Full Council - Wednesday 14 October 2026, 6:30pm - Tunbridge Wells Borough Council Webcasting

Full Council
Wednesday, 14th October 2026 at 6:30pm

Speaking:

Start of webcast

Share this agenda point

Seat 1
Seat 3
Seat 1
Seat 2
Seat 1
Seat 2
Seat 1

1 Apologies for absence

Share this agenda point

1 Apologies for Absence

2 Minutes of the meeting dated 15 July 2026

Share this agenda point

Minutes , 15/07/2026 Full Council

3 Declarations of Interest

Share this agenda point

3 Declarations of Interest

4 Forward Plan as at 6 October 2026

Share this agenda point

2026-10-06 Forward Plan as at 6 October 2026

5 Announcements

Share this agenda point

5 Announcements

Seat 1
Seat 5
Seat 1
Seat 4*
Seat 1
Seat 6*
Seat 1
Seat 6
Seat 1
Seat 6
Seat 1
Seat 7*
Seat 1
Seat 5*

6 Questions from members of the public

Share this agenda point

Seat 1
Seat 1
Seat 2
Seat 1
Seat 10
Seat 1
Seat 1
Seat 18
Seat 1
Seat 6
Seat 1
Seat 18
Seat 6
Seat 1
Seat 18*
Seat 5
Seat 18*
Seat 1
Seat 18*
Seat 5
Seat 1
Seat 1
Seat 18
Seat 18
Seat 5
Seat 5
Seat 1
Seat 18
Seat 5
Seat 18
Seat 5
Seat 5
Seat 1
Seat 18
Seat 6
Seat 1
Seat 18
Seat 6
Seat 1
Seat 18*
Seat 5
Seat 1
Seat 18*
Seat 5
Seat 1
Seat 1
Seat 18
Seat 6
Seat 1
Seat 18
Seat 6
Seat 1

7 Questions from members of the Council

Share this agenda point

8 Changes to Political Balance and Appointments to Committees (October 2026)

Share this agenda point

Seat 5
Seat 1
Seat 5
Seat 1
Seat 5
Seat 1
Seat 5*
Seat 1

9 Changes to the Planning Committee

Share this agenda point

Seat 7*
Seat 1
Seat 12
Seat 7*
Seat 1
Seat 21*
Seat 1
Seat 18*
Seat 1
Seat 15*
Seat 1
Seat 16*
Seat 1
Seat 5*
Seat 1
Seat 5
Seat 1
Seat 20
Seat 1
Seat 10
Seat 1
Seat 19
Seat 1
Seat 12
Seat 1
Seat 7*
Seat 1
Seat 2
Seat 2

10 South East Water Task and Finish Group: Draft Final Report

Share this agenda point

Seat 1
Seat 16
Seat 1
Seat 18*
Seat 1
Seat 16
Seat 1
Seat 5
Seat 1
Seat 20
Seat 1
Seat 18*
Seat 1
Seat 16
Seat 1

11 Audit and Governance Annual Report

Share this agenda point

Seat 11
Seat 1
Seat 20
Seat 1
Seat 20
Seat 1

12 Civic Award

Share this agenda point

Seat 6*
Seat 1
Seat 1
Seat 19
Seat 1
Seat 21*
Seat 1
Seat 5
Seat 1
Seat 1

13 Motion on Notice from Councillor Chapelard

Share this agenda point

Motion - Chapelard

Seat 1
Seat 18*
Seat 1
Seat 5
Seat 1
Seat 5*
Seat 1
Seat 1
Seat 5
Seat 1
Seat 11
Seat 1
Seat 18*
Seat 1
Seat 20
Seat 15*
Seat 1
Seat 21*
Seat 1
Seat 19*
Seat 1
Seat 17*
Seat 1
Seat 10*
Seat 1
Seat 11*
Seat 1
Seat 20*
Seat 1
Seat 6*
Seat 4*
Seat 1
Seat 12
Seat 1
Seat 19
Seat 1
Seat 16
Seat 1
Seat 8
Seat 1
Seat 5
Seat 1
Seat 5
Seat 1
Seat 2
Seat 2
Seat 1

14 Motion on Notice from Councillor Mobbs

Share this agenda point

Motion - Mobbs

Seat 17
Seat 1
Seat 15*
Seat 1
Seat 11
Seat 1
Seat 18*
Seat 1
Seat 2
Seat 30
Seat 2
Seat 1
Seat 17*
Seat 1

15 Urgent Business

Share this agenda point

12 Urgent Business

16 Common Seal of the Council

Share this agenda point

13 Common Seal of the Council

Seat 1

17 Date of next meeting

Share this agenda point

14 Date of Next Meeting

Webcast Finished

Select an agenda point

Scroll with video

Disclaimer: This transcript was automatically generated, so it may contain errors. Please view the webcast to confirm whether the content is accurate.

Thank you.

Seat 1 - 0:00:37

We will, good evening ladies and gentlemen. I'm delaying the start of the meeting in

order to conduct a short prayer for which I will ask my Chaplain, Reverend David Commander.

If anyone would like to not observe the prayer, please take this time for a moment of personal

reflection or you may wish to withdraw from the chamber.

The meeting will start immediately afterwards.

Good evening everyone.

Let's begin in prayer.

God, our Father, as we gather, we are aware of the uncertainties caused by conflicts around

the world. We pray for all innocent peoples caught up in the effects of war. We are aware

from the news of the huge impact that the words and actions of world leaders have upon

ordinary men, women and children. We pray in these uncertain times for moderate,

Seat 3 - 0:01:55

considerate voices to advise world leaders.

And as we gather as those elected to serve in our communities, we pray that we may

remain considerate to those who hold different views and always considerate to those who

elected us. May we repay their trust by serving them.

Grant to all Councillors wisdom to govern amid the conflicting interests and issues and pressures of our time.

May they have a sense of welfare and the true needs of all people, a thirst for justice

and rightness for all people, and the ability to work together in harmony for the good of

all, even when there is honest disagreement.

Pray for personal peace in their lives and joy in the tasks that they undertake.

In your name we pray.

Amen.

Seat 1 - 0:03:29

Good evening members of the Council, members of the public and others who have chosen to

join us both here in the Town Hall and online via the live webcast.

Welcome to this meeting of the Tomich Wales Borough Council on Wednesday 14 October.

Before we get underway I will ask the Chief Executive to set out some important safety

and procedural information that I would ask you to give your full attention to.

Seat 2 - 0:03:52

Thank you Madam Mayor.

In the event of the fire alarm ringing continuously you must immediately evacuate the building

at walking pace.

Officers will escort you via the most direct available route and please no one is to use

the lift.

We will make our way to the fire assembly points by the entrance to the Town Boardyard

car park on Monson Way. Once outside, a cheque will be made to ensure everyone has left the

building safely and no one is to re -enter until advised it is safe to do so. This is

a public meeting and proceedings are being webcast online. A recording will be available

for playback on the council's website shortly after the meeting concludes. Any third party

may record or film council meetings unless exempt or confidential information is being

considered but the council is not liable for any third -party recordings.

To ensure clear audio transmission within the chamber, please speak directly into the

microphone. The red light indicates the microphone is on and please make sure your tablet or

laptop is not placed directly in front of the microphone as this will block the sound

and your comments may not be heard. Any comments that are not recorded may not be included

in the minutes of the meeting.

At the end of each debate, the Mayor will ask whether the matter is agreed.

In the absence of a clear majority or if the Mayor decides a full vote is desirable, a

vote will be taken by a show of hands.

Any member wishing to request a recorded vote must do so before the vote is taken.

And finally, if you have a mobile phone, please ensure it is switched off or set to silent

mode.

Thank you.

1 Apologies for absence

2 Minutes of the meeting dated 15 July 2026

Seat 1 - 0:05:37

Seat 2 - 0:05:45

Seat 1 - 0:05:52

The next item is to approve the minutes of the meeting held on that date.

May I remind members that only matters for discussion is our accuracy.

Does anyone have any amendments for the 15th of July?

I see none.

The motion is to agree the minutes. Are we agreed?

Agree.

3 Declarations of Interest

Agenda item 3, declarations of interest.

Members are asked if they have any declarations of interest in items on this agenda.

Does anyone have a declaration to make?

I see none.

Agenda item four.

4 Forward Plan as at 6 October 2026

The forward plan is on pages 19 to 32 of your agenda pad.

It has been placed on the full council agenda for information to ensure that all councillors

are aware of its contents.

It is not here for debate as it is an executive matter for cabinet, so it is here tonight

purely for noting.

The motion is to note the forward plan.

members please be advised that an update to the forward plan was published on the 7th

of October. To reflect the removal of the local government reorganisation report from

the cabinet cycling accordance with the government's pause on LGR. Noting this comment, the motion

is to note the forward plan. Are we agreed?

5 Announcements

Agreeed.

update should be brief. Okay I have the following announcements. I was at the

Love Where We Live Awards last week and it was an absolutely brilliant evening

with wonderful nominees, very enthusiastic winners so that was a

really wonderful evening. So thanks to Lizzie who worked so hard for that

evening and for Joan Fineman who was an amazing host on the night. The other

thing I would like to say is I'm going to have a charity movie night at the

in Hawkhast on the 23rd of November.

So please put that in your diaries.

I would love to see you all there.

And thank you, Councillor Bryce,

because I'll see you tomorrow at my charity, Clay Shoe.

Thank you.

Deputy Mayor, do you have any announcements?

Lead with the council, do you have any announcements?

Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Mayor.

Seat 1 - 0:08:17

Good evening, everybody.

I've got three announcements.

and firstly on behalf of the council,

I would like to thank Nancy Worn,

who stepped down in August for her service

and dedication to residents of Cranbrook,

Sisinghurst and Fritenden,

since she was first elected in 2019.

I think her calm, collaborative and thoughtful council

will be missed by many colleagues who worked with her

in many council forums,

and I personally like to thank her

for being the deputy leader of the council

between 2022 and 2024.

I'd also like to welcome Councillor Harry

Wormington to his first council meeting following

the Cranbrook, Sissinghurst and Fritteran

by -election.

And I'm pleased to report, Madam Mayor, that

Tamborishawell's borough council is now back up to

its full complement of 39 councillors.

There's been a lot going on since we last met here

on the 15th of July.

Besides the temperature being remarkably cooler than it was back then.

The day after we met in July, on the 16th of July, the government announced, as expected, its plan for local government reorganisation in Kent.

It chose option 4B, which would see the creation of four councils across Kent.

West Kent, North Kent, East Kent, and of course, a Mid -Kent.

It wasn't this council's preferred option. As a council we preferred option 3A, but as a West Kent we are still with Tungent Malling, Sevenoaks and Maidstone Burrows.

Seat 5 - 0:10:02

The majority of councils in Kent are content with four councils, but I do personally worry about the long -term viability of other councils who are much smaller under Clan 4B than under 3A.

because of their higher social care costs, special educational needs and school transport.

And then the 7th of September happens when we received the news that the government was pausing

local government reorganisation for Kent pending a review.

Other parts of the country had their proposals withdrawn.

We suspect that this was due to legal advice which made some of their July decisions unsound

in the face of impending judicial reviews.

This was totally unexpected and I can't overemphasise this point.

That nobody saw this would happen because we're told that the incoming

Burnham government had approved the release of those new geographies

ahead of the new Prime Minister taking over on the 20th of July.

It is a major change in policy by the government.

And to date we have had no further information from the government.

I would have liked to be able to update full council to be able to answer the simple question.

Does the government still believe in local government reorganisation?

If so, is the government going to do local government reorganisation and devolution?

Or is a Prime Minister suggesting we do devolution first before local government reorganisation?

Are we expecting a year's delay on the original timetable?

Or is that something that he wants to deliver in the next Parliament?

And I'm afraid, as of tonight, I have no definite answers to give full council.

We were told at Kent Leaders in September that we would have a ministerial statement this week.

Yesterday we were told it would be today and today we were told it might be next week.

But I cannot update you further at this stage.

Councillors can also remind us that we have got an LGR briefing tomorrow evening on the assumption that we will get some news.

But please keep an eye out for a very short postponement at short notice because of this pause for LGR.

I'm sure we'll come back to LGR later on in the meeting.

Thank you Madam Mayor, those are my three announcements.

Thank you Councillor Chappell and we now have members of the cabinet with strategic plan updates.

Seat 1 - 0:12:45

Councillor Wilkinson I believe you are first.

Seat 4* - 0:12:52

Thank you, Madam Mayor. Here's my strategic plan update for the sports and leisure portfolio.

Hawkenbury hub phase one. We're out to tender for a number of elements to improve and extend

the sports pitches, provide flood prevention measures, stud lighting to footpaths and provide

an option for rainwater harvesting to reduce the use of mains water needed for grounds

maintenance. Further details of the programming of the works will be notified to Hawkenbury

recreation users after the award of the contract.

Work is in progress to finalise the specification and timeline

for the pitch improvement work.

It will improve the quality of the playing surface

at the existing Hawkenbury Recreation Ground

as part of a phased approach to delivering the hub long term.

Improvements to leisure centres.

We are working with Moore Leisure

to deliver the investment plan across the three centres.

We are currently liaising with Paddock Woodtown Council

to develop an agreed scheme of works to be funded by the 1 .2 .4 of section 106 developer

contributions that the Council holds. The recent All Members Briefing from More Leisure

highlighted the successful transfer of the centres and improvements already made to the

sites. Many thanks.

Thank you. Councillor Keefe.

Seat 1 - 0:14:07

Seat 6* - 0:14:09

Thank you Madam Mayor. I have an update to share on Youth Hubs. As members will be aware,

We've already awarded funding to support organisations and projects in Paddett Wood,

Rust Hall, Horseman Den and with Tambor D 'Well's Youth for Christ, Well Being in the Weald

and Trinity.

Now we are continuing to investigate and develop further opportunities going beyond our original

targets.

We've approved funding to expand Trinity's youth provision to Paddett Wood.

We have also approved funding to support the creation of a permanent home for the youth

hub in Paddett Wood.

I'm delighted to share that this work led by the paddock wood town town council

Will bring a neglected building in the centre of town back into use as well as providing much -needed permanent activity and storage space

The council has also been working with the YMCA

Which has been engaging with young people in st. John's Park to better understand their needs and aspirations for a future youth hub facility a

meeting is being arranged between YMCA and TWBC to

To consider all this feedback and develop proposals for a youth club in the area

This work will help shape our future provision to meet the needs of local young people

I'm very excited about this step to expand our youth offering to a bigger area and create more activities and opportunities for young people in St.

John's look forward to having further updates in the future

Thank You councillor, Wilmington

Seat 1 - 0:15:33

Thank you, thank you madam mayor I

have

Seat 6 - 0:15:34

a few updates on active travel routes and then a quick update on our tree planting initiative.

So firstly starting with...

Seat 1 - 0:15:44

Please remember it's meant to be brief.

Seat 6 - 0:15:47

They're as brief as they can be Madam Mayor.

So the A26 cycleway, KCC have added the A26 to their list of future opportunities

and this creates the potential for updated feasibility work to be commenced in 2728.

The Langton Green through Rust Hall to Tunbridge Wells Active Travel Link.

So given the nature of the works, a decision has been taken by KCC to minimise the disruption of Phase 1 works,

which is in Rust Hall itself, as much as possible.

So they're targeting summer holidays to undertake the works next year.

The plan is to start four to five weeks prior to the summer holiday starting,

using the six weeks of the school holiday to complete the work.

Contract submissions to tender for the work are currently being sought.

The time frame also enables ourselves and KCC to fully consider and incorporate any feedback or questions arising from the phase two engagement, which is the next phase of the project.

South Brutter High Brooms walking route.

SR25 active travel funding has been secured for public engagement sessions involving online

in -person experiential and visualisation elements to understand the community's thoughts and

that engagement is going to be led by TWBC.

And capital funding for safer school routes has been awarded for design and construction

starting with St. James as phase one and KCC is going to lead that work.

Finally, the Royal Tunbridge Wells cross -town route with the support of KCC, funding for

public engagement has been secured through SR25 active travel funding.

This includes funding public engagement on the Hawkenbury Village to town route part

of the scheme.

Both engagements are going to be led by TWBC.

