the Asset Management Plan 2014/15 be approved.
REASON : The Asset Management Plan sets out the adopted policy within which the Council’s property assets will be managed and is a fundamental contributor to core business resource planning and to empowering wellbeing within the Borough.
IN FAVOUR : Councillors Barrington-King, Basu, Chapelard, Mrs Cobbold, Mrs Crowhurst, Cunningham, Derrick, Elliott, Dr Hall, Hastie, Ms Hill, Hills, Holden, Horwood, Jukes, Lewis, March, Mrs Mayhew, McDermott, Neve, Noakes, Ms Palmer, Patterson, Poile, Rogers, Rook, Rusbridge, Scholes, Scott, Smith, Mrs Soyke, Stanyer, Mrs Thomas, Tompsett, Ward, Weatherly, Weeden and Woodward.
AGAINST: Councillors Wauchope and Webb.
ABSTAIN: Councillors Backhouse and Williams.
Page 13 Agenda Item 4
TREASURY MANAGEMENT POLICY AND STRATEGY 2014 -15
FC56/13 The Portfolio Holder for Finance and Governance, Councillor Scholes, presented the report and proposed the recommendation. Councillor Jukes seconded the recommendation.
No-one wished to speak on this item.
The Mayor took a vote on the recommendation. CARRIED
RESOLVED – That the Treasury Management Policy and Strategy 2014/15 be approved.
REASON - The Asset Management Plan sets out the adopted policy within which the Council’s property assets will be managed and is a fundamental contributor to core business resource planning and to empowering wellbeing within the Borough.
NOTICE OF MOTIONS
FC57/13 MOTION A
Councillor Chapelard put the following motion to Council:
“Tunbridge Wells Borough Council reiterates its commitment to consider reducing the current number of Borough councillors. This Council therefore requests the Local Government Boundary Commission for England to conduct an electoral review of Tunbridge Wells Borough Council.”
The motion was seconded by Councillor Poile.
Councillor Mrs Mayhew requested that the matter be referred to Overview and Scrutiny Committee, under Council Procedure Rule 11.4, without any further discussion. This was seconded by Councillor Hastie.
The Mayor took a vote on the proposal.
CARRIED
RESOLVED – That the motion put forward by Councillor Chapelard be considered at a future meeting of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee.
MOTION B
Councillor Holden put the following motion to Council:
“Tunbridge Wells Borough Council will end, immediately following this meeting, the practice of identifying female members by their marital status. From now on all council documents and labels will assign women and men the same title of Councillor without any courtesy title, as men are at present. That does not apply to professional and other distinctions such as Dr. Documents already printed for circulation are exempt from this requirement.“
Page 14 Agenda Item 4
Councillor Wauchope requested that the matter be referred to Overview and Scrutiny Committee, under Council Procedure Rule 11.4, without any further discussion. This was seconded by Councillor Neve, who also requested a recorded vote.
The Mayor took a recorded vote on the proposal.
CARRIED
RESOLVED – That the motion put forward by Councillor Holden be considered at a future meeting of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee.
IN FAVOUR : Councillors Backhouse, Barrington-King, Basu, Bulman, Chapelard, Mrs Cobbold, Mrs Crowhurst, Cunningham, Derrick, Elliott, Dr Hall, Hastie, Ms Hill, Hills, Horwood, Jukes, Lewis, March, Mrs Mayhew, McDermott, Neve, Noakes, Ms Palmer, Patterson, Poile, Rook, Rusbridge, Scholes, Scott, Smith, Mrs Soyke, Stanyer, Mrs Thomas, Tompsett, Ward, Wauchope, Weatherly, Webb, Weeden and Williams.
AGAINST: Councillors Holden and Rogers.
COMMON SEAL OF THE C OUNCIL
FC58/13 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.
NOTE: The meeting concluded at 8.45 pm.
Page 15 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 16 Agenda Item 7
Our five year plan (2014-2019)
To : Full Council
Date: 16 April 2014
Main Portfolio Area : Leader of the Council
Author of report : Policy & Performance Manager
Classification : Non-Exempt
Ward : All
SUMMARY
The Leader and his Cabinet members have developed a five year plan for the borough of Tunbridge Wells. This plan sets out a number of key objectives that the Council wishes to focus on in order to encourage economic growth and investment into the borough and ensure the Council continues to provide value for money in its service provision. This report presents the feedback received during the consultation period and the final draft of the five year plan for Full Council adoption.
LINK TO STRATEGIC COMPASS
The community projects (linked to the ‘community quadrant’ of the Strategic Compass) for 2014-15 demonstrate how we intend to make progress against our five year plan and set out what we are looking to achieve in year one of this plan.
Our five year plan also indicates how the Council intends to deliver its priorities; reflecting the commitments set out in the three Strategic Compass quadrants of ‘our people,’ ‘our customers,’ and ‘providing value for money.’ The document explains our plans for transforming service delivery and identifying and delivering efficiencies through opportunities such as partnership working.
Report status For decision.
Route to Implementation/Timetable:
Incorporating the feedback received during the consultation period, this report is being presented to Full Council for adoption.
Page 17 Agenda Item 7
INTRODUCTION
1. In 2008, the Council approved the Vision 2026. Vision 2026 set out the Council’s long term ambitions for the borough over a twenty year period and was closely aligned with the Borough’s Local Plan. Great progress has been made towards a number of our ambitions within this long term strategy, such as the provision of support to prepare the planning requirements for the A21, enabling the Morrison’s site to be brought back into use and receiving Heritage Lottery funding for improvement works to be carried out in Grosvenor & Hilbert recreation ground as a result of a successful two stage application.
2. With a number of projects already achieved and a great deal of change taking place in local government during the past five to six years, it was considered the appropriate time to refresh our priorities and agree a number of key objectives that we wish to achieve.
3. The Leader of the Council and his Cabinet members have developed a five year plan which clearly identifies our priorities for the borough and the way in which the Council will deliver those priorities in the next five years.
Our five year plan (2014-2019)
4. Our five year plan is the overarching strategy for the Council’s corporate policy framework. It reflects the strategic direction and political priorities for the Council. The details of how we will deliver each of the projects within the five year plan will be updated through our annual plan of community projects and individual strategies.
5. It is important to note that the five year plan is underpinned by a number of strategies that have already been adopted by Cabinet or Full Council. This includes the Medium Term Financial Strategy, Property Asset Management Plan, Customer Care Programme and People Strategy. These strategies and our annual plan of community projects will assist the Council to monitor our progress towards our plan.
Page 18 Agenda Item 7
LEARNING FROM CUSTOMER FEEDBACK
6. Information from the 2011 Census has assisted our forward planning by providing a more up to date profile of the borough population. This information along with customer feedback gathered through satisfaction surveys or community engagement programmes has been used to inform our priorities.
MONITORING OUR PROGRESS
7. Progress against our five year plan will be monitored through the delivery of our annual plan of community projects. At present, community project updates are reported to Cabinet alongside our quarterly performance reports. An annual update will be provided to Cabinet within the end of year performance summary to report the progress made towards meeting the priorities set out within the five year plan. It has also been recommended that an independent committee/body other than Cabinet review progress against the priority projects within the five year plan on a more frequent basis throughout the financial year. The Overview & Scrutiny Committee could undertake this role as part of the Portfolio Holder updates at their committee meetings.
WHAT IS THE ISSUE THAT REQUIRES A DECISION AND WHAT DOES THIS MEAN FOR THE PEOPLE OF TUNBRIDGE WELLS?
8. The Leader of the Council and his cabinet members have developed a five year plan setting out our priorities for the borough over the next five years. This report recommends the plan for adoption by Full Council.
WHO HAVE WE CONSULTED AND HOW? (OR WHO WILL WE CONSULT FOLLOWING THE DECISION?)
9. Our five year plan has been reviewed by politicians (Cabinet, the Cabinet Advisory Boards and Overview & Scrutiny Committee) and other key groups such as the Town Forum and Parish Chairs. The results of the consultation are attached at Appendix C.
10. Our five year plan was also subject to public consultation. Responses could be provided through our online consultation portal, by post (letter) or by email. Groups that we consulted included: • Key partners such as Kent Police, NHS West Kent and Kent County Council • Tunbridge Wells Together (our Local Strategic Partnership) • Local communities and community organisations including the Town Forum and RTW Civic Society • Parish and Town Councils • Local businesses • All Councillors
HOW WILL THE DECISION BE COMMUNICATED?
11. The decision will be communicated through the launch of our five year plan following its adoption by Full Council in April 2014.
Page 19 Agenda Item 7
WHAT ALTERNATIVE ACTION COULD WE TAKE?
12. The Council’s Constitution requires the five year plan to be consulted upon for a period of six weeks. There is no alternative action which could be taken.
RECOMMENDATION FROM CABINET ADVISORY BOARD (19 MARCH 2014):
13. The Finance & Governance Cabinet Advisory Board were consulted on this decision on Wednesday 19 March 2014 and agreed the following recommendation to Cabinet:
The Cabinet Advisory Board supports the recommendations in the report.
CONCLUSIONS
14. This report presents our five year plan (2014-2019) for the borough of Tunbridge Wells. It sets out a number of key objectives that the Council wishes to focus on in order to encourage economic growth and investment into the borough and ensure the Council continues to provide value for money.
15. The details of how we will deliver each of the projects within the plan will be updated through our annual plan of community projects and feature as an appendix to the five year plan . The five year plan was placed out for consultation for a period of six weeks. Incorporating the feedback received, this report presents the final draft, to be recommended for adoption by Full Council.
RECOMMENDATION:
1) That Full Council approve the five year plan (2014-2019).
REASON FOR RECOMMENDATION: To ensure the Council sets it strategic direction and provides adequate opportunities for our key stakeholders to be engaged in this process.
Contact Officer: Holly Goring, Policy & Performance Manager
Director/Head of Service William Benson, Chief Executive
Background Papers None
APPENDICES TO REPORT APPENDIX A: Cross Cutting Issues APPENDIX B: Our five year plan (2014-2019) (final draft) APPENDIX C: Consultation feedback
Page 20 Appendix A
Our Five Year Plan (2014-2019)
CROSS CUTTING ISSUES
LEGAL
Legal
1. Our five year plan sets out the Councils commitment to projects delivered for the benefit of the people who work, visit and live in Tunbridge Wells borough. Any legal implications of these projects will be assessed by the responsible officer and their Portfolio Holder.
Human Rights Act
2. Specific human right implications of the five year plan will be assessed by the responsible officer and their Portfolio Holder.
VALUE FOR MONEY AND USE OF RESOURCES
Finance and other resources, including ICT
3. Our five year plan sets out the Council’s priorities for transforming service delivery and has been developed in conjunction with the Council’s Budget and Medium Term Financial Strategy update. An action plan providing the key milestones for delivery and initial cost estimates for each priority will be developed and monitored by Cabinet to review progress and evaluate the outcomes of each project.
Staffing
4. Our five year plan refers to our strategy for partnership working and staffing in the next five years in order to identify and deliver efficiencies as well as share best practice.
Value for Money
5 Delivering value for money is a key customer service commitment and underpins the corporate priorities of the Council and is reflected in our five year plan.
Risk Management
6. Any proposals and initiatives proposed within our five year plan would be subject to the Council’s risk management procedures. These are operated at two levels, strategic risks and operational risks. COMMUNITY
Safer & Stronger Communities
7. Our five year plan contributes to achieving our strategic priority of enabling Tunbridge Wells to be a ‘Confident borough’ and sets out key objectives for delivering against this.
Page 21 Appendix A
Section 17, Crime and Disorder Act 1998
8. No specific issues noted.
Environment / Sustainability
9. Our five year plan contributes to achieving our strategic priority of enabling Tunbridge Wells to be a ‘Green borough’ and seeks to ensure all the Council’s activities are sustainable. Specific initiatives for reducing energy consumption and improving our parks and open spaces are included within the plan.
Equalities
10. An Equality Impact Assessment has been completed on the five year plan consultation document. Where projects or priorities have been identified that may result in a change of service delivery or incur implications for our service users, residents or visitors, it has been recommended that the project should be subject to a specific equality impact assessment.
Consideration of impacts under the Public Sector Equality Duty: Question Answer Explanation / Evidence a. Does the decision being made or No This document sets out a five year plan recommended through this paper for the borough of Tunbridge Wells. Any have potential to disadvantage or specific projects mentioned within the discriminate against different five year plan would be subject to a groups in the community? specific equality impact assessment as required. b. Does the decision being made or Yes Our five year plan is underpinned by our recommended through this paper West Kent Equality Partnership Aims have the potential to promote and Commitments 2012-2016 and seeks equality of opportunity? to support people in reaching their full potential and enabling them to make use of the services to which they are entitled. c. What steps can be taken to mitigate, reduce, avoid or minimise the impacts identified above?
Health and Wellbeing 11. Our five year plan contributes to our strategic priority of enabling Tunbridge Wells to be a ‘Confident borough’ and sets out key objectives for delivering against this. Specific initiatives are included which will contribute to improving health outcomes for local communities.
Page 22 Appendix B
Our five year plan
2014-2019
Page 23 Appendix B
1. Foreword Our Vision sets out what we want to achieve in the next five years to enable Tunbridge Wells borough to have a prosperous, green and confident future.
The council, like local residents, businesses and visitors to the borough, is facing tough financial times. Over the next five years the funding we receive for local services will disappear. And although we have alreaciidy started to manage this through practical steps like managing our assets more effectively, I believe there is more we can do to help improve everybody’s quality of life. This is why I have developed a realistic and achievable five year plan for the borough.
I believe that in five years time, the thriving country town of Royal Tunbridge Wells will have attracted growth and investment to secure its future. It will have a vibrant retail trade and a rich cultural heritage based on music, the arts, leisure and its spa tradition. It will be a place where people want to live and where they have easy access to work, to education and local facilities.
Whilst people often think of Royal Tunbridge Wells and its immediate environment, I am acutely aware of the importance of our exceptional countryside and the magnificent green spaces in our towns and villages. This is what makes the borough such a desirable place to live and they are pivotal to our future growth and prosperity. We will therefore work with towns like Cranbrook, Paddock Wood and Southborough to make them even more desirable.
We have a world class hospital in Pembury (good health has always been vital in the story of our borough) and we have started to have some notable success in improving our transport infrastructure (including the dualling of the A21). To achieve our goals we will need to invest our time and resources wisely in priority areas where results can be achieved.
In addition to prioritising, we will have to continue to work closely with our key partners. This is the only way we will be able to move towards easing traffic congestion, delivering housing and supporting all of our schools. Some solutions are in our hands: we can bring more customers to our retail areas by providing better facilities and more attractive areas for people to eat out in and enjoy festivals, music and events. Other solutions will be developed through conversations with our local communities, our towns and parishes and will be delivered by local people. The borough is blessed with many important and knowledgeable forums, associations, groups and individuals and I want the council to use this expertise to enable a better future for the borough.
Councillor David Jukes Leader of the Council
Page 24 Appendix B
2. Context
2.1 Changing demographics
2.1.1 Population change According to the national census, Kent saw the largest population rise across all counties in England and Wales between 2001 and 2011. In Tunbridge Wells borough, the population increased by 10.6 per cent. Our figures also reflected the national trend of an ageing population. The Office for National Statistics has predicted that the borough population will increase by a further 13,200 by 2021 (an 11.4 per cent increase). This growth is likely to have an impact on our employment opportunities, housing needs, education and transport networks as we consider the future drivers for change within the borough.
2.1.2 Households Tunbridge Wells was one of four districts in Kent to see an increase in the average household size between 2001 and 2011. The average household size of 2.4 was found to be typical however, when compared with all districts in Kent, Sussex and Surrey. The average house price in the borough in 2013 was £347,762 - the second highest in Kent. Property prices reached almost 10 times the annual salary in 2012, similar to districts in West Sussex and Hertfordshire. This makes it extremely difficult for first-time buyers to access the housing market. Rental costs have also increased substantially since 2010, with the average private sector monthly rental cost at £895 - the third highest in Kent.
2.2 Changing economy
2.2.1 Economic activity The borough recorded the second highest proportion of people aged 16 and over in education and employment (82.5 per cent) in Kent. When compared to 15 similar districts in England and Wales however, Tunbridge Wells ranked 11th for the proportion of working age in education or employment. The borough’s workers are amongst the most highly qualified in Kent. Four in ten (41 per cent) are qualified to degree level or higher (ONS annual population survey 2012), whereas seven per cent were found to have no qualifications. GCSE attainment levels have also improved; on average 82 per cent of secondary school leavers achieved five or more A*-C GCSE grades in 2012, with some schools achieving 99 per cent. The last five years have seen the closure of some local businesses and redundancies. The borough has seen an improvement more recently in unemployment figures and records the lowest resident-based rate of unemployment in Kent at 1.0 per cent as well as recording similarly low levels to districts in West Sussex and Surrey.
2.2.2 Industry Tunbridge Wells borough saw growth of 16 per cent in new businesses between 2010 and 2011 and was similar to the growth seen in Kent (15 per cent). The borough has more than 6,500 active enterprises and Tunbridge Wells was one of six districts to see above average growth in business in Kent in that period.
Page 25 Appendix B
The top three types of enterprise in the borough are: • Professional, scientific and technical (22 per cent) • Construction (10 per cent) • Information and communication (9 per cent)
2.3 Changing priorities
2.3.1 Central government priorities In recent years, the council has seen reductions in government grant funding and restrictions on Council Tax increases. This, coupled with high inflation and reductions to income, has placed local government budgets under extreme pressure and encouraged local authorities to review spending as well as the services they deliver. The changes introduced to welfare and benefits, and programmes such as Troubled Families have moved the focus from service provision to encouraging personal responsibility so as to ensure households become more resilient to the challenges they encounter. The transfer of public health responsibilities to upper tier authorities and the development of clinical commissioning groups have also provided greater opportunities for local decision-making and commissioning; placing more control into the hands of local services.
2.3.2 Regional priorities South East Local Enterprise Partnership In January 2014, the South East Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP) submitted its draft plans to central government to deliver investment and growth to the South East by 2021. Local Enterprise Partnerships were formed in 2011 to help regions establish their economic priorities to attract investment and drive economic growth. Tunbridge Wells has fed into these plans through our local partnership arrangements: the West Kent Partnership and Kent & Medway Economic Board. This has assisted the council to champion key economic, transport and housing issues for the borough of Tunbridge Wells.
2.3.3 Countywide priorities Vision for Kent The Vision for Kent 2012-2022 (developed by the Kent Forum of local authorities) recognises that reduced funding will bring changes to education, schools, policing, health and economic regeneration. In particular, it acknowledges the need to look closely at the services provided across Kent and find more innovative ways to deliver them. The Vision for Kent 2012-2022 sets out three countywide ambitions which align with Tunbridge Wells Borough Council’s five year plan: • to grow the economy • to tackle disadvantage • to put the citizen in control
Page 26 Appendix B
2.3.4 Residents’ priorities Residents’ surveys in the past three years, have shown ‘providing support to local businesses and the creation of jobs’ to be an important priority (87 per cent) alongside reducing levels of crime (93 per cent) and protecting the local environment (92 per cent). The provision of events, theatres and arts (72 per cent) increased in importance for residents between 2010 and 2012. Residents considered ‘making more use of our buildings and money’ (25 per cent) as well as ‘encouraging personal responsibility’ (23 per cent) to be the best ways of limiting the impact of cuts on services. Survey results identified that residents increasingly use digital technology to find out about and access our services. Between 2008 and 2012, the number of residents with access to broadband increased as did their use of the council website. Social media has also provided new ways for residents to keep in touch with the council. Around 5,000 people follow the council on Twitter, providing instant access in relation to key news items and enquiries.
2.4 Challenges and opportunities Vision 2026 was developed in 2008. As we write this plan, the year 2014 brings new challenges and opportunities as we have outlined below:
Challenges Opportunities
• Addressing traffic congestion • Good transport links to London and Northern Improvements to our local road network and Europe alleviating traffic congestion are crucial in order Tunbridge Wells borough is located in a central to encourage growth and improve ease of position between London and the South Coast and accessibility to Tunbridge Wells. is in easy reach of the ports, as well as the Channel Tunnel and Gatwick Airport. • Digitalisation Poor connectivity and access to superfast • Legislative changes (Localism Act) broadband, particularly in our rural areas, can be The Localism Act has provided opportunities for seen as a barrier to growth by small businesses. parish/town councils and community groups to express an interest in community assets and community facilities as well as support for • Retaining a highly skilled and educated communities to undertake community led planning. workforce in the borough Tunbridge Wells borough has high educational The Community Infrastructure Levy allows for local attainment levels but with attractive opportunities authorities to set charges which developers must for further education and employment outside pay when bringing forward certain types of new the borough, we lose a proportion of our working development in order to contribute to new or age population to London and beyond. enhanced services and infrastructure.
The New Homes Bonus Scheme provides a small • Limited access to services in our rural amount of funding to local authorities who allow communities new homes to be built in their areas. Councils can Some of our rural communities are within the work with communities to decide how this funding most 20 per cent deprived in terms of access to is spent within their areas. services in Kent. With limited access to public • Improved culture and tourism offer transport and slow broadband speeds, some communities have poor access to public With an attractive rural environment as well as a services. number of historic sites of heritage, the borough’s location in West Kent provides an ideal location for • Pockets of deprivation residents who live within the Weald of Kent and There are several pockets of deprivation within Sussex and visitors to the area to visit Tunbridge the borough that match high levels of deprivation Wells borough. Plans to improve the cultural and experienced regionally and nationally and learning facilities in the borough as well as demonstrate concerning levels of inequality. improving ways to market the borough and its opportunities will make Tunbridge Wells borough a
Page 27 Appendix B
key destination. • Limited financial resources • Partnership working Reductions in grant funding from central Partnerships such as the Mid Kent Improvement government and announcements about the annual Partnership provide greater resilience in times of government grant due only being provided in reduced funding by ensuring services are providing December each year causing uncertainty for the good value for money and are delivered with authority. It can also hinder long term financial and increased knowledge and shared expertise. business planning. • Asset Management The council still retains a large number of assets that could provide investment opportunities or generate higher revenues. • Channel shift Technological advances provide opportunities for reviewing the way we deliver services and remain in contact with our customers
3. Our Mission
We are clear about the direction we wish the council to take over the next five years to secure the future of the borough. This journey begins with our mission statement.
