Full Council - Wednesday 13 December 2023, 6:30pm - Tunbridge Wells Borough Council Webcasting

Full Council
Wednesday, 13th December 2023 at 6:30pm 

Agenda

Slides

Transcript

Map

Resources

Forums

Speakers

Votes

 
Share this agenda point
  1. Slide 1Slide 1
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
  1. Webcast Finished
Slide selection

Good evening, ladies and gentlemen, I'm delaying the start of this meeting in order for us to conduct a short prayer, which I should ask my chaplain, the Reverend Dr Jeremy I have to leave if anyone would prefer not to observe the prayer, please take this time for a moment of personal reflection or you may withdraw from the Chamber if you wish. The meeting will start immediately afterwards. Dr Ivan
I loving God we gather here today to pray for Tunbridge Wells Parish Borough Council as they meet in his mid-December meeting, they ask for your guidance and wisdom as they make decisions that will affect the lives of all residents of the borough, particularly those who are homeless.
unemployed and suffering in any way.
in the lead-up to Christmas, when Christians celebrate with all those of other faiths and none the story of the birth of Jesus in a human family sharing our joys and griefs, we remember the importance of compassion and care for those in need.
we pray that the Council, this will be inspired by the spirit of Christmas and that they'll work to bring hope and joy to all residents of the borough.
and be guided by the principles of love, justice and compassion, we pray that the Councillors will be mindful of the common good of all residents and that they will work together to make the Borough a more just and equitable place for all and strive to use all resources, social, cultural and environmental wisely and responsibly. We thank you for your presence and your blessings on our borough, we ask that you watch over the councillors as they make their decisions.
that you guide them towards the best possible outcomes are men.
please sit down.

1 Apologies for absence

Good evening, Members of the Council, members of the public and others who have joined chosen to join us, both here at the Town Hall and online, via the live webcast, welcome to this meeting of Tunbridge Wells Borough Council on Wednesday, the 13th December 2023 before we get underway, I would ask the Chief Executive to set out some important safety and procedural information.
that I would ask you to give your full attention, chief executive, thank you, Mr. 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 left. We will make our way to the fire assembly points by the entrance to Town Hall Yard, car park, on Munson Way, and once outside a check will be made to ensure everyone has safely left and please, no one is to re-enter the building until advice it is safe to do so. This is a public meeting and proceedings are being webcast live online. A recording will also be available for playback on the Council's website shortly afterwards. Any third party may also film or record Council meetings unless exempt or confidential information is being considered. Please use the microphones when speaking and turn them off when you finish
the red light indicates the microphone is off and when the red light goes out, sorry the red light indicates the microphone is on and when the red light goes off, the microphone is also off, any comments that are not recorded for the webcast 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. Members requesting a recorded vote must do so before the vote is taken. And finally, if you have a mobile phone, please ensure it is either switched off or set to silent mode. Thank you very much agenda. Item 1 is to receive any apologies for absence Chief Executive. Thank you, Mr. Mayor, we've received apologies for absence from Councillors, Morton Roberts and White

2 Minutes of the Extra Ordinary meeting dated 4 October 2023

thank you agenda item 2 is to agree the minutes of the extraordinary meeting held on the 4th October 2023, which start on page 5 of our agenda, no issues have been brought to my attention in advance, but are there any amendments to these minutes?
it seems not the motion is to agree the minutes, are we agreed?

3 Minutes of the Ordinary meeting dated 4 October 2023

this is a well, I think, we've agreed the minutes before we secondly actually sorry.
Councillor Pope, have you said that you have to second,
I second the motion and we've agreed it fine good.
but agenda item 3 is the minutes of the ordinary meeting of the 4th October 2023 that followed the extraordinary one.
and that starts on page 7 of our agenda.
it has been brought to my attention.
that there was one small typo where the government was typed instead of the word governance in the minutes, reference F C 43, stroke 22, and this will be noted in the minutes, no other issues have been brought to my attention, but are there any other amendments to these minutes?
there seems none.
Councillor Pope, are you happy to second, I second the motion.
the motion is to agree the minutes are we agreed, thank you.
Andrew item 4 is declarations of interest.
is there any declaration of interest in accordance with Members' Code of Conduct, there's any Member a declaration of interest to make in respect of the item on the the the items on the agenda of this meeting today?
Councillor won.

4 Declarations of Interest

thank you, Mr. Mayor, I wish to declare an interest in Item 10 response to the Inspector's initial finding letter on the Local Plan, as I am an employee of natural England natural England is a statutory consultee on the Local Plan and my role within natural England involves advising on planning matters including those in relation to designated landscapes, whilst I have not advised on this particular agenda item, I am aware that natural England has objected to the allocation of turned down on landscape grounds and has called in the planning application for 10 then phase two to the secretary of State.
in the circumstances, I have decided, in the interests of transparency, not to participate in the debate or to vote on this matter.
and I will therefore withdraw from the Chamber when this item is being debated, thank you, Mr. Mayor.
I get Councillor 1 there any other declarations at its moment.
agenda item 5 is to receive announcements, sorry, I beg your pardon, thank you for all knowledge.
I believe that, as a Member here, who meets the criteria of the monitoring officer's e-mail yesterday regarding agenda item 10 in her e-mail, she stated that members who have campaigned with or without others for or against the proposal or a significant aspect of it spearheaded, or were involved with any petitions for or against the proposal spoken out against and or told anyone how you would or would be likely to vote on the proposal.
signed any documents in the public domain, stipulating on which or which could be interpreted as your position on the proposal, and made any strong statements in public, in the press, social media for or against the proposal should reflect whether a fair, minded and informed person having considered the facts, conclude that there was a possibility that their decision making would be biased, actual or perceived and will thus affect their ability to keep an open mind to fairly hear all of the evidence advice opinion and to weigh up those relevant factors to come to a decision at the meeting.
I believe these statements apply to Councillor Hall regarding his campaigning on the Ramslye developments in the Local Plan and therefore he should state a declaration of interest and recuse himself from the discussions and vote on agenda item 10, thank you.
thank you, Mr messages to provide procedural advice on rates, it's absolutely for individual members to determine whether or not they hold interests, and it's for them to make that decision when we get to the agenda item in question, I'll ask the monitoring officer just to remind members of that and provide a few more words but just to be absolutely crystal clear, the decision for members sorry the decision as to whether or not to declare an interest is one for individual members not for any officer.
sir sorry, Councillor Johnson resist declaring, are you declaring an interest?
I would just like to say.
no Councillor, I'm sorry, we'll get to the agenda in agenda item 10 and will deal with it, and I think that's the easiest thing to do right, OK.