And finally on trees, just a quick update, we are partnering, continue to partner with

Wildlife Trust on their large -scale wilding project, as mentioned in previous full council

meetings.

And the initial planting in the Lambethuysen site is going to take place this winter.

That's a hedge planting, I believe.

Further consultations are underway with Kent High World Partnership to develop proposals

for 26 -27 planting season, with plans to plant at least a further 5 ,500 trees across the

as well as a full launch of the Community Nature Assert Initiative.

Thank you.

We now have announcements not related to the strategic plan.

Seat 1 - 0:18:18

First one from Councillor Loepp.

Seat 7* - 0:18:24

Thank you, Madam.

Excuse me.

Thank you, Madam Mayor.

This is a brief update for Council following the motion in April about the Pan -Sars.

Members will have seen the papers and my updates to Cabinet in September.

I'll summarise this now and add a little new news.

The motion in April covered two matters, the maintenance and upkeep of the Pantiles Colonnade by Target Follow

and encouraging Target Follow to engage with other tenants, residents and landowners and with the Council in the long -term vision for the Pantiles.

The repair work on the colonnade began last month and included further investigation from

a team of heritage qualified structural engineers.

This follows the application and granting of listed building consents in June.

The consent covers the urgent pillars that were identified in the target follow study

and associated guttering and drain pipes.

Once these works are completed, it is intended to commence work on the other columns and other elements of the colonnade that require repair or renovation.

This will be conducted in liaison with target follow's advisors and the council's conservation officers.

The colonnade will continue to be the subject of a routine cleaning regime by target follow.

After each stage has been completed,

it is likely there will be further assessment

of the structures and an updating of the scope

to establish exactly what is required next.

It is difficult to provide a timeline for future works

because of the complexity and age of the colonnade

and the way that the columns

and the structures around them were built,

but we continue to be in close contact with target follow

and are requesting updates as appropriate.

Council Rutland and I have been in a number of meetings with Target Follow residents and

individual businesses over the last months and continue to be in frequent contact with

the main residents group and Target Follow with the aim of improving communication and

mutual understanding. The work on the vision for the Pantiles as part of the Town Centre

plan will be discussed at a stakeholder meeting which will hopefully be in November.

In August, Target Follow announced its intention to sell its Tom Bridgewell estate.

Their representatives have assured us that the repair work will continue as planned.

There will be a business as usual approach as any sale progresses.

Obviously, depending on if and when the sale goes through, we will engage on all aspects of the motion with the new owner,

but for now we continue to work with Target Follow.

At cabinet in September I committed to announcing further updates to cabinet as appropriate and to provide reports to count to council

When the project is complete

Thank you

Seat 1 - 0:21:16

Council Hall you have an update on the RVP I

Seat 5* - 0:21:22

Do madam mayor I have a couple of announcements on behalf of councillor Rutland and the first one is on raw Victoria place

Reba Stage 3 for Palm Court is complete and full council will be asked to make a decision in November next month in fact to approve funding for this part of the full scheme and commence procurement to enable scheme timetables to be achieved.

Just a reminder that the full documentation is available to all members in the members room and the all member briefing from the 17th of September is available for members to review.

Ealy Court work has now recommenced with a decision

by DCMS not to list 3 to 7 Camden Road and being minded

to issue a certificate of immunity from listing.

Final pre -app discussions are taking place with the aim

to submit a planning application in November.

Full council decision on the full scheme is anticipated

to be in April 2027.

And just very quickly on the farmer's market.

The farmers market is continuing with a wide array of variety of stalls feedback from storeholders has been positive and fulfilled good

So this project is now deemed to be complete

Thank you

6 Questions from members of the public

Chief executive do you have any notes? No, I didn't

Seat 1 - 0:22:38

Then we come to agenda item six questions for members of the public

Seat 1 - 0:22:45

Duly received in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 8.

There are nine questions which are set out in the supplementary agenda pack to the main agenda.

Questions will be taken in the order stipulated by Council Procedure Rule 8 .2.

After each answer the questioner may ask a supplementary question which must arise directly out of the original question or reply.

This is usually to clarify something from the answer.

The total time allocated for questions and answers is 30 minutes.

Any questions that are unable to be covered in the time allowed

will receive a written response after the meeting.

The time allocated for questions by the public should be limited to 30 minutes only.

Allocated to an individual question of all of their questions

and to receive responses should not exceed 10 minutes.

And an individual who has used the relotted ten minutes will be advised that they have no more time available.

Question one.

Seat 2 - 0:23:49

Madam Mayor, just before we move forward to questions, it's been drawn to my attention that Councillor Johnson has arrived since the meeting started.

So it might be appropriate just to ask if they have any declarations of interest.

Councillor Johnson?

Seat 1 - 0:24:03

No declarations of interest.

Seat 10 - 0:24:05

Thank you.

Seat 1 - 0:24:08

Dr. Morton, if you'd like to step forward.

Yeah, you are there.

Hello.

Thank you, Madam Mayor.

Seat 1 - 0:24:15

If you could ask your first question.

Yes.

I'm asking these questions on behalf of Tom

Seat 18 - 0:24:20

Well's climate and nature coalition

So in view of recent government announcements will the council be applying for funding to support

Renewable community energy projects to reduce energy costs for local residents

Thank you, yes, I am

Seat 1 - 0:24:43

Seat 6 - 0:24:44

Hello, I'm going to have to resist the temptation to refer to you as councilable. Lovely to see you again, Margarita

The council is exploring whether these fundering opportunities are suitable.

Currently the council is not a community energy partnership which may limit our ability to

apply for this round of grant funding.

However, with recent increases in capacity to the sustainability team, we've taken on

two additional members of staff.

the Council is looking into how we can support future community energy opportunities within the borough.

Seat 1 - 0:25:30

Thank you. Marguerite, do you have another question or supplementary question for Beryl?

Seat 18 - 0:25:42

Does that mean that you're not going to be applying or you cannot apply under the Great

British Energy announcement for community funding then? Because that was something that

they announced I think back in September. There are two elements to it. One is 20 million

Pounds, which is a community fund for all of England,

Wales and Northern Ireland.

And the other one is a partnership grant for £5

million, which actually offers grants to support the

development of collaborative projects between local

authorities and community energy organisations.

Seat 6 - 0:26:32

I don't want to, I don't have the detail here in front of me and I don't want to misspeak,

so I will answer in generalities if you'll forgive me for that.

We have a very robust team that seeks, that proactively seeks out grants to apply for.

As you mentioned, some of the funding that has become available is not going to be open

to us because we don't operate as a community energy partnership.

However, the good news is that we've expanded the sustainability team by taking on two new

members of staff and that will increase our capacity and this is something we're actively

looking into at the moment.

So in future grants in future years, hopefully that won't be a barrier to us.

Thank you.

Seat 1 - 0:27:23

The second question is Brandon Chang asking your question of Councillor Chaplard.

Seat 18* - 0:27:32

The council petition scheme imposed straight verification requirement before grassroot

petition can be accepted as evidence for local community support.

Yet when the administration saw public input on LVP it commissioned Redwood Consulting

through an external platform rather than using Council existing e -petition infrastructure.

Why is verification eligibility treated as a straight requirement when the resident petitions

the Council?

The different standard appears to apply when the Council commissions public consultation.

Seat 5 - 0:28:11

Thank you Mr Cheng for your question.

the Council's petition scheme and the Council's consultation exercises serve two different purposes

and therefore we operate under two different arrangements.

Firstly, the petition scheme is a constitutional process designed to enable our residents to formally request

that the Council considers a special issue.

Because petitions can trigger particular

constitutional requirements, including consideration

by counsellors where thresholds are met,

the scheme includes verification requirements

to ensure that those signing are eligible to sign

and that the council can be confident

in the integrity of the petition.

Because of this, petitions are only recognised

where they are submitted in accordance

to the council's petition scheme,

which stipulates that supporters of a petition

must either live or work or study in the borough.

By contrast, the public consultation engagement exercises

are not intended to operate as a petition or referendum.

Their purpose is to gather views, opinions,

ideas and feedback from a broad range of stakeholders,

including visitors to the borough,

to inform decision making.

The methodology used for a consultation is selected

according to the objectives of that engagement exercise

and may involve specialist providers, independent research methodologies,

surveys, workshops or online engagement platforms.

In the case of Royal Victoria Place, in your question,

the council commissioned specialist consultation support

to obtain qualitative and quantitative feedback on proposals.

The consultation was not intended to establish a formal count of residents supporting or opposing a proposition,

nor to confer any constitutional status on the responses received.

Rather, it was designed to inform councillors and staff about public views and preferences.

Because of this, there is no inconsistency between applying verification requirements to formal petitions,

while using different engagement methodologies for consultation exercises.

The approved processes have different purposes,

different evidential weight and different constitutional consequences

and it is appropriate that they are administered in two different ways.

Under the...

Sorry, do you have a supplementary question?

Seat 18* - 0:30:52

Seat 1 - 0:30:54

Yes, under the Council Constitution

Seat 18* - 0:30:56

and officially submit a petition that meet the required signature threshold is legally blinding in its routing.

It forced a mandatory debate and a record vote in cabinet.

And cabinet must make a formal executive decision regardless of whether it recommends to full council.

Given that Redwood consultation was funnelled through the exact same executive path to serve the exact same decision -making process.

If both revenues are designed to directly inform and trigger an executive capital expenditure

choice by the cabinet, why would the Council spend public money to bypass its own constitutional

binding petition performed in favour of an unverified third party survey, if not to deliberately

engineer a favourable statistic outcome?

Seat 5 - 0:31:51

Thank you, Mr. Cheng, for your supplementary question.

As I said earlier, there are two different processes.

One is a constitutional process that would be triggered by a number of petition signatories.

The other one is a public consultation exercise, which is seeking feedback from residents,

visitors, to be able to determine its own policy.

They are very different processes and they are delivered through different mechanisms.

Seat 1 - 0:32:25

Thank you. The third question is from Richard Portnage.

Seat 1 - 0:32:37

This is regarding Royal Victoria Place.

Seat 18 - 0:32:43

Given the scale of the proposed investment and the potential long -term financial exposure to the Council,

if the existing consultation has not actually established whether residents support the investment itself,

would cabinet consider holding a borough -wide referendum or at minimum an independently administered advisory local poll

so that residents can consider the full costs, risks and expected benefits before the final decision is taken.

A borough -wide referendum will give residents and community groups an opportunity to debate and campaign on both sides of the proposition,

rather than relying principally on consultation exercises commissioned by the Council itself.

If cabinet would not support such a poll, what democratic mechanism does it consider

capable of giving residents an equally meaningful opportunity to consider the full investment

proposition?

Seat 5 - 0:33:54

Seat 18 - 0:33:54

Thank you for your question, Mr. Courtenage.

Seat 5 - 0:33:59

A borough -wide poll would cost a taxpayer £225 ,000.

So I think there are probably better mechanisms to assess public support of RVP.

And we've been very clear as an administration since we took control that we intended to reinvigorate War Victoria Place.

and if we take it as an opinion poll,

if we take the last local elections as an opinion poll,

we've been very clear in our manifesto commitments,

they have returned the Liberal

and Democrat administration each time.

RVP is a commercial project.

The borrowing is repaid from revenue

that the scheme will generate,

and the business case has been sensitively tested against worst outcomes than we expect.

The council has always owned a freehold of Royal Victoria Place and we bought back the lease so we control the site.

Unlike a private owner, the council also benefits from additional car parking income

and the increase in business rates that a busier town council, sorry, town centre brings.

Those are returns a commercial landlord would not see

and they strengthen the case rather than weaken it.

A referendum asks a single question in a single moment

and a commercial development is not a single decision.

It is a series of them and we're being asked next month

to make the next decision in the sequence.

We have already shown, but not proceeding

with the market square residential development,

We are listening and adapting the plan.

Some of the details residents would need to weigh include terms under negotiation with operators.

It is also commercially confidential while those talks are live.

A referendum I believe would ask people to decide on a proposition that could not be fully shown to them

for those commercial reasons that I've outlined above.

It is not a better form of democracy but a weaker one.

The mechanism that gives residents a meaningful say is this chamber.

Every one of the 39 councillors elected to this borough will have a vote in the decision to do with Palm Court.

It's already gone through two cabinet advisory boards.

It will be debated by cabinet next week and it's coming to full council on the 11th of November.

With a full business case before elected councillors.

And then there is the opportunity for overview and scrutiny to appeal the candidate's decision before it goes to full council.

And residents can always ask questions tonight as you are and then we can be judged on whether there is support at the next electoral opportunity.

Thank you. Do you have a supplementary question?

Thank you. Yes, I do.

Seat 1 - 0:37:13

Seat 18 - 0:37:15

If I may direct you towards page 14 of the Redwood engagements.

It lists six major items from highest priority to lowest priority.

All of those items, shops, boutique cinema, dining options, family activities,

evening entertainment options and culture all receive a priority mean of

less than half. Sadly that also includes culture at the lowest level but if all

of these aren't that prior are not required as a priority why are we then

spending money on it. This is page 14.

Seat 5 - 0:38:05

This is page 14.

Seat 18 - 0:38:07

Seat 5 - 0:38:09

Thank you for your supplementary question.

Seat 5 - 0:38:13

We're investing in Royal Victoria Place because we want to have a town centre

we can be proud of and I don't have page 14 in front of me,

understandably, so I'll comment more generally. We made a decision in 2023

to purchase Royal Victoria Place to safeguard the top of the town centre.

Just for information, technically Royal Victoria Place had been sold to another company

that didn't have the town's best interests at heart.

We managed through our outstanding staff team to get British Land,

the current owners of that, the then owners of the lease,

to withdraw from that deal and sell it to us at a cost of 8 .15 million

when British Land bought it for 96 million.

As I said in my acceptance speech when I became leader four years ago,

I believe that the high street can compete with the internet.

We're seeing it up and down the country where the internet is destroying the high street.

But actually in Tumbridge Wells, we have more people visiting the town centre than before.

more people are coming, we know that through our parking data,

and we're bringing community together so that we can create

a light time economy that will bring people into the town centre.

And I think that is something, that's our raison d 'etre

to be part of that journey and make things happen on behalf of our community.

And of course there are costs, of course there are risks,

but for all those people who have a mortgage out there,

A mortgage was a bet to own a property and we don't see that as a negative debt, we see

that as a positive.

I believe the business case whereby it will pay for itself without impacting other council

services is something that we want to deliver for Tamborge Wells and I speak to lots of

people who don't live in the borough who are really excited by the opportunity that that

redevelopment of our BP will bring to Tamborge Wells town.

Thank you.

Thank you. Question for Margarita Morton.

Seat 1 - 0:40:25

Thank you, Madam Mayor.

Seat 18 - 0:40:37

When does the Council expect to be on a wholly renewable energy tariff

for its own buildings and operated assets like the RVP in order to offset the 47 % of

energy that comes from coal and gas? And when will the Council do retrofit work on its own

significant buildings, including whole building retrofit, air source or ground source heat

pumps, installation of walls and floors and total replacement of gas boilers.

Seat 6 - 0:41:22

Councillor Warmington. Thank you, thank you for your question.

So the Council's approach to pursuing renewable energy sourcing and the retrofit of its assets

is set out in the recently adopted corporate net zero strategy, which I'm sure you've had

chance to take a look at, so there's a lot more detail there, but I'll give a brief summary

now.

And its action plan, net zero strategy, sorry, and its action plan for the next few years.

This strategy, which again, I'm sure you've already seen, but can be found on the Tunbridge

Wells Borough Council Climate Action website, which I know has recently been updated by

our fantastic sustainability team.

So for all sites, excluding those the council is not directly responsible for energy procurement

for, so for example the leisure centres which are obviously leased, all leased units in

RVP.

Currently, the council is sourcing its electricity from renewable sources.

This is approximately 2 .1 million kilowatt hours of electricity.

And you'll also, I'm sure, be aware that we have recently installed solar panels on the

roof of RVP.

I believe they are responsible for about 40 % of the energy generated at the site.

And obviously that's entirely renewable.

So we're working to ensure wider assets such as our leisure centres are also sourcing electricity from traceable renewable sources through the arrangements that we have with the state courts working with.

The council has already delivered significant work to reduce energy consumption and transition

away from gas across our assets.