The council is an enabler of change - encouraging economic growth and investment into the borough whilst ensuring the appropriate infrastructure is in place to support growth and enhance quality of life
4. Our five year plan Tunbridge Wells borough provides an attractive environment for residents and visitors to live, work and spend leisure time. The borough is rich in cultural heritage with 41 historic parks and gardens, 25 conservation areas and 70 per cent of the borough designated as an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.
We are proud of our history. We have worked hard to protect our heritage whilst recognising the importance of planning for our future.
This document is grounded in the reality of the current economic climate and the priorities of our residents. Our five year plan sets out what the council can encourage and do to attract growth and investment into the borough. It focuses on the work we can achieve with our key stakeholders to bring about positive long term changes and build the stepping stones to a more secure future. This document sets out the key objectives of our five year plan:
“Enabling Tunbridge Wells borough to have a prosperous, green and confident future”
To provide for a prosperous, green and confident future, we have identified a number of specific projects that the council, with its partners, will look to deliver over the next five years. These are separated into the three themes of prosperous, green and confident.
Page 28 Appendix B
4.1 A prosperous borough We expect to achieve growth and shape our local economy by enhancing the built environment within our thriving town centres and rural settlements.
By 2019, the borough will be a key destination in the South East, not only for expanding or new businesses but also for visitors seeking a great day out. An increase in office space and industrial units will see greater employment opportunities locally. The variety of education and training opportunities will have increased, enabling residents from the borough and neighbouring districts to gain specialist skills and technical learning. Improved educational facilities will have enabled the unemployed to be work ready. Work will have commenced in the borough to reduce congestion in a number of our pinch points and traffic flows will have eased to the north east of the town. Next steps: The next five years will see the council attracting new business to the borough and supporting existing businesses through encouraging development in our areas of change and seeking ways to increase investment in local infrastructure. Our focus on the areas of change, improving local infrastructure and the building of new homes and schools will provide for a strong and resilient borough for the future.
By 2019 we will have: Measures of success
Implemented the Destination Management Plan with Increase in the number of jobs created and growth in our partners to market the borough and opportunities volume and value of tourism for business and leisure
2 Developed business space suitable for business 18,000 ft of business space developed and start-ups occupied in North Farm Lane
Increase in the number of business start-ups or business registrations
Enabled the modernisation and development of new Reduction in vacancy rates of office accommodation office accommodation to attract new business
Developed business space to attract small creative Increase in the number of creative industries industries to the borough established
Enabled improvements to connectivity through the Visitors and businesses benefiting from Wi-Fi provision of a Wi-Fi network in Royal Tunbridge network and work to explore extension of scheme Wells and superfast broadband connections in the underway rural areas Fibre broadband available in 80 per cent of the borough by December 2015
Secured funding and permission to develop a cultural Delivery of hub underway and learning hub which will attract visitors to Tunbridge Wells from Kent, Surrey and East Sussex
Held an investment conference to attract business Number of businesses attending investment and investment to the borough conference and increased liaison with the council.
Worked with Kent County Council and the Highways A21 dualling works complete and traffic at North Agency to complete dualling of the A21 and eased Farm Industrial Estate flowing more easily congestion in North Farm Industrial Estate
Page 29 Appendix B
Ensured the provision of greater educational Technical learning facility developed opportunities locally to develop the skills of our workforce and next generation Reduction in 16-18 year olds not in education, employment or training
Participated in the South East Local Enterprise Funding secured to support economic development Partnership to ensure investment opportunities that through the South East Local Enterprise Partnership arise take account of economic priorities in West Kent
4.2 A green borough We expect the borough to remain a clean and beautiful place to live, work and visit, as a result of the continued effort put in to protect the quality of the local environment.
By 2019, the borough will have attracted a greater number of visitors and enhanced residents’ quality of life as a result of the beautiful parks and open spaces. Our natural and historic environment will be preserved and park facilities and community spaces will have improved within the urban area of Royal Tunbridge Wells. Work with the Friends groups will have been undertaken to develop future plans for these parks and open spaces and enable the delivery of community activities and events. The council will be leading the way by contributing to national carbon reduction targets, having introduced renewable energy sources and further energy saving measures within its buildings, renewed its contracts and promoted the use of renewable and low carbon energy within its planning conditions.
Next steps: The next five years will see the council working with local communities, businesses and service providers to minimise our impact on the environment and adapt to our changing climate.
By 2019 we will have: Measures of success
Enhanced the public realm in the town centre of A shared space piazza developed in Royal Royal Tunbridge Wells to provide a distinctive Tunbridge Wells town centre community space for residents and visitors
Improved facilities in Grosvenor & Hilbert Park The lake restored, a new wetland area created, community facilities improved and an increase in visitors using the park
Implemented the current Calverley Grounds Management plan implemented which has improved Management Plan and worked with the Friends the standard of the Grounds. Infrastructure in place Group to develop a long term plan for activities and events
Worked to reduce emissions, contributing to national 200 households have retrofit measures which have carbon reduction targets by focusing on our areas of improved the energy efficiency of residential influence in the local area and on our own estate accommodation The council’s major contracts have been renewed to ensure our contractors seek to reduce emissions Renewable energy and energy saving measures introduced in council buildings and sport centres
Page 30 Appendix B
Promoted the use of renewable and low carbon All major planning applications: energy in the local area in line with the latest (a) provide a Sustainable Design and Construction planning guidance assessment and include;
(b) standard planning conditions for conservation of energy and water
Encouraged a reduction in household waste and an Household waste collection has reduced by 10 per increase in the borough recycling and compost rate cent. The proportion of household waste sent for recycling and composting has increased, reaching 50 per cent
Effectively used the Green Infrastructure Plan to act Formally adopted Green Infrastructure Plan as a as a framework for local investment in green Supplementary Planning Document infrastructure Green assets will be referred to in a number of other council policies such as the Urban Design Framework
Project implementation plan prepared which prioritises projects within the Green Infrastructure Plan
4.3 A confident borough We expect the borough to remain a safe place to live, work and visit where communities enjoy good health, are adequately housed and resilient to deal with the challenges they may encounter.
By 2019, the borough will have worked alongside parish and town councils and voluntary and community organisations to deliver a range of community facilities and to support them in delivering a range of services and events. Programmes and initiatives such as ‘Troubled Families’ and neighbourhood community budgets will have had a noticeable impact on the lives of some of our most deprived neighbourhoods. Furthermore, our communities will be empowered to make positive improvements to their local facilities and neighbourhoods and will be more self-reliant, having assumed responsibility for delivering a range of services and events that the council will no longer be able to support financially.
Next steps: The next five years will see the council explore the devolvement of services to our partners (parishes, community and voluntary sector) and our local residents. In particular, we will assist local communities to take more control; managing events and community activities in their area . More generally, the next five years will see the role of the council adjusting from a universal provider of services to an enabling authority.
By 2019 we will have: Measures of success
Worked with local parish/town councils and Some discretionary services devolved and community groups to devolve those services that are community groups enabled to organise events and better placed to be delivered by the local community activities
Page 31 Appendix B
Worked with local parish/town councils and Permission granted and development work underway community groups to develop suitable community to develop community hub facilities in Cranbrook facilities Permission granted and refurbishment work underway to develop community hub facilities in Paddock Wood
Permission granted and refurbishment work underway to develop community hub facilities in Southborough
Worked with Kent County Council to provide a youth Suitable space in use as a youth hub facility and Hub for Tunbridge Wells borough additional activities and support services available for young people
Supported the development of a thriving cultural and Events toolkit in place and used by our parish leisure economy, both during the day and night time councils/community groups to run local events
Page 32 Appendix B
5. Plans for growth
This document refers to a number of areas of change which have been identified in our planning allocations document. This forms our ambitious change programme over the next five years. As the local planning authority, Tunbridge Wells Borough Council has a responsibility both to set out what development can take place, and where, to determine individual planning applications. The majority of these ‘areas of change’ necessarily fall in the urban area. This is for two reasons: first, with over 70 per cent of the borough’s area designated as Green Belt or Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, our planning framework has concentrated growth and development in the town centre; second, our rural areas are overseen by a number of town and parish councils and we are keen to ensure that they are in the driving seat for shaping their future.
5.1 Royal Tunbridge Wells town centre Whilst valuing our heritage, the borough and in particular Royal Tunbridge Wells town centre must bring itself up to date to reflect the changing population and demands on the town’s infrastructure. Over the next five years, growth will be primarily concentrated in Royal Tunbridge Wells town centre. It will be inspired by our rich cultural heritage and will see increased investment by the public and private sector to deliver some significant enhancements to the public realm.
5.1.1 Cultural and learning hub The most ambitious proposal for the next five years is to develop a cultural and learning hub. We plan to remodel our current museum and art gallery, library and adult learning centre into a 21st century enhanced cultural and learning hub in the heart of the town centre. The plans seek to secure Tunbridge Wells’ status as the cultural capital of Kent & Sussex High Weald. Next steps: Working with Kent County Council, we will remodel the existing buildings to create more accessible and appropriate exhibition space to showcase our unique collections as well as providing an improved learning experience for the whole family. It will provide a key attraction bringing new visitors to the area, building on the existing offer in Royal Tunbridge Wells and act as a catalyst for further investment.
5.1.2 Public realm improvements Well designed and maintained areas have a positive impact on local businesses and people using the spaces. There is an opportunity to enhance the public realm in Royal Tunbridge Wells town centre with a view to contributing to the look and feel of the town to benefit visitors, residents and local businesses. Work has taken place to de-clutter the area around the Millennium Clock at Fiveways to improve access and make it safer. This work has also provided an opportunity to trial a number of materials to get public feedback and test their suitability for future enhancement schemes .
Next steps: Through a phased programme, we will develop a shared space in Royal Tunbridge Wells town centre. Phase one will seek to develop a shared space at Fiveways . Longer term options will then be explored for the extension of the shared space to improve the public realm on Mount Pleasant Road between Fiveways and Royal Tunbridge Wells train station, and the High Street and the Pantiles.
Page 33 Appendix B
Opportunities include the option to create a shared space piazza and extend the development of a shared space from Fiveways to the cultural and learning hub and site of the civic complex as well as introducing a water feature to the upper part of town. This will include enhancing the setting of the listed war memorial which will be located in the heart of the new space and giving it a more appropriate setting for ceremonies.
5.1.3 Civic complex The civic site (including the police station, theatre and Town Hall) acts as a strong focal point for the town centre. The buildings date from 1939 and all are in need of significant investment to bring them up to current environmental standards. A proportion of the police station has not been used for a number of years and the maintenance repairs bill for the Town Hall to bring the site up to current environmental standards, could incur costs of up to £5 million. Already identified as part of the wider Crescent Road/Church Road ‘area of change’ in our planning document, the site is important to many members of our community, who value the civic functions that the buildings provide. Next steps: As we move into the next five years, the council will be developing a clear framework for the future of this site. This will include an enhanced theatre (see below) with increased capacity as well as other mixed uses to ensure the viability of these important assets for our future.
5.1.4 Assembly Hall Theatre The Assembly Hall Theatre seats up to 1,000 people and offers a varied programme of performances with everything from family shows to classical music with over 300 events held year on year. The council has committed to enhancing the Assembly Hall Theatre in the adopted Cultural Strategy. The Assembly Hall Theatre makes a significant contribution to the borough’s cultural offer and to the night time economy. Next steps: The council is committed to delivering a theatre that meets modern standards and customer expectations for the 21st century including seating, ventilation and catering facilities. We will also ensure that any works are complementary to the provision of a Cultural and Learning Hub (see 5.1.1).
5.1.5 Cinema site The cinema site has remained vacant for a number of years as it awaits redevelopment. Whilst it is privately owned, the site conjures up strong negative feelings across the borough and the council (as the planning authority) has worked over a number of years to see the site come forward for redevelopment. The cinema site is a difficult and relatively expensive site for redevelopment due to various features. The economic climate has further added to the challenges affecting this key site. Next steps: The council will continue to work with and apply pressure on the current landowners to bring forward a mixed scheme which is sympathetic to the surrounding environment and provides a high quality designed scheme in the town centre of Royal Tunbridge Wells.
5.1.6 Royal Victoria Place Royal Victoria Place provides a high quality retail experience at the top of the town centre. It has recently transferred ownership to Hermes Group who are keen to invest in the long- term vitality of the town and ensure that we continue to be a place of choice for shopping, socialising and entertainment.
Page 34 Appendix B
Next steps: The council will continue to work with Hermes to enhance and improve the retail experience and offer. The council will also be undertaking a study to look at the wider retail needs for the borough to 2026.
5.1.7 Mount Pleasant Avenue A small area of Mount Pleasant Avenue currently has a car park which is secured on a short-term lease. In meeting the council’s plan to attract growth and investment to the borough, and in particular to the urban area of Royal Tunbridge Wells, this site could provide adequate space for other uses in the future, such as office accommodation. Next steps: The council will therefore be undertaking a feasibility study to provide up to 4,000sqm of office and conference facilities on land that they own in the centre of Royal Tunbridge Wells with a view to providing a revenue stream for the future and reduce the running cost of the current office facilities.
5.1.8 Vale Avenue Vale Avenue contains office space providing a range of professional services, particularly financial, legal and medical as well as retail space and parking which is currently occupied by Morrison’s food store. This area has been identified as one of the ‘areas of change’ in Royal Tunbridge Wells town centre. Next steps: Over the next five years, the council will work with local businesses, landowners and developers to bring forward a comprehensive scheme which will include employment, residential and retail uses as well as a hotel and car park.
5.1.9 Pantiles The pretty colonnaded walkway known as the Pantiles is one of the most well known views of Royal Tunbridge Wells. Once the playground of the gentry and royalty, the Pantiles remains an important part of our unique heritage and identity, and a visitor attraction to 4.5 million visitors that come to the borough each year. The area has seen a renewed energy and vibrancy with various events such as the weekly summer jazz evenings, Local and Live and food festivals taking place. The recent addition of the cookery school in the Corn Exchange will also help to further enhance the vitality of the Pantiles. Next steps: The council will encourage the owners of the Lower and Upper Pantiles and local businesses to build on the cultural experience of the area and provide smaller businesses and retail units. The Tourist Information Service is being retained with the future location being sought in the Cultural and Learning Hub.
5.1.10 Eridge Road Adjacent to the Pantiles, Union House (together with adjoining land) has been identified as an ‘area of change’ and provides a significant opportunity to improve the area and the entrance to Royal Tunbridge Wells town centre. Union House currently provides outdated office accommodation and the landowner is keen to develop this site. Next steps: The council will work with Union House and landowners of the remaining parts of this site to enhance this important area and provide a mixed use development at the end of the Pantiles.
Page 35 Appendix B
5.1.11 Kent & Sussex Hospital site Following an extensive pre-application programme of consultation, planning consent has been granted for 248 dwellings on the former town centre hospital site. This achieves a major new enclave for the town and a mixed community with private and affordable housing. It also includes 4,000sqm business premises for a major employer in the town, a 1,100sqm free school and play area.
Next steps: The council will continue to work closely with the developer, Berkeley Homes, in delivering this development, including two new water features for our spa town.
5.2 Key settlements Our borough incorporates both the key settlement of Royal Tunbridge Wells but also a wide range of other towns, villages and settlements that are vital to its future vitality and sustainability. The majority of the borough is overseen by a range of town and parish councils and we are keen to work with them to develop proposals for housing, retail, employment, tourism and community facilities as well as key infrastructure (including broadband and flood mitigation measures) where it is required. Our planning policies make specific reference to Southborough, Paddock Wood, Cranbrook and Hawkhurst and we are working proactively to assist parishes in the development of neighbourhood plans where there is an appetite to do so.
5.2.1 Southborough Community Hub Southborough lies immediately to the north of Royal Tunbridge Wells, with the A26 London Road passing through its centre and has a strong sense of community. Next steps: The council is proactively working with Southborough Town Council and Kent County Council to explore a mixed use development around Royal Victoria Hall, which would include a community facility, residential, retail floorspace and recreation facilities. Initial consultation has been undertaken and all three parties are now working towards developing a concept which is suitable for the Southborough community.
5.2.2 Cranbrook Community Hub Cranbrook is a thriving historic rural centre with a vibrant high street full of many independent retailers. There is an opportunity for mixed use development, which will provide for community facilities as well as residential development. Next steps: The council will work closely with the local community to develop a community hub in Cranbrook.
5.2.3 Paddock Wood Community Hub The town centre of Paddock Wood serves both the town and rural hinterland providing a range of services including retail and community facilities. Paddock Wood train station is a key transport hub in the borough providing frequent services to London and the rest of Kent. Next steps: The council is keen to work with Paddock Wood Town Council to bring forward a local decision for the location of a community hub in Paddock Wood. The council is working closely with Paddock Wood Town Council to look at the various options which could encourage the relocation of the Town Council to operate within the enhanced community facility within Paddock Wood such as the Wesley Centre.
Page 36 Appendix B
6. Supporting growth
In order to deliver growth across a number of key sites in the borough of Tunbridge Wells, it is important that we work closely with our partners to improve the current infrastructure and facilities available. Section 6 of this document outlines our plans for improvements in this area.
6.1 Encouraging business and investment
6.1.1 Attracting business to Tunbridge Wells borough Tunbridge Wells is an outstanding location for business and enterprise. It has a diverse business community of over 6,500 businesses providing a range of services and products. These employ over 51,000 people drawn from a wide catchment area in Kent and Sussex. Key sectors include finance and business services, IT, retail, tourism and hospitality, cultural and creative, education and health. Royal Tunbridge Wells and Paddock Wood have very good rail links to London and other parts of the South East, as do Ashurst and High Brooms; less than an hour by train to Charing Cross and Hastings. Trains to Europe can be accessed from Ebbsfleet or Ashford, which opens up a European market in excess of 450 million customers. Access to the motorway network is also good, with journeys of only half an hour from the M25 and M20 and easy access to the channel ports and Gatwick Airport. The borough has a very high proportion of micro businesses (fewer than 10 employees) in both rural and urban locations and the enterprise start up rate is high. There are also a high number of home based businesses.
Next steps: The council is keen to attract more business to the borough of Tunbridge Wells. A number of our ‘areas of change’ will provide opportunities for growth in modern office accommodation and business space over the next five to ten years. Whilst work will progress in those areas of change, the council will look to hold an investment conference to promote the borough as an ideal location for business.
6.1.2 Providing adequate business space Adequate and suitable business accommodation is essential for our future growth. We are seeking to secure new employment space to support a range of business sectors within the borough.
Next steps: A site on North Farm Lane, Royal Tunbridge Wells has been secured to develop business units for small enterprises which will provide flexible space for our growing sectors. Work is also underway to provide workspace for cultural and creative businesses with the potential to grow and provide new jobs for local people.
6.1.3 Supporting existing businesses The council will seek to retain our existing key employers as well as ensure that the borough is seen as an attractive destination to start and grow new businesses. The council has been assisting current employers to relocate from premises no longer considered suitable and over the next five years we will work to realise the potential for hi-tech science park opportunities for the borough, particularly feeding off associations with the medical sector and Tunbridge Wells Hospital. Our focus will be to encourage new growth in the number of professional services and hi-tech industries established in the borough.
Page 37 Appendix B
The West Kent Partnership has secured funding to provide a business support package with £5.5 million of investment for the A21 corridor. We have recently provided metro Wi-Fi across Royal Tunbridge Wells town centre which will enable local businesses and residents to access enhanced connectivity and there are hopes to expand this in due course. We have also successfully lobbied for improved broadband speeds in our rural areas through recent campaigns with Defra and Kent County Council. Improved connectivity will support a large number of our home based and rural businesses and may even encourage an increase in home based businesses within our rural towns and villages. Next steps: The council recognises that thriving businesses need to have access to modern technologies. In order to support rural and home based businesses in the borough, the council, in partnership with Kent County Council, will work to ensure that super-fast broadband connections are delivered to enable further growth.
6.2 Developing skills and training opportunities
6.2.1 Creating opportunities for skills, technical learning and further education Tunbridge Wells borough is well regarded in the South East for its excellent schooling and high attainment levels. Nonetheless, 20 per cent of employers in Kent have indicated that there is a skills shortage in the county which is higher than the national average; raising concerns about work readiness. To encourage growth in a range of sectors within the borough, we not only have to provide the infrastructure to support new business and enterprise but also provide greater opportunities for training in growth sectors, including technical skills. Next steps: The borough has a number of growth sectors including healthcare. Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells Trust are seeking to develop the range of specialised services available locally. The council is keen to work with the health trust and local schools and colleges to develop educational facilities and training opportunities associated with this; supporting the development of a centre of medical excellence in the South East.
6.2.2 Providing support to our younger generation The council recognises the need to increase opportunities for our younger generation to develop their work ready skills and support growth in our key business sectors. Our challenge however will be to retain young people and their skillset within the borough and this can be achieved through attracting new business to the borough across a range of sectors. By providing a greater range of employment and training opportunities locally, our school leavers may be more attracted to the prospects available in Tunbridge Wells. The council is also aware from feedback that young people do not feel that there are adequate facilities within the borough in terms of leisure and social activities or to support their personal growth and development. Next steps: The council will work with local schools and further education establishments to create facilities for training. The council will also work with Kent County Council to identify a suitable site to develop a youth hub in the borough.
Page 38 Appendix B
6.3 Improving access
Our Draft Transport Strategy sets out our key priorities for meeting the current challenges we have with our road networks and access to public transport as well as how we will accommodate future growth. This includes supporting the maintenance and provision of good rail connections and encouraging sustainable travel choices. We recognise that whilst Kent County Council is the local highways authority and is responsible for the management and maintenance of all adopted roads other than motorways and trunk roads (which are the responsibility of the Highways Agency) we must work together to develop sustainable transport solutions and ensure our infrastructure is up to date. Three key areas that we are seeking to focus on include:
6.3.1 A21 dualling The A21 London to Hastings road is the only trunk road in the borough and is the responsibility of the Highways Agency. The Public Inquiry for dualling the Tonbridge to Pembury section is now complete and with Chief Secretary to the Treasury announcing that £92 million of funding will be available from 2015, we are confident it will be given the go ahead. We remain committed to supporting the dualling of the A21 south to Hastings. Next steps: The council is fully supportive and will look to work with the Highways Agency and Kent County Council to ensure that impact is minimised during construction.