5 Announcements

the next item is to receive announcements, I have one announcement.
I would like to inform Councillors, and the members of the public present and watching the Mayor's Christmas Toy appeal closed this week.
and for those who don't know the charity to provide new toys for children, from families in financial or other difficulties, who would otherwise not have Christmas presents or whose families would go further into financial difficulties in an effort to provide them. Their clients are referred to the charity by social services, churches and other agencies at the last count, the parents of 660 children have been provided with secretive toys and wrapping materials this year, this is when I was 6,000 toys donated by residents through individual donations collections in schools by local businesses and other means. While it is concerning that the need is great and increasing,
so the number of toys increased by over 100 over 2 years ago.
it is also a testament to the generosity of the public of the borough that this has been possible, I would also like to place on record the thanks to Trevor Crawford and his team of volunteers who ran the appeal from the pop up in the RVP they have made this happen and we hope their efforts will bring some joy to the lives of the most disadvantaged families in the borough this Christmas tired and I think we ought to give them a round of applause for their efforts.
thank you.
Leader,
thank you, Mr. Mayor, and just wanted to update councillors on the corporate plan and thank all those Councillors who took part in the ward specific projects to put forward just to let everybody know that first draft will go out to a consultation in the new year and in terms of those projects we haven't allocated projects yet because we feel we want to understand from residents that we are along the right lines in terms of the five corporate priorities for the next five years, one cycle the first round of consultation has been done. We will then start looking at the projects individually. There are 53 plus another 53 strategic projects and see what the council can deliver for residents, businesses and visitors in in the next five years. So thank you very much where we're dealing with it and we'll get back to you in the new year. Thank you very much, Mr. Maher
thank you, Councillor Chappell Road.
Councillor Pound, I think you have an announcement. Thank you, Mr. Mayor, I've got two announcements. The first one is that on the 29th of November, Councillor Justin Rutland and I joined the Tunbridge Wells and area access group for a fairly challenging and interesting afternoon. Moving around Royal Victoria Place, the car parks out onto the streets in wheelchairs both self-propelled and electric to better understand the challenges that are faced by people with mobility difficulties across our borough. And we're very grateful for the input that we had from that area group and we look forward to a more constructive feedback and partnership going forward. It was actually a hugely valuable one afternoon and I would suggest that if other members are offered the opportunity to have the experience that we did, they should take it. Thank you. My second announcement is in relation to a letter that the Council has received in recent days in relation to the former cinema site, everyone's favourite topic, and that letter says in Raleigh. In accordance with the provisions set out under schedule 2 Notices of the Section 1 0 6 accompanying full planning permission for the redevelopment of the above site. I am writing, on behalf of retirement village development limited, to advise the Borough Council of its intention to commence and implement the approved development at the site on the 2nd of January 2024, as required by the Section 1 0 6 we will write again closer to the time within five working days advising of the actual date of commencement. It would seem that the pigs can be ordered and the flying suits put on. Thank you,
thank you, Councillor pounds, Chief Executive, was there any other cabinet members who want to make another one?
thank you, Mr. Mayor, I'd like to remind Members and any residents listening of the consultation that's currently taking place on violence against women and girls which can be accessed on our website.
we want to hear your views of what violence against women and girls means to you and how it influences your use of public spaces, we know that these sorts of behaviours are underreported and can be very common and can include all acts of gender-based violence, the results are unlikely to result in physical, sexual, psychological or economic harm or suffering to women.
any act of gender based violence that res results or is likely to result in physical, sexual psychological harm or suffering to women in coup, including threats of such acts, coercion or arbitrary deprivation of liberty, whether occurring in public or in private life.
it is both a form of discrimination and violation of human rights, everyone has the right to feel safe in their community, whether that is travelling, travel, travelling socialising or working, whilst we know that men and boys also experience these forms of violence, Tunbridge Wells Borough Council is keen to improve safety for women and girls in public places and to discuss how we can work together to address their concerns.
so please engage with the consultation and fill in what is quite a brief surveys shouldn't take too long, we really want to hear your views and and residents' views of all ages, please, thank you very much, thank you, thank you sorry other members of the cabinet who wish to make an announcement, Councillor Rock,
thank you Chair today, the 500,000 visitors passed through the doors of the Amelia Scott. Very happily, it was one of the peoples of the Wells free primary school, on their way to see the absolutely enchanting puppet theatre show little out and the Christmas lights, which we all enjoyed very much, and I highly recommend. Half a million visits is a really incredible milestone. In just 18 months, the Amelia Scott has become a place for everyone who visits the borough and, at the same time, our residents indeed who rely on council services and receive help and support from our dedicated team, whether it is taking phone calls or helping customers face to face, they are always there for our residents. They make the immediate Scott a welcoming, busy, inclusive place, and I would like to for tonight. Our council is looking forward to what 2024 brings and seeing the next exciting and eventful chapter for the Amelia Scott. Thank you
thank you very other outcomes from a Cabinet Councillor level.
thank you our latest updates on our new waste collection round stats for this week are 99.59% for recycling.
99.81% for garden waste 99.98%, for food waste and 100% for domestic waste, so our headline is that we are averaging 99.4% bin collections on the scheduled day.
I am taking this opportunity to remind everyone to help residents by referring to the collection date changes over the festive period they are published in the newsletter on the website and, of course, local magazine.
secondly, every year our crematorium recycles metals donated by families in their crim, form and removal of plaques in the ground over a period of 12 months, this can accumulate to a not insubstantial amount, which is quite rightly donated to charity through the I CCM recycling and metal scheme last year we supported Jigsaw at a children's charity.
in 2023 in the crim office there has been a lot of communication with families face to face and over the telephone to whereby it has been increasingly apparent how many families have lost their loved one to suicide they have found that on the back of the pandemic mental health issues have been a common cause which is so deeply affecting many families in the borough, therefore the team are thrilled to be able to make a donation of 14,000 pounds to their chosen charity this year.
survivor survivors of bereavement by suicide, which is sobs and our nearest branch, is inmates down, thank you, thank you, Councillor Neville, any other announcements from cabinet.
chief executive, do you have any announcements, no announcements, The Chief Executive said we move on to?