So examples include the air source heat pumps installed at the Weald Leisure Centre, at

the North Farm Depot, and many of our temporary accommodation properties.

In addition to the recent installation of the solar canopy at the RVP car park, I'm

mention that again if you haven't had an opportunity.

This is for everyone.

If you haven't had an opportunity to go up and look at that wonderful feat of engineering

on top of the roof, I strongly recommend you do so.

And finally, since 2018, we have reduced electricity.

This is a final general note.

We've reduced electricity consumption across our assets by over 4 million kilowatt hours

and gas consumption by 800 ,000 kilowatt hours, contributing to the reduction in our direct

emissions by 54 % since 2018, which is 1 ,815 tonnes of CO2 equivalent.

Thank you, Councillor Wilmington.

Well, Greta, do you have a supplementary question?

Seat 1 - 0:44:07

Yes, thank you, Mr. Wilmington.

Seat 18 - 0:44:17

question. Can you tell me in relation to the 4 million kilowatts saved since 2018, are

you using the same base as you are using now? Because I think you are now using ISO standards.

So are we comparing like with like? Thank you.

I believe so. Thank you for your question. I believe so, yes.

Seat 6 - 0:44:46

But I will confirm that in writing and I believe that can be added to the minutes of the meeting.

But I believe so, yes.

Seat 1 - 0:44:58

Thank you, Councillor Wellington. Question number five is from Brandon Chang.

If you'd like to step forward and Councillor Cepelow will answer.

Seat 18* - 0:45:07

The Council Minute described the Redwood exercise as a public and stakeholder consultation,

but Appendix D indicates that it principally measures retail habits, visit frequency and decides shop improvement.

Given that the core RVP stage has now fully concluded, when Cabinet decided to recommend the proposal to full Council,

What evidence did it rely on to conclude that this customer feedback

demonstrates public support for the investment itself,

including its costs, risks and potential implications for council tax?

And if Redwood exercise did not test that proposition,

on what basis should it be treated as evidence of public support for a major capital project?

Seat 5 - 0:45:59

Thank you Mr. Ching for your question.

The Redwood consultation exercise was not designed to test whether residents support the capital investment and cabinet did not rely on it for that purpose.

It was market research. It asked how people use a town, how often they visit, what they want from it and what would bring them back more importantly.

That is the evidence a landlord needs before deciding what to build and who to let the property to.

And it has indeed shaped the scheme.

The move towards leisure, a cinema and an evening economy came directly out of what residents told us was missing from the town.

That is evidence about what the scheme should contain, not on a vote on whether to fund it.

The two things sit in different places.

Consumer research tells us what the market wants

and reduces the risk in letting out the property

because we are building what people have said they will use.

Whether the council should fund it is a question answered by the business case

and by the councillors elected to this council

as I set out in my previous answer.

Thank you, Councillor Chantal. Mr Chiang, do you have a supplementary question?

Seat 1 - 0:47:26

Seat 18* - 0:47:30

Yes, followed by the election in May in the interview for the media, let me reference

from the council leaders' own work. Councillor Chapelle told the media the voters

reward Lib Dem for positive campaign focus on general local service infrastructure and

meeting standard promise.

Councillor Sheperdock did not claim the election was a single referendum issue of plunging

this borough into debt.

So given with what Councillor Sheperdock just said, is he admitting no proper public consultation

has been done on RBP.

Thank you.

Thank you for your question.

Seat 5 - 0:48:13

I think we've been very clear in every election that that is our number one priority.

It is in the strategic plan of the council. We have gone out to public consultation.

We have had feedback. It has been adopted by this body.

We go out very often. We talk to residents.

I was out on Saturday. I was out on Friday talking to residents.

and many of them commented on how pleased they are by that, by what we're proposing.

We've recently engaged with business networks and it enjoys a lot of public support, we believe.

I'm not hearing from many people that they oppose the scheme at all.

And I think it's important and actually, you know, we're trying to do something for our town that will be the envy of other towns.

We're getting things done that residents told us.

I've knocked on thousands and thousands of doors

and people say to me, the busiest part of town is the Pantars.

And as you walk back up the hill, it becomes quieter and quieter.

Some have even described it as an ex -mining town.

I can confirm we've never had a mine in Tambor's Wells town.

But that's not a great badge to be proud of.

and what we're doing as a scheme, you may not like it Mr Sheng, and you're entitled to disagree, of course.

But we believe that that is a town centre we want to be proud of for our residents and future generations. Thank you.

Seat 1 - 0:49:55

Thank you Councillor Chaplard. Question number six is from Margarita Morton, would you like to step forward?

Councillor Wurminton will be replying to your question.

Seat 1 - 0:50:05

Thank you, Madam Mayor.

Seat 18 - 0:50:12

Is the Council providing a service to support private homeowners to actively enforce minimum

energy efficiency standards?

That's EPC level C for homes in the private renter sector by 2035, as well as the commercial

sector to EPC level B by 2030.

Seat 6 - 0:50:37

So, there are a couple of threads in this and I will try and clear them off as efficiently

as possible.

So, we're currently supporting the private rented sector to meet EPC Level C via the

warm homes local grant scheme.

This is a central government grant that we administer essentially.

In fact, most of these are central government grants that we administer.

Sorry, my computer is trying to restart itself.

Let's stop that.

Private, eligible private tenants can apply for the Warm Homes Local Grant.

I'm not going to go through the eligibility criteria now, but I'm very happy to, if you would like,

either in the form of a supplementary question or in written response.

But we do have the eligibility criteria, and we obviously judge people against that.

For the Minimum Energy Efficient Standard, or MEES, enforcement, we have contacted 274 properties that have an EPC of F and G and were potentially privately rented.

Of these, some were only occupied, some had improvements which have lifted the EPC out from F and G, and some have applied for an exemption.

apologies, and 37 of them were list buildings.

We have 13 properties to follow up on plus 37 list buildings.

Tenants with certain health conditions can apply for a warm home's assistance, can apply

for warm home's assistance, sorry, to help with the installation of energy efficient

measures such as replacing a broken or faulty boiler and insulation and up to 10 ,000 pounds

per property is available for that.

And then finally there is another scheme, energy efficiency assistance, which is available

to tenants of private sector landlords in properties with an EPC of D or below and up

to £3 ,500 is available with loft and cavity wall insulation being prioritised.

Thank you.

Margarita, do you have a supplementary question?

No?

Okay.

Seat 1 - 0:52:44

Thank you very much.

I believe you also have question number seven.

So if you'd like to proceed and Councillor Wilmington will reply to that one.

Thank you Madam Mayor.

Seat 18 - 0:52:57

Has the Council stopped using pesticides, particularly glyphosate?

Thank you for your question.

Seat 6 - 0:53:06

So we don't use pesticide control within our parks.

We use mechanical methods including hand pulling and hoeing with the use of mulches as a weed

suppressant where appropriate.

When we come up against difficult to control weeds such as the infamous Japanese knotweed,

we manage these through the injection of chemicals and that also applies for giant hogweed as

well.

We use direct injection into the plant in those circumstances.

We do use limited quantities of herbicides as necessary on sports pitches to control broad -leaved weeds on the playing surfaces to maintain the quality of the pitch.

Seat 1 - 0:53:58

I'm afraid that we have actually now reached the end of the allotted time set aside for

questions from members of the public.

So we do need to move on to the next agenda item.

Members of the public, Margarita, of those who have not received an answer within the

allotted time will receive a written answer to your questions.

And if you need to submit that supplementary question, if you had one, Margarita, please

do.

7 Questions from members of the Council

Right, we move on to Agenda Item number 7.

Questions from members of the Council, but I can confirm that there are no questions received.

8 Changes to Political Balance and Appointments to Committees (October 2026)

So, Agenda Item 8, the political balance.

The report is in the additional supplementary agenda pack where the recommendations are also set out.

Before we move into debate, members will note that committee allocations are not balanced

in accordance with the Local Government and Housing Act 1989.

In such cases, any decision to waive the requirements of political balance will require a resolution

of the Council with no member voting against.

I'm going to ask Councillor Chapelle to introduce the item and move the recommendation.

Councillor Chapelle.

Thank you, Madam Mayor.

Seat 5 - 0:55:09

I'll introduce the motion when it's been seconded.

Thank you.

Councillor Hall, I understand you would like to second the recommendation.

Seat 1 - 0:55:21

I will, Madam Mayor, and I'll reserve my right to speak.

Seat 5 - 0:55:22

Thank you.

Seat 1 - 0:55:26

Councillor Chappell.

Thank you, Madam Mayor.

Seat 5 - 0:55:29

Following Councillor and Nancy Warren's resignation, which triggered a by -election, the political

balance of the council has changed and that needs to be reflected in the allocation of

committee seats, which you've got in front of you in the appendix.

It never falls exactly right, as you can imagine, and therefore I'm grateful to Councillor

Dorlings, Councillor Pound and Councillor Neville, who gave up their time this weekend

so that we could just agree the seats and the product of that work is in the appendix.

Thank you Madam Mayor.

Thank you.

Do any members wish to speak on this item?

I see none.

Seat 1 - 0:56:14

Sorry, Councillor Hall, would you like to speak now?

I have nothing to add Madam Mayor.

Thank you.

Seat 5* - 0:56:23

So we have two recommendations as set out in the report.

Seat 1 - 0:56:27

One, that the allocation of the number of seats on committees political balance as set

out at paragraph 3 .10 of this report be approved.

And two, that the appointments to committees nominated by group leaders, including the

chair and vice chair of each committee, set out in appendix A to this report be approved.

Are we agreed?

Okay, the motion is carried.

9 Changes to the Planning Committee

We now move to agenda item 9, which is changes to the planning committee.

The report begins on page 38 of your agenda pack where the recommendations are also set out.

I'm going to ask Councillor Lowe to introduce the item and move the recommendation.

Seat 7* - 0:57:16

Thank you Madam Mayor. I'd like to introduce the motion after it's been seconded.

Okay, Councillor Paterson, would you like to second the recommendation?

Seat 1 - 0:57:24

Seat 12 - 0:57:27

Yes, Madam Mayor, I would like to second and reserve my right to speak.

Okay, thank you.

Councillor Lowe.

Seat 7* - 0:57:33

Thank you, Madam Mayor.

The Planning and Infrastructure Act 2026 introduces changes to the way that planning is discharged

by local planning authorities and the regulations created under the Act came into force on the

31st of October.

To comply with these regulations, the Council needs to make changes to the way that we run our Planning Committee.

If we do not make these changes, planning decisions made from November could be subject to being overturned by the Court.

As you will have read in your pact, the regulations establish a national scheme of delegation,

which lays down rules for deciding which applications are decided by officers and which can be decided by Planning Committee.

The Schedule 1 applications are to be decided by officers.

The Schedule 2 applications are to be decided by officers unless the applications pass a

referral test, which means that they can then be decided at committee.

The decisions to refer to committee are made by the nominated officer, head of planning,

and the nominated member, the chair of the committee.

These rules, processes, and personnel are all laid out in the regulations to the bill,

and we do not have the ability to change them.

As members will recall from the debate at full council in April,

another element of the introduction of the national scheme of delegation is

that all call -in function is removed.

Despite the comments that we and other planning authorities submitted

at the consultation stages and the additional correspondence and consultation that we submitted

as a result of the motion. The draught regulations on this matter did not change and call -in

will not be possible from November.

Because of the short time span between the regulations being confirmed and the start

date, officers have had to set up our internal procedures for the new processes and to make

sure that the system is clear for the public. I would like to thank them for their hard

in this concentrated time period.

Changes will be made to the Council's website to enable residents to see what schedule individual applications are in,

and an explanation will be on the site to set out the new system.

The Chair and Deputy Chair have been involved in some of these process discussions already,

and are taking part in a dummy run to make sure everything is ready.

I know that there is disquiet, frustration, anger amongst members at the content of these changes

and how they will impact our decision -making. This has been clearly expressed here and in committees

as this report has progressed through the cycle. We are however presented with little room for

manoeuvre with these reforms. They are mandatory and we have to act accordingly. Therefore I urge

Seat 1 - 1:00:36

members to support the motion. Thank you Councillor. Do any members wish to speak on this item?

Seat 21* - 1:00:44

Thank you very much Madam Mayor. As Councillor has pointed out there is a lot of disquiet

and the main reason is that this has taken away the residents representation by us who were elected to represent them.

Effectively, as happened at the last planning committee, an outline application which is recommended for approval by officers

now becomes an effectively slam -dunk full approval because it doesn't come

back to the committee. It comes back to the Planning Authority and one officer

will be deciding the whole thing. So really it's a very very bad day for

residents, the loss of the call -in is enormous. Local knowledge is much more

important than somebody sitting in Birmingham using Google Maps for

transport assessments and I feel that this should, I'm going to vote against it

although I'm sure that it will be policy that goes through. Thank you.

Seat 1 - 1:02:09

Thank you Madam Mayor. I think as Councillor Lowe has said, really we have our hands tied

Seat 18* - 1:02:11

behind our backs on these changes and they have to be tolerated if not wholly accepted.

I think that the matter of call -in is a very difficult one, having sat on Planning Committee

since 2019 in various guises, either as a portfolio holder or as a member. Too often

the call -in that has been enacted by a member has not been based on either national or local planning policy.

It has been some response to local residents' expressions of concern.

And too often, Planning Committee has heard matters that really should not have come before committee,

but have done so because members have called them in.

That is something we were trying to remedy internally by ensuring that there was more rigour in that process.

The government has gone even further and we're not, we're left in a position which I don't

think that we can ameliorate in any real way here in Cambridge Wells.

The only other comment I would make please is that in Appendix A at Part 3, 4 .2, there

is a mistake in the numbering of the appointments to Planning Committee in the urban wards.

St John's and Sherwood have been merged.

It might be a Liberal Democrat wish but it's not actually the reality yet.

There are not three members for those two wards.

There are, I think, six.

Thank you.

Five.

St John's.

Councillor Pound.

Councillor Dorlins.

Thank you, Madam Mayor.

Seat 1 - 1:03:38

Seat 15* - 1:03:40

For planning, the ground seems to continually shift away from local control.

When the revised local plan was presented to full council

for adoption, I thought we were assured

that the target housing numbers for the borough would remain

at the then level of 678 dwellings per annum,

rather than increase to the higher target

of 1 ,100 dwellings per annum.

We were told that this revised local plan, which was just

for a 10 -year period would need to start

to be revised almost immediately.

What I don't think we was told was after the review period,

Tambridge -Worldsborough Council would need

to deliver the higher housing target set by government,

now indicated to be 17 ,600 dwellings

in the 15 -year plan period.

Of course, I recognise the national

and local need for homes.

However, there are serious concerns amongst residents about housing numbers.

There are worries that the call for sites may identify sites in the wrong places where

there are few employment opportunities, where the existing infrastructure is inadequate

and residents fear that more development will compound that inadequacy.

Residents have experienced water supply outages.

They know sewage is discharged into rivers and that developments are earmarked for places

which have flooded in recent years.

There are concerns to protect national landscapes.

Residents also worry about poor roads, traffic, school places, doctors and many other matters.

As councillors we all hear about these concerns.

I just wonder how loudly officers hear them too.

The government has a stated aim of devolving powers

to local communities.

Unfortunately, the national scheme

of delegation does the exact opposite.

It significantly curtails, and in some cases,

entirely removes local democratic accountability

from the planning process. No longer enabling councillors to call in applications is the

clearest example. Conservative councillors nationally have now written to the Prime Minister

calling for this change to be revoked. I am one of over 1 ,500 Conservative councillors

to put my name to that letter. I'm not optimistic of the result. I know that we must have a

constitution that complies with the law, but whilst the Conservatives nationally continue

to lobby against this removal of local democracy, I will not support the recommendations.

Seat 1 - 1:06:40

Thank you, Councillor Dornish. There we go. Does anyone else wish to speak on this?

Oh, Councillor Knight. Thank you, Madam Mayor.

Seat 16* - 1:06:54

Yes, I fully agree with what has previously been said and fully agree with Councillor

Haywood that it's a very sad day for local democracy.

Particularly in our ward, which is split clearly between rural and urban, it cannot be right

for identical rules to be applied to both those areas when we have protected landscapes

like the High Weald.

I think the reduction of local oversight and the local input is going to be very sad.