6.3.2 North Farm Industrial and Retail Park North Farm is a key employment area in the borough and has developed from a primarily industrial based estate to a vibrant retail and business area. Growth has brought with it increased pressures on the road network, which is insufficient to meet current or predicted future traffic demands. The council has been instrumental in working with Kent County Council to secure a scheme and resources for infrastructure improvements. £3.5 million has been secured from the Department for Transport, with a commitment from Kent County Council and S106 agreements to ensure that the road network is upgraded. Next steps: The council will continue to work and promote further improvements in North Farm as promoted within the South East Local Enterprise Partnership documents. Work to clear vegetation has commenced and the main works will commence in June 2014 to improve the road network with an expected completion date in 2015.
6.3.3 A26 (Southborough & London Road) Access into Royal Tunbridge Wells town centre has to be improved if the town and borough is going to prosper. To improve the flow of traffic, the A26 through Southborough could be widened and a roundabout installed at the Yew Tree Road junction and the Speldhurst Road junction; therefore disposing of the traffic lights which are a major pinch point. These proposals were considered and consulted upon in the Draft Transport Strategy for Tunbridge Wells and provided in the regional South East Local Enterprise Partnership document. A proposal was also consulted upon to ease congestion in the lower section of the A26 London Road. Initial proposals suggested removing the right turn from London Road into Mount Ephraim but this was not considered viable by consultees due to the additional pressure it could place on traffic at the Church Road junction. Further options will need to be considered to alleviate traffic congestion in the centre of Royal Tunbridge Wells. This could mean encroaching on green space in the future but this is the price the borough may have to pay if we consider the flow of traffic important to support the growth of the town.
Page 39 Appendix B
Next steps: Work with Kent Highways Services to implement proposals put forward in the Transport Strategy to further ease traffic congestion in the centre of Royal Tunbridge Wells and secure funding from the South East Local Enterprise Partnership.
6.4 Provision of housing Housing is a key issue for Tunbridge Wells borough and our adopted Core Strategy (2010) sets out the distribution of growth based on the principles of sustainability. It is clear that the most sustainable location for housing is within, or close to Royal Tunbridge Wells and Southborough, with some limited development in the rural areas of Cranbrook, Hawkhurst and Paddock Wood. The target is to build 6,000 dwellings for the planned period (2006- 2026).
Next steps: The draft Site Allocations DPD sets out the preferred locations to accommodate this growth with some major developments such as the former Kent & Sussex hospital site, which has already gained planning permission. All approved developments include a specific amount of affordable housing. The council will periodically review the need for housing to take account of population changes, changes in the size of households and different patterns of people moving to the borough or leaving for other locations. The council may therefore need to revise this figure as part of a review of the current Core Strategy. As part of the council’s asset disposal programme, the council will also be looking for opportunities to encourage refurbishment of existing accommodation or promote development including residential accommodation on these sites.
6.4.1 Greggs Wood/Sherwood Lake Sherwood has huge potential and is currently undergoing a regeneration scheme which will see over £34 million investment over the next five years resulting in additional 257 new homes. This is against a backdrop of the new Skinners Kent Academy and Temple Grove Academy and the largest town green in the country. The lake and 47 acres of woodland provide a great opportunity to ensure benefits from the wider housing regeneration are sustainable. Next steps: The council will continue to work with Town & Country Housing to ensure Sherwood becomes a resilient and sustainable community into the future.
6.4.2 Knights Park The land behind Knights Park represents a unique opportunity to provide a significant number of new dwellings to meet the housing need of the borough. Outline proposals are to provide approximately 550 new homes in a mixed community and a two form entry primary school, together with a small amount of other uses all within a strong landscaped setting.
Next steps: Planning permission has been granted subject to planning conditions and legal agreements. The council will work through its planning processes with the developer to achieve a development which brings forward housing for the next five years and beyond.
6.4.3 New sites for development New sites for residential development will need to be allocated through the Local Plan process. This will see growth in and around Royal Tunbridge Wells in areas such as
Page 40 Appendix B
Hawkenbury and Knights Park as well as our settlements in the rural areas of the borough such as Cranbrook, Hawkhurst and Paddock Wood. Next steps: We will ensure that any new large-scale housing developments attract a mixed community with appropriate infrastructure provision, including a new school associated with the growth proposed.
7. Our natural environment
7.1 Parks and green spaces
7.1.1 Historic parks and gardens The borough has a great wealth of Scheduled Historic Parks and Gardens and together with the adjoining districts of Sevenoaks and Wealden potentially contains the highest numbers of such heritage assets in the whole country. As visiting gardens is a popular leisure activity, it is important to provide an opportunity for our residents and visitors to access these and the wider borough and countryside. Next steps: We will continue to protect the quality of all our parks and open spaces, with particular focus being placed on Grosvenor and Hilbert and Calverley Grounds in the next five years. We will build on recent survey work and develop partnerships to promote better access and use of these borough assets. We will also, wherever possible work with our partners (including Friends Groups and associations) to enable better connections to be made to our parks and green spaces. The council considers this to be a key part of our evolving Cultural Strategy and Green Infrastructure Plan and has benefits to healthy lifestyles, green tourism and the rural economy.
7.1.2 Grosvenor and Hilbert Park Our parks provide attractive clean open spaces which contribute to the improved health and wellbeing of our residents and visitors and provide opportunities for fauna and flora to flourish. Grosvenor and Hilbert Park is nestled centrally within the residential areas of St James’, High Brooms and Sherwood in Royal Tunbridge Wells and has become increasingly popular with local residents. Consultation with park users in 2011 identified that the park was visited regularly by local residents. Visitors particularly enjoyed the large green open spaces and woodland areas. The historic features and visitor facilities were considered in need of improvement and results highlighted an overwhelming interest in the park accommodating more activities. The council has secured £290,000 from developer contributions and £2.7 million Heritage Lottery funding to further restore and improve the whole park.
Next steps: We will deliver planned improvements which include dredging and restoring the lake, creating a new wetland area and providing new planting in the original style of the park. Facilities within the park area will also be reviewed; improving and adapting the pavilion for community use.
7.1.3 Calverley Grounds The historic park of Calverley Grounds provides a serene space for local residents, workers and visitors to enjoy within the centre of Royal Tunbridge Wells. In addition to the extensive grassy landscape, the grounds include sports facilities, a cafe, ornamental gardens, and a natural area for performance.
Page 41 Appendix B
In 2012, the council began to seek the views of park users to inform the future management of the grounds. The green open space, café and trees and shrubs were the key features most enjoyed by park users. Park users also showed an overwhelming interest in the grounds holding more activities, such as volunteering, learning new skills and community events. A seasonal outdoor ice rink has been created in the grounds for the past three winters, attracting nearly 30,000 people each year. By setting out the future management of the grounds, we can ensure the appropriate infrastructure is available for future events in this space.
Next steps: A management plan was developed and agreed for Calverley Grounds in 2013. The council will be working with the Friends of Calverley Grounds, to implement the management plan to improve the appearance and visitors’ experience within the grounds and identify opportunities for external funding.
7.2 Our 'Climate Local' commitment Over the past five years, the council has supported a number of initiatives to encourage local action on climate change. The 'Climate Local' initiative led by the Local Government Association provides a refreshed opportunity for local authorities to restate its commitment to action on climate change and endorse 'Climate Local Kent'. Tunbridge Wells Borough council has just approved its 'Climate Local' commitment for delivery.
Next steps: The local commitment the council has made to taking action on climate change includes actions to support residents to save money on energy bills, generate income for the council from renewable energy, attracting new jobs and investment in ‘green’ industries, supporting new sources of energy, managing local flood risk and protecting our natural environment. We will be delivering against these actions and place focus on the following themes:
• Energy • Waste • Local economic growth • Transport • Water and the natural environment • Climate resilience
7.3 Fracking
Fracking is the extraction of Shale Gas or oil and can involve fracturing rock formations. Next steps: The planning authority for drilling applications is Kent County Council but Tunbridge Wells Borough Council will be consulted about any proposals in this area. The council will develop a policy position on the controversial operation of fracking in line with countywide policies and government guidance.
Page 42 Appendix B
8. Delivering our five year plan
8.1 Enabling
We will be an enabling council. Put simply this means we will look to work in partnership, to devolve services to local communities and to promote the use of digital technology. The council provides a wide range of quality services that are valued by local residents. It also has a strong record of working in partnership. Our commitment as an enabling authority will be to continue to work with the best placed partner, whether that be the private sector, other local authorities, the community and voluntary sector, or other public agencies, to deliver services. This is not new and we already let others deliver where they are better placed to do so. Good examples include: waste collection and street cleansing where we work with private sector partners. Our leisure centres are run by a charity and we have worked with parish and town councils to allow them to take on the management of local services like car parks. We want to continue our enabling approach as it allows for the cost effective provision of services and for them to be maintained for local people. Over time this will mean the number of services that the council delivers directly will reduce and our role will change from provider to ensuring that the service supplied meets the needs of local residents. This will also offer local communities more of a say in the services provided, how effective they are and whether they offer value for money. Next steps: We will produce a list of services that could be delivered by other organisations. We will then work with community groups, the voluntary sector, local councils, our partners and the private sector to enable the transfer of these services.
8.2 Transforming services The council currently provides a range of 42 services and has continued to do so despite the tough economic conditions. Feedback shows that the majority of our residents are satisfied with the way we run things and think we offer value for money. Because our services are valued, we have managed to maintain our offer to local residents through a combination of innovation and doing things differently, procurement savings, reduced staff numbers, small increases to fees and charges and partnership working. Whilst we will always look to become more efficient, we are now at the point where we must also look to other more radical solutions for the delivery of services and this is a big part of becoming an enabling council. As well as acting as an enabler we will also seek to change the way we deliver services through new ways of working supported by the use of technology. Technology is transforming the way people carry out their day to day activities and although there will continue to be a role for more traditional methods of service delivery, we want to be at the forefront of change to ensure we meet the expectations of our communities. To do this we will work towards the aim of ‘all our business that can be done digitally, will be done digitally’. Our website will become more focused on the user and it will be more responsive to mobile phones and tablets. It will also mean re-designing services so they focus on the user.
Next steps: We will further modernise the website and redesign services to make them more focused on the user, with a target set of 50 per cent of business moving to digital channels by 2016-17.
Page 43 Appendix B
We will create a single customer account for residents, businesses and landlords that they can use to find out key information such as bin collection times and details of local services, as well as pay for council services.
8.3 Partnership working Working in partnership allows the council to achieve more as an organisation than if we tried to do everything on our own. It can also ensure that some services continue to be delivered, increase our resilience and achieve cost savings. Whilst we will still maintain our place shaping role and the resources required to achieve our strategic aims, we also focus on three elements: 1. Enabling other organisations to deliver services (as described above) 2. The Mid Kent Improvement Partnership (MKIP) 3. Other partnership opportunities (geographical opportunities)
8.3.1 MKIP Partnership We deliver a number of services and support functions through the MKIP partnership (a local government partnership that includes Tunbridge Wells Borough Council, Swale Borough Council and Maidstone Borough Council). MKIP was established in 2008 and it has grown rapidly. It now accounts for over 20 per cent of the council’s total spend and has over 200 staff. The services we deliver in partnership include: - Audit, Design and Print, Environmental Health, ICT, Legal, Planning Support and Revenues and Benefits. MKIP has delivered savings of £5.5 million (from an investment on £1.8 million), made our services more resilient, improved our purchasing power and allowed us to maintain services. Next steps: MKIP will ensure that some of the MKIP joint services that currently involve only two of the three partners, will be reviewed and where possible become partnerships of three. MKIP will agree other services that are suitable for the partnership and define those which are not. MKIP will introduce and share new technology to enable a more flexible approach to work (e.g. office based, home based and mobile) and looking at space saving initiatives through the use of corporate electronic document management.
8.3.2 Local Enterprise Partnership Local Enterprise Partnerships were formed in 2011 by central government and were established to help regions agree their economic priorities, to attract investment and drive economic growth. Local authorities can feed into these plans and attract funding through their local partnership arrangements. Tunbridge Wells Borough Council is involved through arrangements provided by Kent County Council and the West Kent Partnership.
Next steps: The council will continue to participate in the West Kent Partnership and lobby the Kent & Medway Board and South East LEP to ensure our economic priorities are considered when investment opportunities arise.
Page 44 Appendix B
8.4 Finance and governance
8.4.1 Finance and governance The financial impact of the Department for Communities & Local Government proposals will result in the council’s formula grant being cut by £2.5 million (41 per cent) from 2010-11 to 2014-15.
The 2013 Spending Round indicated that after 2015-16 there will be annual reductions of 8.5 per cent. This will bring the total cut in government grant to £3.9 million (65 per cent) by 2018-19, at which point the government will not be providing any revenue support grant for the provision of local services in this borough. The £2.1 million remaining (as outlined in the chart below) is the council’s minimum baseline share of received business rates.
This is illustrated in the following graph:
The key milestones for delivering our priorities and the cost estimates of delivering each of our priorities will be detailed in a separate document which will feature as an appendix to the five year plan. This will be made available to our elected members and Management Team in order to regularly review and evaluate progress.
The appendix will be reviewed on an annual basis and will inform our annual programme of community projects, which will be agreed alongside the annual budget setting process. Progress against our annual programme of community projects will be reported through updates presented to Cabinet alongside our end of year performance report. Cabinet and Management Board will then be able to identify where greater focus and resource should be directed during the following financial year. Progress on many of the projects and targets identified in the five year plan will also be reported on in the council’s planning authority monitoring report (AMR). This is updated annually and provides details on a wide range of indicators.
8.4.2 Delivering our priorities This document sets out what we want to achieve over the next five years to secure the future of the borough. This document is the overarching strategy for the council’s plans and strategies (see diagram below). The details of how we will deliver each of the priorities set out within the five year plan, will be provided in our annual plan of community projects agreed by Full Council and individual strategy documents.
Page 45 Appendix B
8.4.3 Staffing One of the c ouncil’s greatest assets is its staff. They have repeatedly de monstrated the ability to respond to change and to improve services. The way in which we deliver services will alter significantly over the next five years and the only way that this will be delivered is through the flexibility, adaptability and expertise of our staff. One of the most significant challenges will be the digitalisation of services and the c ouncil will have to invest to ensure our staff have the necessary training and support to meet this challenge. Next steps: To be an even better employer we will need to invest in our staff to ensure they have the skills, training and development opportunities to improve services. Increased digitisation and more partnership working will provide exciting and fulfilling opportun ities for staff and these will have to be promoted and communicated.
Page 46 Draft Vision 2014: Consultation response report
ID CONSULTATION RESPONSES Name of respondent Consultation responses from the online consultation portal VIS_1 There are two glaringly obvious problems with Tunbridge Wells -1) the appalling traffic congestion in the town generally and specifically St Johns P. Greatrex Road and the industrial estate, and 2) the eyesore of the old cinema site in the in the centre of the town. I find it amazing that neither of these appear anywhere in this document as major targets for the next 5 years. While most of the stated objectives are laudable they will be more difficult if not impossible to achieve if these two major issues are not successfully addressed. VIS_2 plans for growth - Good to general plans for growth in the town and in out lying areas such as Cranbrook and Hawkhurst however no real mention of T. Phillips affordable housing and its contribution. The LA could work in partnership with RP's to deliver skills training in construction with the delivery of new Moat Homes housing projects through S106 or through the RP being an approved partner.
The LA need to push developer and investment partners more not just to deliver financial investment but to deliver a wider range of cultural and social benefits to the area for the long term. VIS_3 I'm sorry? You're going to demolish the current Adult Education Centre? Neal S.
Page 47 I don't think so! VIS_4 We live in Paddock Wood, we rarely go to Tunbridge Wells because the routes in are usually congested and when you get there the parking is very Mr. C Gregory expensive - Maidstone is much better. Much of the Plan is about developing Tunbridge Wells centre, which may be great for people who live there... but irrelevant to us EXCEPT THAT a large chunk of the Council Tax we pay will fund it. There's hardly anything in the Plan for Paddock Wood, except some vague stuff about a community hub at the Wesley Centre??? We really feel like the poor relations of TW, that TWBC is ready to take our Council Tax money and then spend it on TW, rather than anything that benefits Paddock Wood... VIS_5 Can we really trust the council to undertake improvements in a co ordinated way. They have taken the town backwards by allowing retail G. Storer development on Longfield road without improving the infrastructure, the cinema site to sit vacant which has blighted the area. The answer is not to bring more people into the town, build more houses and put more strain on the road/train network without addressing access into and out of the
town. I suggest the parties involved in these plans spend a day sitting in a car in queues or use the trains in rush hour. Appendix C VIS_6 Transport P. Rowlinson
Your vision in this respect is very limited and seems to concentrate solely on car access albeit apart from the A21 dualling and vague references to improvements in North Farm, there are no concrete plans to improve access. All routes into the town are heavily congested for most of the day and in particular in peak time rush hour. You should concentrate on mode change by providing better transport links and improvements to buses as well as keeping cars out of the town centre.
The present park and ride does not work because the buses get caught up in the traffic congestion.
What you need to consider is some form of western or southern bypass to allow traffic from the A26 to the A21 to avoid the town centre. Then you could close the A26 both north and south of the town and restrict to buses only. ID CONSULTATION RESPONSES Name of respondent Also there is very little information in the document about rail transport apart from some comment about good connectivity to the north. Although there are times when 4 trains per hour run the Tonbridge Main Line is not resilient and you as a council should be backing the scheme to create a second Brighton Main Line involving reopening the Tunbridge Wells to Eridge Route rather than actively seeking to build on what should be a protected line of route and destroying hopes of reinstatement. It is perverse that you seem to be in favour and then behind the scenes provoke developments to actively discourage. Your vision must be to protect the route and partner with East Sussex County council in getting this vital rail artery back in use and ban any proposed development on the line of route. Road solutions to congestion are simply not viable. By reducing congestion in that way you will encourage more cars. The present congestion keeps trade away from the town and a more visionary solution is necessary. VIS_7 As a ‘green’-minded resident of the borough, living over 10 miles from RTW, I find this a deeply disappointing document. The author appears to be Mr P. Allen an urban businessman, interested in RTW and economic ‘growth’, and not much else. There is lipservice, but not much more, to the concerns of the rest of the borough, and to the ‘green’ and environmental issues – which include (Para 2.34) the protection of the local environment which 92% of us see as a priority. Astonishingly, there is very little reference to the admirable Green Infrastructure Plan on which TWBC is simultaneously consulting: the impression given is that the author of the ‘Vision’ has not even read it.
The ‘Challenges’ identified (2.4) include nothing about climate change, nor the difficult problem of combining new forms of energy generation with character of the much-loved countryside. The various threats to AONB and Green Belt are hardly mentioned. Instead, the Challenges appear to be led by RTW’s traffic congestion. Page 48
Perhaps most disturbing of all is the gross simplicity of the ‘Mission’ for ‘growth’ (with its costs as well as its benefits) and ‘investment’. To those of us less enthusiastic about RTW’s ‘status’ and ‘confidence’, the growth, investment and further urbanisation are very questionable targets to aim for so simply. The wider borough deserves better.
As for ‘Our Vision’ (Ch.4), there can be no quarrel with ‘A prosperous borough’ and ‘A green borough’ (though the latter is very narrowly conceived), but ‘A confident borough’ is surely just a slogan, with very little content.
The steps towards ’A prosperous borough’ seem sensible, though they say nothing about reducing the inequality identified previously. But the ‘green borough’ steps are much weaker: the three identified enhancements are typically all within urban RTW, and there is absolutely no reference to the wider borough and countryside, the historic villages and small towns. There is no recognition of AONB/Green Belt character loss, landscape and Appendix C habitat loss, or environmental issues such as rural traffic and road deaths, air and light pollution. The impression is that these are unknown to the writer.
Chapters 5 and 6, supporting ‘growth’, include the commendable ‘cultural and learning’ advances, but typically these are presented as a ‘hub’ which will secure RTW’s ‘status’ as a cultural ‘capital’! The RTW museum etc plans seem very good, but the value of education and culture does not lie in the town’s ‘growth’ and ‘status’ for which the writer aspires. Moreover, the nurture and enrichment of cultural life (including schools and museums) is no less important outside RTW than in it.
Most of the remainder of Chs. 5 and 6 is again allocated to RTW matters. The rest of the borough, with little interest in its character or even economy shown, is spared much ‘growth’ – although there is a worrying hint in 6.4 that the borough’s desired ‘growth’ may be accompanied by a desired higher housing target, despite the clearly unsustainable (worst in Hawkhurst) AONB Greenfield losses, unnecessarily called for, in achieving the current 6,000 target. ID CONSULTATION RESPONSES Name of respondent The ‘Green’ Chapter 7 is particularly disappointing. Typically it begins again with RTW: the not unimportant issues of RTW people enjoying good st ‘green’ urban facilities – but these are hardly the main ‘green’ issues of the 21 century. It is extraordinary that neither AONB nor Green Belt is mentioned at all! Para 7.2 on Climate Change makes no adequate acknowledgment of the issue’s huge importance, and it says nothing new or vigorous about tackling the problems. The fracking reference (ominously suggesting automatic support – “in line with government guidance” - for a government which has already signalled support for this highly controversial process) is inappropriate: rather, there should be a pledge to address seriously (as some other District authorities have done) such difficult issues as turbines and wind farms, let alone the controversial fracking. VIS_8 Unfortunately this document is mis-sold as a vision. It is merely a list of activities the council is presently engaged in or intends to complete within the S. Daniels specified timescales. None of them address the critical issues that face the Borough.
Over 20 years - to 2021 - we will have seen an increase in population locally of 21% (section 2 - context). How we manage to continue to provide a green and pleasant environment for all residents, visitors and those who work here continues to elude the council.
Transport First and foremost, without an integrated approach to traffic congestion, the town's would-be economic prosperity will be strangled. The document mentions A21 widening, possibly A26 widening at Southborough and taking some of the Common to widen London Road through town. It has been proven time out of number that merely increasing the road space available to cars merely increases the numbers on the road. Page 49 We need ways of encouraging less car use eg. improved cheaper, frequent and reliable public transport; imaginative park and ride schemes' car clubs; adding to the cycle network and making our pavements and road crossings safer for pedestrians.
For those who do need to drive in, provide better in-town parking (and that means pay on exit as well as phone payment) and adequate town centre provision for residents to park. You cannot increase the density of housing without addressing this issue.