6 U13 Tunbridge Wells Girls Cricket Club

to agenda item 6, which is a presentation to Tunbridge Wells under 13 girls cricket team.
so it was a great pleasure to present this certificate to the under 13 girls cricket team in recognition of their outstanding achievement, winning the ECB T20 Cup at Lords.
so before I invite them to come and collect the award, Councillor Wilkinson would like to say a few words and then, if any other Councillors would like to add to it, we can do that, then so, Councillor Wilkinson.
we've got an amazing group of of girls, amazing girls section at Tunbridge Wells, cricket club, we have 150 girls playing, but this group of under 13 girls are special, they're very talented, and 14 of them started in early May through to September goddess through to the final.
there were a few close shaves and everyone contributed, and just to sort of praise, the girls that here they will have their their moments, Ava was the second highest wicket taker in the Cup.
the temporary cap.
Sylvie is our youngest member was 11 at the time, and her crowning moment was scoring the winning runs, in a very, very tight match against Spencer from Surrey, fantastic.
Charlie Charlie became a bit of our star bowler, she broke our broke, a lot of the partnerships up and start with the ball and the final taking two wickets.
Georgia bypass the Georgia, obvious there's no best interests, my daughter George out a pretty amazing season, becoming the second second highest run-scorer.
across the Cup as well, with 230 runs leading run-scorers Ruby another one of our players, with 280 and Georgia score 1,000 not out at Lords carried the bat.
and finally, today's in who kept industrial out the whole tournament, absolutely fantastic leadership contributions with both bat and ball.
and she generally scares the living daylights out of most opposition batters with their fast bowling in school and got two wickets in the final as well, so very, very talented team deserve their place.
and next year we plan to in the under 15 cup and go to Lord, and then we'll get to play on the main pitch and not the nursery pitch, so that's the plan, isn't it?
given thus far.
thank you very much, although you are very welcome to stay.
your hopes, the fruitily.
we would just take quick pause while they leave.

7 Questions from members of the public

agenda item 7 is to receive questions from members of the public gd received in accordance with Council procedure Rule 8 there are four questions which we set out in the supplement packed to the agenda. Questions will be taken in the order as stipulated by Council procedure. Rule 8.2 after each quip sorry, after each answer, the questioner may ask a supplementary question which must arise directly out of the original question or the reply. This is usually to clarify something from the answer.
the total time and our questions and answers 30 minutes, any questions that are unable to be covered in the time, who will then receive a written response, the first question is from Mr. Brand.
to Councillor Hall, if you'd like to come and sit at the Speaker, Mr brand, thank you.
Good evening, mayoral party councillors and fellow spectators, what is the business case for the purchase of Royal Victoria Place and was a feasibility study completed is this available, where did the funds come from and how does this work with the Council's current asset disposal programme?
Councillor Hall,
thank you very much, Mr. Ma, and thank you Mr brand, for your question, so yes, Councillors received numerous briefings throughout the acquisition process which included a business case and a feasibility study to confirm what you are asking, however, these remain commercially sensitive, we're funding the purchase of Royal Victoria Place through working capital, a form of internal borrowing using money we hold which is not needed in the short term.
and this will be repaid through the income that is generated.
proactive asset management requires both a consideration of acquisitions to the Council's property portfolio as well as disposing of those assets which are no longer required, thank you.
Mr. Brown, do you have a supplementary?
I guess I was expecting a longer odds and, let's be honest but said.
I noticed that there was a request for ideas from the public as to what to do with certain parts of RVP.
if any comments on them.
yes, I certainly do.
yeah, so I mean what we're trying to achieve is to stabilise and rejuvenate the Royal Victoria Place and so that it makes a positive contribution of role to Royal Tunbridge Wells, and I think if anyone wants to put forward ideas that are very welcome.
in terms of what you'd like to see or anyway any risks and would like to see in the shopping centre, then there is an imam addressed to e-mail and which is, and I can e-mail it to you later, so you tell me to write it down now RVP at Tunbridge Wells dot gov dot uk and then will ensure these are passed on to the asset managers who very much want the public's feedback.
thank you.
the second question is to from Mr Key to Councillor Sharratt.
thank you.
Good evening, the Merry Christmas everyone.
I'd like to seek clarification on the democratic aspects of our Council's decision to join UK 100.
considering the UK 100 non governmental nature and the requirements for local authorities to sign a pledge without explicit public consent
could the Council elaborate on the specific reasons for joining UK 100, and how does the Council address concerns about the alignment of these commitments with the democratic mandate of its constituents, Councillor Sharratt?
thank you, and thank you Mr Key for this question. I welcome the opportunity to talk about our membership of UK 100, which is a cross party organisation that supports local councils to reach their net-zero targets, as well as engaging with national decision makers. Our membership was agreed by the cross-party climate emergency advisory panel earlier this year. There is clear democratic mandate for is being a member of his organisation because their aims are aligned with the climate and biodiversity emergency declaration passed at Full Council in July 2 2019 with cross-party support and indeed help us work towards our net 0 goals. Lobbying central government was one of our commitments in the 2019 motion and this year uk 100 helps us fulfil back by helping us lobby for a change to the way for the inadequate competitive bidding system for funding from central government, and they have also enabled me, as the portfolio holder, at no cost to the Council to go on three weekends of training and education in climate, biodiversity and clean air topics. And build a network of local climate leaders from across the country and from every political party.
working with the UK, 100 has already already proved itself to be of value, and I look forward to continuing to work with them to further accelerate this Council's increasingly ambitious climate actions, while always welcoming the intelligence, scrutiny, consultation and, hopefully support from cross-party Members of this Council and residents of the borough.
thank you, Mr Kew, you have a supplementary question.
there was so much in question is more the fact that no, sorry, you have to have a question, it's not in those statement, well I have a statement now you can't have a statement, you have to have a question OK, London and thank you very much.
so the third question is to Councillor Rahman from Mrs. K.
good evening.
the residents survey indicates that a significant portion of the community with 65% combined feel that Tunbridge Wells Borough Council.
either does not act or acts minimally on their concerns.
with 14%, stating not at all acting on their concerns and 51% not very much acting on their concerns.
in particular, there is notable dissatisfaction in the community in regards to the bus lane restrictions on Mount Pleasant Road.
in response to these sentiments, what specific measures does the Council plan to implement to enhance its responsiveness to local residents?
concerns with a particular focus on addressing the dissatisfaction with PR to
thank you, Councillor Rock.
Good evening, and thank you Mrs Key for the question we are acutely oops, sorry amendment.
we are acutely aware of the residents.
survey results which reflect a national picture of satisfaction with local government declining. I believe that this is in large part because of the cuts that have been made to our funding over the past decade, coupled with the huge pressures we are facing on both demand in areas such as homelessness and with council tax increases being well below inflation. As regards to what we are doing to improve our responsiveness, we are in the process of putting together a new strategic plan using the feedback we have gathered from the survey and the views of councillors at all three levels, county borough and parish, along with the Tunbridge Wells town forum. Over the past six months, local ward councillors and KCC officers have been working together constructively to consider the impact of the traffic restrictions on Mount Pleasant. A joint Tunbridge Wells Kent County Council report is currently being put together for the joint transportation board meeting on the 15th of January that contains a good number of suggestions to discuss. This report will address the concerns raised by local residents via the petition e-mails and our in-person meetings. Residents are welcome to speak at this meeting. Initially, we understood that the scheme would be Neath would need to be enforced for a year before a review. So to be in this situation at this stage is not a bad outcome
I hear Councillor rotten and Mrs. Keith, you have a supplementary question, yes I do, thank you, does the Council agree to address the widespread discontent amongst our residents and consider scrapping the pr 2 scheme and stopping the fines?
Councillor Ron,
and that will be covered in the reports.
thank you, thank you McGuinness's good, the fourth.
question is to Councillor Sherratt from Mrs. Atkinson.
good evening, everyone.
what signs has the Council relied upon in respect of imposing a climate emergency plan, does anyone at Tunbridge Wells Borough Council, either officers or councillors with this responsibility, hold any relevant scientific qualification?
is the council planning to scale back its net-zero aims in light of the government, deferring this until 2050 has the Council considered an alternative climate view in light of the no climate emergency declaration signed by 1,500 and more climate scientists, including professors and three Nobel prize winners?
thank you, Mrs Atkinson, for this question. It is an accepted fact that we are facing a climate and biodiversity crisis caused by human activity, and if we don't take action to reduce carbon emissions and protect nature, our planet will not be liveable for future generations. To give an idea of the consensus amongst scientists, the United Nations tells us that a 2021 survey of scientists around the world than 99% of them say that climate change is caused by human activity, which is around the same level of consensus as subscribes to the theory of evolution. The synthesis report by the Intergovernmental Panel on climate change the IPCC released in March 2023 categorically confirmed that human activity is the overwhelming cause of climate change. It is on this evidence that over 100 countries, iCOP 28 just this morning, reached a historic agreement to transition away from fossil fuels
on the question of qualifications, yes, various officers of the Council hold a variety of scientific degrees, no, the Council will not be scaling back on our net 0 goals, Cabinet is committed to delivering the Full Council motion of 2019.
activity, reducing our own carbon emissions from our own operations and encouraging the reduction of emissions from the wider borrower is the responsible course of action.
no, we haven't considered an alternative climate view, our focus is on the credible science and our own commitments, playing our part as a Council and a borrower in protecting the planet for future generations.
thank you, Mrs Atkinson, do you have a supplementary question, I did?
is the Council's lack of consideration or debate of any alternative view representative of how they make all of their decisions?
Councillor Sharratt, thank you.
we base our decisions on credible evidence and data, as we have done for this fought for the upper arm.
carbon reduction plan, thank you.
thank you, Mrs Kw, I thank you very much, Mrs. Key, I think you have a second question to us.
could the Council provided detailed breakdown of the revenue generated from the penalty charge notices in regards to the bus lane restrictions and Mount Pleasant Road, I am interested in understanding how these funds have been allocated and utilised as well, and can the Council provide the details on the daily running costs associated with enforcing and managing the restrictions?
thank you, Mrs Key Councillor Rowland.
thank you for the question. The revenue from the bus lane restriction reported as at Quarter 2 was 1.2 million pounds. These funds are currently in a reserve, not a penny has been spent. The funds can only be used for certain types of projects which are laid out in legislation. These relate to highways and environment projects. Once we know how much will be available, Members will be able to decide what they should be allocated to regarding the daily costs of operating the scheme, there were implementation costs of setting up the scheme and there are ongoing operating costs. The total costs are still being calculated. They're very much dependent upon the number of vehicles passing through. These should be available for the Quarter 3 reporting cycle
thank you.
I thank you to you have a supplementary,
while the Council can the interior enhancing transparency by regularly publishing these details both the breakdown of both the revenue generated from the penalty charge notices and associated daily enforcement costs.
Councillor
I believe these will be reported.
in public documents, but I can get more details for you in and explain more fully and in how that would be, I'm not sure about a daily breakdown, because it depends on how many vehicles go through its, it's sort of them are dumped, fairly manually, as in everything is checked, so it it's it goes up and down depending, but I will e-mail you with further information if that would be useful.
sorry, OK, you've only got one supplementary question, sorry.
okay, thank you.
I think you have a third question to me.
I would like to draw attention to the recent residents survey again indicating that 43% respondents expressed this as a dissatisfaction with how Tunbridge Wells Borough Council runs things, with 12% being very dissatisfied and 31% dissatisfied in light of these findings, what specific steps or initiatives does the Council plan to undertake to address the concerns raised by residents and improve overall satisfaction with the way Tunbridge Wells Wells Borough Council operates?
Councillor Golton, thank you as an administration we are always seeking ways to improve and do the best for the borough, as I mentioned earlier, we do take the results of the survey very seriously and we are using it to inform our plans going forward, we will be consulting on a draft strategic plan early in the new year I would encourage residents to please give us their views on whether we are setting out the right priorities.
thank you, thank you, do you have a supplementary
thank you very much.