The reforms are going to lead to less public participation and decisions being made by

officers and not so much by the planning committee obviously.

The shift to officer -led decisions could, and I'm sure it will be, leading to a loss of transparency and accountability.

So I completely object to this and will not be supporting it. Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor Knight. If there's no one else wishing... Oh, Councillor Hall and Councillor Chaplow.

Seat 1 - 1:08:04

Seat 5* - 1:08:08

Thank you, Madam Mayor. Yeah, I'm deeply disappointed with the government's reforms in general.

But you know, I do commend some of the very robust objections that have been made by our own planning

Department and agree with them. I think that I

Agree with much as what what have been said already, but I think just speaking from my ward as an example

I'm really concerned that it just enables the government to speed up and in how enforce

Housebuilding targets without sufficient planning committee oversight

So an example of that in the local plan if something is allocated in the local plan or a neighbourhood development plan already

And it's considered to have gone through extensive

Consultation then it won't need to come to a planning committee now in my ward

There are at least four local plan sites that have been scrutinised

Turner's pie factory the show fields redevelopment the Rams lie development and the flats on erich road all of them were in the local plan

And I remember Councillor Pound holding Town and Country Housing to the fire on the Showfields

development and making sure that they delivered, and I don't think you were satisfied, but

delivered on social housing.

I dread to think what kind of proposals would have been made by developers if they knew

they could bypass the constraints of public opinion and democratic oversight of the committee.

I will reluctantly support it this evening, but I think that is another serious area of concern.

Thank you. Councillor Chet Larder, I believe you wanted to speak.

Seat 1 - 1:09:47

Seat 5 - 1:09:48

Thank you Madam Mayor. You need housing to build a community, it's a basic human need.

And I do get that the government needs or wants to build 1 .5 million homes in this parliament.

and that somehow what is being proposed tonight is going to be the, you know, the golden bullet that speeds up planning.

Unfortunately, I think Councillor Dooling has referred to it earlier, our residents are really concerned about infrastructure

and I think the government is misguided in its attempt to speed up planning, but actually if it allowed infrastructure to be built before housing,

that would actually take out a lot of the heat of planning issues,

and I think the government has missed an opportunity.

So specifically, I did write to the Secretary of State

in our LGR submission that the government should set up

infrastructure banks for regions by which the government would

fund the infrastructure head of plan, and the sales of that housing

by the developer would then reimburse the government.

And I think you take out a lot of the emotion, a lot of the sting,

Because people do want housing, but they want the infrastructure that they feel they need for that area.

So I'm going to be voting for the motion, reluctantly, because I believe the government's missed an opportunity to make that a much better position.

And also because of the loss of local democracy. I am voting for it so that this council complies with the new law in the land.

but I think the new law of the land is misguided.

I respect it, but I'm not a great supporter of it.

Thank you, Madam Mayor.

Seat 1 - 1:11:36

OK, Councillor Sankey, did you wish to speak?

Thank you, Madam Mayor.

Seat 20 - 1:11:40

Most people, I agree with what I've heard here tonight.

I just can't vote for something that I don't agree with.

We're removing, the government is removing debate

and quite often in those planning committees, the debate is had

and conditions are applied to planning applications

that make them more acceptable to those residents that they are offending so much and now we're

relying on the officers to have those debates internally and I think that's a sad thing

so I shall be voting against this but I'm pretty certain there's enough yellow enough

on the yellow team to get this through.

Councillor Sanke, Councillor Johnson.

Seat 1 - 1:12:20

Yes, I will definitely be voting against this

Seat 10 - 1:12:22

No other members wish to speak council here

Yes, I was just like that

Seat 1 - 1:12:31

soccer in high buildings

Seat 19 - 1:12:32

Town council or I'll speak having just submitted our neighbourhood development plan telling going out to residents and telling them this give you

More of a say in the planning of your town. I

I think to take the call in a way I think is wrong and I can't vote for this.

I can't support it because I cannot look at the people of Saffron High Brooms here who I represent on the town and High Brooms on the borough and say,

look, well, I'm sorry I voted for it so I don't think you should have a say in it. Okay, thank you.

Thank you. Councillor Paterson.

Seat 1 - 1:13:13

Seat 12 - 1:13:15

Thank you Madam Mayor. I am seconding this motion. Like I think virtually every other

member of the council I don't really like it very much. But as a member of the planning

committee sometimes we're quite used to voting for applications we don't really like because

we haven't got any planning reasons to refuse them and we haven't got any legal reasons

to actually say no to this either.

I share a lot of the concerns.

I am somebody who's used the local members call -in several times.

In fact, one of the items on the agenda last week was when I called into committee.

Obviously, the last time I've ever been to do that.

So we have no choice.

I mean, I take the point about residents not being represented and that's one of our jobs.

and I think Councillor Haywood was quite right about that.

But unfortunately, Parliament's passed a law

and we have to conform to it, even if we don't like it.

That's the meaning of a democracy.

And I think the most important thing is that we can't risk

our decisions being called into question by legal...

If we don't agree with this, we don't pass it,

we will be legally vulnerable to challenges

any decision made by the planning committee or the officers will be subject to legal challenge

and we can't afford that. So I would say to those members who are going to vote against,

please realise where we are. We are not voting in favour of this because we like it. We are

voting in favour of it because we have to vote for it. Thank you.

Seat 1 - 1:14:58

Thank you, Councillor Patterson. Right, there are four recommendations.

Oh, sorry. Apologies, Councillor Lowe. Would you like to add anything further?

Thank you, Madam Mayor.

Seat 7* - 1:15:14

I share many of the reservations which have been expressed around the table this evening.

I would on the basis of some of the things that were said particularly by

Councillor Dooling's I would emphasise how important it is that we all

encourage our residents to engage with the local plan review which will be

looking at the next lot of allocations. The planning department have asked for

your comments on the consultation and engagement strategy by Friday, I would encourage you

all to look at that because that is how the council is going to be asking people about,

consulting people about future allocations. And that is now becoming an increasingly important

part of the whole process. It's much more difficult because it is more distant in time

from the actual applications appearing, but it is nevertheless very important.

So I would encourage you all to have a look at that.

I would also just like to re -emphasise what Councillor Paterson said there about however we feel about this,

and I am absolutely not in favour of rejecting call -in.

We are, however, we have to be kind of adult about this and vote for stuff, vote for things

to make our constitution apply to the law and I encourage people to support the motion.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor MURPHY.

There are four recommendations as set out in the report.

Seat 1 - 1:17:07

One, that full council notes the content of this report and the implementation procedure

as outlined within it and agrees to the changes to the constitution of Appendix A to be implemented

on 31 October 2026.

Two, that the full council agrees to the proposed agenda set in protocol for the planning committee

set out as an Appendix B. Three, that the full council agrees to the nominated member,

the nominated officer and the deputy designations as set out in Appendix C and

For that the head of planning in consultation with the chair of planning committee

Be authorised to amend the planning committee agenda set in protocol when necessary

To ensure the effective and efficient operation of the referral process that complies with the regulations

This will allow operational

refinements to be made in response to experience of operating the new arrangements without

the need for further approval by full Council, providing that the changes do not alter the

underlying principles or statutory requirements of the scheme.

Councillor Sanke, are you asking for a recorded vote?

Yes, please.

Okay.

Thank you.

She's excited.

Seat 2 - 1:18:24

Thank you, Madam Mayor.

Members, when I call your name, can you please indicate whether you are voting for the recommendations

as just read out by the Mayor against or whether you wish to abstain?

Councillor Chappell -Arn.

For.

Councillor Ellis.

For.

Councillor Wilkinson.

For.

Councillor Hall.

For.

Councillor Warmington.

for councillor Keith for councillor Lowe for councillor

Barras Oh councillor Bryce for councillor Brown for councillor

Davidson for councillor Kimberley Johnson for councillor Jamie Johnson

against

Councillor Dooling's against Councillor Fairweather against

Councillor Knight against Councillor mobs against

Councillor Pound for Councillor Hill against

Councillor Sharrods for Councillor Sankey against

Councillor Neville against Councillor Heywood against

against.

Councillor Burch.

Abstain.

And Councillor Palmer.

Against.

Seat 2 - 1:20:45

Thank you, Madam Mayor. There were 23 votes for 10 against and two abstentions. So the motion is carried.

10 South East Water Task and Finish Group: Draft Final Report

Seat 1 - 1:20:56

We now come to agenda item 10 which is the South East Water task and finish group draught final report.

The report begins on page 91 of your main agenda pack where the recommendations are also set out.

I'm now going to ask Councillor Fairweather to introduce and move the recommendation.

Councillor Fairweather.

Seat 16 - 1:21:19

Thank you Madam Mayor. I would like to move the report and recommendations and we'll introduce it briefly after it has been seconded.

Councillor Peddle, I believe you were going to second this.

I agree to second the motion and reserve my right to speak.

Thank you.

Seat 1 - 1:21:29

Seat 18* - 1:21:31

Seat 1 - 1:21:37

Thank you Madam Mayor. Firstly I'd like to thank the members of the task and finish group

Seat 16 - 1:21:39

being Councillor Pound, Councillor Davison and Councillor Schuckler and the officers who provided input into the report.

Members have had the report for some time as part of the Agenda Pack and it contains details of our enquiries.

our discussions and our comments.

A summary provides details of residents' experiences,

resilience, communication, data availability and conclusions.

The report ends with five recommendations

and is now open for full council to consider and decide

on whether those recommendations should be taken forward.

Thank you.

Seat 1 - 1:22:35

Thank you, Councillor Fairweather. Do any members wish to speak on this item?

Councillor Chapelle.

Seat 5 - 1:22:46

Thank you, Madam Mayor. I'd just like to thank Councillor Fairweather and the Working Group for their work.

If you remember, nearly a year ago we had a catastrophic water outage in the town, and

again in January, and we've had lots around the borough in different places.

I keep visiting the borough, and I see a certain brand of bottled water outside people's homes,

and I dread to hear the conversation from those residents, so I'm grateful for the work

from the working group on this and we'll take it forward at cabinet when that

comes to us at cabinet. So I'm grateful for the task and finish group. Thank you Madam Mayor.

Councillor Sankey. Thank you Madam Mayor. Thank you to the task and finish

Seat 1 - 1:23:35

Seat 20 - 1:23:36

group for this and the recommendations which I wholeheartedly agree on. I just

business owners in the town had been declined or denied compensation by

South East Water and they're the law firm that has that they put in in

control of that for some really rather innocuous reasons and I think it's

really sad so the more we can hold them to account here the better thank you

Any other members like to speak?

I assume Councillor Pound.

Seat 1 - 1:24:15

Seat 18* - 1:24:19

Thank you Madam Mayor. Just to put a little bit more flesh on the bones of what Councillor Fairweather has summarised in the report.

I think the starting point for probably all of us as Councillors and as residents of this borough is a real sense of learned helplessness in relation to south east water.

None of us knows quite what to do and how to influence change.

And for us as individuals and as councillors, I think it's been incredibly frustrating.

If you look at the report, one of the early summaries got it right, basically.

It says, utilities own the asset, utilities own the operational data, utilities control

communications, but the council carries the community impact.

And therefore, all that this task and finish group has been trying

to do is to come forward with reasonable and realistic

and achievable recommendations, which is about building more

of a partnership with Southeast Water

about how it addresses some issues,

rather than being purely adversarial and calling

out their failings and not really addressing how we

progress things forward.

So if you go to the very end of Appendix A,

it does very clearly say the recommendations must be

reasonable and achievable.

And in some ways, it's not dissimilar to the debate

that we had about the colonnade on the pantiles,

which is beyond our control, but we're trying

to build a relationship, in that case, with the owner

and in this case, with the provider of the utility,

to have a different relationship as a council with them.

So we invite Southeast Water to provide an update

on progress sometime during the committee cycle 27 -28.

We hope they turn up.

They have not been good at turning up in the past

and have been very poor at responding

to pre -prepared questions that we have sent them.

We hope that will improve.

Have a separate meeting with Southeast Water as they have already suggested to discuss

ways to better communicate with residents.

The communication principally resides with them, but we think we found a way of perhaps

working through some of that, which is the third point to consider a pilot project for

a joint one -stop shop for residents with the ability to share information as detailed above.

It is very clear that Southeast Water has a huge amount of data

that it could open up and make available to us as a council

and to residents, which would allow us to spot peaks and troughs

of performance, hot spots where things are clearly being

repeatedly failed, and have dialogue with them

about how they address some of the issues that we have.

Most notably, I have to say at the moment in Sherwood,

the fact that, you know, Sandhurst Road has been closed

and will continue to be closed almost until Christmas.

and Ferndale I think is also being closed and so is Liptraps Lane.

The dialogue about how we manage that communication with our communities,

because it's not South East Water who get it in the neck, it's the borough councillors who do, as I'm sure my colleague from Sherwood would agree.

So that's the third point.

And finally the recommendations that we are proposing here should be made in the form of a letter from the chair of Oviens Crucinee Council of Fairweather,

endorsed by the leader and the chief exec to go to

Southeast Water to its new chief executive to say,

let's really work on a joint one -stop shop, which

we can therefore manage with community groups, with

organisations across the borough, to ensure that

when we have crises like these again, we know in

advance how they will be dealt with, and we have

volunteers and others in our communities who can

respond appropriately.

To me and others on the task and finish group, I

think it's a bit of a no -brainer, but we really

We hope that we can change our relationship with South East Water which has not been good till now and they rather than we have not helped matters I have to say.

I hope you will vote to support the recommendations. Thank you.

Thank you Councillor Perna. Councillor Faber, would you like to add anything else?

Seat 1 - 1:28:06

Seat 16 - 1:28:07

No, I've got nothing further to add except to encourage members to vote for the recommendations. Thank you.

Seat 1 - 1:28:15

Thank you. Right, the recommendations are set out on page 5 of the appendix, page 99 of the agenda, which are

1. That we invite South East Water to provide an update on progress sometime during the 27 -28 committee cycle.

2. That a separate meeting is held with South East Water to discuss ways in which communication with residents can be improved.

Number three, sorry.

We consider the feasibility of a pilot project to explore how information can be shared to

support the above.

And the final recommendation is that these recommendations are made to South East Water

in the form of a letter from the Chair of Overland Scrutiny and endorsed by the Leader

and the Chief Executive.

Are we agreed?

Okay, thank you.

11 Audit and Governance Annual Report

We now move to Item 11 on the agenda, which is the Audit and Governance Annual Report.

The report begins on page 100 of your main agenda pack where the recommendations are

also set out. Members should note that the report has already been agreed by the Audit

and Governance Committee, so the recommendation before us should be to note the report. I'm

And we move the recommendation, Councillor Mundane.

Thank you.

I recommend that we approve a note to the site

in this evening.

I also would like to thank Councillor Sanke

Seat 11 - 1:29:41

for his chairmanship and stewardship of the committee

over the last couple of years.

And speaking personally, since I've started to sit

on other Ordinance and Governance Committees,

you do appreciate the strong and open minus

to debating all issues that we have at the borough

and the quality of documentation

that the offices provide us to make those decisions.

So I recommend that you support the item. Thank you.

Councillor Sankey, would you like to second the recommendation?

Seat 1 - 1:30:13

Seat 20 - 1:30:16

Yes, I'd like to second that. I reserve my right, I guess. Thank you.

Sorry, do any members wish to speak on this item?

Seat 1 - 1:30:25

No, I see none. Councillor Sankey? All I have to say is thank you to

Seat 20 - 1:30:29

I'm rather surprised, I genuinely miss that committee.

When I first was put on it I thought it was a punishment from Councillor Chapela, but

it was incredibly educational.

I enjoyed it.

Thank you.

Councillor Mundy, would you like to add anything?

Nothing further, thank you.

Seat 1 - 1:30:53

The recommendation should be to note the report, so are we agreed that the Order and Governance

Committee -only report for 25 -26, Appendix A, is noted.

Are we agreed?

Thank you.

12 Civic Award

You now come to Agenda Item 12, the Civic Award.

The pages for this Agenda Item can be found

from page 119 of the Agenda Pack,

where there are recommendations also set out.

I would first like to note that this item

contains an exempt appendix which is set out

and the restricted papers under agenda item 18.

The report may be discussed and decided upon

in public session provided that no exempt information

is disclosed.