Housing/education Without sufficient provision for affordable housing for local residents, it is inevitable that we lose our young people and thereby our future pool of talent for local businesses. (section 5 plans for growth). Appendix C Belatedly both new developments (at the old Kent & Sussex site and Knight's Park) will have primary school provision for incoming families. However, where is the planning now for sufficient places locally for secondary pupils? As an enabling council, what about investigating opportunities to provide a campus for further and/or higher education in the town centre? That would generate its own boost to the local economy and youth culture.
Destination town The cultural hub is to be welcomed IF it avoids the mediocre in terms of its architecture and content.
Why is the "enabling" council so set on office development on Mt Pleasant Avenue when it could be looking to improve the existing facilities within the Civic Centre? As there are fewer employees through the shared service initiative, this would be a good chance to develop a conference centre within the building.
Plans for growth ID CONSULTATION RESPONSES Name of respondent Online shopping has led to a complete change in the way we buy things. I'd be very cautious about conventional retail expansion at RVP when we still have the prime site of the old cinema awaiting a rebirth (and a supermarket is not the answer). Any enabling the council can do here after 14 years of inertia?
Natural environment The town (and wider borough) is righty proud of its green spaces. Growth in population and traffic puts them under greater strain so greater vigilance is required. As far as the town's parks are concerned, reducing the parks department to minimal numbers and letting maintenance contracts to the lowest bidder does not achieve this. A vision that looks at all the major parks of the town, appraises them for what they, individually, bring to the overall look and feel of the place (e.g. heritage parks at Dunorlan and - in future - Hilbert/Grosvenor; local green spaces – The Grove; sport and community events - Calverley Grounds. In the latter's case this shouldn't be over-developed at the expense of the planting and providing a quieter space amid the town centre.
We inherited a green street scene from our Edwardian predecessors. Why are we not replacing trees and indeed planning for more greenery (rather than hard paving) in the plans for Fiveways etc? VIS_9 Section 6.3 Improving access R. Groves
This arrogant two-faced authority has again demonstrated its total contempt for the town's residents. The Council says it wants to reduce traffic Page 50 congestion (we all want that!) but it is determined to completely ignore a major rail project (Brighton Main Line 2) which will see the missing half of TW's main line rail network fully reopened. You'd think that TWBC would jump at the chance to get the line through Tunbridge Wells West station to both London and Brighton reinstated; instead they are trying to kill the project with housing (proposal AL/RTW11). Why are they doing this? In order to help the case for new roads: "This could mean encroaching on green space in the future but this is the price the borough may have to pay if we consider the flow of traffic important to support the growth of the town." And what naturally follows on from new road building? More urban sprawl which means plenty of lucrative money-making house building opportunities for TWBC in the future.
Mark my words, David Jukes' arrogance knows no bounds and he will stop at nothing to ruin Tunbridge Wells and its environs if there is money for TWBC in it. We are on the point of a major breakthrough with BML2 which is the Uckfield to Lewes line being reopened; this will allow the line through TW West to follow suit - but TWBC is trying hard to ignore it and wants to try and quietly snuff out the line at the eleventh hour by building 14
homes in the coach park behind Sainsbury's. You couldn't make it up could you? BML2 offers colossal benefits to the whole region and given the Appendix C worsening performance of the existing network (to say nothing of the capacity crisis which BML2 solves) it has to be built, whether TWBC likes it or not.
So given the above, why is BML2 not part of the Draft Vision? Come on Mr Jukes, WHY???
VIS_10 5.2.1 There is no mention here of demolishing the Yew Tree Road car park and building housing on green spaces and sports fields which is planned S. Westlake by TWBC but residents do not want and contradicts 2.5 of the Green Infrastructure Plan 'Green infrastructure policies aim to contribute to these objectives by: ‘preserving and enhancing all opportunities for recreation, including green spaces, play spaces, sports fields and allotments to promote healthy living and enhance wellbeing, and to increase opportunities for food and fuel production'.
VIS_11 6.3 More businesses and housing will produce more cars on our already congested roads. We need to urgently build more cycle lanes and improve those we have.
ID CONSULTATION RESPONSES Name of respondent
6.3.3 I doubt whether there is room for roundabouts in Southborough, unless beautiful mature trees are demolished, and how would pedestrians cross the road if there were roundabouts? VIS_12 Cycle lanes need to be expanded and improved - one can hardly see the road markings in some places where there is a cycle lane and vehicles park in it. Cycle lanes on roads should be 8am to 8pm.
6.4 We urgently need more social housing.
7.2. I welcome the Climate Local commitment.
7.2.2 TWBC should oppose fracking. Regardless of the possible detrimental effects of fracking on air, water, roads etc, we already see the effects of climate change so should leave fossil fuels in the ground and concentrate on much more renewable energy.
VIS_13 4.2 By 2019 I would like to see more and better cycle lanes and more cycle racks.
200 households having retrofit measures is a very small target over 5 years. Why only 200? Page 51
VIS_14 Whilst the production of this document and some of the ideas contained therein is to be applauded, it does not seem at all clear what function R. Atwood exactly the document is designed to fulfil. It seems to be a mixture between (a) a very cut down version of the original 2008 vision - full of platitudes and statements of the obvious, and (b) the beginnings of what might be taken as a plan (as opposed to a vision) for the development of the town of RTW. There is relatively little content or detail covering the wider Borough. As far as RTW is concerned, there are some interesting ideas set out, but little that is really new. Of great concern is the time that has already elapsed from the original conception of these ideas to date, with little action actually taking place. Additionally, the ideas submitted, whilst individually interesting, lack cohesion, and it is to be very much regretted that the Council went back on its original decision to produce a formal Town Centre Area Action Plan (TCAAP) document. There have been initiatives in the recent past such as those by the RIBA and the Town Plan Panel to found a basis for a cohesive plan with agreed themes and caveats, but these
have been largely ignored. Only by coordinating and consolidating development ideas into formal planning documents can the Council hope to Appendix C influence the development of those properties that it does not own itself. Specifically, for the town itself and its approaches, there are initiatives under consideration by others - including the "Water in the Wells" working party set up by the Town Forum - which reinforces the widely held view that RTW should be (and is) a "destination" town and that one aspect of this is its heritage as a spa.. Whilst water features are mentioned in the Document, we would like to see much more emphasis being placed on this as a theme which will guide future planning decisions and inform any future town plan. Water should be visible, moving and attractive, and will help to draw in more visitors, wealthy residents and employers who will all contribute hugely to the local economy. A point in respect of the more outlying areas and which appears to be missed altogether in the Document is the potential for further conserving and enhancing the very valuable council owned asset at Hawkenbury. Known to most as the Kent & Sussex Crematorium, in fact the crematorium buildings occupy only a small part of a very much larger area occupied by unique twin chapels, memorials of considerable historic interest and an active cemetery. Much could be done to preserve and improve this valuable asset including careful re planting of suitable trees, flowers and shrubs, landscaping and remodelling generally. This could fit alongside existing plans for remodelling the crematorium and associated buildings. Apart from the items of heritage and historical interest (already being examined by local enthusiasts) there are issues concerning the area's appearance and ecology which could be addressed, and opportunities to turn this whole asset into an area of beauty and tranquillity for both residents and visitors to Tunbridge Wells alike. There is already a nascent Friends Group in existence, happy to assist in this process, and it is felt that the inclusion of Hawkenbury Cemetery in the Vision document would fit in well with the Council's plans for green spaces ID CONSULTATION RESPONSES Name of respondent and the wider ecology, together with its desire to promote and support public art. VIS_15 The cultural heritage on Tunbridge Wells is based on is spa history, its geology and water heritage. Is this to be abandoned for creating a heritage J Fenwick on music and the arts alone? Lots of towns have music and the arts, few have a spa history that defines how people recognise and perceive Tunbridge Wells as a place of culture and respectability. This is our unique selling point! If there is no spa heritage it is not a contradiction to focus on installing water features to enhance the town?
VIS_16 The Town Forum's response to the Draft Transport Strategy highlighted the under estimated current and future population on Tunbridge Wells on which its assumptions were based. The 11.4% increase in population in the Borough expected in the plan period will directly impact on an already inadequate transport infrastructure which is under stress now.
Your recognition of addressing traffic congestion by placing it at the top of the Challenges column 2.4 is welcome. However, there is no recognition of the need to increase public transport use within the town, or to and from satellite villages and country locations for those who commute by car and park for work in Tunbridge Wells or to use the rail link to London. Furthermore, the proposed strategic rail link BML2 is ignored despite that fact that it will provide excellent passenger and business opportunities with links to south coast towns and cities and with Gatwick airport, and alleviate commuter traffic from East Sussex that uses Tunbridge Wells Station. This project would greatly enhance the ‘good transport links' list in the Opportunities column 2.4. VIS_17 Page 52 Encouraging ‘growth and investment' encourages traffic growth in addition to the anticipated growth nationally. There is no calculation of the resulting increase of cars and commercial vehicles as a result of national increases or from planned development locally. This will all impact on the road infrastructure and parking facilities in the Draft Vision period and beyond. (Refer to the Town Forum Draft Transport Strategy response for Department of Transport traffic projections for Kent.) This is a Vision for more traffic, more congestion and poorer air quality.
VIS_18 The A21 dualling and North Farm congestion plans are already agreed and underway, and welcome, but they will not improve the congestion within Tunbridge Wells town centre. Quite the contrary, as traffic will soon speed past the very congested Southborough A26 entry to Pembury A261 for access to the town centre.
There is no provision in your Vision to work with British Rail to improve the width of the rail bridge at High Brooms station which would help local traffic access North Farm. Traffic generated by the new 550 homes at Knight Park to will be forced to enter the town also via the already congested Appendix C Pembury Road.
Congestion into and with the town centre remains largely untouched in your Vision period, it is just getting worse and worse, detracting from the ambitions for growth and investment.
4.2 A Green Borough? Where is there any vision or action for enhancing walking and cycling, and electric vehicles? Removing congestion and diverting heavy through traffic to relief roads is essential for improved air quality particularly on the A26 London Road which is a recognised for its poor air quality.
It is unclear what the statement "This could mean encroaching on green space in the future but this is a price the borough may have to pay if we VIS_19 consider the flow of traffic important to support the growth of the town" actually means.
The air quality and traffic congestion through Southborough, St Johns, and London Road in the centre of town is already appalling and potentially ID CONSULTATION RESPONSES Name of respondent dangerous to health, and the 30 minute drag puts people off coming into the town centre. The limited junction changes proposed will not help much.
The solution is not to make traffic go faster but to remove the traffic that is passing right through from entering the town in the first place. Thus I hope this statement means the building of new relief roads on the west and east sides of the town or enhancing and adapting the use of existing roads for through traffic is proposed and being planned for as this is the only long term solution to town congestion.
Road building projects take longer than the 5 years of this Vision, but there is nothing in this Vision for planning for traffic future, working with East
Sussex in whose territory relief road solutions mostly lie as well as Kent and the Department of Transport to at least have some plan by 2019 for a traffic future that sees less congestion and better air quality for pedestrians, cyclists, residents and businesses.
VIS_20 The Management Plan for Calverley Grounds was described to Friends of Calverley Grounds as an 'interim' plan. It did not include consideration of the sports facilities, the future of the bowling green and pavilion and the improvement of the cafe or have any vision for the park's future. This Management Plan should not be seen as a end in itself but merely a holding plan to keep the grounds maintained.
The park user survey (Calverley Grounds 2012) indicated that the top three reasons for people visiting Calverley Grounds were: For a pleasant walk (56.9%), To visit the cafe (49.4%) and To enjoy natural surroundings (44.0%). The enthusiasm for more activities were for community activities and volunteer gardening, which is in line with the preferred appreciation of the park as a quiet, place to enjoy gentle activity and companionship. Page 53
The popular ice rink is welcome but the park takes months to recover. Other large events such as the Mela and now Local and Live attract too many people, damage the grassland, and have amplified sound which is annoying to local residents. Events of this scale should be limited and the views of the majority of park users (for quiet space and low key activities) and local residents be considered more carefully.
Furthermore, the planned office development in Mount Pleasant Avenue should be in scale and sympathetic to its location overlooking Calverley Grounds. An opportunity should be taken to make a new entrance to Calverley Grounds from the top of Mount Pleasant Avenue when the developer present plans to enhance this neglected area of the park and improve access for users from the town centre. VIS_21 The Foreword makes it clear that this document is the Council's draft vision for the whole of the Borough, not just the town of Royal Tunbridge Wells Lady Akenhead
or the sites the Council itself owns. If it were only the latter, it should say so. CPRE Kent Appendix C
As a vision for the whole Borough, the document fails. Its dismissive attitude to the countryside is evident in the description of the rural areas of the Borough as "hinterland". It is the Borough's exceptional countryside (which in the form of the commons comes right into the centre of Tunbridge Wells and Southborough, a very special feature of both towns), the beautiful green spaces within the towns and villages and the heritage of historical and attractive vernacular buildings that make the Borough such a desirable place to live and do business. Resident surveys show (para 2.34) that residents value protecting the local environment and reducing crime above support to local businesses and the creation of jobs, and above the provision of events, theatres and arts. Yet the Vision's priorities appear to be the other way round.
CPRE Protect Kent recognise that the Borough cannot stand still and that some well planned development is necessary, but preserving the high quality environment must be paramount, or the special qualities of the Borough will too easily be lost.
VIS_22 2.1 Changing Demographics The predictions of accelerating population growth of 11.4% by 2021 should set alarm bells ringing. A "predict and provide" approach to housing will merely result in an accelerating attraction of population from outside the borough rather than a meeting of local ID CONSULTATION RESPONSES Name of respondent housing needs. The only case where a "predict and provide" approach may be justified is in the provision of social housing to meet predicted local need which will not be met by the commercial sector: even if house prices were to fall by 50%, they would still not be affordable by a sector of the local population. The high average house price in the borough could possibly reflect the environment and quality of life that make the borough an exceptionally attractive place to live and do business. If this is the case, building more houses will not cause prices to drop because house buyers will continue to be attracted into the borough until damage to the environment, transport congestion or a lack of services reduce the borough's attractiveness. In any case, once they have planning permission and have made a start, developers appear to restrict the number of properties they release onto the market at any one time, in order to avoid creating a glut and hence having to reduce prices.
The section surmises that a recent increase in average household size " could be a result of the highly priced and limited housing stock available in this area ". No evidence is adduced for this hypothesis. The same recent trend is occurring across the whole South East and we suggest that this may be a secular change reflecting both declining individual incomes of the majority of the population and Government failure to encourage growth away from the crowded South East. Housing costs are only one factor in household expenditure and it would be more pertinent to consider total household costs in any analysis of likely average future household size. Increasing household size may in any case be considered broadly positive rather than negative in terms of the long term sustainability which underpins the philosophy behind the NPPF. In considering how much housing growth to plan for, consideration also needs to be given to how much is actually deliverable, with adequate services to support it and without damaging the environment and quality of life in the Borough.
VIS_23 2.4 Challenges and opportunities Challenges Many of the most important challenges, particularly those affecting the rural parts of the Borough, Page 54 are omitted from the list in the document: Lack of affordable housing; Pressure to build on green field sites; Pressure to build in the Green Belt; Possible drilling for oil and gas; Applications for solar farms on agricultural land; Lack of mobile ‘phone signal in the rural areas; Flooding. In terms of transport challenges, only congestion is mentioned, with no apparent recognition of the extent to which the speed and volume of motor traffic discourage walking and cycling, especially in the rural parts of the borough where there are no footways or cycle lanes.
Opportunities Why is there no mention here of opportunities to improve public transport, cycling and walking facilities, to protect and enhance the
environment or to improve residents' health and wellbeing?
It is stated that " the council still retains a large number of assets that could provide investment opportunities ." Among the most valuable of these assets must be the underdeveloped area constituted by the Crescent Road car park, TWBC staff car park and the land surrounding them. It is rather
Appendix C disappointing that the Vision makes no mention of this area even though it is part of a proposed area of change.
Among its assets, the Council owns substantial tracts of rural woodland, much valued by the local population for recreation as well as for the biodiversity they support. There should be a commitment to preserve and enhance these and they must not be regarded as providing commercial investment opportunities.
The section on challenges identifies instances of deprivation in the rural areas, notably in provision of public transport services, but the opportunities section makes no concrete suggestions for improvement. The present structure of Sec 106 agreements does not provide for the kind of on-going support from developers that would be needed to improve the situation. We would urge TWBC, in conjunction with KCC, to investigate ways in which developers could contribute to the on-going cost of improving access from villages andthe rural areas by public transport or by bicycle.
The Council's draft Mission is too development-centred. With 92% of those surveyed (2.3.4) wanting TWBC to protect the local environment and 72% seeking greater provision of events, theatres and the Arts, it is peculiar that the council does not seek to incorporate these aspirations in its
ID CONSULTATION RESPONSES Name of respondent mission statement. It presently reads more like the terms of reference of a local chamber of commerce than of a Local Authority.
We suggest it should be reformulated as: "Enable change to encourage sustainable growth and investment while conserving and enhancing the environment and the cultural heritage in the attractive and well situated Borough of Tunbridge Wells."
VIS_24 4.1 A prosperous Borough The extent to which the identified key indicators can be met unfortunately does not, in the main, depend on TWBC but
on other agencies such as KCC and private businesses.
One area in which TWBC could have a direct impact but which does not presently appear in the Vision is in the allocation of sites for future educational need in the forthcoming Allocations DPD. Should the projected population growth materialise, the planned provision of additional primary
school sites at Knight's Park and Hawkenbury in Tunbridge Wells will not be sufficient and TWBC should already be working with KCC to agree the
safeguarding of additional sites in the centre of Tunbridge Wells and in Paddock Wood in order to provide primary education in a sustainable way.
Significant expansion of secondary education provision would also be required and it would not be too early to investigate whether this is capable of
being provided by expansion of the existing sites.
We question whether the provision of a Wi-Fi network in Royal Tunbridge Wells is particularly necessary, given that we understand such networks
are of limited usefulness because they are not secure. A far higher priority should be the provision of superfast broadband, and perhaps also mobile
Page 55 phone signals, throughout the borough. We support the council's aspirations for development of a cultural centre in Mt Pleasant and hope that they can be realised. 4.2: A Green Borough It is reassuring to learn that TWBC intends to " preserve and improve the local natural and historic environment " but it is not clear how this correlates with statements such as the one in 6.3.3 that alleviating traffic congestion " could mean encroaching on green space in the future ". The green space in question is not identified but we fear it may involve Tunbridge Wells and Southborough Commons (A26) and/or the green corridor of Pembury Road (A264). In all cases this would be an unacceptable encroachment, which in any case would not have the desired effect of alleviating congestion. (We return to the issue of congestion later). It could also be taken to refer to the use of green belt for the purpose of Park and Ride car parking. This would also be unacceptable unless the parks were provided underground with reinstatement of the surface land to maintain its prior appearance. We urge TWBC to issue immediate clarification to avoid the kind of suspicion developing that so marred relations with the general public under the previous Leader. The idea of enhancing public realm space in the town is welcome as a concept but the artist's impression shown in the document gives cause for concern:
Appendix C • We are unclear as to how Mt Pleasant alongside the Civic Complex can feasibly be transformed into a public square while still being navigated by buses. The artist's impression even shows it being accessible to cars! • Equally it would not seem practicable to divert the buses from this main spine road without greatly reducing their attractiveness to shoppers for accessing Calverley Road and Royal Victoria Place • A diversion would also significantly increase North-South Journey times by bus through the town by taking bus routes out onto a longer stretch of the congested A26 • The artist's impression shows the loss of the rusticated wall which runs the whole length of the Civic Complex. The site of the Civic Complex involves quite marked slopes in different planes and the buildings were most skilfully engineered into those planes in such a way that the slopes do not seem to exist. A large part of the optical illusion was created by using the Decimus Burton wall to divert attention from the falling away of the Town Hall. If this were to be removed, the entire aspect of the Town Hall would be affected in a way which would leave it looking clumsily lop-sided • Part of the charm of Mt Pleasant, (which is a characteristic feature of RTW in so many other places), is the presence of grass and trees in the urban landscape between the Decimus Burton wall and Civic Way. The public realm space would be much the poorer for their loss.
ID CONSULTATION RESPONSES Name of respondent We suggest that a public realm space of greater attractiveness and usefulness could easily be created by redeveloping the TWBC private car park which adjoins the police station and the remains of Calverley Terrace. Improvement could nonetheless also be made to Mt Pleasant by introducing shared space limited to buses, with some part of its width fully pedestrianised together with pedestrianisation and enhancement of Civic Way. Sensitively planned additional steps and seating around the war memorial could also probably be created without detracting from the setting of the Town Hall. Improvements in Grosvenor and Hilbert Park seem uncontroversial and welcome, but we should not like to see Calverley Grounds disfigured by any permanent infrastructure that would detract from its present open parkland aspect. It is laudable that TWBC commits itself to working to reduce carbon emissions by 2019 but rather difficult to see how this will be achieved in the Borough at the same time as building thousands more dwellings and increasing the number of outside visitors attracted to the town for work, retail, leisure and tourism, unless draconian measures are taken, for which TWBC probably lacks both the powers and the inclination. Carbon emissions are almost certain to rise substantially if the growth envisaged in the Vision period materialises.
Proposals to improve public transport, cycling and pedestrian facilities should be at the heart of this section of the Council's Vision. We broadly support implementation of the TWBC draft Green Infrastructure Plan albeit with reservations about the usefulness of proposals for extension of the Forest Ridge Project which we consider to be rather too nebulous. We have made a separate detailed submission
4.3 A Confident Borough We are rather concerned about this section which primarily advocates the transfer of discretionary tasks and services from the Local Authority to a myriad of bodies, some unidentified or not yet in existence. While it may be worthwhile to discuss the extent to which
Page 56 some transfers may be feasible and desirable, we hope that no financial assumptions have been made in relation to future TWBC budgets on the basis of the "devolvement" (sic) advocated in this section. Transfers should be contemplated on a "bottom up" basis of local request, rather than on a "top down" quasi-compulsory basis emanating from TWBC. We trust that actual improvement in the provision of services will be the determining factor rather than merely accountant-imposed cost cutting within TWBC, and that measures will be in place to minimise the risk of any public funds which are devolved to local community groups being corruptly diverted.
We would like to see some mention of projects to address both rural and urban crime and anti-social behaviour (including littering and fly-tipping) and the lack of safety for non-motorised road users under this section on the Green Infrastructure Plan.