8 Questions from members of the Council

agenda item 8 is to receive questions from members of the Council, duly received in accordance with Council Procedure, Rule 10 there is one question which is set out in the supplementary pack to the agenda as before or after the answer, the questioner may ask a supplementary question to clarify something from the answer. So the question is from Councillor Holden to Councillor Chappell, Lord Councillor holiday. Thank you, Mr. Mayor, to the Leader of the Council, in an LBC radio interview, the leader of the Liberal Democrat party, Ed Davey, who said that quite clearly quotes a woman can have a Pennis.
does the Leader of the Council agree with his party leader, and, if so, does that mean that Tunbridge Wells Borough Council will allow someone with a Pennis into women and girls' changing rooms, toilets and other women only areas of buildings it owns or operates or controls such as the Weald Sports Centre in Cranbrook?
the chapel OK. Thank you, Mr. Mayor, thank you, Councillor Holden, for your question before I answer both halves of your question. I want to give some important context. The issue of transit transgender rights is often brought up in the media by MPs and other people, as what is described as a gotcha question. At the end of the day, we must all remember that we are talking about real people who are going through real things, and this is their life that we are talking about.
so to answer the first part of your question for most people that the gender identity matches their biological gender at birth, but there is a relatively small number of people out there where this is not the case.
this discussion has got so horrible, and I just want to restate that we just need to make sure that we respect their transgender identity to for ages and ages, we have recognised that some people's identity does not match their sex that they were given when they were born and in fact since 2004 under the gender recognition Act this has now been legally recognised with relevant safeguards put in place to stop people abusing J the gender identity.
unfortunately, this has become part of a wider debate, that's become really toxic, hostile horrible, and we need to get past this to have a proper conversation with people and putting people safety and dignity first.
so to answer the second part of your question.
to date, Tunbridge Wells Borough Council has never had a single complaint raised about transgender people in any of the locations we own or re run, not 1 0 in total there is no problem, and therefore Thomas Ross Borough Council is working practices do not need to change.
but let's go back to the context of his question,
it's a really tricky conversation and very difficult, and there are lots of sensitivities that are made and for service providers, in particular, like leisure centres like Tunbridge Wells.
borough council, we're talking about women who are transgender, who are not, who have been, in many cases, victims of sexual assault and domestic abuse at the hands of men, making sure all women feel safe is the key here, and we need to get support to make sure that they feel safe in every part of our organisation.
thank you, thank you, Councillor Holland, do you have a supplementary question?
thank you.
you said in your answer there that it was important to put the safety and dignity of women first, and that goes to the second part of my question, I believe I infer from your answer that you do agree with your party leader, the woman quite clearly can have a premise.
and I infer from the rest of your answer.
that you think it will be acceptable for people with a Pennis to go into women's changing areas and toilets and other women-only areas run by Tunbridge Wells Borough Council, such as the Cranbrook Sports Centre.
before that happened, because you take any question before that happens, can you undertake to survey the women and girls who may well feel that their safety and dignity might be compromised by somebody with a pianists appearing in these places can you undertake to do a survey of the members of that particular place in my ward but also across the that the borough to ask if they are comfortable with that if they want that to happen and if they want people with penalties to be in women's areas can you ask, Can you do that survey please? Councillor Shepherd,
thank you.
Councillor Holden feel question.
I fear, Councillor Hold, you are seeking to divide rather than seek to understand what transgender people having to go through day by day. As I said in my earlier answer, there is no problem, no problem whatsoever. We have not had a complaint, we've not had an inquiry, there is no problem. I appreciate that's not the narrative of the of the cultural war that you that is going on nationally, in the media and so but at Tunbridge Wells Borough Council. There is no issue on the issue of women's safety. As you heard from Councillor Waugh in the announcements. We are doing precisely that survey and if and if that comes through, we will then review it, but at the moment there is no issue, as I say that as I said, what really matters is that the dignity of the we balance the dignity of transgender people with the rights of those who want our female, only or male, only spaces. What matters is dignity, safety and the wellbeing of all members of our community, and not the culture war that you are seeking to propagate,
thank you, thank you.
thank you, Councillor Shepherd.
agenda item 9.