The members are happy to take the exempt information as read.

Alternatively, if members wish to discuss anything

which appears in the exempt appendix,

please indicate during the discussion.

The decision will then be held over

and discussed in private session later.

I'm going to ask Councillor Keith

to introduce this item and move the recommendation.

Seat 6* - 1:31:58

Thank you Madam Mayor. I'm delighted to bring this motion to award a Civic Medallion forward

based on your nomination and with your support as Armed Forces Champion.

A Civic Medallion is one of the highest honours that this Council can bestow. In this case

it is well deserved. The person in consideration, who I won't name since it's an exempt appendix,

has given decades of service to our community. He's given a special support

to our Armed Forces veterans and Armed Forces memorials. One person has

described his efforts as life -giving and I think there is no better summary of

the great service he's done for our borough. I won't say any more than that

but I hope that you will all join me in supporting the motion and rewarding one

of the most dedicated members of our community.

Thank you, Councillor Keith.

Councillor Chaplain, would you like to second the motion?

Thank you. I'd like to second the motion and reserve my right to speak

Seat 1 - 1:32:50

Sorry, Councillor Hall

Seat 1 - 1:32:59

Seat 19 - 1:33:01

I would just like to say having known this person for decades many many years. I have I

Can only say I think it's a wonderful

Wonderful to be giving you the water. He thoroughly deserves it. So, thank you

Councillor Heywood.

Thank you, Madam Mayor.

Seat 1 - 1:33:19

Seat 21* - 1:33:21

I've worked with this person since 1997, and I'd like to say that this is long overdue, to be fair.

Obviously I can't give you the context because people would be able to identify him,

but a man who really has had Tunbridge Wells at his heart for a very, very long time.

I can't think of a better nomination.

Councillor Chapelle, I'll just second it.

Would you like to speak on it?

Seat 1 - 1:33:54

Thank you, Madam Mayor.

Seat 5 - 1:33:55

Just to explain to members of the public

why we're talking about something without talking about it,

is that we can't talk about the person

who will be the recipient of this civic medallion

until we have voted it through.

So it does feel a bit odd,

but that's how the constitution works.

Just like to echo what everybody said around the table.

I cannot wait to see this person smile

when he gets the news,

but also the self -deprecation that I think is in him

to probably feel that actually despite decades of service,

he probably still doesn't deserve it.

And that will be a sight to treasure.

Thank you, Madam Mayor.

Thank you Councillor Chavo.

Councillor Keefe, do you have anything further to add?

Nothing further, thank you Madam Mayor.

Seat 1 - 1:34:45

In that case we have two recommendations as set out in the report.

Seat 1 - 1:34:52

That full council supports the nomination of the individual identified in Exempt Appendix A

to the report for the award of a civic medallion and approves the award of a civic medallion to that individual.

Are we agreed?

We are agreed.

Thank you.

13 Motion on Notice from Councillor Chapelard

Seat 1 - 1:35:17

agenda item 13 which is a motion and notice for Councillor Chaplard from

Councillor Chaplard I should say details of the motion are set out and the notice

is included on a hundred page 125 of your agenda pack we first have a speaker

on this item Adrian Bernden mr. Bernden you have three minutes

Seat 18* - 1:35:42

Thank you very much Madam Mayor and it's a delight to be here again in the town hall,

not the borough hall.

I speak on behalf of the town forum, many of you will know I'm the next chair of the

town forum, which was set up by the borough council to address concerns of the audit commission

about a lack of transparency and democratic accountability within Royal Tumbridge Wells.

So when I joined the town forum first of all, it was a pretty vibrant discussion.

There were lots of good ideas and lots of good discussions there.

And actually I thought it was a pretty good alternative to having a town council.

Over time, however, the borough council has withdrawn its support for the town forum.

It's withdrawn all sorts of help and finance and is no longer able to function in the way it should have done.

So that was the first reason why I thought, well maybe, and the reason was given, citing

a lack of accountability, a lack of democracy, and a lack of covering the right geographic

and demographic points of Cambridge Wells.

And I sort of agreed with that.

So I started to think, well maybe that's why we should have a town council.

And then I started to observe what other towns were doing around the country and how well

they were managed when they had a town council.

I thought that's another good reason.

And then thirdly, I was absolutely horrified when I started to investigate special expenses.

By the way, that's the £2 .9 million which are collected from residents of the town.

Actually almost no councillors knew about that or what it was doing, or even understood

it and didn't really seem to care.

I say £2 .9 million to maintain our parks and commons and so on, but actually it's only

£1 .7 million.

and the rest seems to go on corporate overheads.

So naturally I was delighted

when the town council was announced.

And I'm equally horrified

that there should be a motion tonight to stop its creation

and that the pause was announced.

So when you consider how you're going to vote tonight,

just think, you may hear people saying,

I only supported the town council

because there was going to be a unitary.

I remind you that when it was being proposed, the Community Governance Review, i .e. the

town council bit, was explicitly separated from the local governance review.

That's the unitary bit.

That's exactly what the publicity was all about.

You'll also hear people saying, yeah, but there wasn't much support for it.

Well, quite frankly, I'm quite surprised that it was even anybody who knew about it, the

publicity was so poor.

And I've also heard from more than one Councillor,

yeah, but the trouble is,

we can't be prepared for the town council now

because the officers have got so much work

to do with the unitary.

Well, now we're not getting unitary immediately,

maybe this is the time for them to get on with it.

So far from the local government review pause

being a reason to delay the council,

actually it's exactly the right time

Seat 1 - 1:38:48

to look into what size and shape a town council needs to be.

And I please urge you to reject the motion.

You have had your three minutes, thank you.

Thank you. I'm now going to ask Councillor Chappellaw to introduce and move the motion.

Thank you Madam Mayor, I'll introduce the motion once it's been seconded.

Seat 5 - 1:39:05

Councillor Hall I understand you're seconding the motion.

Seat 1 - 1:39:10

I am indeed and I'll reserve my right to speak.

Seat 5* - 1:39:14

The matter is now open for debate. Would anyone wish to speak?

Seat 1 - 1:39:21

Oh, sorry, Councillor Chappell.

Thank you Madam Mayor, I need to introduce it.

Thank you councillors.

Seat 1 - 1:39:31

The Government's plan for local government reorganisation and devolution is a major change in how local services will be delivered.

To note, the Cambridge Wells Borough Council, established in 1974, before I was born, is to be abolished.

Kent County Council, established way before I was born, in 1889, is also to be abolished.

The Government has put a lot of time and energy into this legislative agenda,

and I'm proud of how this Council and my colleagues across Kent have responded to the Government's challenge.

Long -serving members and councillors, council leaders and council staff have said that this government is the government that's finally going to reform local government.

And then Monday the 7th of September happened.

The government paused LGR whilst it carried out a review of its decision that it made in July.

And that is why we are bringing this motion to full council tonight.

Seat 5 - 1:40:40

Currently, there is much uncertainty about LGR, as I explained in the announcements.

Though, we still have not had an unequivocal endorsement of LGR by the government or the official speaking on behalf of the government.

And to that effect I have written to the minister asking for unequivocal support for LGR and devolution from the government,

a clear timeline for LGR and also how they are going to assess, support us with the costs for LGR.

We don't know if we're going to get LGR, we don't know if we're going to get devolution,

We don't know if LGR will happen before devolution in time after, whether there's going to be a year's delay or is going to be pushed back after the next general election.

The purpose of this motion is to seek a pause to creating the town council until we have clarity from the government.

I need to correct Mr. Behrendt. This is not about stopping the town council creation.

We've had that debate, we value its creation, we are just seeking to pause it.

And just to reassure members, the reason why we have a motion tonight is just to pause the decision.

If we wanted to stop the decision, we would have to bring in a full agenda paper.

And that is why we've only got a motion tonight.

I also want to correct the record that actually the decision to go to a full council decision in July 2026 was taken in the context of local government reorganisation.

LGR was triggered on the 16th of December 2024 with a letter from Jim McMahon MP to councillors when the government published its white paper on devolution for England.

And in that there was plans for local government reorganising.

Within six weeks, as a council, we had an extraordinary full council meeting,

bizarrely on a Tuesday night in this chamber, and we had six recommendations.

Recommendation four set up a cross -party working group.

Recommendation five tasked the working group to quote,

commenced a community government's review

to consider appropriate local government arrangements

for the six unparished wards,

given the proposed changes set out in the white paper.

The white paper being what the government was proposing

over devolution and local government reorganisation.

We moved at pace at the time,

because we had applied to be on the devolution priority programme,

and we had not had an answer at that stage

about whether we would be there.

So there was urgency to make sure the correct arrangements were put in place under devolution.

And I think we all recognised that the public consultation responses were low.

And that there isn't a massive clamour for the public for a town council.

And very wisely, as a cross -party group, we decided to proceed with caution.

And the principle was, don't run before you can walk, start small and build up.

And that is what LGR recommended to full council to just transfer the statutory transfer of assets.

The danger with this pause in LGR is that we are now going to be potentially out of sync with local government reorganisation.

And we've got to make sure that we do not alienate our residents who either don't know about it or don't support it.

Many residents will only know about the town council when it ends up as an extra line on their council tax bill.

It would hardly be a great start to a relationship between the town council and residents.

and I fear the public won't see any initial benefits.

By delaying it, sorry, by pausing and realigning with the new local government timetable, we take that problem away.

And I hope, whether you're standing on the debate tonight, that we can agree that we want a town council that has a mandate and support from its residents,

but we also want a town council that is valued by our residents.

There are of course some negatives that we need to be aware of if we go ahead.

The money that the town council sets does not need to be levied before local government reorganisation.

I believe it's premature and by pausing the decision to implement the town council we're avoiding that issue.

I don't think that we can have, we can honestly say to our residents that setting up a town council is good value for money without certainty over local government reorganisation.

We risk being accused of adding an extra layer of bureaucracy.

We risk duplicating council functions.

If we went ahead now, we would have a town council, a borough council, a county council, and also on top of that probably an elected mayor.

We would go from two layers of government to four layers of local government.

And I don't think we can honestly justify to ourselves that that's effective local government.

And personally it goes against everything that I've been saying.

That local government needs to be simpler, more streamlined, so that it can have a bigger impact on our residents' lives.

And that's why we're proposing a pause.

So that whenever the government says local government reorganisation is going ahead,

we have a timeline and we respect the vesting days as in the original timetable.

Because what happens then, the cost of setting up the town council,

becomes part of the local reorganisation costs.

And the proposition to residents, I think, is far more reasonable,

that we are setting up a town council,

so that residents can have a strong voice in a unitary,

rather than be accused of adding another layer of expensive bureaucracy.

And I hope tonight you'll support the motion.

What we want is a town council that is respected, valued and makes a difference to residents.

And I believe the reasonable thing is to pause the decision, we're not cancelling it,

and realign it with the local government reorganisation timetable, which I'm hoping we will get soon.

Thank you madam mayor.

Thank you Councillor Chappellade.

The matter is now open for debate.

Does anyone wish to speak on this?

Councillor Munday?

Seat 1 - 1:48:12

Thank you.

Speaking as a town councillor,

Seat 11 - 1:48:18

I fully appreciate the value that town councils give to the local community,

you know, sitting beneath the borough.

But also I'm fully aware every time I do go on the doorstep

and talk to them either, my residents, either as a town councillor,

or as a borough councillor, or a county councillor,

They always say about their council tax and what are they getting for the money?

With the current proposal that we had when we knew unitaries were happening next year

We had a trajectory and a timeline at the moment

We've got no trajectory and no timeline if we go ahead with the town council, which the context I fully approve

next year

We're adding extra expense, but we're not delivering any value and additional value to what's there. That's my main

reason for supporting the motion as well as there's no reduction in democracy

we've still got the same number of councillors currently until unitary goes

ahead it's only when unitary goes ahead then I think there's more value in the

town council purely from a number of councillors point of view thank you

I believe you were next.

Thank you, Madam Mayor.

Seat 1 - 1:49:28

I don't think I've ever heard a speech from the leader that has caused such a ripple of

consternation on the other side of the room, I have to say.

What do you think happens in this borough already?

Everywhere other than Tunbridge Wells town has a parish council.

Every other part of this borough has a council.

And the Liberal Democrats, if you go to the Liberal Democrat website, the Liberal Democrats

champion localism and decentralisation as core principles of their political platform

arguing that power belongs in communities rather than Whitehall, pushing to transfer

decision making and responsibilities including housing, education and health down to local

and parish councils.

And yet, and it is simply untrue to link local government reorganisation to this community

initiative.

Seat 18* - 1:50:22

There have been plenty of people in my 34 years in this borough who have been asking

for a town council in the same way that everywhere else has a parish council.

And if we don't do it this year, and Councillor Chapolade described it as we don't take away

the problem, no, you're just pushing it down the road.

Because if LGR doesn't happen and we remain as a borough council, do we then have a town

Council, like every other part of Tunbridge Wells.

If LGR proceeds and we have a unitary,

do we then have a town council, like every other part

of Tunbridge Wells and almost every other part

of every other district that will make up the unitary?

If we have a mayoral authority of some form in the future,

do we not have a town council?

So at some point, we have to have a town council.

Tunbridge Wells is the only part of this borough that does not

have very centralised local representation

by its residents who can engage with businesses and organisations

in the way that every other parish council does.

It is an absolute nonsense to say we can't do it and we need

to pause and it's all too risky for us to go ahead.

Every parish council starts small.

Every parish council slowly builds relationships with others

and says maybe we can now take responsibility

for that little asset there.

Perhaps we can look after this better than the district can do it.

We've got an exact example at the moment where Rust Hall is about to take on responsibility

for a playground, I understand, where the parish council has said, we probably can manage

that better than you can, and I bet they probably can.

It is just, as I say, I've never heard a speech from you, Ben, where you have so desperately

tried to persuade people that it's the right thing to do, when I think, looking across

the room, many of your own members don't think it's the right thing to do, and many of them

are parish councillors.

We are the only part of Tunbridge Wells that doesn't have representation of a town council

I'm a member of that community and I feel that my voice as a very local person

And what I want to see happening in my town is being missed

so I absolutely think that whatever your reasons and whatever your politics whatever the threat of of

Being expelled from the party or suspended from your party for voting against which doesn't happen because councillor hall voted against something

rather significant a couple of years ago.

He didn't get suspended.

So, I think anybody can vote against a decision

of this group.

I think you have to face up the fact that we need

a town council.

I just, as I say, interestingly, the Lib Dems

at their most recent conference, which was

watched by tens of people, it said, we want to push

democracy down to the lowest level.

Why is Tunbridge Wells not entitled to have that as well?

vote against the motion, push it back and say let's continue with the plan that we all agreed

and indeed at a meeting that we had recently of almost all of the 17 councillors who will, who represent those wards

we decided to go ahead now. It's only since that meeting that there's been a vault fast

and that the leader and others have decided to change their minds.

Vote against the motion and let's get on with making a council which everybody in Tunbridge Wells deserves.

Thank you, it's Councillor Sanke next.

Seat 1 - 1:53:42

Thank you Madam Mayor. I'm afraid Adrian you're not right.

Seat 20 - 1:53:44

Now isn't the time to do this. This should have been done ages ago.

I also disagree with Councillor Chappellard. I live in a perished area. I see the good work it does.

I also run a business within a perished area and businesses in unparished ward.

And the difference in accountability and debate is enormous.

I've always said that it's not the colour of the rosette that's the problem.

it's the majority that allows them to do as they wish without debate and question as they just tell their numbers how to vote.

I understand that many of you in the yellow team don't work alongside parish councils, so I fully appreciate that work.

But those of you who do work alongside parish councils,

do you actually believe it's a negative and that having a parish is worse off? I can't see that being a reality.

I can assure you though, creating a town council will only assist you, Councillor Chappellard,

in achieving your electoral promises and making Tambora's town centre a better place.

So I urge all of you to vote against this motion. Thank you.

Councillor Dooling, you're next.

Seat 15* - 1:54:52

I live in an area with a parish council, and I think that everyone

in the parish thinks the parish council precept is good value.

By way of a bit of background,

the council appointed a cross -party group

to oversee local government reform and community government reform.

That group has not been consulted on a decision

to pause the creation of the Royal Cambridge Wells Town Council.

Residents have been consulted twice on forming a town council.