VIS_25 5. Plans for Growth 5.1.1 Cultural and Learning Hub As previously mentioned, we support the concept of the Cultural Centre with the previously mentioned caveat that the Decimus Burton wall alongside the Town Hall will need to be retained to maintain the carefully planned integration of the
Appendix C Town Hall structure into the complicated local topography.
5.1.2 Public Realm Improvements We support the use of a locally distinctive palette of materials principally based on brick pavers similar to those used elsewhere in the town. We support a phased approach to introduction of the shared space concept with adequate time being given to evaluate all aspects of the experiment under way at the Fiveways before proceeding further. Pedestrianisation in Calverley Road has been a notable success in spite of some opposition before its implementation. Pedestrianisation generally brings significant overall commercial benefit to traders who are within a pedestrianised area. The situation will be more complex with regard to Fiveways and Mt Pleasant because of the need to maintain bus access, but the avenue is wide enough to warrant investigating whether a safe shared space can be introduced, with time restrictions on deliveries. Opportunities for a fully pedestrianised Monson Road could also be explored. As previously mentioned, we are dubious as to whether Mt Pleasant is a feasible place in which to create a Town Square, albeit that it merits sensitive enhancement. 5.1.3 Civic Complex Given overwhelming public unrest in the recent past concerning this site, we welcome the statement that a clear framework for its future redevelopment will be developed. The use of the word "redevelopment" will, however, not be found reassuring in the light of previous controversy and a simple and prompt exposition of broad intentions for the site should be made as soon as possible to avoid any re-run of the period 2008-11 strife in the Borough. 5.1.4 Assembly Hall Theatre We welcome proposals to enhance the Assembly Hall. Old photographs show that the building originally had full length windows on its ID CONSULTATION RESPONSES Name of respondent eastern side. Replacing these might assist in achieving a sustainably modified scheme of ventilation and lighting for the hall. 5.1.5 Cinema Site Although the latest set-backs are frustrating, a supermarket would have been far from the optimum use for the site and we do not regret its loss. We hope that the intrinsic difficulties with the site will lead to a significant fall in its market value over time, making it possible to finance a lower volume development compatible with the surrounding area and with the structural imperatives of the underlying railway tunnel. 5.1.7 Mt Pleasant Avenue It comes across fairly transparently that the intention would be to move council officers into a new office building at this location. Insofar as public access to such a building for consultations with officers would be maintained and insofar as the principal public spaces (council chamber and committee rooms) in the Town Hall would retain their current location and functions, and insofar as clearly quantified financial benefit to the Borough could be demonstrated from such a scheme, we would not be opposed to it. However, there are many who believe the Town Hall offices can be satisfactorily modernised and that present TWBC functions will be better all kept under one roof in this most central of locations. 5.1.8 Vale Avenue Redevelopment of the government offices and surroundings could offer an opportunity for enhancing this area which adjoins TW Common. However we would question whether any further geographical extension of the already substantially over-extended retail zone in the town centre would be justified unless it were to be compensated by reductions in zoning for retail elsewhere. There may be a case for such re-zoning elsewhere as part of a drive to convert retail buildings on the extremities of the town centre into residential units. 5.1.9-5.1.10 Pantiles/Eridge Road We continue to have misgivings about the wisdom of moving the Tourist Information Centre away from the Pantiles, which, as this section notes, is a visitor attraction to 4.5 million visitors a year. However, agencies both at the Pantiles and within the Cultural Centre might perhaps prove viable in the long term. It is unlikely that plans coming forward for the site at Union House could be less in keeping with their surroundings than the present building, whose demolition and redevelopment we would strongly support. 5.2 Key Rural Settlements It is disappointingly indicative of the degree of interest taken in our largely rural Borough by the Executive that a total of only 41 words are specifically devoted to rural settlements and that the substantive Page 57 paragraphs which follow deal only with the towns of Southborough, Cranbrook and Paddock Wood. There is known to be substantial opposition in Southborough to the potential loss of green spaces that might be involved in some of the options for a Southborough Hub.
6. Supporting Growth 6.1 Encouraging Business and Investment
We broadly support the propositions made in this section, notably the encouragement of micro-businesses in the rural areas, including improved broadband access. However, we question why the Council has seen fit to provide Wi-Fi across RTW town centre (of questionable usefulness) while it merely proposes to lobby for improved broadband speeds in the rural areas (a vital service).
While rail transport links have improved to the north, encouragement might be given by TWBC to the improving of links from Tunbridge Wells’s Appendix C substantial East Sussex hinterland through the re-opening of a railway route from Lewes and Brighton via Uckfield, with the possibility at the same time of reinstating an alternative railway route to London via Oxted. In this connection the site at Tunbridge Wells West could be developed as a substantial public transport interchange in the long term.
6.2 Developing skills and training opportunities We broadly support the propositions made in this section.
6.3 Improving Access 6.3.1-6.3.2 A21 Dualling/ North Farm Believing that dualling of the A21 section from Tonbridge to Pembury constituted an unusual case where road improvements should substantially ease congestion, and against considerable opposition at national level, the Tunbridge Wells branch of CPRE lent its support to the present scheme, subject to certain conditions. We hope that it will be approved and undertaken as soon as possible. For similar reasons we have not opposed the loss of tree cover involved in the improvements being undertaken at North Farm. We think these exceptional circumstances are unlikely to arise again in the Borough in the foreseeable future.
6.3.3 A26 Southborough and London Road We have serious misgivings about this section and hope that satisfactory clarification will be forthcoming without delay. According to historic traffic surveys, only some 14% of road traffic in Tunbridge Wells consisted of through journeys. The ID CONSULTATION RESPONSES Name of respondent problem of traffic congestion within Tunbridge Wells is only to a limited extent caused by inadequate main road infrastructure. It is caused to a greater extent by the slowness at which incoming peak time traffic can be absorbed into parking facilities on and off the road and by all the little turning conflicts at hundreds of points on the town’s road network caused by vehicles trying to insert themselves into those facilities across the traffic flows. Quite simply there are at peak times far too many vehicles trying to use the entire road infrastructure and even doubling the main road approaches in the town would probably only marginally improve the situation. In historic traffic surveys, almost half the car journeys in Tunbridge Wells were of less than 2 miles. This suggests that the most effective way of easing congestion in the town lies not in road building but in persuading the majority of these resident motorists to walk, cycle or take the bus. To date only token efforts have ever been made in this direction though recent initiatives led by Councillor Derrick are to be welcomed. A subsidised residents’ bus pass scheme would warrant serious investigation, financed from car parking charges and fines, together with a serious attempt to implement safe routes to schools policies. Working with local employers to institute more car sharing pools and other initiatives should also be actively pursued.
The town of Tunbridge Wells has a strong long term advantage in sustainability terms of being already densely populated with an increasing densification of population. The corollary to this is that there is relatively little space available per vehicle and this is not a factor that can be wished away. It unfortunately implies helping people to make lifestyle changes (which should incidentally improve their health) rather than believing that conventional solutions will work.
Turning to the specific proposals raised, it is not made clear whether the proposed widening of the A26 through Southborough would be limited to the creation of roundabouts at the Yew Tree Road and Speldhurst Road junctions, which we would not oppose in principle, or whether additional
Page 58 widening would be contemplated. Any proposed encroachment onto Southborough Common would be vigorously opposed.
The situation concerning London Road in Tunbridge Wells is even more unclear and we are alarmed by the casual statement that proposed solutions to congestion “ could mean encroaching on green space in the future but this is the price the Borough may have to pay if we consider the flow of traffic important to support the growth of the town .” We cannot conceive of any plan which might encroach in this way which would materially improve the situation and any such plan would therefore be wholly unacceptable. Without improving the situation, it would significantly damage the unique character of the town centre, whether along the A26 or A264 Pembury Road. In particular, any plan to revive the 1998 scheme for the Church Road junction would be vigorously opposed.
We would point out that the appropriation of common land for this purpose would probably require a public inquiry and (depending on the amount of land taken) suitable “replacement land” to be provided. We cannot see that suitable replacement land exists. Appendix C We would make the practical suggestion that the bottleneck at the A26 junction with Mt Ephraim would be substantially mitigated if a much longer turning lane could be provided. All this would require would be the ending of a few short term parking spaces on the north side of the A26. These could easily have been compensated within the hospital development but the opportunity was not taken. We would advocate that any redevelopment of the Stormont site should address this issue.
6.4 Providing Housing We have already responded to this issue in detailed comments on the draft Allocations DPD. We did not oppose the housing numbers therein allocated as we felt that, if we had advocated lowering them in line with the housing need our own researches suggested, this might result in their being called in. We do now, however, take issue with the statement that “ taking account of the current challenges and opportunities for the Borough going forward, the Council may need to revise this figure ” for the reasons set out below:
• We believe that the recent increase in household size reflects a secular trend rather than merely reflecting current property prices and that this should have an impact on calculation of future housing need • There were over 1300 empty homes in the Borough in 2012. While TWBC has since then taken some welcome steps to bring homes back into occupation and to convert empty space above retail units into homes, much more can be done. We would oppose any increase in the ID CONSULTATION RESPONSES Name of respondent present housing numbers allocations until at least 80% of empty homes have been re-occupied across the Borough and 200 potential conversions have been implemented within Tunbridge Wells and Southborough. 6.4.1-6.4.2 Sherwood/Knight’s Park We reiterate our plea that both developments be phased in such a way as to minimise traffic disruption in the area. We support the creation of a new primary school as part of the Knight’s Park development. We would strongly encourage the negotiation of rights of way with neighbouring owners to allow a pedestrian and cycling route between Sherwood/Knight’s Park and the Skinner’s Academy to be created thus linking two communities in a sustainable way and avoiding a substantial number of new car journeys at peak times.
6.4.3 New Sites for Development We reiterate our belief that sufficient brownfield sites exist within the Borough to allow housing numbers based on need to be built without any encroachment on green belt land during the period to 2026 and without any redesignation of any greenbelt into rural fringe being required. The robustness of our case is strengthened by the number of empty houses in the Borough requiring re-occupation and the as yet largely unexploited opportunities to convert upper stories of retail units into residential accommodation. We do not believe TWBC should hold any brief for commercial developers to increase allocations to meet commercial demand for housing from persons outside the borough. We equally believe a case exists for greater provision of social housing in the borough to meet existing housing need. While we understand that a new primary school is likely to be built as part of any major development at Hawkenbury, we believe that educational provision should not be neglected in relation to the considerable brownfield infill/conversions which are possible in Tunbridge Wells town centre. In order to foster sustainability, the allocation of a site for at least one further primary school would seem justified in the central area of Tunbridge Wells, after consultation with KCC.
7. Our Natural Environment While we broadly welcome the proposals, our natural environment is not limited to historic gardens and public parks.
Page 59 Thousands of inhabitants of the Borough habitually make use of public rights of way and public access to the countryside in healthy outdoor pursuits, including in Council-owned woodland. The needs of those persons should not be overlooked, neither should continuing to protect the Borough’s green belt and AONB, something which 92% of those consulted expect of their Council.
7.1.1-7.1.3 Historic Gardens/Hilbert/ Calverley We broadly support the proposals, while reiterating that we should not like to see Calverley Grounds disfigured by any permanent infrastructure that would detract from its present open parkland aspect.
7.2 Our Climate Local Commitment We broadly welcome moves to reduce the impact of the Borough’s inhabitants on the climate. We hope that this policy will be formulated in a “joined up” way. It does not, however, seem likely that plans for growth mentioned elsewhere in the document, including associated increases in road traffic, will be compatible with the “Climate Local” commitment.
7.3 Fracking Even the rural parts of the Borough are relatively densely populated, and protection of residents’ water supplies (which have been Appendix C subject to hosepipe bans even before the thousands of new houses which are being built) is also extremely important. We would advocate extreme caution as the starting point in any policy review undertaken by TWBC in this area.
8. Delivering our Vision 8.1 Enabling As previously stated in relation to 4.3, we consider it inappropriate to make a categorical statement that “ over time the number of services the Council delivers directly will reduce ” in advance of proper consultation and assurances concerning sources of finance, democratic accountability and protection against possible waste and corruption.
8.2 Transforming Services We would register a strong caveat concerning this section as there are large sections of the population, notably the elderly and the most disadvantaged, together with those in rural areas with poor broadband service, who could be effectively cut off from communication with TWBC if non-electronic communication ceases to be available to them.
8.3 Partnership Working We have a very high regard for the professionalism and local knowledge of the TWBC planning officers. Effective formulation and enforcement of planning policy requires the continuous transmission of local knowledge and experience within a stable workforce. ID CONSULTATION RESPONSES Name of respondent We should be extremely concerned if these characteristics were to be put at risk in any future partnerships.
8.4 Finance and Performance Management It seems that funding from Central Government will virtually cease during the review period. In an extremely prosperous Borough such as ours, this could be seen as an opportunity to plough our own furrow unhindered by diktat from Central Government. We do not have to assume that reductions in services are inevitable, as it is within the power of the local electorate to decide otherwise, if properly consulted on a range of options and their financial consequences.
VIS_26 The Friends of Tunbridge Wells and Rusthall Commons welcome the opportunity of commenting on this important and refreshing document. Our Chairman of the comments are restricted to those that have a relevance to our organisation, whether directly or indirectly. Friends of Tunbridge Wells We are very pleased to note the aspirations to be a Green Borough (4.2). In keeping with the improved tourism offering and to enhance the quality of and Rusthall life for the rapidly increasing population, these unique green lungs (the Commons) need to be kept free from encroachment. We therefore have to Commons oppose any proposed alleviation of traffic congestion ( as opposed to, for example, safety considerations) that “ could mean encroaching on green space in the future ” (6.3.3) We would do this because as a charity operating under the auspices of the Commons Conservators we act in line with their policies and they, following their statutory obligations, have clear policies on encroachment and resisting it. However, as already indicated in looking at this aspect from a TWBC joined-up policy perspective, our objections would go beyond this statutory duty alone**. We believe that the Council cannot continually seek to accommodate more cars to cater for this increasing population. We believe the debate needs to be reframed as
Page 60 follows:
If we bear in mind that the proportion of journeys as through traffic is significantly lower than journeys of 2 miles or less then the question becomes “how can we make it easier to take a bus, walk or cycle rather than get into the car for short journeys?”
Approaching the matter in this way we believe would be much more beneficial to the community’s physical health and welfare. It also would then be in line with helping to implement the “Climate Local” aspirations and specifically to reduce carbon emissions by 2019 (4.2). Otherwise, as described, the approach is going to increase these injurious emissions. TWBC would then move towards options such as frequent local buses and Park and Ride . This approach is also is in line with the results of your broader surveys 2.3.4: 92% of those surveyed want TWBC to protect the local environment. Appendix C **A similar situation arose in 1998. This was in relation to the area of the Commons which was proposed to be taken to expand the road width around the Church Road/London Road intersection to achieve a projected 15 second improvement in journey times! The proposal was abandoned. VIS_27 Growth P. Perry The main objective is to increase business and visitors to the town. Unfortunately, Tunbridge Wells has developed a reputation of a place where people would love to come to but are deterred because they are unwilling to contend with the chronic traffic congestion. The explosion in population simply exacerbates the problem. It therefore seems counter-productive to spend money on enhancing the town until the traffic problem is solved.
Public Realm There is an aspiration to enhance the public realm in the town. But how can this possibly achieved while 3 A roads meet in the centre and a strategic freight route, complete with 44 ton, 12 wheeled monsters, crosses the main axis of the town outside the town hall. The single thing that would make the town more attractive would be to remove all the through traffic from the centre Congestion Although congestion is recognized as a major challenge, the solutions proposed will do little for the town: ID CONSULTATION RESPONSES Name of respondent Dualling A21. Granted, this will remove congestion from that section of single carriageway and it will provide welcome relief to North Farm by allowing traffic to exit from the estate. However, the downside is that it just moves the congestion a bit further down the road to the next single carriageway and, a major disadvantage for the town is that traffic will be delivered at an even greater rate onto the Pembury Road, hence making the town congestion issues worse.
North Farm. The proposed improvements should ease congestion on the estate. Again, there is a downside for the town in that shoppers will prefer to go to North Farm rather than coming into town.
A26 . Tinkering with the A26 through Southborough will do little to improve traffic flow. ·
Green Space. Finally, the only viable solution of relief roads encroaching on green space is buried away at the bottom of para 6.3.3.
Conclusion The priority for making the town more attractive should be to remove all the through traffic from the centre and to provide relief roads for A264 Pembury Road and the A26 through Southborough. VIS_28 Comment on Section 7.1 and Section 7.1.3 From The Friends of Calverley Grounds Chairman of the Friends of
Page 61 1. The Friends feel that the draft ‘Vision 2014' would be improved by the inclusion of a vision statement specifically for the Parks and green Calverley spaces of Tunbridge Wells. This would recognise the important part they have to play in delivering the overall aim documented in ‘Vision Grounds 2014'. 2. A vision together with its associated strategic approach would be more than a list of next steps and of short and medium term actions in the parks. These steps and actions already comprise a necessary, but not sufficient, part of the Management Plans the individual parks, for example the 3 year Management Plan for Calverley Grounds referred to in ‘Vision 2014'. 3. The Friends would like to see the adoption of a structured ‘vision and strategy' which would sit above the Management Plans. This hierarchical approach would ensure that the actions and aspirations noted in current (and future) Plans are consistent with a long term vision. The ‘long term' in this context, particularly given the current financial constraints, is likely to be longer than covered by the draft ‘Vision 2014'. 4. The Friends look forward to participating in the process of developing a strategic approach to Calverley Grounds and to working with the Council and other stakeholders to deliver the actions and next steps contained in the Management Plan for the Grounds. To date we have Appendix C been disappointed by our exclusion from this process. 5. The Friends have produced a draft ‘Vision and Strategy' for Calverley Grounds (below) which, if adopted, would help to make Calverley Grounds ‘a park to be proud of', and integral to the ‘Vision 2014' objective of maintaining Tunbridge Wells as a prosperous, confident and green borough.
FRIENDS OF CALVERLEY GROUNDS VISION/DRAFT (OCT 2013) Calverley Grounds will become Tunbridge Wells' town centre showpiece park, serving local residents, visitors and tourists with its landscape and ecological resources and leisure and recreational facilities. STRATEGIC SEGMENTS/DRAFT Landscape and ecology 1 Maintain, support and develop the existing landscape value created through its collection of trees, shrubs, flowers and grassland 2 Maintain and support existing wildlife resources, and develop environments to encourage ecological diversity in flora and fauna 3 Develop community participation in maintaining, supporting and developing the environment and create educational value for all ages 4 Maximise the topographical value by respecting natural vistas, creating visual points of interest and reflecting the town's spa water heritage Leisure and Recreation 1 Maximise and maintain existing formal sport facilities 2 Facilitate informal fitness and exercise opportunities 3 Develop formal and informal opportunities for play for younger children/families 4 Safeguard spaces for quiet contemplation accessible by all ages and abilities 5 ID CONSULTATION RESPONSES Name of respondent Facilitate temporary and changing demands on the use of the park whilst respecting existing structures, facilities and open space. VIS_29 It doesn't seem much has changed over the last 10 years. More promotion needs to be done promoting access to services for the rural area i.e. Benenden Parish public transport (community buses), enhanced broadband and in particular, the development of the long awaited community centre in Cranbrook Clerk VIS_30 2.2.2 Industry - We support the growth not only in Tunbridge Wells but also in the rural areas. Cranbrook & Sissinghurst 2.3.2 Vision for Kent - " to grow the economy Borough wide both in the urban and rural area. Parish Council
4 Our Vision - after "Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty." - add - %0% of the Borough is made up of small towns and villages with their own unique character.
4.2 A green borough - after "and adapt to our changing climate" add - whilst encouraging growth.
5.2 Key rural settlements - The paragraph should be expanded to take account of how investment can bring opportunities to the rural areas not just mention the three hubs.
Page 62 6.1.1. Attracting business to Tunbridge Wells borough - first line - after "Tunbridge Wells - add Borough
8.3.1 Change MKIP to Mid Kent Services VIS_31 42 Leisure fully endorses the Council's vision for Tunbridge Wells and wishes to work with the Council and other key stakeholders in making this a J. Chambers reality. The focus must however be on delivery- a vision on its own is not enough. The document should emphasise the need for a holistic vision and 42 Leisure PLC a comprehensive approach to development and change- ensuring that short term gains do not undermine longer term opportunities. We believe strongly in the potential of Tunbridge Wells to be a stronger and more prosperous town and the opportunity to build on and strengthen its cultural heritage and assets to become a destination of choice. We would therefore suggest that the foreword should place more emphasis on partnership working, the need for a comprehensive approach and a focus on delivery.
We would add to the list of challenges, the declining town centre offer and the poor environmental quality of much of the town centre, particularly in Appendix C VIS_32 the south around the Pantiles and Union House. There is the Opportunity to make the town centre more attractive and a destination of choice- not just through improvement to cultural and learning facilities but also an extended retail and food and drink offer, leisure and tourism and the introduction of more housing in the town centre.
There is the opportunity to reduce the reliance on the car by improved walking and cycling facilities and enhanced public transport facilities within the
town- not just improved transport links with London and Europe.
We support the Vision but feel it could be expanded to include: VIS_33 • an attractive borough • a destination of choice
ID CONSULTATION RESPONSES Name of respondent A prosperous borough- we support the implementation of a coordinated destination management plan but believe that the action plan should include the extension of the town centre offer to create a more vibrant mixed use destination. This could include the revitalisation of the area around the Pantiles to create a counterbalance to the civic and cultural hub in the north of the town and the development of new leisure facilities including an expansion of the food and drink and entertainment offer in the town.
A green borough- An enhanced public realm is key to the revitalisation of the town centre. We would suggest however the objective should be to create a network of new public spaces and to ensure that all new development contributes to this.
Harnessing development opportunities will be critical to delivering the vision. It will be important to ensure that the Council works with developer partners to bring forward development opportunities in a planned and comprehensive way and to avoid piecemeal development. This will mean
VIS_34 ensuring that short term benefits are not allowed to undermine longer term opportunities. The vision must be reflected inthe Council's Development
Plan and embedded in development proposals.