9 Notice of Use of Urgency Procedures

is notice of urgency procedures.
and it's to note the use of the Council's urgency procedures in accordance with the constitution.
details of the notice are set out in the agenda at page 18 of our agenda, we have one registered speaker on this item, Mr James, tensely, you have three minutes to address the Committee.
good evening and season's greetings again.
on 6th of October, the Council slipped out quietly via its website a statement that it had agreed to acquire the long leasehold ownership of Royal Victoria Place from British Land, the timing of this announcement was odd, there had been a menacing already, Mr Tanzania, this is not relevant. The urgency procedure relates to a procedure for leasing properties in the RVP.
it doesn't relate to the purchase of the leasehold of our BP by the Council, the leasing of the properties would not go ahead, no less, and I am talking about procedural items relating hands.
for that you are needing to speak to the urgency procedure, you need to address that the wider issue was addressed by the Council in a previous meeting previously and addressed publicly by the Council at previous meetings, and that is the point I wish to raise Mr Tansley, I'm sorry, either you speak to this agenda item, you're going to sit down on your seat
thank you, you are suppressing democratic debate.
we beg to differ right.
agenda item 10.
is the response to the Inspector's initial findings. First, I beg your pardon, sorry, we haven't we have gone away, sorry, getting ahead of myself, so I so move that the use of the urgency procedure be noted, Councillor Pope, are you happy to second, I second the motion. Thank you. The motion is to note the use of the urgency procedures. Are we agreed
Read?
agenda item 10.