Why not we consult on the pause decision?

The town forum and the bid have not been consulted on the pause decision.

One excellent achievement so far has been to obtain agreement to using Royal in the

of the town council. On the 10th of September, the working group of ward councillors in the

town centre, plus invited representatives from the Tumblejewell's Alliance and the

Conservatives groups, who would not otherwise have been represented, determined to continue

with forming a town council after a long debate, fully aware of the government decision to

to cause local government reform.

A motion is an inappropriate means to change

a full council decision made with an officer's report

and after consultation.

So the consultation on this pause has been non -existent

and is procedurally inappropriate for a motion to be used

to change a decision of the full council.

Perhaps a means to do so has been determined, but because it can be done does not mean it should be done.

On communication, Ben Chappellard advised the group leaders on the 5th of October of this planned motion, pausing the formation of the Royal Cambridge Wellstown Council, and asked for our comments.

I replied the same day, wondering why opinion had changed since the 10th September working

group meeting, and advised that pausing the formation was a mistake and a missed opportunity.

Hugo replied in a similar vein, I think, on the 6th October, and Elaine Neville replied

on the 7th October, confirming her support for the working group decision taken on the

10th September.

We heard nothing further from Ben before the fuller council

agenda was published.

Now I see great advantage

in using the local government reform pause to constitute

at Royal Tambridge World's Town Council

and determine what it ought to take on in advance

of the still very likely changes in local government

and the formation of mayor authorities.

To my mind, considering the local authority that residents

in Tunbridge Wells might like to have and the matters they would

like that authority to oversee is the right way

to establish a town council.

That is surely better than so much of the debate

about mayoral combined authorities

and unitary authorities, which is simply government

and higher tier authorities telling lower level authorities

what they are both required and permitted to do.

For these reasons, I will not be supporting this motion.

Thank you, Councillor Dornan.

Councillor Haywood, you're next.

Thank you very much, Madam Mayor.

Seat 1 - 1:58:34

Seat 21* - 1:58:36

I agree with pretty much everything that's been said so far.

We only earlier had a motion regarding the planning.

And of course with the planning committee now having a lot of the wind taken out of their sails

It is for parish councils town councils to step up their scrutiny of planning

applications because they are the ones who

Practically the early ones who will have any authority putting their views forward to the planning

authority

So on that basis, and that's just one of them, the town council is absolutely imperative.

One of my other reasonings is of course, Councillor Chapelade has made the case for the dissolution

of Southborough and Padditwood town councils on that basis.

However, what I will say is, and nobody else has, is I'm going to put my cynicism hat on

and I would suggest that maybe this decision is because the majority of the Lib Dem voters

in this borough are in the area that would be covered by the new town council. And of

Now the issue there is that I think Councillor Chapleard was hoping that this would happen

at exactly the same time as the unitary would come forward and therefore I think we'll pretty

much agree that the unitary will not be lived and led and that he would be away scot -free

without having to lose a vote.

So my view is that planning is crucial for having a town council, for doing their scrutiny,

and I think this decision is actually cynically political.

Thank you. Councillor Sher, I'll leave you next.

Seat 1 - 2:00:45

Oh, thank you. Yes, I agree with much of what my colleagues have said.

Seat 19* - 2:00:51

I am lucky enough to have two parish councils in my ward and I see what good works they do

and many of the things that we want to get done locally.

I'm always so relieved that I have parish councils

to work with because a lot of the things

that we want to do are so micro,

they can't get done through the Borough Council.

And I've also seen setting up a youth club in Rust Hall.

I don't think that would have been possible

without the support of the parish council.

It was dependent on that sort of community.

So yeah, I'm very confused by this motion and the arguments put forward for it because

we have agreed to go ahead with the town council already at full council and I don't really

understand why local government reorganisation being paused means that we have to pause progress

towards a town council

Thank You councillor Scharatt. Councillor Muggs you're next.

Seat 1 - 2:02:06

Seat 17* - 2:02:08

Thank you Madam Mayor. I wasn't going to comment on this motion but what I heard in

councillor Chappellaud's speech it was cause of concern actually and the words

were we would be adding another layer of local government. Well I think that on

side of the table we disagree with that but councillor Patterson councillor Monday

councillor Kenton councillor Burks do you think that being members of your town or

parish council do you think that's just another layer of government because I

don't think you do so I'm really quite surprised by those remarks and having

been a town councillor in Patterwood and working with four parish councils in my

Burrow Ward, they are a force for good.

It was mentioned about the poor consultation on the

Tom Bridgewater's town council.

Well, the RVP one's not much better, but we're

going at that at a lightning pace.

You commented on town council elections wouldn't

line up with the unitary ones.

Well, I'll be sending in my application form for the

TWA, but wouldn't it be beneficial for a town

Council to be free from national party political campaigning.

I've always, on this working group,

pushed for the town council to be apolitical.

I think that if we're so focused on aligning the unitaries

with the town council elections, or any borough council

elections in the future, the party politics of it

will sort of divulge away from the local issues that will come through at a town council election.

And I think more from a practical point, we spoke earlier on about the potential of shadow

unitaries coming in 2028 as the government has paused.

They've not cancelled LGR, they've paused LGR.

Well, wouldn't it be a good thing for when there is a large degree of uncertainty with

both the future of the unitaries when they're formed,

wouldn't it be useful to have town councillors who are understanding of the

role of being a town councillor and having it all set up ready

so that when the shadow unitaries form and everything starts shutting down,

the town council and the town councillors will be in a much better

position to take on certain responsibilities.

Frankly, I was very amused by your speech and I'll be voting against and I hope

that everyone else in the chamber does as well.

Thank you, Councillor Kent.

Seat 1 - 2:04:49

Thank you.

Seat 10* - 2:04:52

I will be supporting the motion

after being a town councillor, parish councillor for 21 years.

Also being on the National Association of Local Councils

and on the Kent Association of Local Councils.

They're very concerned about LGR.

They're very concerned about financing,

where it's coming from, what officers they can be speaking to in the future.

To me, it's ridiculous to set up a new town council when LGR is just about to set foot,

because they'll be trying to learn the ropes of the borough and the county council, and

then that will be destroyed and everyone's trying to learn the new ropes.

It's a waste of money doing it now.

I was never in favour of bringing the Tunnysworth Borough Council into fruition until after

LGR anyway, and that's my stance on it now.

So speaking as a long -term parish town councillor, I think a lot of people's words are foolhardy.

If they really looked into the facts of how a town council runs, they would know that

We are very concerned with the situation and to bring up a new council into that line is ridiculous.

You're throwing good money away.

Thank you. Councillor Bessie.

Seat 1 - 2:06:14

Seat 11* - 2:06:20

Thank you Mayor, Colleagues, Councillors.

The best decisions are made with the best information.

You cannot make the best decision if you don't have the full picture.

Right now we do not have the full picture on LGR and therefore it makes sense to pause

town council going ahead.

The only reason we have a town council debate was because of LGR.

Let's not forget that.

That is the reason we started having it.

Previous governments didn't do it.

Previous administrations didn't do it.

They had the chance to, but they didn't.

So, now that we are at the point where we started having

the conversation, it was also because of the review

by other parties on the Labour administration that

necessitated the pause.

So, we are only responding to the issues that we are faced at the national level and as

someone who is a representative of what would be a town council and having been someone

who stood in a by -election in October and another election in May, there was never a

I was knocking on the doors and people were demanding for a town council in Royal Tombridge

Wells.

Now, what we're proposing is not an end to the idea of a town council.

Councillor Chappellade has made that clear.

It is a pause to align with national policy with LGR.

And it makes no sense to have additional costs, additional resources, without the right information

in a time of uncertainty.

So I will absolutely be voting in favour of the motion and urge colleagues to do the same.

To make a decision where you don't have sufficient information going forward is an unwise decision.

Thank you.

Councillor Neville.

Seat 1 - 2:08:51

Thank you Madam Mayor.

Seat 20* - 2:08:53

I don't want to repeat what my colleagues on this side of the room have said.

So I'm just going to truncate what I had to say.

First of all, I work with three parish councils and they all have different skill sets.

One of them has also launched a youth club recently and that's in Sandhurst, right at

the bottom of the borough, and they achieve great things.

I do worry about the language that is being used by the administration in that they are

demeaning the quality of what a town council or parish council can do and perform and I do

worry that the pausing of this will actually put the future of a

established town council in doubt. We've put the hard work in, we've done the CGR, we've gone to the vote,

we've committed to it. Now we've got a window of opportunity where the officers have actually got some time to get it done.

We ought to be getting it done because that is the democratic process a pause right now

Just seems to be that we will put us behind the trend. Where is all of the other boroughs?

are catching up and

establishing their town councils and I'll just finish off with

Madam there Cranbrook have never ever forgiven the removal of their town council never and that's over 40 years

They're still sore about it. Thank you

Seat 1 - 2:10:33

Seat 6* - 2:10:34

Thank you Madam Mayor. So I have a few things that have come into my mind during this debate.

The first thing I wanted to talk about is the concerns from some councillors that there

hasn't been enough scrutiny or debate about this motion, but that's what's happening right

now. We're all here. Councillor Chaplow has brought the motion forward. We're debating

it. Adrian from the town forum has been welcome to speak. This is how the procedure works.

We all have our say and we all make a decision.

Secondly, looking back to the

Tambora -Dwellers Town Council working group a couple of weeks ago now, I think

I'm sure everyone there will remember my position has been consistent the whole time.

I said then and I'll say again now that I think the town council is a really valuable idea.

It's going to be a great thing for the town.

But right now is not the right time and out of the context of LGR is not the right way to do it.

Now at the time when I said that during the working group, I think I was in a fairly small

minority. So for the councillors who have changed their minds since then, good for you.

We all have the right to change our decisions, update our decisions in the face of new information

and after reflecting on it. I think we have discussed, everybody's been talking for months

about LGR and CGR. I know we've been through this reasoning hundreds of times. And it makes

sense to have a pause right now. While the town council is valuable, it has to come at

the right time. As a councillor for a town ward, I can say that my residents don't tell

me they want more layers of local government. They want more effective and more efficient

local government. Pausing the move to create the town council puts it in the context of

wider reforms that will make sense to our residents and give them value for money. This

decision is about voting in the best interests of our residents. It's that simple and I will

be supporting the motion. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Ellis.

Seat 4* - 2:12:35

Thank you, Madam Mayor. Unlike many members today, I was standing in the middle of the

town on two Saturdays in the spring conducting the Community Governance Review, clipboard

in hand, asking residents what they thought about a town council. The answer I kept from

getting was a question back. We want a town council in Tamborish Wells when the borough

is gone to give the town a strong voice within the Unitary. That was the case for a town

council, a strong local voice inside Unitary, the whole of West Kent. I voted for it in

July, so did every member in the Chamber. We voted unanimously. And let me say plainly,

because I will say it again, I still support a town council in Tamborish Wells. I supported

in July, I still support tonight. What nobody said on those Saturdays and nobody said in

July was what should do with a new town council, with a new tax and no unitary in sight. Every

member voted for a town council alongside a unitary. Nobody voted for one without it.

Yet, this is something that some members here want us to ask to do. Let us remember why

moved so fast. We ran the Community Government Review at pace to make sure we had a decision

in July. Not because the Town Council was urgent on its own, because the Government told us the

unit was coming in 2027 and the Town Council had to be ready at the same time. We committed

officer time, we committed money and we did it to keep step with LGR. Then on the 7th of September,

the Government paused its plan to attend. Not this Council, the Government. And the Government

did not just pause, it told us to stop.

Hold to all LGR routes, it didn't specifically say Town Councils,

but certainly because we actually had a community governance review in place as well,

establishing the basis of having the Energy Council,

I believe that should be stopped as well until we have some decision from the government itself.

It does not cancel the Town Council, it does not reopen in July's decision,

it pauses work, it waits for a government to give us two things, a clear decision on

LGR in Kent to go ahead, a new timetable. While we wait, the leader keeps the chamber

informed and when the answer comes, a full report comes back here, setting out how we

build a town council that is safe, legal and ready to run. That report is in the business

plan. That is not a delay in its own sake, it's keeping two timetables together and

We promised residents that in the first place.

Now I expect LGR to go ahead, but in the slim chance it does

not, which is no unitary, then we have a different

discussion.

Not whether we want a town council, I do, but how it

works, what it owns, and what ambitions they have.

A town council setting up under a unitary is a clear job.

It's a local voice for a much bigger council.

A town council sitting under a borough is a different thing

altogether.

It never consulted residents on that, nobody did.

So we would need to ask that again.

And I would need to ask a genuine business plan, not a wish list, a plan.

What does the town council actually look like?

What does it do?

Who works for it?

And what does it cost?

Residents ask those questions themselves in the first consultation.

The top warrior was cost, then bureaucracy.

They're not knowing what the town council will actually do.

600 people raised costs, 400 people said they didn't know what it was for.

We owe them the answer that we ask them to pay before we ask them to pay.

Now, I'm going to move over to the services now.

You ran this borough for 25 years.

With every power this council has today, in all that time,

I cannot find any record of single consultation on a town council for Tumage Wales.

Not a review, not a working party, nothing.

And now, some of you want to lech the chamber about urgency.

Residents will see through that with a heartbeat.

Now to Labour as well.

You voted for July and I'm glad of it.

But the reason we're here tonight is specifically because of the government changing its course on local government organisation.

and that's why we want the alignment motion to go through.

Every pound this council spends getting ready for 2027

was spent at a word from the Labour government that changed its mind.

And think carefully about that tonight.

Your government told us councils to hold work on LGR

and many other councils have actually done this as well.

You voted against it and you voted against your own government's instructions.

You cannot blame the people clear on the mess, then vote for making a bigger mess as well.

So here's a choice.

Support an emotion and the town council goes ahead properly when the government confirms a unitary it was built for at the same timetable with a plan.

And no surprise on anyone's bills.

Oppose it and you ask residents to pay for a new town council, a new tax, for something that may never exist.

on the word of a government has always changed its mind.

I want a town council for Tumwich Wales

and I want it to work.

And I also want to find a point as well,

with special precepts.

I do understand special precepts work

and I also understand that if you're looking comparable

to other towns in West Kent,

overall the council tax in Tumwich Wales is the lowest.

Thank you.

Councillor Osborne.

Thank you, Lady Minister.

Seat 1 - 2:18:20

Seat 12 - 2:18:25

It seems a strange situation where Sevenoaks will have a town council.

It's had a town council since 1974.

Sevenoaks is half the size of Royal Tunbridge Wells.

Maidstone will have a town council.

Maidstone is slightly larger than Royal Tunbridge Wells.

And Tunbridge will have a town council.

So within West Kent, only Royal Tunbridge Wells will be without a town council.

And the town councils where they exist, in West Kent, in Sevenoaks in particular, have been very effective.

Tony Clayton, who many of you will know, he's been a leading politician, Lib Dem politician,

within Sevenoaks, both the town council, district council, he's the mayor, leader of the council,

He said, please don't block the process of developing

Tunbridge Wells Town Council.

Look at what we have achieved in Sevenoaks.

And that's what we'd like to achieve in Tunbridge Wells.

I was re -elected in May this year when the people of Culverden

elected me.

They knew that they were electing me as a Shadow Town

Councillor as well as a Borough Town Councillor.

On the 11th of September, we had a Shadow Town Council meeting.

The first meeting of the Shadow Town Council, as my residents expected me, I attended it.

At that meeting, we discussed the possibility of delaying the implementation of a town council.

However, the view was that we should go ahead and a vote was taken to that effect.

Now, the argument was, that was made, and people thought it was compelling, was that

we'd been told by the council and by council officers that it wasn't possible to set up

a town council owning any assets, in particular the parks, because local government reform,

the formation of a unitary council, was sucking out all the time of the council officers and

and therefore no time would be available to set up the town council.

We thought, aren't we lucky therefore that local government reform has been delayed?

And everybody agreed that this was a good thing because it now meant that the free time that the council officers had

could be devoted to moving not just allotments, of which we have 11, but also the five parks,

which we currently pay 1 .85 million to maintain.

So, when I was elected as Shadow Councillor, I obviously voted to continue with the Town Council.

We had a second meeting on the 21st, in which we agreed the precept, the outline precept,

for the new Town Council going forward, and also that we would look for a Clerk.