We believe the future of the Pantiles is closely linked to the Eridge Road Area of Change (paras 5.1.9-5.1.10). The enhancement of the town's leisure offer and visitor appeal can be built upon the foundation of a rejuvenated and revitalised Pantiles area, providing a counterbalance to the commercial offer in the northern end of the town centre. 42 Leisure believes that a comprehensive mixed use redevelopment of the Eridge Road
Area of Change immediately adjacent to the historic Pantiles will act as the catalyst for this and deliver positive improvements to the public realm.
Page 63 The adoption of a comprehensive approach is critical to realising the full potential of the southern gateway to the town centre and to the
enhancement of the unique character of Tunbridge Wells. Development within the Eridge Road Area of Change will help to ensure the future
prosperity and vitality of the town. This is a once in a lifetime opportunity to create an outstanding development which Tunbridge Wells can be justly proud of- a 21st Century Pantiles well integrated with the wider town centre with a rich mix of uses, high quality design and attractive streets and
public spaces. This vision and the wider benefits for the town centre would not be achieved through a piecemeal approach to development.
We believe this section should highlight the importance of extending the offer in Tunbridge Wells Town Centre to include improved leisure, entertainment, visitor and cultural facilities. This will serve to attract new businesses and investment and create new employment opportunities. VIS_35 Housing development will be key to meeting growth requirements. Section 6.4 should give greater emphasis to the opportunity for housing development within Tunbridge Wells town centre to make the town centre more vibrant and promote more sustainable lifestyles.
Appendix C
Section 8.1 should make reference to the importance of ensuring the vision underpins other strategies and plans such as the Council's Sites Allocation Document and the destination Management Plan. The coordination of initiatives is essential to the delivery of the objectives set out in the vision document. This section should also refer to the Council's enabling role in working with key stakeholders in bringing forward growth plans and key development sites.
VIS_36 We believe that partnership working (Section 8.3) should also highlight the importance of the Council working in partnership the private sector in bringing forward plans for growth and public realm and service improvements. VIS_37 The comments below cover the whole document and are set out in letter form. I have done this after having attempted to fill in all the individual M. Holman sections before submitting and losing all my entries to the individual sections.
As I mentioned on the phone, having spent a whole day entering my responses to the different sections of the Vision document using the portal and then finding that nothing I had entered had been saved as I moved from one section to the next, I almost gave up in frustration. (The same thing had ID CONSULTATION RESPONSES Name of respondent happened to me when filling in the SADPD response.) However, after a couple of hours reflection, I decided I'd try to recover from my tired head something of what I had said and send you a long e-mail. Please forgive the rather scrappy nature of this second attempt. The first was more considered and rather better phrased.
I welcome this document as a succinct statement of the Council's aspirations for achievement over the next five years. Although 'Vision 2014-2019' will clearly have to slot in to other longer term plans extending both backwards and forwards in time, the five-year time frame is of a length that people will be able to relate to. The draft is in the main clearly written with logical subdivisions using a language relatively free of jargon. The overall layout is logical, the individual headings and sub-sections are clearly set-out, and it is of a manageable length. There is plenty of space between the individual paragraphs, so it is easy on the eye. The pictures are welcome, but could have been better chosen. I particularly applaud the way in which next steps are set out at the end of each subsection. Good too is the vertical page division in Section 4 with targets on the left hand side and measures of success on the right.
There are, however, improvements that could be made, both to content - primarily to rectify important omissions - and to style and structure. There are also questions that need to be asked - and answered - before the draft is progressed to final form for presentation.
The main question concerns the status of the document - how will it fit in to the overall planning processes and obligations? Who will check that undertakings to do things within a set period are actually adhered to? Who can guarantee that this Vision too won't be parked somewhere in the planning process and quietly forgotten? Page 64 Structure My main concern here is with 4: Our Vision. Although the headings naturally reflect previous statements of intent, they lack an inner logic. While the first two objectives, for a prosperous borough and for a green borough can be seen as similar, the third objective, that of achieving a confident borough, is something very different. Conceptually confidence does not belong with the other two. Confidence is a state of mind, an attitude of the spirit, something that has to be built up over time by recognised achievements of stated aims. The build up of confidence depends on successful outcomes in the first two sections and should proceed from them. Confidence takes time to build, and once lost is difficult to regain.
I suspect that some difficulty was experienced by the compilers of the Vision when they came to decide what to include in this ' Confident borough' section. The aims and the measures of success in this section have nothing in particular that is any more related to the building of confidence than
are the aims and measures of achievement under the other two subsections. Some rethinking and rephrasing is necessary here. The content Appendix C essentially has to do with the need to adjust from a provider to an enabler. This is a change forced upon the Council by the huge and continuing reduction in grants from Central Government and is a de facto reduction in its power. Enablement is seen as a possible way to retain the level of services with reduced funds and a transfer of responsibility.
Foreword This should be inspiring, uplifting, aiming to bring readers in as partners and contributors to change. Sadly it is none of these. The very first sentence, which uses the static verb 'remains', is a turn-off, indicating stasis, status quo, more of the same. In a document such as this one should avoid any reference to 'remaining', even if the qualities one wishes to remain are all positive. Do try and avoid other instances of 'remains' being used. Why not say ' will become an even more prosperous, green and confident borough' or something similar?
Para 2: what are these 'academic institutions' referred to? Tunbridge Wells has no university, no higher education colleges. This is a great pity. Another lost opportunity. It has good schools, but these are educational, not academic institutions.
- The 'rich cultural heritage' has so much more to offer than music and the arts. What about the importance of the spa tradition, water, health, wealth ID CONSULTATION RESPONSES Name of respondent and leisure? The spa-town heritage has to be mentioned very early on in the document. It is this heritage that sets Tunbridge Wells apart from other similar sized towns in the South East. It is the only spa-town in Kent. Maidstone and Tonbridge may be older and may have a river, but they never attracted the rich and famous to flock in for fun and the improvement of their health. Para 5: what about the less high performing schools? The high performers can take care of themselves. Some rephrasing necessary. And if you mention the new hospital, which will not be cutting edge for long, you must surely see it in the context of the health tradition and the important role the new hospital can play in stimulating spin-off health related businesses. Just think how many businesses use 'Spa' in their names! Without water and health, there is little justification for doing so.
Chapter 4 4.1 A prosperous borough Measures of success are important, but important too is what you are proposing to measure the success against and when. There needs to be a before and after. Some quantification will need to be introduced.
The big one here is securing funding and planning permission for the Educational and Cultural Hub. Why is it hidden? Sandwiched between an investment conference (just one?) and superfast broadband connections? It should have a much higher profile. Our citizens must be given a chance to enthuse at the prospect of such a major development in the centre of town, become involved with supporting its planning and development processes. They need to be enabled and drawn in to the partnership.
Page 65 4.2 A green borough Another 'remains' in line 2... And surely, an actively green borough needs to do more than just minimising our impact on the environment and adapt to our changing climate'. That's hardly dynamic? It's reactive, not proactive. The proactive bit is developing our parks and green spaces.
Public realm improvements, yes, certainly, and support too for the parks. But, although you cannot mention everything, why no mention of the Commons? The cemeteries? And when you mention the Calverley Grounds Management Plan, this is in essence no more than providing more of the same, merely doing what has been done before. It is not developing an exciting plan to capitalise on this wonderful green asset right in the centre of town.
This may not be the place, but somewhere more than just a passing reference should be made to the importance the Council attaches to working in
co-operation with the different Friends groups. (Under 4.3 perhaps?) The Grosvenor and Hilbert HLF bid would never have been successful without Appendix C the huge input from the Friends. Calverley Grounds and the Library/Museum are going to need a similarly active organisation to back up any eventual HLF bid. Why not declare the intention to create a special Friends of the Educational and Cultural Hub? It needs a group more inclusive and with more clout than the current Friends of the Museum and Library.
4.3 A confident borough I have already directed your attention to my concerns at the use of this heading without some additional justification.
Here I am intrigued by the sudden mushrooming of 'hubs'. What, exactly, is a 'hub'? Is it another word for 'club', 'centre'? Are all these 'hub' proposals being spawned by the big central 'Educational and Cultural Hub' in the centre of RTW in the hope that the 'provinces' will not feel excluded? 5 Plans for Growth There is lots here to get excited about. At last the tired centre of town is moving to the centre of communal and council concern. Not only the buildings, but also the spaces between the buildings and what goes on in those spaces - the public realm. Quite rightly. Rightly too, the Fiveways is top of the list, and shared space is being actively considered. I particularly welcome the mention here of water features, for once not just in the ID CONSULTATION RESPONSES Name of respondent singular! Tunbridge Wells doesn't score highly for good public art, and an elegant, quality water feature at the Fiveways - with or without the Millennium Clock - would be a fine start. However, while the content of the sentence 'We have exciting ideas for the public realm in the town, such as steps, informal seating and the introduction of water features' is to be applauded, it could be more happily phrased. Water features are exciting; steps and informal seating rather less so. (The small bolded font seems to indicate a bit of additional last minute cutting and pasting!...) Ideas, like aspirations have to be translated into firm plans, and plans have to be supported and put into practice. The devil will be in the detail, but it is to the detail that I now look forward.
Following the excellent example of Berkeley Homes at the Royal Wells Park development on the old Kent and Sussex Hospital site, Water features would fit very well too in the Cultural Hub, the redeveloped Civic Complex and, of course, whatever eventually comes to replace the ABC Cinema. They should similarly be considered at other designated 'areas of change' - Union House and Vale Avenue, for example.
7 Our Natural Environment What a good idea to have a separate section dedicated to the town's parks and green spaces! How much was the HLF grant? You give a figure of £2.7million. Under next steps the restoration of the dripping wells also deserves a mention. What is the £290,000 S106 money to be spent on? Calverley Grounds - the Ice rink has now been held for three years.
8 Delivering our Vision Page 66 8.4.2 Monitoring our progress I have already mentioned this, and it is very important. Yearly monitoring and public reporting will enable achievements to be highlighted - and failures too.
Next steps: The words 'to promote change' would benefit from some addition like 'for the better' or something a little longer. Change for the sake of change serves no purpose.
Once again I apologise for the unfinished nature of this response. I wanted to get it out of the way today and I hope there is something here that will be of some use to you. I will attempt to copy it into the Portal response in the first section, but am not confident of my chances of success. At least
you will have it in the form of a rambling e-mail from which you will be able to extract what you need. Appendix C
I would be grateful if you could draw to the attention of whoever was responsible for the selection of the software managing the responses, the lack of clear guidance. It is not enough to have just two buttons at the bottom of each section: Cancel and Submit,. And it must be made clear that each section has to be submitted separately. Otherwise there will be others like me who wished to consider all their responses together before making the submission and then discovered that responses to the individual sections had all been lost.
I would be interest to know, in due course, how many individuals and organisations sent in responses, whether by e-mail, as letters or through the Portal. I also look forward to having sight of the revised document and trust you will have benefited from the various submissions. VIS_38 The foreword sets the keynote for the whole document. Three points need attention J. Bridgeman
• It is needlessly handicapped and immediately discredited as another bit of waffle by the meaningless title of the document. This should be changed to something like "The next five years. An action plan " • The tired old phrases that make the eyes glaze over and attention wander should be replaced with something fresher, and euphemistic ID CONSULTATION RESPONSES Name of respondent doublespeak like " vibrant" "key stakeholders" "enabling" "organic" should be jettisoned. . Also the grammatical mistakes should be corrected. • the whole tone of the foreword should be more human and empathetic explaining that the Council is trying to do its best for everyone in difficult economic times, and that is why it is taking a five year view with some clear goals that are going to be reached, and adopting a set of priorities which are important for everybody's quality of life
VIS_39 2.1 et seq Some of these statistics read as though they have been cherrypicked to support a predetermined thesis , rather provide a
dispassionate analysis .
Moreover the document is remarkable for its silence on the large swathe of "hinterland" in Weald and East Sussex that generates a significant part of TW employees, population and housing pressures, traffic demands, , pressure on services (and conversely provision of services) , retail income etc.
2.4 Challenges (euphemism for threats and weaknesses) and opportunities. Not a word on the major "challenge" of intense development pressures on open spaces, historic vistas and skylines, street scenes, heritage buildings and ensembles of domestic architecture. Though these are the underpinnings of RTW historic and present charms and quality of life for residents, businesses and visitors alike. Not a word about the legislative changes that have undermined the ability of residents and the Council itself to withstand some of those pressures and what they bring with them in Page 67 various evils. .The provisions for local groups to express interest in community assets (and raise money if they are to buy them) are irrelevant to the big planning .issues over land allocations, densities and planning permissions
7.1 As noted on an earlier question, this section needs to include preparation of a "Green links" masterplan as recommended by the Town Forum VIS_40 identifying a network of safe routes for walkers and cyclists including tourists, in Tunbridge Wells town and Southborough where over half the Borough's population live. This is currently missing from the Cultural Strategy and Green Infrastructure Plan priorities. It would contribute to cost effective deployment of resources to benefit all three goals the Council has set itself as its Vision in section 4. It would also provide early visible delivery of results that benefit people of all ages and from all walks of life. VIS_41 This comment was blank. See VIS_42-47. R. Blake
Appendix C VIS_42 1 - Foreword. As the long-established independent national rail development campaign, Railfuture welcomes publication of and consultation on this document as an opportunity to develop a united voice advocating for a more successful Borough of Tunbridge Wells.
2 - Context. The challenges of growing population and households, economic activity and disposable incomes will place rising pressures and VIS_43 demands on transport networks. The Vision's time-span coincides with the period during which the next long-term South Eastern franchise will be tendered and awarded, affording key opportunities to influence outcomes from 2018. It also coincides with the period during which the next Network Rail infrastructure investments, for Control Period 6 from 2019, will be planned and developed through the Sussex and Kent Route Studies and other rail industry processes, again offering opportunities to exert influence for post-2019 outcomes. Active engagement with the two County Councils, the DfT's franchising process, Network Rail's Long-Term Planning Process, and others, will be vital to extract maximum benefit from those opportunities, and Railfuture in collaboration with local rail user groups stands ready to assist, support and contribute in that engagement. Particularly noteworthy is last November's adopted Rail Strategy and Action Plan from East Sussex CC, prioritising upgrade of the Uckfield branch as a building block towards reopening the route south via Lewes to Brighton and Sussex coast destinations, and including re-establishing the link with Tunbridge Wells which in turn includes maintaining route protection between the two Tunbridge Wells stations for long-term possibilities. ESCC's other priority, to upgrade MarshLink and the whole Ashford-Brighton route, is now highly likely to be taken forward by Network Rail as an expansion of HS1 services to ID CONSULTATION RESPONSES Name of respondent Hastings/Bexhill, which will benefit Tunbridge Wells by diverting some demand away from the slower 'Hastings direct' line. Cross-border and multi- agency, cross-sector partnership working informed by an ambitious Transport Strategy can secure gains for the Borough's businesses and residents.
3 - Our Mission. Railfuture notes that the history and current experience of rail development invariably is to be a catalyst for change, improving prospects and prosperity for individuals and communities. More successful places are supported by more successful railways which offer adequate VIS_44 capacity and better connectivity.
4 - Our Vision. Railfuture notes that prosperous, green and confident places are supported by good transport networks in general and excellent rail networks and services in particular as integral features of an ambitious vision for a community. VIS_45 6 - Supporting growth. Railfuture contends that business and investment can be encouraged [6.1] and access can be improved [6.3] through an ambitious and visionary transport strategy, with a strong rail element, developed in collaboration with a wide range of interested stakeholders VIS_47 committed to pursue its delivery through a partnership based on consensus. As highlighted above, the next five years afford vital opportunities to influence longer-term outcomes which will be at grave risk in the absence of committed engagement throughout the coming period. As well as laying foundations for much-needed improvements to rail services on the existing Tonbridge route, there are emerging opportunities to explore prospects for re-establishing rail links with East Sussex communities. Meanwhile the Borough has a pivotal rail in safeguarding, on a 'trees can only be cut down once' basis, the route between the two stations in the town as a potential link in an expanding rail network. The fact that physical Page 68 manifestations of transport infrastructure will not materialise during the coming five-year period must not in our view deter making and maintaining the commitment to the sustained evolution of longer-term plans.
8 - Delivering our Vision. Railfuture welcomes the commitments to Enabling and Partnership working. Those have been seen elsewhere to be the cornerstones of progress.
VIS_48 Responses sent by post/hand delivered
It is clear that it is intended to further pedestrianise Tunbridge Wells Town Centre. I would like to point out that there is no mandate for this from the Cllr Victor Webb majority of the citizens of the borough to spend roughly £1 million on a shared space scheme phase one, let alone further, grand vanity schemes UKIP Leader Appendix C involving further millions particularly at a time of austerity and when Council tax is to rise. Improving an area or sprucing up is all very well but major infrastructure changes which will undoubtedly cause more gridlock around the town centre itself will be wasteful and worsen the traffic congestion and air quality.
The responses to a survey asking the question “Are you in favour of a shared space piazza?” attracted 112, only of which 75% supported this. How on earth was this converted by a ‘Vision’ to include re slabbing roadway down to Monson Road as a first phase and beyond later?
Bad examples of so called successes have been referred to such as Ashford. The number referred to are not representative of the whole town never mind the borough. This is a repeat of fait a compli’s consultation. The Queen of hearts is at it again! We need more car parking facilities as no multi- storey car park has been built in the last 25 years and there is no mention of this.
The Vision also moves away from localism towards regionalisation which no one wants. ID CONSULTATION RESPONSES Name of respondent Under the heading “Have your say?,” the Borough Council has invited feedback and comments on the Consultation Draft “Vision 2014-2019” Dr P. Whitbourn, document. So here is my initial “say.” My observations are based upon the 29-page paper booklet issued by the Council. OBE First may I say that it is very welcome indeed to have some form of publicly available written statement about the future of Tunbridge Wells. Our planning policy makers operate behind locked doors, in a Town Hall that is generally closed to residents, and exercises such as the 2013 Site Allocations DPD have not yet shed any real light on the future of our town, or the Borough as a whole.
There is, in my view, much in the draft document that is good. I strongly support the idea of a cultural and learning hub in the heart of the town centre, for example, and I see the enhancement of the Museum, Art Gallery and Adult Education Centre as important steps forward. I strongly support, too, the retention of the fine listed War Memorial, and the principle of steps around the statue, linking the different levels of Civic Way and Mount Pleasant Road.
A number of other aspects are also welcome, in my opinion, including the improvements to Grosvenor and Hilbert Park; the regeneration at Sherwood; the provision of workspace for cultural and creative businesses; and the enhancement of the Assembly Hall.
I have, however, three particular reservations about the draft, as it stands. First, I have to say that I do not see the draft as “visionary.” Rather, it seems to me to be a fairly down to earth document, setting out some short-term projects that may, realistically be achievable in the course of the next five years. It would be good to think that this might form the first phase of a wider vision for Tunbridge Wells town centre. A real and longer-term vision is needed, that embraces more specific ideas for the many key issues that either do not feature in the present draft, or are only touched upon. Page 69 Without an overall longer-term vision for the town centre as a whole, there is a lack of an overarching context into which short-term projects, however desirable in themselves, can be seen to fit. The Council’s adopted Core Strategy envisaged that context in the form of a Town Centre Area Action Plan, and it is to be hoped that from the present document, coupled with the Site Allocations exercise, a fuller Master Plan for our town centre may yet emerge.
Such a Master plan should address properly such issues as the future of the misconceived “Gateway” building; the Cinema site; the Police Station; the Corn Exchange and Lower Pantiles; parts of Royal Victoria Place; problem traffic areas at Vale Road and Nevill Street, for example; linkage between the top and bottom ends of the town and, of course, the future of the Town Hall itself.
This latter building is, in my view, capable of much greater benefit to the local community than is currently the case. It is unfortunate that, in closing
the Town Hall to the public, the Council has created another dead corner, opposite the dead Cinema site. I should like to see the Town Hall as part Appendix C of the Cultural Hub, alongside the Assembly Hall and the Museum, floodlit during the early hours of darkness, and as a vibrant place where civic and other community activities complement one another.
This brings me to my second point of concern, namely the use of the word “redevelopment,” under “Next steps” for section 5.1.3, at the top of page 3 of the draft. A redevelopment area is generally understood to be one where the present buildings are demolished and replaced by new buildings. The buildings of the Civic Complex, including the Town Hall are listed and, while there may be considerable scope for internal the re-planning and re-modelling of more utilitarian parts, wholesale redevelopment should not be an option. A clear framework “for the future of the complex” would, I consider, be more appropriate wording than “for the redevelopment of this site.”
My third misgiving about the present draft is the inclusion of the “Concept sketch” on page 11. This is clearly at odds with references in the text to the retention of the War Memorial, and to steps around it linking changes in level. Moreover, the unsympathetic extension to the Library would obliterate the main elevation of that listed building, as well as adversely affecting the setting of the listed Opera House.
My threefold suggestions on the draft are therefore as follows: ID CONSULTATION RESPONSES Name of respondent 1. That any future version should have a more realistic title, such as a “Five Year Plan”, reflecting its short-term pragmatic approach, rather than giving the impression of a longer-term visionary concept for the town’s future, and that such a Five Year Plan document should include an aspiration to develop a fuller master plan for Tunbridge Wells Town Centre as a whole, which can take its place alongside the Core Strategy and other Development Plan Documents, to inform the future direction of development in the longer-term. 2. That the word “redevelopment”, at the tope of page 13 of the draft, should be replaced by the word “future” 3. That the illustration on page 11 of the document should be omitted from any future version.
The Committee of the Royal Tunbridge Wells branch of the Royal British Legion have noted at Phase 2, page 12 of your Draft Vision 2014-2019 Mr Rowland references to Mount Pleasant, the Civic Complex and, of vital interest to us, the area around the listed War Memorial. Royal British Legion – We totally agree that enhancement of the War Memorial’s setting in line with the improvements you indicate is very desirable and additionally we Tunbridge Wells would like to see the removal of the inappropriately sited bus shelters, detracting as they do from the dignified nature of the statue behind them. Branch They also cause inconvenience during some of the ceremonies in that immediate area.
We would therefore ask that you grant us an opportunity, at the design stage, to act as observer and offer comment (without of course wider interference) on your proposals for the area adjacent to the Memorial. We look forward to your reply in due course. Page 70 Response to draft Vision Document 2014/2019: Mr Coggles Chairman 1. The Vision The Access The Group welcome the Council’s attempt to produce a coherent vision and plan for the improvement of the Tunbridge Wells area. As is clear from Group the conclusions within the document, many of the areas of responsibility lay outside the direct control of the council and remain in the uncertain hands of Kent County Council and Central Government; however, any plan is better than no plan.