10 Response to the Inspectors Initial Findings letter on the Local Plan

agenda item 10 is response to the Inspector's initial findings letter on the Local Plan the covering report starts on page 19 of our agenda pack.
before the speakers, I would like to first pass over to the monitoring officer who would like to say a few words about declarations of interest, the monitoring officer, thank you, Mr. Mayor.
all Members are aware and would have received from me an e-mail during the week.
concerning the issue of pre determination and possible buyers, I set out a couple of examples in that e-mail to act as an aide memoir to members as to perhaps things that they have participated in things that they might have said.
but, more importantly, I've set out two questions that Members would need to consider for themselves, and it is whether a fair minded person, informed of all of the facts, would conclude that a member was either biased or whether a member had approached the debate with a closed mind, that is a question or two questions rather that members must answer for themselves, I do not keep a record, I have no record of what Members may have said or what may have transpired
if I am asked a specific question, I will give a steer, but it is for Members not for me, to advise that you either leave the Chamber, recuse yourself, participate or not, participate in or vote, I am therefore here to advise, and I have done that and it is for each member to consider what they may have said on this item in the past while they may have done how forcefully they've said it what they've written, what they have said on social media I do not have those facts and I will leave it to members.
to answer those questions for themselves and to make their decision, thank you, Mr. Mayor.
thank you, having had the monitoring officer's voice, I am declaring an interest and am vacating the chair for this item and handing it over to the Deputy Mayor, Councillor Pope, as I have declared an interest, I also be leaving the Chamber for the duration of this item.
I do this as I have campaigned against proposed developments in Chorley and East Cable for the last four and a half years, and also because I am the Chair of Cahill Parish Council and an active member of the Save Caple organisation, which which I helped to establish both of those organisations not only lobbied against the inclusion of the proposed strategic sites in the plan but also gave evidence against them during the planning hearings as I did myself.
in the light of this, I would not be seen to be approaching this item with an open mind and cannot therefore participate in this debate and vote.
painted in in the making of this plan, we have all expressed opinions on it and and campaigns one way or another, so is it possible? It's not that we should all sorry Councillor Holden, it's not a point of order, I mean, is it possible to give some guidance from the from the officer, should we all recuse ourselves because of the all expressed opinions on this plan, which took years to make? I think it very odd that this is it just happened
thank you, Mr might, I think the monitoring officers made that the legal position of Council is perfectly clear, it's for Members to take individual decisions on whether or not you feel you have an interest in whether, as the monitoring officer said, a fair minded person would feel that you were approaching this with anything other than an open mind, so I don't have anything to add to that really the that's the monitoring officer wants to come in.
I am not saying that, because a Member has expressed an opinion on the item that that of itself is pre determination, the Localism Act makes the position clear in before the Localism Act. The position was somewhat vague and courts. The courts have tried to give some clarity on the matter. So because Members have said something doesn't mean necessarily that that is pre determination. A lot depends on what has been said, how it has been said, how forcefully it has been said, etc and therefore that will be a guide as to whether something is someone is predetermined or not. Again, I say it is for Members, you will know what you have said, what you have written, I do not know it is for you to make that decision. Thank you, Mr. Mayor,
thank you so on that, if any other Members feel they should leave the Chamber for this item, they should do so now.
Councillor Hall will I feel I should address something that was mentioned earlier by Councillor Rogers who who mentioned that I may have an interest and I don't want to remain silent on that. I don't think that's that's fine, but I just want to clarify something. So I have been supportive of the residents against Ramslye Development Group and a member of their Facebook group. I signed the petition in 2019 to exclude the Ramslye Fields from the local cabinet that are you finally up to leaving the Chamber. Is that no? I want to ask advice on this because I am, I don't think it is right or democratic and I agree with Councillor Holden, we all campaign and on behalf of our residents, where there were here as democratically elected representatives to represent their views, and I don't think whether you are for or against the local plan. You should recuse herself and Lisa leave the Chamber unless you are deeply deeply embedded within an organisation that has a particular point of view. So I just wanted to address that because I don't want to be silent about it, but I don't think Members should I don't think we'd be democratic than to leave the Chamber whether they're for or against. We need a democratic vote tonight that
reflects what people think. So, Mr met, when we were going round in circles, I think the monitoring officer, so some members are perfectly at liberty to seek the advice of the Monitoring Officer at any time we're here at the Council meeting tonight, the monitoring office, given a monitoring officer, was given advice both in an e-mail to members and orally at the meeting tonight. I think these aren't points of order. Really it's for members either to declare an interest and leave or to remain, and that's their decision. It's their decision
thank you.
in that case, we shall continue and we should move on to their full registered speakers on this item.
go?
so if someone has or has an interest to declare and they want to leave, then make a statement, I would just like to say one thing myself and Councillor Hall, obviously by Broadwater, I think that no doubt we're here with no we're unbiased, whatever our opinions have done OK, yeah but the only thing that can come up in the in the debate.
OK, thank you.
okay, right, moving on, no no other members wishing to leave this Chamber, so we have full registered speakers on this item.
so I'd like to invite Mr. Stuart Gledhill to the microphone to
to say your three minutes.
thank you, Chairman.
Good evening, everyone, I'm here representing Saif Kapo as its chairman.
it will come as no surprise that safe cables supports the deletion of Tulay Village in the revised local plan in 2019, there was an overwhelming objection to the plan in the unprecedented 8,000 responses to the public consultation, Safe capable has argued at every stage of the process that the garden settlement would be unsustainable and Tudeley is simply the wrong place for it.
so many other organisations agree, including Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council, and our Member of Parliament said, the character of Cable Tudeley Whetsted and 5 Oak Green is very special and that it is important that the plans are now amended to safeguard this special rural character.
in relation to Tudeley, I would draw attention to paragraph 5.1 7 of the officers' report, which says.
to review the matters of concern raised by the Inspector will take more time and may not be able to be overcome, this is despite the Council's pursuit of it for more than a year since the Inspector's findings and, crucially, the Inspector has not determined that the proposal could ever be made inevitably sound.
residents of Caple, and indeed Tumbridge would welcome not having to worry about the grotesque plan over a fifth Christmas period, we therefore trust that Members will now condemn the British project to the history books.
whilst safe cables supports the progression of the Local Plan, we continue to have serious concerns about the development strategy at East Capewell and Paddock Wood we will set these out when the examination continues Councillors, there are around 30 documents for you to consider when making your decision tonight.
but the evidence base is not yet complete, there is no costed infrastructure delivery plan nor an important viability assessment.
last week, Cabinet discussed possible dates for a public consultation, I noted down the 4th of January until Monday, the 19th of February.
if you are minded to progress the plan, it would be helpful if the dates are clarified tonight.
in summary.
Mr. Deputy Mayor, we urge you to agree with the recommendation that Chorley Village is deleted, given the national policy and political uncertainties a truly sustainable plan is needed as soon as possible.
safe, capable looks forward to participating in the next stages of the process, thank you very much.
thank you, I now ask for the second speaker, Mr. Chris Wise to come and say your piece, you have three minutes.
good evening, and thank you.
a year ago I just couldn't understand the decision to pursue totally garden village in the face of the significant shortcomings flagged to the council by the Parish Council by safe cable by individual constituents, by Tonbridge and Malling, and then also, and most important of all, by the independent inspector whose report I read as a notice to desist, your decision then really was to risk a waste of taxpayers' money at Cabinet. Last week I was told that although it's not possible to quantify the subsequent spend on Tudeley, specifically consultants work over the past year on the Inspector's concern on the overall plan amount to 170,000 pounds. Whilst that's less than I'd feared, when I counted seven or eight different consultants input, the time cost of the in-house team must eclipse that sum the time and money spent pursuing Totley Village could and should have been spent more determinedly, pursuing more achievable solutions
particularly brownfield, my concerns on tap tax waste at last week's Cabinet were reported on the grounds that the pursuit of opportunities for housing throughout the borough as a whole was well spent.