All that democratic process, me being elected, me being elected as Shadow Councillor,

the Shadow Council voting, has all been thrown out the window by the current administration.

The leader of the Council keeps referring to the Community Governments Review, which

is the process by which the residents became involved in this process. Now, within the

Community Government's review, 1 ,044 responses were received.

Now, and over 60 % of those were in favour of the town.

If you compare that, say, for example, with the strategic plan, which we spend so much time talking about,

that received 154 responses.

And item number one in the local plan, in the strategic plan, was climate action.

So we are, we had some consultation on that as well.

That received 72 responses.

The last round of consultation on the RVP, which we're told is the flagship, received 215 responses.

I think therefore over a thousand responses in respect to the town council is a clear mandate.

When I was elected, unlike Councillor Abbassy and Councillor Keefe,

The residents in Culverdon were very clear they wanted a town council and they wanted

it as soon as possible.

In a representative democracy I am therefore going to pursue what they want.

I received only this evening a representation from the largest residents group within Culverdon

saying that they were firmly in favour of a town council and a town council starting

now, as they had been promised when I stood for election in May.

So I'm quite clear that we should proceed with the town council as been approved by

the full council.

It's what my residents expect and within a representative democracy I feel that I should

represent the interests of my residents.

I think a number of councillors who will vote tonight will not be voting in the best interests

of their residents. I therefore also want to make sure that we have a recorded vote,

because I think it's only correct that the citizens of Tunbridge Wells are aware of those

councillors who do not support the formation of a town council in Tunbridge Wells, and at the

future elections they will be able to vote having regard to the position of those town councillors.

May I also say finally that I think there's quite a conflict of interest between a number of town

Councillors who wish to stand as unitary Councillors and it may appear that in certain circumstances

they are prioritising their own personal ambitions as potential unitary Councillors above that

of the borough of Tunrys Wells and the town of Tunrys Wells. Thank you.

Thank you. Councillor Hill.

Seat 1 - 2:24:22

Seat 19 - 2:24:24

Well, I mean I certainly agree with a lot of what's been said but I would just like

I am baffled, absolutely baffled how you can be linking a town council to LGR.

There is nothing that links them at all.

A town council is something that has been talked about, it's been talked about for at least a decade that I know of for the Town, for Tom B. Charles Town Council.

And I speak as someone who has been a town councillor on Southborough and High Brooms

for 25 years, three years as the Mayor of that town.

And the work that we do on the town is second to none.

It far beats what goes on in the borough, what we do in the borough, and I think any

borough councillor does not have that influence that the town council does, as we do at Southborough

and High Brooms.

and I hear what Councillor Ellie says, and he can tell you pause it because he's in the

middle of an excellent town council where he lives. So it doesn't matter to him if there's

one in Tunbridge Wells because he lives in one in Southbridge and Highbrunes. I mean,

we've now got bigger wards than we've ever had, so it's much more important that people

have a faith that they can talk to, that they can know. The wards are too big for a Councillor

to be known throughout all the wards, they are too big. I'm lucky, I'm the only Councillor

in my ward, I'm very well known. But it's very difficult, but the Town Council, and

we only look at the Southport Town Council, what we've done in Southport Town Council,

the campaigns that we've had, you know, be it trying to save the Royal Victoria Hall,

our car parking, there's loads of stuff and we bring people together and that's what town

councils do because there's more of you and you are the grassroots, the grassroots of the very

people that we represent. I mean it's just so important and like, I mean I border with St John's

There are people in St John's on the border who think they're in Sainsbury in High Blooms Town Council

and they would like a town council contrary to what's being said

and I know this because I've been speaking to them for 20 odd years.

But I'd also like to say, you know, Sevenoaks, Tunbridge, I mean, Maiston, all these towns.

Why are Tunbridge Weller so worried about having a town council?

It's not really going to cost anything. The only asset you're going to get at the moment is going to be the allotment.

And surely you can handle some allotments, can't you?

So I'd just like to say to all of you, come on, you know, this has nothing to do with LGR and you cannot hide behind it.

Tunbridge Well's town deserves a town council. So please, you know, vote against the motion.

Thank you. Next speaker is Councillor Fairweather.

Seat 1 - 2:27:31

Seat 16 - 2:27:33

Thank you Madam Mayor. One pertinent thing that's been said tonight is yes the timing

is wrong because this should have happened years ago. And what this event is about and

what we're looking at is localism. And what we need to decide is whether we want localism

or not. Because LGR comes along and we think oh we don't really like this because we're

losing our local identity and the areas are too big and you're losing the local

face so we don't like localism. And then the government changes planning policy

and we debate tonight and we say we don't really like this because we're

losing localism and we want localism and yet here we are now debating whether to

pause granting a section of our community the greatest bit of localism

that we can offer them.

A great point.

Planning consultees.

All of our parish councils are planning consultees.

Something we're losing very shortly.

And the Tunbridge Wells town won't have any planning consultees,

any ability as a group to put in their thoughts to the planning committee

if they don't exist.

Let's get ahead of the game, not pause it, forge forward.

So when LGR does come in, the town council is up and running.

Now, I think there's many people on this side of the room

think and honestly believe that the hierarchy

of the Liberal Democrats don't get parish councils.

They don't understand the way they work

and they don't understand the work that they do.

And they tell us they do understand.

But we honestly don't believe that you do, and this is another example of where you call it just another layer of bureaucracy.

It's not another layer of bureaucracy.

How many borough councillors here can honestly put your hand on your heart and say that you've actively been involved in not taking part,

but arranging a litter pick, inspecting a playground,

commissioning a playground safety review,

coordinating the highway improvement plan,

awarding grants to small groups.

Now, some of the Liberal Democrats do sit within wards

that have parish councils, and you know how well they work,

and you know the work they do.

So, don't vote politically tonight just because you're back in your group.

Vote for what you believe in and vote for what you understand to be to the good of your local community.

And finally, as an aside really to this debate, because I'll only mention it because it's been mentioned again tonight,

political appointments on the town council is a grave mistake.

Because all the things we have spoken about aren't about politics, they're not about bickering,

they're not about discussion, they're about communities and they're about localism.

And that's why Tunbridge Wells town deserves its own council now.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor Fairweather.

Seat 1 - 2:31:01

Councillor Bryce, I think we'll make you the last speaker as we are with you.

Seat 8 - 2:31:08

Thank you. I represent Collin Ward which is unparished and I am a county

councillor for Tumberswell South which consists of Pantires Ward and Park

both of which unparished. I'm delighted we're going to have a town council I

think we should have one there's no doubt about it it's a great idea and I'm

delighted that we're doing it and I'm delighted that we're sticking with the

original plan which is the reason we're having a town council is because the

I think that the schedule that we originally adopted was correct that we will have a town

council when we have lost the borough. I agree with Councillor Mobs, these words stick in

my throat, it is very difficult for me to say this, but in a minute we will be discussing

the next agenda item. Councillor Mobs proposed that the council believes

that local residents should not be left to bear unnecessary costs arising from changes

to the government's approach to local government reorganisation.

I mean, we all agree with that.

At a time of significant financial pressure, money spent unnecessarily on reorganisation

cannot be spent on services.

We all agree with that.

I mean, I have to say, I find myself in some difficulty, and I doubt very much I will ever

be saying again I shall be agreeing with Councillor Mobs but there we are.

I have had two emails.

There's about 20 ,000 people living in that area and I've had two emails in the last three

weeks, one of which is from a former Conservative Councillor and when you reply to them and

say well I take your point, you don't want to pause, how much extra are you prepared

to paying council tax for a year in which you will have a town council that will do

nothing except for running the allotments which cost 13 ,000 a year to run and bring

in 35 grand.

We sat through a town council working group with an officer who explained that you're

going to need a town clerk and we looked at the job adverts for Tunbridge and for Majordown

You're looking at 90 grand a year.

You're running the allotments.

You're not doing anything else.

So I would, as I said, in fact Adrian Barrent was there a week or so ago.

You can have a conversation about a democratic deficit and localism, but actually under the

new system 70 % of the budget is still going to be spent on social care.

There'll still be the same number of teachers in front of the same number of children. They'll still be the same number of policemen

Now you can argue that having a town council is largely performative politics

But you know, maybe you may disagree with that. Anyway, I'm delighted we're having one

And I think we should stick to the original plan which is to have one when we lose

The borough and I should be voting in favour of this

Thank you, Councillor Brice. Right as we have 16 speakers, Councillor Hall, would you wish

to speak now?

Seat 1 - 2:34:20

Seat 5 - 2:34:25

Yes, Madam Mayor, I will say a few words. Thank you everyone for a very thorough and

robust debate on various points of view, but I think it is incumbent on me to say a few

I want to set the record straight on a couple of things.

So we in Cabinet, and I personally, have been on Cabinet on tour.

We visited most if not all of the parishes and the town councils.

And we love our town councils and we love our parishes.

We've seen for ourselves first hand what wonderful work they do and fully support all of the

work the parish councils do, their value, their role,

and their excellence in what they achieve.

So that's not in question.

We will get a town council.

I'm in favour of a town council.

We're going to have one.

That is unquestionable.

As soon as we know the timelines for the creation of the West

Kent unitary authority, then we can time the election for a town

council at the same time.

There will then be a shadow authority,

which will have time to bed in as a unitary.

At the same time, the town council will then start

to develop the experience of running a town council.

So I think those things just want to get straight, first of all.

All we're talking about is just a very simple

and pragmatic decision, which is to pause

until we know exactly what the trajectory is

for creating a West Kent unitary council.

Now many of us in the chamber voted for a town council, not all of us, but many.

Those of us who actually represent the town are on the condition that Tunbridge Wells

Borough Council was going to be abolished and replaced in 2028.

And that unquestionably is also the context in which the public were also engaged on that

basis.

And until then, I believe that most of us in this chamber don't think that it's necessary

to create a town council now to run alongside a borough council at the same time.

Because we genuinely don't believe that town residents think that they are currently underrepresented

by their borough councils in Culverdon, Park, Sherwood, Pantiles, St. John's or St. James,

wherever.

And in my 26 years of living in the town, never once has anyone said that they felt

underrepresented by the Borough Council or by their borough councillors who represent

town residents at the Borough Council.

So no one's denying that a town council is going to be a very positive forum when it's

needed and when things need to be managed much more locally, when we have a Unistry

authority and the Borough Council is abolished. But for most people out there, I completely

believe that most people out there believe that the Borough Council is the one they look

to as their town council. All we're doing is pausing to ensure that we get the right

decision at the right time when we have all the information, as Councillor Abbassy has

And as Councillor Munday has said, that we're delivering something that residents will clearly understand has value to them and not before.

Because we're going to be adding a preset to their council tax bills.

So I'm very surprised that the Conservatives will be voting against the motion this evening.

I think it would be wiser for you to abstain coming off a very good Conservative Party

conference where KB Badenoch is really making a positive impression about lowering taxation.

By voting against the motion, what you're actually saying to the public is that you'd

be more than happy to press ahead and impose an extra level of tax on residents in the

town where not one of you holds a seat.

I think that is astonishing, poor form, poor form from you.

And I'd say the same to Labour as well.

I really admire our new Prime Minister Andy Burnham,

and I think it's absolutely right to say that there should be a cost of living government.

But I find it really, really strange that you too would want to increase the burden

on residents in wards that we know.

You know where I live in Ramslie, near Showfields.

We've got Sherwood.

We've got High Brooms.

We've got Russell, which have huge pockets of deprivation

in them, don't they?

And rather than saying to the public, well,

we won't press ahead now, but when there's a necessity

to do so, we'll increase council tax.

You'd like to increase their council tax now,

when there's no need to do so.

And maybe you don't think it's much of an increase, but maybe some of them who are struggling to make ends meet do.

So I find that somewhat strange. I'd like you to be a little bit more on board with the cost of living.

There's still going to be a town council. We all believe town councils are worthwhile in the right context at the right time.

But all we're saying is there's no need to push ahead with council tax increases now. Why would we until the right time?

So that's all we're saying. Why don't we pause and just give ourselves time to reflect.

And I think anyone who votes against the motion tonight will be putting themselves out of touch with what the great majority outside this chamber really think.

Voting to pause it is just common sense and I hope everyone will support the motion.

Seat 1 - 2:40:24

Seat 5 - 2:40:25

Thank you Madam Mayor. Just to reiterate that we are supportive of a town council. Absolutely.

We've made that decision. So the decision tonight is not about whether to proceed with

a town council or not. It's about when we proceed with a town council. And I feel that

my words have been twisted by the opposition.

In my introductory remarks, I said, quote,

"'We risk adding an extra layer of bureaucracy.'

That was not meant as a derogatory term.

I appreciate what town and parish councils do.

In fact, we've been out on cabinet on tour,

as Chris has said.

We understand what wonderful work they do.

I have asked town and parish councils

to get ready for LGR as a leader and I have assured them that we will be supporting them through that process.

But I feel my words have been twisted and I think it's important.

Furthermore, if you vote against this motion tonight, you are not, sorry, if you vote for this motion,

you are not voting against the town council.

That Councillor Osborne is purely extrapolation and making it up.

That is not a fact.

The motion does not say to stop the Town Council.

It merely says pause it.

That is what is in the wording.

That is what is in the motion.

If we were to pause the Town Council, which we're not,

that would require a full agenda item back here, which I'm not proposing to bring back.

We will only bring something back once we have clarity on local government reorganisation.

I didn't want to cover the transfer of assets tonight, because it's not about the town council having one or not.

But since it's been mentioned a few times, I think councillors need to realise that under the local government reorganisation...

...Tumbridge Wells Borough Council cannot transfer assets to a town council such as Tumbridge Wells Town Council.

Councillor Osborne is shaking his head. He is factually incorrect.

So let me read the letter from the Minister to you that we have shared repeatedly with the Working Group.

It is essential the decision regarding ongoing service delivery and the medium term financial strategy of existing councils do not compromise the future sustainability of new councils.

That is written on the 24th of July by MHCLG.

We cannot transfer assets.

Furthermore, the auditors have also said, the external auditors will be keeping a close

eye and any keen decisions made in advance of LGR taking place that are not in line with

business as usual, should be left to the successor body to take.

Those are the facts.

And unfortunately, Councillor Osborne keeps peddling this,

and it's actually misleading the debate, the intellectual debate on that.

We cannot transfer assets to a town council unless it's business as usual.

We're clouding the issue. So, let's go back another step.

The only way that the Tomlage Wells Town Council could get the parks would be for Tomlage Wells Borough Council and Kent County Council to disappear.

Because the unitary would be empowered to discuss that with the town council

And I suspect over time the town council may want to take on the parks

And the unitary council may actually think it's best used locally

And that would make very logical sense

Whilst Tamar's Wells Borough Council is in place

The only thing that can be transferred from the borough to the town councils are allotments.

Now, as a starting point, we always said that that would be the starting point.

Whilst those three councils co -exist, if that's the case, then that can't happen.

Essentially, we would be charging a preset in that first year of a council to run the allotments.

which would be a service that we currently run as a borough council

that runs at a surplus of about £17 ,000.

The cost to that is £450 ,000, which is the precept that we have set

initially as a working group for that first year as a town council.

That's £450 ,000 for a service that we already run at £17 ,000 surplus that goes back into the...

I question whether that is good value for money if we go early.

Is better value for money if we set it up in line with LGR timetable

so that then that becomes a starting point for a new council to be the strong voice we want it to be within a unitary.

That's an important thing. Another thing is we would not have had the debate in July this year had it not been for LGR.

There may have been calls in the past to have set up a town council, but actually we as

a full council triggered the CGR process at the 4th of February meeting in 2025 in response

to LGR.

And tonight I wouldn't have brought a motion forward with 10 other councillors, sorry 9

other councillors had it not been for the government's pause on LGR.

And all I'm saying is, Tom you said earlier it could be delayed by a year.

Where's the harm in moving everything back by one year?

There isn't any because actually what we do is we save taxpayers £450 ,000 that you're

about to actually disagree to if you vote against the motion and then we can start setting

up the town council as we go forward so that it coincides with the unitary.

The town council would have a year before vesting day of the unitary. That's a year

for the elected members to decide that and make a business case ready for the unitary.