2. Access to Tunbridge Wells 2.1 Bus & Rail Network Since the last Vision plan, our bus and rail networks have been improved and modernised. Cost of travel remains a concern for many. 2.2 Road Network Appendix C Access to Tunbridge Wells from the A21 and A26 are along single track roads. The town does not have a ring road, which makes it virtually impossible to create innovative schemes, such as the Five Ways project, without creating congestion and traffic overload elsewhere in the town. 2.1.1 The County are unwilling to spend money on schemes to dual the road network, giving the kind of access that people require to the town centre. For example, during peak periods, it can take 20 minutes to move just 500 yards on the Pembury Road. During the pre Christmas period we undertook a survey of motorists attempting to gain access to the town, broadly speaking the result was predictable, 90% felt that the current network was unacceptable. During the 4 hour period on Pembury Road out of 140 vehicles turned around, the explanation was the congestion. The North Farm Trading Estate is constantly congested with tail-backs which discourage people from using the estate and the many out of town shops located there. ASDA, Marks & Spencer and John Lewis Partnership have all been affected. In the same survey we asked businesses about the Christmas and post Christmas shopping period, all stated that takings were down on previous years and 60% attributed this to congestion in gaining access to the town. 2.1.2 Delivery restrictions – Schemes to restrict deliveries to the centre of the town, will come unstuck, especially where the drivers are from other EU states. In some recent court cases in London and Manchester, the conflict between EU Drivers Hours and Delivery restrictions resulting in the courts supporting drivers hours over the restrictions. Where no off-street loading bays were provided, which is very prevalent in Tunbridge Wells and ID CONSULTATION RESPONSES Name of respondent many of the small villages and towns within the area, courts have already upheld the right of drivers to make deliveries, even where there are bans. 2.1.3 – Attached (copy circulated internally) is a copy of a series of one-way gyratory schemes for improving access on the roads, enabling the introduction of bus lanes, loading bays etc. This scheme was commissioned by Lord Mayhew, then the local MP and produced by The Access Group in an attempt to improve access to the town and at the same time deal with the issue of through traffic.
3. Townscape As the Vision makes clear our population is ageing. For that reason great care must be taken to produce schemes which are safe and independently accessible to all. For example, the removal of steps and replacement by ramps, the introduction of ‘dropped kerbs’ to improve access for wheelchairs, scooters and buggies. Compliance with the requirements of Articles 9 & 19 of The UN Convention on the Rights of Disabled Peoples 2009.
4. Legal duty At this stage it is perhaps important for the Access Group to state bluntly the obvious. In 1999, as a direct result of a series of class actions brought by disabled people using Articles 8 & 9 of the Human Rights Act 1998, Tony Blair, then Prime Minister, formerly adopted The UN Convention on the Rights of Disabled People (UNC). 4.1 As one of the nationally elected representatives of disabled people (I was involved directly in the negotiations that followed). Blair issued in 2000, a raft of disability legislation, including most importantly for local government, The Equality Standards in Local Government Targets 2000 (ESLG). The ESLG placed a legal duty on all local authorities at the lowest compliance target level, to adopt and fully comply with the UNC. Blair had agreed Page 71 with us that full compliance would be achieved by 2025, irrespective of the cost. In 2009 his successor Gordon Brown, with the unanimous support of all political parties, formerly ratified the UNC, binding legally all future administrations to meet compliance with all the articles of the UNC by 2025. 4.1.1 In the attached Ministerial response letter in paragraph marked “A” the government formerly stated their position. The RT Hon Eric Pickles MP the Secretary of State for Local Government and Communities and his Department Heads have initially been in denial of the legal duties imposed by UNC, until they received a copy of this letter. There remains 11 years to meet total compliance and provide: disability specific independent access; disability specific independent living support for all disabled people; disability specific aids, adaptations, equipment, training and support; disability specific medication, treatments and support (Social Care); all new build housing since 2009 must be independently accessible by disabled people, all irrespective of cost. Attached is a detailed breakdown of some of the key articles which require, total compliance by 2025, irrespective of the cost. 4.2 In evidence to the Lords & Commons Accounts Select Committee I indicated that the failures to be compliant and remove barriers had far reaching financial consequences for the UK, including sanctions being imposed on imports and exports by both the UN and EU for breaching the
UNC & European Convention, also it would undermine totally the welfare reforms, resulting in major increases in personal taxation for all. It is clear Appendix C from DWP under pressure from the DAA that they may well seek to impose sanctions directly on local government that fails to meet total compliance. In the NDCWT defence script, based on the failure of central and local government to remove barriers to independent access etc and cust to welfare support, the Tribunal Service upheld 98% of all cases, which resulted in a major overspend on disability allowances and benefits. The Accounts Committee concluded that the failure to remove barriers was the cause. In a similar report issued by the Lords & Commons Select Committee on Human Rights they concluded that without total compliance, irrespective of the cost with Article 9 – the right to independent access to goods, services, information, facilities, modes of transport and the workplace; compliance with Article 19 the right to independent living was possible. 4.3 In 2001, TWBC published its own Disability Strategy to comply with the ESLG (never updated). That document brought praise from central government, as did a similar guarantee given by County. The Law Lords, in two recent landmark cases at the UK Supreme Court in recognising that UNC was “stand alone,” thus not part of the Equality Act 2010, also took account of the fact that a local authority that issued a Disability Strategy (like TWBC) had acknowledged its legal duty under UNC to meet total compliance, irrespective of cost. There is no legal way out both TWBC and County must, irrespective of cost, meet total compliance with all the articles of the UNC by 2025 or face sanctions, loss of central government grant and fines. Pickles, in light of the letter has washed his hands of the whole matter, accepting that the onus is on local government to meet compliance. 4.4 Hence the Vision must clearly reaffirm and reflect TWBC’s legal duty of compliance with the UNC and all planning, projects, policies, practices ID CONSULTATION RESPONSES Name of respondent and service provision must be totally compliant with the articles of the UNC.
In conclusion, we require an acceptance of legal duty in writing and an agreement to comply totally with the detailed explanation of key articles of the UNC set out in the attachment. The Working Party are willing to consult directly with the Council on all projects, planning, policy, practices and service provision, as they affect the legal rights of disabled people.
Responses sent by email
I would like to see additions to the Green Borough section reflecting the benefits of non-car transport for environmental and individual health benefits R Bowes (exercise and air quality effects) NHS West Kent CCG I would also like to see something in here about health inequalities particularly in respect of preventing smoking problems relating to alcohol use and obesity.
Tunbridge Wells Commons Conservators have read your draft Vision paper with great interest, but there is one aspect that concerns us. Tunbridge Wells Commons
Page 72 Paragraph 6.3.3 states that options need to be considered to ease congestion in the lower part of the A26, referring to an abandoned plan for the Conservators junction of Mount Ephraim and London Road. The paper states that this “could mean encroaching on green space in the future.” The only green space in this area is the Common, so the Conservators have to assume that the price the borough thinks it may have to pay is to encroach on Tunbridge Wells Common.
The Commons are managed by the Conservators under the terms of the County of Kent Act 1981. This Act specifically requires the Conservators to preserve the Commons free from encroachment.
The Conservators value their relationship with the Borough Council and with the Highway Authority, and, in the past, dialogue has enabled apparently irreconcilable differences to be resolved. We would therefore value informal discussions about your ideas before they are developed further. The Conservators will do all they can do to avoid confrontation but they must carry out their legal obligations. Appendix C
ID CONSULTATION RESPONSES Name of respondent Comments on Vision (version 3) Royal Tunbridge 1. We welcome a comprehensive statement of the Council’s current objectives. Wells Civic Society 2. The document only looks five years ahead and is ‘grounded in the current economic reality.’ We feel this inhibits planning, and is inappropriate for a document entitled ‘Vision.’ Present financial stringency makes it all the more necessary that short term measures should be related to longer term objectives. We don’t see the need for a precise timetable in mapping one’s intentions.
3. We applaud the recognition that reduced funding from Government obliges the Council to look increasingly to ‘partnerships’ and community initiatives. In practice this can be difficult to achieve, especially where it means public bodies and paid staff co-operating with volunteers. We would welcome examples of where and how the Council intends to focus this effort, for example by backing neighbourhood planning, and joint strategic planning for areas such as the Town Centre.
4. We agree with the trend to ‘encouraging personal responsibility’ and increased use of the internet for delivery of services, and welcome the reference to this in the Vision. This has implications for the future of the Gateway, which is not mentioned. We regret the present separation of services from the democratic process and the work of specialists, which is emphasised by the delivery of services from a separate location. We believe all users of services should be treated as participants in a process.
5.We note the traffic congestion is top of the list of challenges, and would welcome proposals to deal with this, going beyond those contained in the Page 73 recent Transport Strategy, for example by active management of parking and trade deliveries.
6.We support the idea of a cultural hub in part of the civic complex, but are unclear as to what functions this is to serve. The upgrading of the Assembly Hall Theatre is mentioned by there is no mention of this relating to the hub. We feel progress on the hub requires decisions about the Gateway, the relationship to the rest of the Civic Complex, and the role of marketing and commercial uses. These last are important to support the continuing use of the civic complex financially, and to re-orient our offer to tourism and quality leisure.
7.We regret the absence of overall planning for the town centre. In addition to the renewal of the civic complex, the future of the cinema site is in the balance, there are the Council’s proposals for traffic and the public realm, and there is the likelihood of expansion of Royal Victoria Place. It would be unfortunate, if not impossible, to take decisions on these in isolation.
Appendix C 8. We don’t understand the reference to the development of offices at Mount Pleasant Avenue ‘to reduce the running cost of the current facilities.’ If this means relocation of Council functions we would expect to see this stated and the cost basis explained. The crucial element is the future use of the Town Hall and the management of the Council’s business, not the development of (another) satellite site.
9. It seems to us regrettable to commit the Council to ‘work with the present landowner’ to bring forward a ‘mixed scheme’ for the Cinema site. The history of the present owners does not inspire confidence in his ability to bring forward a scheme within the five years. It is the Society’s view that the option of compulsory purchase should be retained. With recent experience of unsuitable and unviable proposals from developers, it is also desirable that the Council should take the lead in defining appropriate uses for the site.
10. We support the Council’s ambition to develop the cultural hub as a focus for tourism, but the location is not ideal for a primary Tourist Information Centre serving visitors on their arrival in the town. Some kind of twin TIC set-up seems unavoidable to ensure a full range of services is maintained at the Pantiles.
11. We note the possibility of a specialist medical campus being developed, possibly in connection with the new Pembury Hospital. In fact there are ID CONSULTATION RESPONSES Name of respondent medical needs arising in the town centre area, which might be but are probably not, met by a specialist campus (especially one at Pembury). These include the future of the Homeopathic Hospital, the need for an in-town centre for day patients, and the need to find updated facilities for several general practices, possibly in a single centre.
12.We are concerned at the suggestion of new sites being sought for residential development at Knights Park and Hawkenbury, in case this goes beyond the sites already identified in the Site Allocations Plan. These should satisfy the planned requirement to 2026, and it would be a fundamental amendment if further sites are to be identified in the next five years.
13. The section on Calverley Grounds is surprising, and incidentally reflects on the need for co-operation with volunteers referred to in 3.above. We would question the emphasis on ‘events’ (as opposed to smaller scale performances with an audience), and this has not been agreed with the Friends. In fact the Friends were largely ignored in the production of the Management Plan, and the Plan does not reflect the Friends’ view that current management activity should be related to longer term objectives agreed with them (see 2. Above)
Follow up response Royal Tunbridge As you know the Vision document was discussed at the Town Forum last week. This discussion continued after you had left the meeting, and I don’t Wells Civic think you hear the concern that was expressed about the apparent omission of the Town Hall from the Vision. In fact, puzzlingly, the word “re- Society development” is used in connection with the civic complex (section 5.1.3). Page 74 Several of us commented on this on Thursday, and you may get something from the Forum accordingly. I admit I missed this reference first time though, no doubt partly because I was dealing with the earlier version you sent us, without the image.
I think you would agree that the word “re-development” in this context is confusing, and in the absence of other reference to the Town Hall should be refurbished as the political and community hub of the town, an essential partner to the cultural hub. I hope you will be able to clarify the plans for this building, and in the meantime please treat this as a further response to the consultation.
The Town Forum welcomes both the draft ‘Vision’ document and the consultation process. Town Forum
Against the backdrop of rapidly reducing central government financial support, the Town Forum fully supports the Leader’s disposal programme of Appendix C non-performing assets coupled with income-generating initiatives, as well as the Council’s intention to become much more of an ‘enabling’ authority. The Town Forum firmly believes that there is also a need to identify partners with whom TWBC can work – which includes the Town Forum – in order to deliver the aspirations set out in the Vision. These partner groups need to be actively involved in the Council’s planning processes.
Alongside that general view, there are some issues where it believes the document needs to be examined in greater depth, in order to improve its content and impact. These specific points are set out below, as part of the formal public consultation on the draft ‘Vision’.
5-year plan There was general agreement that a 5-year plan period was a realistic timescale and the Vision document was therefore welcomed. It was also recognised that the 5-year plan needed to be slotted into developments envisaged for the period beyond 2019.
A vision or a plan? The general view was that this was not a vision document in its proper sense. A vision document should inspire confidence; TWBC’s draft Vision failed fully to achieve that. Where, for example, was any recognition of the spa-town heritage of health, leisure, wealth and water, on which such a vision for the future should be based? A vision should set out positive steps that benefit everyone, but this draft is not ID CONSULTATION RESPONSES Name of respondent sufficiently people-focused and it lacks a degree of empathy.
The ‘next steps’ approach There was widespread support for the ‘next steps’ approach followed in the document, as it linked some specific actions to the aspiration set out. The document would benefit, however, from a linking of a timescale against which the achievement of the ‘next steps’ should be set.
Status of the Vision What status will the Vision have in terms of the Borough Council’s overall planning processes and obligations?
Spa town heritage This should be given far greater prominence in the document, as it provides a direct link to the origins of the town, around which other commitments and aspirations can be grouped. It might best be emphasised in the Foreword (1) , which currently refers only to our “rich cultural history of music and the arts”. It is equally important to stress that our cultural history is embedded in its landscape, its geology and in its health- giving waters.
Challenges: addressing traffic congestion (2.4) The strong statement under this section is welcomed and supports the Town Forum’s arguments put forward in response to the Draft Transport Strategy.
Tourism (4.1) Tourism is important to the Borough and it is hoped that the Town Forum will play an active role in the working group established to progress the Destination Management Plan. Page 75 Calverley Grounds (4.2 and 7.1.3) The ‘Vision’ has selectively highlighted and over-emphasised events and activities in the Grounds, that are not reflected in the management plan for the area. This indicates that the ‘Vision’ is just saying that it will merely maintain the Grounds with little change and no proper vision for maximising its potential future use.
Cultural and learning hub (5.1.1) The Town Forum enthusiastically supports this project and is keen to be involved as a partner in its planning.
Public realm improvements (5.1.2) The words “We have exciting ideas for the public realm in the town...” would have more impact if they were accompanied by some specific detail. We welcome the reference to the ‘water features’ – in the plural – but they should be linked to the town’s spa heritage.
Civic complex (5.1.3) “As we move into the next five years, the Council will be developing a clear framework for the re-development of this site.” Why is this set out across such a long time frame? The 5-year vision for the town is significantly affected by what happens with both the civic site Appendix C and cinema site. The civic complex needs to be considered in conjunction with the development of the cultural and learning hub.
Supporting growth: Economic development (6) Tunbridge Wells has performed well during the economic downturn and the draft Vision should set this in context.
Office space (6.1.1) The Vision makes a commitment to increasing office space in the town. A far greater priority is the establishment of a conference centre in Tunbridge Wells.
Creating opportunities for skills (6.2.1) How will a medical excellence centre be achieved? Further details on this initiative would be very welcome. What is meant by a centre of medical excellence? Is it a physical entity or an aspiration to bring a variety of medical and health-promoting services together in the town and borough?
A26 (Southborough and London Road) (6.3.3) To alleviate traffic congestion in the town centre, “ could mean encroaching on green space in the ID CONSULTATION RESPONSES Name of respondent future but this is the price the borough may have to pay if we consider the flow of traffic important to support the growth of the town”. The Town Forum would like to know what this means in detail.
This is linked to some of the consequences of the ‘Opportunities’ column (2.4), many of which will be likely to generate additional traffic (more housing, business development, the improved cultural and tourism offer, etc). By the end of the ‘Vision’ period (2019), there should be in place a programme for traffic alleviation, including possible routes avoiding the town centre, that can be taken into account for future town and Borough planning, with KCC and the Department of Transport.
Finally, on traffic congestion, the Town Forum would welcome far greater encouragement to walk and cycle and to use public transport, alongside tackling the traffic congestion issue.
Providing housing (6.4) An essential pre-requisite is the establishment of a town centre plan, to provide a proper structure within which housing development can take place.
Parks and open spaces (7.1) There is considerable concern that some important locations, such as Dunorlan Park, the Commons and the town’s cemeteries, have been completely omitted.
TWBC’s staff (8.4.3) The comment about staffing signals a negative view about the achievements and modus operandi of current TWBC staff, an
Page 76 unjust commentary on people who are seen by the Town Forum as generally efficient, well-motivated and helpful.
Conclusion In conclusion, the Town Forum welcomes the draft ‘Vision’ document and the consultation process and the fact that the Leader of the Council has engaged fully with the Town Forum.
The draft Vision strongly conveys the accurate impression of a prosperous Borough. This is demonstrated, for example, in the passages dealing Mr Cory with the relatively high levels of house prices and economic activity. However, although the document recognises in paragraph 2.3.2 that: Chairman of the Number One “One of the three county – wide ambitions in the Vision for Kent 2012-2022 is “to tackle disadvantage”. Community Trust
And in section 2.4 that: Appendix C “There are several pockets of deprivation within the borough that match high levels of deprivation experienced regionally and nationally and demonstrate concerning levels of inequality”.
The draft Vision appears to have nothing whatever to say about the Council’s commitment to tackling the deprivation and inequality which it explicitly recognises as a challenge.
This is an extraordinary omission. If it is hard to justify the existence of such pockets of deprivation in our wealthy borough, it is even harder to justify the absence of any strategy to tackle it.
As to the circumstances of the specific communities which we serve, we submit that the Showfields and Ramslye estates represent one of the most deprived areas in the Borough. Among other indices of deprivation we would point to the published statistics which show that this area now consistently records the highest crime figures in the Borough, outside the town centre. And yet the draft Vision, while celebrating the considerable investment in regenerating the Sherwood area, has nothing to say about regeneration or community development in Showfields and Ramslye which, it appears to us, has become the forgotten corner of Tunbridge Wells as far as the Council is concerned. It is not clear to us why we should ID CONSULTATION RESPONSES Name of respondent not benefit from a similar level of investment of Council funds.
We submit that the section entitled “a Prosperous Borough” should contain a passage conveying the following sentiment:
As a relatively prosperous borough, Tunbridge Wells has a clear obligation to support those less advantaged communities which exist within its boundaries. To this end we shall make it a priority to focus effort and resources in support of all of these communities, to help overcome their disadvantages and to assist their residents to enjoy the advantages of living in Tunbridge Wells which other residents take for granted.
We hope that the draft Vision will be reviewed to provide appropriate recognition to this important issue.
Mr.Cory raised a good point in the Town Forum yesterday and I just wanted to add my support. Basically, he drew attention to a challenge noted in Cllr Woodward the Vision document: “Pockets of deprivation: There are several pockets of deprivation within the borough that match high levels of deprivation Ward member for regionally and nationally high levels of deprivation and demonstrate concerning levels of inequality”, but also noted the absence of anything that Broadwater suggested a TWBC “response/action/aim/enablement.”
I also would like to re-emphasise my concern (arising from what is a “Confident borough”) of the lack of attention to the community of Showfields/Ramslye while the communities of Southborough, Cranbrook and Paddock Wood are explicitly mentioned. Again it seems we have forgotten our unparished communities – a constant theme in TWBC (we pick up low hanging fruit associated with active parish/town council wards Page 77 but ignore the more difficult urban wards, Sherwood being the exception).
Page 6 – Challenges – addressing traffic congestion Mr Powell It is right that we should address the question of traffic congestion in Tunbridge Wells. We should not overlook the problems associated with vehicle parking in the event of traffic growth in the area.
Page 11 – Cultural and Learning Hub The concept sketch on this page is awful. The idea of having an attachment to the existing building as shown can only be described, for want of a kinder word, as a carbuncle.I presume that this proposed structure is designed to enlarge the floor area available for the proposed hub. Do we really want to cram all the existing facilities into this one area? Looking at Eastbourne, for instance, they have built the Towner gallery as a separate structure near the centre. It’s a tremendous place. Why, in Tunbridge Wells, don’t we build a new art gallery on the site of the old cinema? There’s Appendix C no requirement to have it directly linked to the museum or the library. Such a solution would be putting this site to a very worthwhile cause.
Page 12 – Public realm improvements Words are one thing; actions are another. What is the schedule for these activities and when will proposals be put to the inhabitants of the town?
Pages 12-14 - 5.1.3 – 5.1.11 Words are one thing; actions are another. What is the schedule for these activities and when will proposals be put to the inhabitants of the town?
Page 17 – Encouraging business and investment I trust that we will not have a planning disaster such as occurred in the North Farm area where endless businesses were established without due consideration to the traffic problems. Within Tunbridge Wells we don’t want to see a situation where office space is increased without consideration of parking facilities! ID CONSULTATION RESPONSES Name of respondent Introduction M. Booker This consultation by TWBC, principally dealing with the future of Royal Tunbridge Wells, is welcome and a number of proposals are put forward which deserve support, such as the Cultural Hub, redevelopment of Vale Avenue and Union House and enhanced Public Realm Space at the Fiveways and down Mt Pleasant. Unfortunately TWBC has no control over highways, education provision or business activity in the area and appears to be planning for severe cuts in its budget and its services. It may seek to persuade and enable, but apparently will be responsible for fewer and fewer actual decisions concerning services in the town and whether they will or will not be maintained in the future. This makes it all the more important that it should exercise its remaining strategic planning function in such a way as to ensure that the town retains those features which are so appreciated by its residents and by visitors, and is enhanced rather than despoiled by any new development.