well, there could have been more money for that without the waste of chasing to the village, so given the Inspector's concerns on to Lea village, please don't make the mistake this evening to commit to continue wasting taxpayers' money by failing to vote in favour of the Local Plan.
having followed this process through your committees, I have a couple of governance comments, firstly, if I can pay tribute to the Democratic Services team here, who do an extremely difficult job very well, one can only imagine the work needed to get meeting papers published on time ahead of each meeting, so I applaud that.
my other observation.
really ref reflects the discussions about conflicts of interest this evening, so on bias, I agree with Councillor Hall.
a point of view is not a conflict of interest and absent any personal financial interest, it's regrettable if councillors feel they cannot represent the views of the people who voted for them, I would encourage all Councillors to declare interesting continue to represent their constituencies wherever possible.
all that said, most of Dudley would wish the Councillors who tonight do vote for the amended Local Plan, without the garden village a very happy Christmas.
that's notwithstanding that much more work will need to be done to avoid Atlantis under Medway, otherwise known as East Caple, thank you.
thank you, Mr Wise, I now ask for Mr Mike Vos to come forward to say your piece.
thank you, you have three minutes, thank you.
leaving the national power opponents' Planning Policy Framework requires that a local plan be justified and based on proportionate evidence in relation to RTW 16, the Ramsay Farm area, erroneously labelled as Spratt Brook Farm in the draft plan, has been persistently and incorrectly identified as grade 4 urban land is not his grade 3 agricultural,
the report from Vaughan read from actually commissioned by the Council confirm that parts of Ramslye Fields are either Grade 3 agricultural or Grade 3 B agricultural land and not grade 4 urban this is an important point.
the land stretching from Ramslye to Broadwater Forest Lane has been farmed since the doomsday book and, as I have said, is classified in part as grade 3 A or Grade 3 B agricultural land.
this land should continue to be formed to provide food security, preservation of habitat and in its position of king, keeping with adjoining an area of outstanding natural beauty.
it is also used for recreational purposes by people, residents of the Borough for their physical and mental wellbeing.
the site is also within the setting of a scheduled monument of national significance, comprising an ancient hill fort and prehistoric, rock shelters at high rocks.
the current classification of Ramslye as green belt was designated and passed by members of the Council here, and doubtless done so for very good reasons, and no exceptional circumstances have been substantiated to remove it from misclassification, other Green Belt sites in the Borough have been rejected and are in fact far more suitable for housing than Ramsey.
Ramslye is a farm other areas produce no crops at all, such as Tunbridge Wells, Golf Club.
in addition, Edge Road is extremely busy for anybody who ever comes among it, and there is no tangible plan has been put forward to deal with a considerable increase in traffic which the proposed development would generate.
the Weald and Sheila are unsuitable sites. Summary says of lands at Ramsay in their area, and I quote, the scientists exposed within the High Weald Area of outstanding natural beauty and has been classified as being in a very sensitive location within the 2014 landscape. Character assessment and development would have an unjustified impact on the character and appearance of the landscape. The 2017 site landscape assessment classified the site as having high landscape, sensitivity, sensitivity and very high landscape capacity and is highly visible in the wider landscape. Its conclusions were suitable for housing, no suitable for employment. No site conclusion coming up until your three minutes, can you wrap up, please? I will
so, even at this late stage, it is not too late to correct these errors of the past.
wilderness is the correct decision, and I urge you please to come to that same decision.
thank you most of us, I don't have a fourth speaker, Councillor Williams, please can come to the microphone.
yeah 3 3 minutes, thank you.
and Councillor William Williams from Paddock Wood Town Council
had it would Planning Committee has the following concerns in relation to the borrower's response to the Inspector's findings and the associated master planning document in the master planning document, there's no mention of the Elm Tree football club, which is the largest sports club in Paddock Wood.
pellet ward has been informed of the Borough plans during meetings and has explained where proposals would not work, we would not describe these as positive discussions with agreements, as we suggested further discussions to include the sports clubs affected, in particular the rugby club. As Paddock Wood owns the sports fields in Paddock Wood we welcome further two way, discussion about the proposals. Master planning document 3 1 8 Speight states that there are no sports provisions at Memorial Field which actually conflicts with paragraph 3.30. This current there is current work in Paddock Wood to enhance the facilities on Memorial Field for existing residents, and these facilities include football tennis and with plans to reinstate cricket there. The insulators football team based there
matches at that site.
and the presence of the community centre on Memorial Field has enhanced the use of this field for informal sports activities.
st Andrews failed is used by Penwood football club for training sessions.
and intensification of the facilities on paddock on Puntland Field takes no account of the surface water problems and plans to improve the existing skate park.
master planning point for point 4.5 3 states that these proposals accord with the paddock with Neighbourhood Plan, which is not correct in all elements, in particular the desire to consolidate sports pitches on one site close to public transport, other concerns include the lack of a clear master planning approach which has allowed one employment site to be approved before the local plan is agreed, new flood modelling indicates that this site would not be approved now given the changes to flood zones in the area.
we welcome the reduction in the use of sp dies but are concerned that town centre development is not mentioned and is developed a dependant on S P D which risks is not being delivered were also concerned about the proposed size of Mascalls Academy which might be increased to a 12 form entry school. The reference to highways and moves to sustainable transport does not consider the lack of employment within Paddock Wood and the reduction in public transport in the current context, working people are likely to continue to rely on cars air pollution during morning and evening traffic is high and there is no reference to improving this.
there is a lack of reference to Paddock Wood Neighbourhood Plan except in relation to sports, the M P P F requires a 15 year plan, your three minutes is coming to an end in case we have concerns that a 10 year plan risks non delivery of infrastructure but we welcome the updated flood modelling which is more in line with the experience of those living in Paddock Wood thank you.
thank you, thank you to the speakers, I am now going to ask Councillor Pound to introduce this item and move the recommendation.
thank you, Mr. Deputy Mayor, I would like to introduce the response to the Inspector's initial findings letter on the Local Plan and would like to endorse the recommendations presented at page 20 of your papers, of which there are five, thank you.
thank you.
I was expecting a little bit longer, but that's that's good, Councillor Geoff, I was waiting for you to ask for a seconder.
SMEs can introduce right, OK.
sorry, Councillor Shepherd, I understand you are seconding the motion, yes, I'm very happy to second, and I reserve my right to speak, thank you, Mr. Mayor, Deputy Mayor.
thank you.
I would you like to introduce the item, thank you very much, Mr. Deputy Mayor, I start by saying that I assume that every Member here has read all of the papers before us this evening, I sincerely hope that everybody has, so my question really is an open one, which is why do we need a local plan and the blunt truth is if we don't carry this motion this evening,
I believe that we will have let down every family and every business in this borough and all of those families and businesses that would like to move here or remain here.
as we progress,
voting down the motion tonight means, in all probability, that we will have to withdraw the plan and start again. No plan means accepting that developers can continue to build when and where they want to with almost no sanction. No plan means fewer contributions from developers to pay for the infrastructure that we so desperately need. No plan means spending more of our scarce resources, developing a plan already seven years in the making. No plan means tying officers and members up in an appeals environment where we constantly fight developers and lose almost every time and no plan means yet again failing to ensure the right types of housing in the right locations of our choosing.
so if you're thinking of voting against this motion this evening, be prepared to speak to that decision inside this Chamber and outside it, because you will have to explain to everyone why do you think that carrying on as we are at the moment is better than what we can achieve?
the Inspector has already said to the Council, after six weeks of public hearings and six weeks of public consultation, that quote a significant amount of hard work has clearly gone into the preparation of the Local Plan, which is positively prepared in seeking to meet housing needs despite large areas of green belt and High Weald A and B the majority of changes required to the submitted plan are relatively straightforward and the main modifications referred to should be incorporated into the schedule which is already in preparation.