Of course, if we pause the statutory process, that doesn't mean informal discussions on

what the town council can be can go on behind the scenes.

It doesn't exclude people.

On the point about Tunbridge and Malling,

the reason why Tunbridge and Malling are proceeding

is because they triggered a community government's review,

not by council like us because of LGR,

but because they had a petition of 8 ,000 people

asking for a community government's review.

We've not had that in Tunbridge Wells.

Maidstone was also mentioned. Maidstone are further ahead of us in the CGR process

and are currently awaiting legal advice for whether they can pause their process as well

until the government makes a decision on LGR.

So just to be clear, we're merely asking for a pause.

We're not cancelling, we're just waiting to know what the timeline is.

That's all we're asking tonight and I hope the common sense will prevail and that councillors will support the motion.

Thank you Madam Mayor.

Thank you Councillor Chapelle.

Seat 1 - 2:49:07

So the motion is as moved by Councillor Chapelle -Motte, is that full council notes that the council voted to establish rural Tomridge Wales Town Council,

Council, the Town Council, in July 2026, FC 21 -26. This decision was taken in the context

of the Government's plans to create new unitary councils across Kent under Lungel Government

reorganisation, LDR. On the 7th of September 2026, the Government announced this decision

to pause its LDR implementation plans for Kent pending a review. So Council resolves

2. In the light of the Government's decision to pause LGR, the Council resolves to pause

the implementation of its July 2026 decision to create the Town Council, to defer taking

any further steps to create the Town Council until the Government provides a. a clear decision

that LGR plus Kent is to proceed and 2. a revised programme and timetable for LGR and

And three, that the leader of the council will provide further verbal updates to the

full council as appropriate until the government provides clarity regarding the future programme

and timetable for LDR.

And four, that the government should decide to proceed with LDR and provides the clarity

referred to at resolution three above.

A further report will be taken to full council setting out the steps to be undertaken and

relevant timeline for establishing a safe, legal and operational town council in the

light of the revised circumstances. A recorded vote has been asked for.

Chief Executive.

Seat 2 - 2:50:55

Thank you, Madam Mayor. So I'm about to take a recorded vote. When I call out your name,

can you indicate whether you are for the motion, against or whether you wish to abstain?

Councillor Chapelle.

For.

Councillor Ellis.

For.

Councillor Wilkinson for council all for council Wellington for

Councillor Keith for Councillor low for Councillor Barras against

Councillor Bryce or Councillor Brown abstain Councillor Davidson against

Councillor Kynberly Johnson

Councillor Jamie Johnson

Councillor Kent

Councillor Munday

Councillor Ebassi

Councillor Osborne

Yes

Councillor Paterson

Councillor Shukler

Councillor Standing

Councillor Wallace

Councillor Wermings

for Councillor Darragh against Councillor Dooling's against Councillor

Fairweather against Councillor Knight against Councillor mobs against

Councillor pound against Councillor Hill okay Councillor Sharps against

Councillor Sankey against Councillor Neville against Councillor Hayward

against. Councillor Burch abstain and Councillor Palmer against.

Seat 2 - 2:53:11

Thank you Madam Mayor. There were 18 votes for 15 votes against and two abstentions so

the motion is carried.

14 Motion on Notice from Councillor Mobbs

Seat 1 - 2:53:16

We now come to agenda item 14, motion on notice from Councillor Moulton. Details of the motion

are set out. We have quiet please, thank you. Details of the motion are set out and the

included on page 126 of your agenda pack.

I'm now going to ask Councillor Mobs to introduce and move the motion.

Thank you Madam Mayor.

Seat 17 - 2:53:45

The motion I'm bringing forward tonight, regardless of our views on LGR,

is the principle that the residents of Tunbridge Wells

should not be expected to foot the bill of the national government's indecision on LGR.

Over the past year councils across Kent have spent significant amounts of officer time and public money

preparing for local government reorganisation, working to demand a timeline set by central government.

Then in July we finally had a decision.

Kent will be divided into four unitary authorities with Tunbridge Wells becoming part of a new West Kent Council.

Just weeks later, government announced a review of the process, leaving councils uncertain of what happens next.

That's no way to run local government.

Councils have followed the government's instructions, committed resource and undertaken substantial preparatory work.

Yet now we are left wondering whether all of that will be necessary at all.

Who pays for that uncertainty? Well, it's ultimately our residents.

Every pound spent unnecessarily on reorganisation is a pound that cannot be spent delivering services.

In my own ward residents regularly raise concerns about planning enforcement, infrastructure and investment in our rural villages.

Those residents expect us to make the best possible use of their council tax.

They should not expect to subsidise the consequences of decisions made and subsequently reconsidered by Whitehall.

That is why the motion asks for our Chief Executive and Section 151 Officer to establish

what this process has cost Humber's Wells Barrow Council.

Once we know that figure we should be making the case to Government for reimburse a reasonable

cost that we have incurred.

I also want to make it clear that this is not a criticism of Officers who have worked

incredibly hard throughout this process, they have been simply responding to the requirement

placed upon them.

However, there is also a wider principle at stake.

Local government should be local.

Decisions about the future of our Council should be led by democratically elected local representatives

in consultation with the communities they serve, rather imposed by White Hall.

I remain particularly concerned about what larger authorities could mean for representation of our rural villages and parishes.

That is why it is important that any future proposals affecting boundaries, wards and council size

receive appropriate independent scrutiny, including involvement from the local government boundary commission.

Ultimately, this motion is not asking members to agree on whether local government reorganisation is right or wrong.

It asks us to agree on three simple points.

That we establish what the processes cost, that we seek reimbursement from government,

and that we demand clarity before any further significant expenditure is incurred.

If the government wants to reorganise local government, it must take the responsibility of the cost of doing so.

And if that cost chain and if the and if it changes course halfway through our residents should not be left to pick the bill up

I hope members can agree on those principles

Thank You councillor months, I believe council Dornan's will second the motion I

Seat 1 - 2:56:51

Will second the motion and reserve my right to speak

Seat 15* - 2:56:53

Thank you.

Councillor Mums, did you want to repeat?

No?

You're done.

Good.

Seat 1 - 2:57:00

Right, the matter is now open for debate.

If you wish to speak, please indicate now.

Councillor Mums.

Thank you.

Seat 11 - 2:57:12

I endorse the principle wholeheartedly, but I think if we go back in time and think about

how many times central governments changed its mind, had a pause, had a reset, and we've

incurred cost as a council?

Are we also going to be going back and asking for

reimbursement of those costs?

And is this trying to set a precedent going forward as

well for anything that a future government changed its

mind we want to money back?

No, again, speaking earlier as a town councillor, there's a

number of things there, which is the county or the borough

has changed its mind on.

The town council's gone down the track,

spent money on it.

Can we issue an invoice to the borough or to the county for

the money back?

No.

So, he endorsed the principle, but I do think it's a little bit point -scoring rather than

actually dealing with the business at hand and actually delivering LGR when it does turn

about.

I don't think we've spent anything that hasn't actually delivered any value, even if the

borough does continue.

That's all.

Councillor Pound.

Thank you, Madam Mayor.

Seat 1 - 2:58:16

Some very simple points really.

Seat 18* - 2:58:18

If we go just straight to the motion, all I want to say is

that in bold, which presumably was produced by the mover

of the motion, it says council resolves to brackets subject

to appropriate professional, financial,

and legal advice to do the following.

Might I suggest that rather than bringing a motion to council

for exactly the reasons that Councillor Munday has just

described, I suspect it's that there's a bit

of showboating and point scoring going on,

why not go and get some professional financial and legal

advice?

The way in which you do it, you go to Teams,

and you type in Benson, and up comes

the name of the chief executive.

And you ask whether you can have a meeting with him.

And you can do the same also with our legal officer,

and you can do the same with our finance officer.

And what you do is you go to those meetings,

and you talk through the issues that you've got.

And they answer point one, because the chief executive

and the section 151 officer have already explained to cabinet

and to both of the advisory boards, and I think it's in the public domain, the cost

currently to this council of local government reorganisation.

Then we come to the others, which is seeking reimbursement, exactly as Councilman Munday

has said.

The government has given some money to this council to pay for the initial processes within

LGR, and that is, again, known.

And we won't be moving ahead anyway until we have clarity about the future of LGR reorganisation.

So why on earth would you in any way suggest somehow that we need to have clarity?

Clearly we have to have clarity.

So the second point is just a nonsense.

And thirdly, in your own – Helian, you said it in your words earlier as well – that

essentially this is – you know, it's important that local people make local decisions and

local democracy.

And yet in your third point you're saying that the local government boundary commission

should be appropriately involved in reviewing any future proposals relating to local government

boundaries.

is exactly the point of LGR and all the work that Councillor Chapleard and other people have been doing over the last year is to have the dialogue about exactly those matters.

This is a fallacious nonsense, this motion, and I would propose, please, Madam Mayor, under section 1310 of the constitution, under 13 .10 .3 that we proceed to the next business.

Thank you Councillor Perks.

Seat 1 - 3:00:45

So you need to decide whether you feel the motion has been sufficiently debated and whether he's got a seconder to proceed with the motion without a notice.

Okay.

Councillor Perks.

You seconded in the motion.

I'll second it.

Ove.

Thank you.

Seat 2 - 3:02:30

So, so madam mayor, Councillor Pound, we've got this thing where the motion to proceed

to the next business is listed in two different areas within the constitution, but under 13 .11 .2,

If a motion to proceed to the next business is seconded, which it has been, and if you

think that the item has been sufficiently debated, which is up to you, you give the

mover of the motion a right to reply and then put the procedural motion to the vote under

Council Procedure Rule 13 .11 .2.

So your first judgement is to determine whether it's been...

No, but I'm sorry.

I'm sorry, I disagree.

I didn't call it under 13 .11 .2.

I called it under 13 .10 .3.

You can't because it's a character counsellor pound that that 13 .10 deals with motions that

be moved may be moved during the debates, which is 13 .11 deals with a subset of those

motions which is closure motions and it sets out the way in which closure motions exposed

off, and it does say that proceed to the next business.

13 .11 point to it second date and the mayor thinks the item has been sufficiently discuss,

they will give the mover of the original motion a right of reply and then put the procedural motion to the vote.

So it is mentioned in two places where you moved it under 13 .10, it gives you permission to move the motion within the debate, which you've done,

but then 13 .11 deals with how that motion is dealt with.

I'll defer to the monitoring officer to confirm that a lot.

I am confirming that we go to the mover of the vote.

Seat 30 - 3:04:02

So Madam Mayor, if you decide it's been sufficiently debated, you would give Councillor Mobs a right to reply

Seat 2 - 3:04:07

and then put the procedural motion to the vote and then if carried we would then proceed to the next business.

Like Councillor Mobs, you do have a right to reply again.

Seat 1 - 3:04:18

Seat 17* - 3:04:19

On your point about the stuff involved, that was in consultation with the monitoring officer that that was included.

So that's why it's there. It didn't originally feature

Happy to go back through previous iterations of it and find that and let you know but

From memory it didn't on your point about

the government boundary Commission the local boundary government boundary Commission and

engages with multiple stakeholders within and actually gives an element of

further local

representation which is input forward so I don't buy that the local government boundary

commission point is taken away. I think it actually strengthens the argument and gives

local parishes, community groups and bodies more right to say on these things. I don't

believe that these, this is Gerry Landering, oh sorry no a political point scoring at all,

I think it's an issue that many residents in my parish have raised about what are the costs and time spent.

We have constantly been told, with all due respect to officers, that LGR has taken up a lot of time

and that we as councillors or council officers had too much work on their plates because of LGR.

Well, I don't see a reason to criticise, you know, trying to get some reimbursement for that.

It's not political point scoring, it's a serious matter which is happening in rural areas where we've got large amounts of work going on.

It's not political point scoring at all.

So, okay, thank you, Councillor Mops.

Right, I will now take a vote on Councillor Pound's motion

without notice that we proceed to the next business.

Seat 1 - 3:06:13

I propose to do this by a show of hands.

So those in favour of Councillor Pound's motion,

please raise your hand now.

Can you raise your hand and keep it up, please?

Okay, thank you.

And those against?

Sorry, can you keep your hands up?

Hands, sorry, hands up.

Okay, eight.

And those abstaining?

The motion's carried, so we proceed to the next item.

Right, in that case we will proceed to the next agenda item.

Agenda item 17.

15, yeah. Right.

15 Urgent Business

Gender item 15 is urgent business and I can confirm there is no urgent business.

So we will move on to agenda item 16, common seal of council.

16 Common Seal of the Council

We are asked now to authorise the common seal as set out on page 128 of the agenda.

I so move, Councillor Chappell, I, the leader of the council, are you happy to second?

Yes, Madam Mayor, thank you.

Seat 1 - 3:07:40

Thank you. Then the motion is 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 any pursuant to any delegation, authority or power conferred by the Council. Are we agreed?

Agreed.

17 Date of next meeting

Gender Item 17, the date of the next meeting is Wednesday 11 November 2026.

As all the gender items have now been dealt with in open session, the time is now 9 .38.

And the meeting is now closed. Thank you for your attendance.

Oh God, hang on, my knees are giving up.

Oh cheers, thank you.

We welcome your comments

Required field

Name

Comments

Need an accessible hCaptcha?
Check available options.
Sign up to hCaptcha or Log in to hCaptcha.

By clicking Send feedback, you agree that Tunbridge Wells Borough Council and Public-i can use the information above to review your feedback and contact you about it. See our Privacy Policy for more details.

Interactive webcast player

Full CouncilWednesday, 14th October 2026 at 6:30pm

Seat 1 - 0:00:37

Seat 3 - 0:01:55

Seat 1 - 0:03:29

Seat 2 - 0:03:52

1 Apologies for absence

2 Minutes of the meeting dated 15 July 2026

Seat 1 - 0:05:37

Seat 2 - 0:05:45

Seat 1 - 0:05:52

3 Declarations of Interest

4 Forward Plan as at 6 October 2026

5 Announcements

Seat 1 - 0:08:17

Seat 5 - 0:10:02

Seat 1 - 0:12:45

Seat 4* - 0:12:52

Seat 1 - 0:14:07

Seat 6* - 0:14:09

Seat 1 - 0:15:33

Seat 6 - 0:15:34

Seat 1 - 0:15:44

Seat 6 - 0:15:47

Seat 1 - 0:18:18

Seat 7* - 0:18:24

Seat 1 - 0:21:16

Seat 5* - 0:21:22

6 Questions from members of the public

Seat 1 - 0:22:38

Seat 1 - 0:22:45

Seat 2 - 0:23:49

Seat 1 - 0:24:03

Seat 10 - 0:24:05

Seat 1 - 0:24:08

Seat 1 - 0:24:15

Seat 18 - 0:24:20

Seat 1 - 0:24:43

Seat 6 - 0:24:44

Seat 1 - 0:25:30

Seat 18 - 0:25:42

Seat 6 - 0:26:32

Seat 1 - 0:27:23

Seat 18* - 0:27:32

Seat 5 - 0:28:11

Seat 18* - 0:30:52

Seat 1 - 0:30:54

Seat 18* - 0:30:56

Seat 5 - 0:31:51

Seat 1 - 0:32:25

Seat 1 - 0:32:37

Seat 18 - 0:32:43

Seat 5 - 0:33:54

Seat 18 - 0:33:54

Seat 5 - 0:33:59

Seat 1 - 0:37:13

Seat 18 - 0:37:15

Seat 5 - 0:38:05

Seat 18 - 0:38:07

Seat 5 - 0:38:09

Seat 5 - 0:38:13

Seat 1 - 0:40:25

Seat 18 - 0:40:37

Seat 6 - 0:41:22

Seat 1 - 0:44:07

Seat 18 - 0:44:17

Seat 6 - 0:44:46

Seat 1 - 0:44:58

Seat 18* - 0:45:07

Seat 5 - 0:45:59

Seat 1 - 0:47:26

Seat 18* - 0:47:30

Seat 5 - 0:48:13

Seat 1 - 0:49:55

Seat 1 - 0:50:05

Seat 18 - 0:50:12

Seat 6 - 0:50:37

Seat 1 - 0:52:44

Seat 18 - 0:52:57

Seat 6 - 0:53:06

Full Council
Wednesday, 14th October 2026 at 6:30pm