Sections 2 and 3 Context and Mission The predictions of population growth in 2.1 should not be equated with a need for increases in the already established house building numbers. Increase in household size may be regarded as a trend that is likely to continue, because household costs are not only made up of housing costs and these other costs are most likely to continue rising in the future, leading to permanent increases in average household size. This may be regarded as a more sustainable way to live and therefore not necessarily a negative trend.
92% of those surveyed (according to 2.3.4 ) want TWBC to protect the local environment and 72% seek greater provision of events, theatres and the Arts. The council should therefore incorporate these aspirations somewhere in its mission statement.
Page 78 Section 4: Our Vision The proposal to develop a Cultural Hub in Mt Pleasant is welcome, as is the idea of enhancing public realm space. However, the drawing showing the proposed Cultural Hub also appears to show the disappearance of the Decimus Burton era retaining wall alongside Civic Way. This forms an integral feature with the Civic Complex and successfully conceals the many differences in level in the area of the Town Hall. If it were to be removed, the appearance of the Town Hall at ground level would be affected in a seriously adverse way.
Section 5: Plans for Growth Redevelopment of Vale Avenue could offer an opportunity for enhancing this area which adjoins TW Common and is therefore welcome, but it is doubtful whether a further geographical extension of the already substantially over-extended retail zone in the town centre would be justified unless it were to be compensated by reductions in zoning for retail elsewhere.
Appendix C The redevelopment of Union House should remove an eyesore from the Pantiles end of the town but any new design will need to fit sensitively into this key location.
Section 6: Supporting Growth The statement in 6.3.3 that alleviating traffic congestion “ could mean encroaching on green space in the future” sets alarm bells ringing in view of previous attempts in 1998 to encroach on Tunbridge Wells Common. The integrity of both Tunbridge Wells and Southborough Commons (A26) and the green approach to the town via Pembury Road (A264) should be respected as one of the key green features defining Tunbridge Wells.
The problem of traffic congestion within Tunbridge Wells is only to a limited extent caused by inadequate main road infrastructure as there is actually very little through traffic. Most traffic originates or terminates in the town and about half of it consists of journeys of some two miles or less. More congestion is probably caused by turning conflicts into or out of dozens of side roads in a very densely populated town than by the lack of physical capacity on the main roads themselves. As most of these turning conflicts are local journeys, the long term key to tackling congestion would seem to lie in persuading more local motorists to use other means to make their short journeys, rather than any significant additional changes to the main road infrastructure (after A21 and Longfield Rd) other than possibly the suggested roundabouts at Yew Tree and Speldhurst Roads. While these ID CONSULTATION RESPONSES Name of respondent might possibly improve the flow of traffic on the A26 without environmental damage, some very detailed modelling would be needed prior to any decisions to avoid a fiasco like the recent one with lights at Pembury Rd/Halls Hole Rd.
One bottleneck at the A26 junction with Mt Ephraim could be substantially improved if a much longer turning lane could be provided by taking away some of the short term parking spaces on the north side of the A26. This would also remove, at virtually no cost, the arguments for changing the Church Road junction, where any proposals to encroach on the Common will meet extreme resistance from interests both local and national.
In relation to 6.4.3 , the Local Plan states that sufficient brownfield sites exist within the Borough to allow housing numbers based on need to be built without any encroachment on green belt land during the period to 2026.There are also over one thousand empty houses in the Borough and many opportunities to convert upper stories of retail units into more flats. House building in Kent will be significantly increased by the planned garden city at Ebbsfleet. In the circumstances, no increase in housing numbers should be contemplated before 2026 and there is a strong case for resisting increases thereafter based on the exceptional circumstances of RTW being surrounded by AONB land/ greenbelt and the traffic situation in the existing town which is unlikely to be improved unless Park and Ride is both introduced on all the main approaches and made to work, a process which might well take up to 20 years to mature from inception.
Section 7: Our Natural Environment Protection of the greenbelt surrounding Royal Tunbridge Wells, something which 92% of those consulted expect of their Council, should be given more prominence in the Vision. Its high amenity value is perhaps the principal factor underpinning the town’s popularity with residents and visitors Page 79 alike. It is certainly of at least equal recreational amenity value to our large population as our outstanding public parks.
Section 8: Delivering our Vision It is for the electorate and not the Executive to decide whether “ over time the number of services the Council delivers directly will reduce ”. Residents should be given the facts about services and a range of options and their cost in terms of Council Tax. They should not be presented with a fait accompli on the basis of this Vision document. Localism as advocated by our Government implies options and choices and not Diktat by the Executive. This is a rich borough and the population, if properly consulted, may choose to maintain services rather than abandon them or consign them to an uncertain future. We own and manage Union House and adjoining land fronting Eridge Road and Linden Park Road in Tunbridge Wells Town Centre. The extent of B.S Pension our ownership is presented on the enclosed plan (copy of plan circulated internally). As the owner of the site that forms part of your Council’s vision, Fund Trustee we are pleased to be given the opportunity to comment on the Draft Vision and contribute towards its formulation. The site is identified as part of the Limited Appendix C Eridge Road ‘Area of Change’ in the emerging Site Allocations DPD. We submitted a representation in relation to this document in May 2013. We have also outlined the site’s suitability and capacity for residential development in our November 2013 submission to your Council’s SHLAA Review. Our comments on the Vision and our recommendations are outlined below:
Requirement for a Vision We support the Council’s decision to prepare a Vision document. Where a Council is seeking to deliver change, it is essential that clear objectives are set out from the outset in order to understand the measures that are required. The document represents an appropriate platform to formulate clear programmes and initiatives to deliver change. The Vision does however have to be realistic in order to be deliverable.
Economic objectives Due to the existing office use of Union House, we are acutely aware of the existing and anticipated office economy in Tunbridge Wells. Whilst we acknowledge the importance of encouraging new occupier investment to the town, this has to be directed to the most appropriate business locations and sites. The objective also has to be deliverable. ID CONSULTATION RESPONSES Name of respondent
We note that one of the success measures for a prosperous Borough is to develop new business units and develop and refurbish office accommodation to attract new businesses to the borough. Such development is intended in the key areas of Change. We object to this measure in relation to the Eridge Road Area of Change and specifically Union House. In our experience, the nature of the local office economy is such that new office development or refurbishment will only be viable and able to proceed based on specific pre-lets (e.g. Berkeley’s Royal Wells Park). We do not expect this to change during the lifetime of the alternative and economically beneficial use should be encouraged to avoid prolonged vacancy. To be able to deliver the Vision, it therefore has to contain recognition that those existing sites which are not commercially attractive should instead be the focus of alternative forms of beneficial economic development and investment. Union House is such a site. The property is becoming out- dated and will soon require significant and costly refurbishment if it is to continue in office use. The property is however no longer attractive to existing /prospective local business and occupiers as a consequence of its location and the standard of accommodation on offer compared to other alternatives. This is evidenced by AXA’s decision to relocate to International House. Options for change should therefore allow for a loss of existing office use (see below).
Plans for growth – Eridge Road We support the inclusion of Union House within the draft Vision. We agree with paragraph 5.1.10 that Union House offers a significant opportunity to improve the area and entrance to the Town Centre.
We also support the principle of mixed-use development. The Vision should however plan as positively as possible for the future of the site and Page 80 make it clear that any replacement mixed use redevelopment scheme does not have to include B1 office. Due to the site’s Town Centre location, a wide range of uses are acceptable in principle so adequate flexibility in the Vision is capable of being reflected in both the Vision and emerging local planning policy.
The site has unique locational characteristics being in the Town Centre, directly opposite the Pantiles and Common and adjacent to a wider residential area. We therefore consider the site to be entirely appropriate for retail and residential refurbishment and/or redevelopment. These uses are viable and will provide the most appropriate balance to deliver the form of strategic change and confidence that the Vision aspires to. Union House and our wider land ownership represents the majority of the Eridge Road Area of Change. As per our representation to the Site Allocations DPD, the Vision should be sufficiently flexible to allow a scheme to proceed on our ownership and without the adjoining land. This will result in a far more deliverable Vision as the adjoining land is in fragmented ownership and due to its present physical condition and land use is less likely to come
forward within the same timescale. Union House can also comfortably accommodate the form of development and change that it is required to Appendix C achieve the Vision without the reliance on adjoining land. Focusing on the delivery of our land can therefore offer a potential early win in the delivery of change in the Eridge Road area.
Delivering the Vision We welcome the opportunity to work in partnership with your Council to deliver the Vision. To deliver a scheme through the planning process does however require a commitment from your Council in terms of appropriately experienced Officer resource who can work with a development team from inception through to construction.
If your Council is going to be able to implement this Vision, we strongly recommend the formulation of a dedicated Officer team to deal with strategic sites such as Union House. Such a team can then provide the Council with a resource to effectively work in partnership with a landowner/developer, ensure the prompt delivery of a scheme and the objectives of the Vision. Whilst we are aware of the challenges that the Council is facing as a consequence of the ongoing public spending review, a focus on the provision of resources is essential is this Vision is to be realised. We hope these comments are of assistance to you and look forward to receiving acknowledgement of this representation in due course. ID CONSULTATION RESPONSES Name of respondent The County Council welcomes the opportunity to comment on the above consultation document. KCC are generally supportive of the aims of the Director of document and our comments are set out below. Environment, Planning and Page 4 – The Vision for Kent was a partnership document produced by the Kent Forum of local authorities, including Tunbridge Wells (KCC Enforcement partnership team co-ordinated its publication, but its not a KCC document). Kent County Page 11 – KCC is supportive of the cultural and learning hub and will work with Tunbridge Wells to try and bring this forward. Council
Page 16 – The next steps refers to the relocation of the Town Council to operate within the enhanced community facility within Paddock Wood such as the Wesley Centre. KCC owns the Wesley Centre which is currently where the Children’s Centre is located and would need to be involved in any discussions involving this.
Page 18 – KCC welcomes reference to the need for rural businesses to have access to super-fast broadband.
Page 19 – Para. 6.3.2 KCC with TWBC are committed to contribute funding to add to the DFT’s £3.5m to ensure the road network at North Farm is upgraded. It is worth noting that KCC have also recently submitted a bid through the South East Local Enterprise Partnership’s Strategic Economic Plan for Single Local Growth Funding for the following schemes: - a park and ride scheme in Tunbridge Wells Page 81 - an upgrade to the A26 London Road at Speldhurst/Yew Tree Road junction - further transport improvements at North Farm Industrial Estate
At this stage there is no certainty of these schemes going ahead but the outcome of the bid should be known in the summer of 2014.
Page 21 – Para 6.4.2 Knights Park – outline proposals are to provide approximately 550 new homes and a two form entry primary school. It is KCC’s understanding that this has now been permitted and the S106 agreed. Response via committee
The draft document – a revised version of which had been tabled at the meeting – was considered by members and the following comments were Finance & made: Governance Appendix C Cabinet Advisory • The first to speak was visiting member Councillor Mrs Mayhew. She advised that she had been pleased to see that the suggestions put Board (15 forward by her Overview and Scrutiny Committee on refreshing the vision and strategic planning process had been taken into account; she January 2014) added that she still felt that more budgetary figures should have been added.
Her main criticisms of the revised document were that: (a) the Council should be comparing itself not with other Kent authorities but with towns and areas of similar appeal to Tunbridge Wells; (b) some of the commitments set out lacked real ambition, e.g. ‘hold an investment conference to attract business and investment to the Borough’ (which should be expressed in terms of a proper outcome, she felt) and ‘encourage a reduction in household waste ’ rather than ‘we shall achieve a reduction ’; and (c) on the subject of ‘housing’, what was the authority’s position in terms of encouraging more or resisting growth.
Councillor Mrs Mayhew added that she felt there was no proper success measurement of the authority’s ambitions for a more confident Borough and ended by expressing the hope that the Vision document would become an effective manifesto for the Borough; ID CONSULTATION RESPONSES Name of respondent
• Councillor Webb concurred with many of Councillor Mrs Mayhew’s comments, but felt that comparisons with other districts were not relevant, rather that the authority should focus purely on the needs of Tunbridge Wells and its citizens. He also felt that the risks associated with further MKIP partnership working and future local government restructuring should be added. The Chief Executive responded to the MKIP reference by drawing attention to paragraph 8.4.3 of the document, adding that wider changes to the public sector were largely beyond the authority’s control;
• Councillor Holden welcomed the departure from a ‘strategic compass’ approach but still felt the document had been written in a language which readers would find unfamiliar and therefore difficult to understand. He queried the relevance of a small district council having a ‘vision’ and suggested that the mission statement (“Enable change to encourage growth and investment in the attractive and well-situated Borough of Tunbridge Wells”) was more of an economic statement and too limited in its scope. Councillor Holden felt there should be a clear statement about the authority’s housing plans; he also believed that the document had been written very much from a Royal Tunbridge Wells town perspective, with insufficient detail about the other settlements in the Borough. In summary, Councillor Holden suggested the document should be shorter in content, written in a language that people understood and be better balanced across the whole of the Borough. The Leader of the Council invited suggested improvements to cover the ‘whole Borough’ aspect, as well as how KCC could play their part in delivering improvements;
• Councillor Lewis noted the reference to trying to ease congestion in Tunbridge Wells but asked why this had not been followed up with a Page 82 commitment to encouraging improved public transport. Councillor Jukes advised that he had focused on what the Borough Council could deliver. Councillor Lewis felt there was a role the authority could play, namely to lead the debate on improving public transport, which the Leader of the Council acknowledged could take place outside this immediate process;
• Councillor Poile followed up on this aspect, indicating the authority’s influencing role through imposing planning conditions which aimed to improve traffic management in some key areas. The Chief Executive added that section 6.2.3 of the draft Vision referred to working with KCC through the Transport Strategy, to alleviate traffic congestion in Tunbridge Wells town centre, adding that it was through the new Local Enterprise Partnership that infrastructure improvements could be achieved;
• Councillor Williams questioned the compatibility of “lean and commercial” alongside “prosperous, green and confident.” He suggested that
reference be made to the Council’s previous vision document and added that he would also like to see clarity over the authority’s position on Appendix C housing;
• Councillor Smith, referring to the discussion on housing, reminded the group of the importance of the adopted Core Strategy, which had enabled the authority to maintain control over housing numbers, but he agreed that greater clarity over future housing provision should be set out in the document. He also voiced agreement with Councillor Mrs Mayhew on how Tunbridge Wells should be comparing itself not with other Kent districts but with similar towns. Councillor Smith felt the section on staffing needed amending, to reflect that the same pressures also applied in the private sector;
• Councillor Scott supported the principle of the five-year plan, providing this kept the Council’s options open to be able to deliver projects over a longer period. He suggested that the document could be strengthened through greater emphasis on the Borough’s architectural and environmental attractions, as well as wider traffic management issues. He also added that there might also be an opportunity for establishing stronger academic links with London;
ID CONSULTATION RESPONSES Name of respondent
• Councillor Derrick supported the draft document, which she thought would encourage other organisations to work in partnership, to deliver improvements. She added that it also answered those critics who felt the Council had failed to make its vision understood and known;
• Councillor Rook supported Councillor Holden in his comments about the lack of a rural perspective to the document. He expressed concern about the issue of assisting start-up businesses, unless there was protection in place for existing small businesses, citing an example in Rye where the consequences of aiding new enterprise without regard to current trade had had an adverse effect;
• Councillor Webb felt that there had been some very helpful feedback provided. He added that he had concerns about housing provision, based on the fact that by 2021, it was expected that the Borough’s population would have increased by 13,000 but the draft document referred to a planning process which would not see the completion of the Borough’s new dwelling target until 2026. He congratulated Councillor Jukes on his lead role with the disposal of non-performing property assets;
• Councillor Woodward felt there was a clear distinction between ‘leaner and more commercial’ and ‘prosperous, green and confident’; the former should be the focus for the Council, the latter for the Borough, he suggested. He welcomed the emphasis placed on channel shift, as a key element in improving services to the public. The Chief Executive said that the majority of the draft document was focused on the Borough. On channel shift, he voiced his keenness to deliver the identified benefits;
•
Page 83 Councillor Mrs Cobbold expressed her concerns about too much of an emphasis on digital communications, a medium which she felt would cause difficulty for significant numbers of people. The Chief Executive acknowledged the point and stressed that the Council’s focus was on achieving the most appropriate channel for people. The Task & Finish Group met on Monday 17 March 2014 to review the consultation document. A number of the recommendations within the 2013 Overview & report of the Vision Overview & Scrutiny Task & Finish Group had been met but there were still a number of matters outstanding including specific Scrutiny comments relating to the draft document. Having considered the draft Vision, the Group recommended that: Committee Task & Finish Group (Monday 17 1). The term ‘economic’ should be added before ‘growth’ within the mission statement to reflect the type of growth the Council is intending to attract. March 2014) Consideration should also be given to the wording of the mission statement to signify the importance of providing appropriate infrastructure to support economic growth and enhance the quality of life for all; Appendix C
2). Information should be provided in the form of a more rigorous action plan which sets out the cost estimates for the priorities within the Vision and how the Council intends to monitor delivery of these priorities. This process should align closely with the annual budget setting process;
3). A process should be introduced for prioritising the delivery of the projects identified within the Vision;
4). An annual report to Cabinet to review progress against the Vision is not considered sufficient. Instead the Group recommended that a committee/body other than Cabinet review progress against the priority projects within the Vision on a more frequent basis throughout the financial year. The Overview & Scrutiny Committee could undertake this role as part of the Portfolio Holder updates at their committee meetings.
5). Section 2 (Context) should remain factual. Any statements that make assumptions in respect of demographic data should be removed; ID CONSULTATION RESPONSES Name of respondent 6). More information should be provided in relation to the Council’s plans for the Assembly Hall Theatre to ensure transparency;
7). Reference to and promotion of specific private companies should be removed within the draft Vision document;
8). Reference should be made to our wider plans in respect of transport such as those outlined in the Transport Strategy. The group did not feel that other pressing traffic matters had been adequately addressed such as traffic congestion on Pembury Road;
9). The measures of success identified in Section 4.1, 4.2 and 4.3 should be strengthened to accurately reflect the outcomes we want to achieve and be written as SMART objectives;
10). Our plans for supporting our deprived communities should be outlined within the Vision document in response to the challenges we identify in section 2.4 (challenges and opportunities).
Page 84 Appendix C Agenda Item 8
Appointment of Mayor and Deputy Mayor Elect 2014/15
To : Full Council
Date: 16 April 2014
Main Portfolio Area : Leader
Author of report : Wendy Newton-May, Interim Local Democracy Officer
Classification : Non-Exempt
Ward : All Wards
SUMMARY
This report puts forward a recommendation that Councillors Stanyer and Elliott be appointed as Mayor and Deputy Mayor Elect respectively for the forthcoming municipal year.
LINK TO STRATEGIC COMPASS
Ensuring that the Council is well-managed, proactive and deliver value-for-money services.
Report status
For decision.
Route to Implementation/Timetable:
This report will be going to Full Council for decision.
Page 85 Agenda Item 8
BACKGROUND/INTRODUCTION
1. Due to the recent demise of Councillor Bothwell, who was due to be Mayor for 2014/15, the Council is now required to re-appoint a Mayor and Deputy Mayor for the forthcoming municipal year.
WHAT IS THE ISSUE THAT REQUIRES A DECISION AND WHAT DOES THIS MEAN FOR THE PEOPLE OF TUNBRIDGE WELLS?
2. At the Full Council meeting on 11 December 2013 Councillor Stanyer was nominated to be Deputy Mayor for the municipal year 2014/15. Due to the untimely death of the current Deputy Mayor it is proposed that Councillor Stanyer be appointed as Mayor for 2014/15 and Councillor Elliott be appointed as Deputy Mayor for this period.
WHO HAVE WE CONSULTED AND HOW? (OR WHO WILL WE CONSULT FOLLOWING THE DECISION?)
3. The Conservative Group has previously considered this issue and recommended both Councillors Stanyer and Elliott to the positions of Mayor and Deputy Mayor respectively.
HOW WILL THE DECISION BE COMMUNICATED?
4. The decision will be communicated in the minutes of this meeting which will be published on the Council’s website.
WHAT ALTERNATIVE ACTION COULD WE TAKE?
5. No alternative action can be taken in this case as the appointment of the Mayor and Deputy Mayor is a constitutional requirement.
CONCLUSIONS
6. Members are required to nominate a Mayor and Deputy Mayor of the Council for the forthcoming municipal year 2014/15.
RECOMMENDATION:
(1) That Councillor Stanyer be appointed as Mayor for 2014/15; and
(2) That Councillor Elliott be appointed as Deputy Mayor for 2014/15.
REASON FOR RECOMMENDATION:
To ensure the Borough Council has a Mayor and Deputy Mayor and is compliant with the Council’s Constitution.
Contact Officer: Wendy Newton-May, Interim Local Democracy Officer.
William Benson Chief Executive
APPENDICES TO REPORT • Appendix A: Cross Cutting Issues
Page 86 Appendix A
Appointment of Mayor and Deputy Mayor 2014/15
CROSS CUTTING ISSUES
LEGAL
Legal 1. The requirement to appoint a Mayor and Deputy Mayor from amongst the membership of the Council is set out under Section 5 of the Local Government Act 1972, and within the Council’s Constitution.
Human Rights Act 2. There are no specific human rights issues to address.
VALUE FOR MONEY AND USE OF RESOURCES
Finance and other resources, including ICT 3. There are no specific finance issues to address.
Staffing 4. There are no specific staffing issues to address.
Value for Money 5. There are no specific value for money issues to address.
Risk Management 6. There will be a risk if the Council do not make these appointments.
COMMUNITY
Safer & Stronger Communities 7. There are no specific issues to address.
Section 17, Crime and Disorder Act 1998 8. There are no specific issues to address.
Environment / Sustainability 9. There are no specific issues to address.
Page 87 Appendix A
Equalities 10. Consideration of impacts under the Public Sector Equality Duty: Question Answer Explanation / Evidence a. Does the decision being made or Yes / No The decision will have no impact on the recommended through this paper authority’s current policies. have potential to disadvantage or discriminate against different groups in the community? b. Does the decision being made or Yes / No recommended through this paper have the potential to promote equality of opportunity? c. What steps can be taken to mitigate, reduce, avoid or minimise the impacts identified above?
Health and Wellbeing 11. There are no specific issues to address.
Page 88