but it does raise three core issues which he decided needed further evidence to support them, so over the last year, officers have been working tirelessly to address the issues that the Inspector has raised, always hold onto the Inspector's view that much of the plan is already sound but that in addition to relatively straightforward modifications, there were three fundamental matters that needed to be addressed. One is duly garden. Village 2 is building on recently identified higher risk flood zone land land in East Caple West Paddock Wood and 3 undertaking Green Belt status reassessments on sites not included in the submission Local Plan to provide equivalence of assessment with those that had been
now, after a year, we feel that were there. Much of the original submission local plan remains in place in this response to the Inspector's initial findings, particularly for the Garden Village will be taken out. Building of housing in East Caple, West Paddock Wood will now only happen on flood zone 1 land with some building of workspaces on flood zone 2, but none on flood zone 3 and Green Belt stage 3 assessments have been undertaken on all potential green belt sites, whether included in the plan or not. So this is a pragmatic plan. We are now saying that we can confidently produce 10 years of housing on the understanding that we will almost immediately enter a review process for the following period. So yes, we remove to you the garden village, because officers have firmly advised us that the risks of the inspectors still not accepting it, are too high. Yes, we dropped the proposal to build on flood zone 3 land. And yes, we do need to do some main modifications on other matters that he has raised but thereby we have a plan, a plan that works for the whole borough, which works with the Inspector and which can be developed further to see us beyond 2034 35.
now, over the last couple of weeks or more, I've heard some of the doubts that Members have about particular allocations in the plan and are part of that has emerged this evening, but you have to remember there are still opportunities ahead of us to object to or support applications to muster speakers to committed advisory boards Cabinet Full Council there was a further consultation which we will comment upon later.
I know there will be further inspectors hearings and to those who are concerned that the removal of Tudeley may lead to further development in their rural area, it won't, this plan provides 10 year supply of housing, we will start a review, a further opportunity soon after its adoption sites will come forward in the normal way and there will be a process to examine them as there has been in the past.
so members, this is a pragmatic response to an enormously complex matter, remember we are borough councillors, I know we have to consider residents and businesses and other partners in our own wards, but as borough councillors, we have an obligation to consider the whole borough to consider how we can create and maintain a place where everyone can thrive where people want to stay people want to move in people want to work in and live in and flourish.
so what do we get if you vote for the plan and the Council can take control of warehousing, of all tenures, might be built and not built over the next 10 years, you vote for the plan and we get more, a genuinely affordable housing in the right places.
you vote for the plan and we get the infrastructure to support it. You vote for the plan and we can approve areas for offices and warehousing and manufacturing facilities to provide local work. You vote for the plan for better wages and uplifting the economy and an uplifting people's opportunity to flourish. You vote for the plan and we can require developers to contribute towards the cost of new roads, new schools, new surgeries, new leisure and sports facilities. I would urge you, please, to vote for the motion and September dwells on its way to a brighter, better, greener future in which many more people can flourish, and I would ask please, Deputy Mayor, that we have a recorded vote. Thank you
thank you, Councillor LB, Councillor Chappell, Lord, would you like to speak now, I'd like to reserve my right to speak as a seconder, please, Mr. Deputy Mayor, thank you.
thank you, Councillor Chappell Lord, so the matter is now open for debate, does anyone wish to speak on this matter?
Johnson.
the fact, thank you.
I'd like to speak on the Ramsay hills, the you have heard from my boss representing residents in Broadwater tonight, about some serious issues he raised concerning the local plan.
these were also raised at Cabinet last week as a ward councillor for Broadwater, along with Councillor Hall, we also share those concerns about the way the Local Plan was originally put together we are both deeply disappointed on behalf of residents and worried by the lack of accuracy in preparing the plan.
sorry.
before it was submitted to the Planning Inspector to get something so fundamentally important, like the Green Belt classification, so badly wrong is not really acceptable, the land had been previously graded by a T Thomas Royal Borough Council commissioned study as 3 A and 3 B as Good to moderate agricultural land not Grade 4 not urban land and yet it appeared in the plan as urban.
urban is defined as land that is unlikely to be returned to agricultural use and is naturally urban in character. This is more than just a small oversight. There are consequences for errors like this. It changes the way the land would have been perceived in the Local Plan as being more suitable for development. It's vitally important. The plan was properly prepared and seemed to be accurate, and that doesn't appear to have been the case. I've lived in the area for nearly 60 years and, like me, most residents know that this has always been and still is, arable. Farmland residents evaluated as an area of natural beauty when Iron, Age and Roman Hill thought it has always been close to an area of natural beauty across the border with East Sussex. It's not surprising, then, that neighboring Wilden have decided against building housing on the exact same site in their local plan.
in in the part of the fields that fall on their side of the boundary, presumably they had had the accurate information before them, so I do find it very worrying that the field should feature in the submission submission Local Plan as urban when it shoves hasn't changed it's still agricultural land that supports cereal crops,
despite hours and residents' questions on this, we have yet to receive a set of satisfactory explanation from the Council as to how and why this happened. However, it has been admitted that it was an error. Had the assessment been accurate from beginning, had the land classification been submitted correctly and had the Sheila assessments then been given proper weighting to reflect the value of the arable land, the heritage of the site and its proximate proximity to the area of natural beauty. We might not be sitting here having to bring these matters before Full Council, but the fact of the matter is that they weren't much to the first frustration of residents, so the Planning Inspector was never given a fully accurate picture of the issues relating to this site. Residents made their representations at Regulation 19, but the lack of any comment by the Inspector leaves them with no answers to the issues they raised. This leaves a vacuum of information and fails to bring closure to the fact that the plan relating to Ramslye was never accurate from the beginning, so we can't agree that the plan has been positively prepared. The voice of our residents was loud and clear at the last two elections in Broadwater, they understand the need for a local plan, they understand the need to build houses. Hundreds of new homes will be built in Broadwater over the next 10 years.
it's a very small, tightly packed area, the ward is crying out for better facilities and infrastructure to support our residents, and this Local Plan may or may not deliver on that, but even then we don't take issue with having new homes built in the area and taking our share of of the otter burden however, residents do take issue with such a sensitive and historic piece of land being lost forever.
if it has been based on false assumptions, they deserve to be heard, we will continue to campaign for the modification of the plan before it is finalised to remove the Ramsay fields, there are green belt alternatives that are not as sensitive as this sensitivity of this one if the Council is willing to be flexible, but for that reason myself and Councillor Hall will be voting against the motion this evening for my colleagues in the Council, I would simply ask for your support in getting answers to the issues raised this evening and for modifying the plan to remove the Ramsay feels when it goes out for public consultation.
thank you.
thank you, Councillor Johnson.
Councillor Lidstone.
thank you, Mr. Deputy Mayor, thank you, members of the public, keep taking the time to come and speak to us tonight I represent St Johns, my ward is not as directly affected and perhaps from the Local Plan, as many of my colleagues here tonight I do have sympathy with residents of Ramslye and clearly.
this category categorisation as is or is a serious issue, serious error.
and I do hope that that we are able to come to an a satisfactory place with it.
the there is a at some slightly similar parcel of land in St John's at Kenwood Farm, which is also under the
stage 2, I think, a Green Belt assessment and been been selected for release, which I'm not happy about.
however, I think Councillor LB may have made a good point that we are looking at this as a Borough Local Plan.
and so I at 1.00 level, I need to put those concerns aside and consider what is best for us as a borough at the moment we are hostages to fortune because we do not have a and and certainly without a local plan in place or having less of a housing supply and that puts us in a in a very vulnerable position for developers who am,
on appeal, we'll have have a good chance of being approved at some of these sites, but without all of the infrastructure and the
the contributions that we can include within the local plan, so it's not an easy decision to make, but and thank you for taking the time to to come and speak tonight, but looking at this in the round across the borough, I believe the best outcome is for us to support this is for us to get a local plan in place and so I will be supportive tonight thank you.
thank you, Councillor Lidstone, Councillor Lewis.
thank you, Mr. Deputy Mayor.
I'm actually bemused about how the Inspector could have had no problem with Kenwood development adjacent to Speldhurst Road for many reasons.
Staffordshire Council were told by Kent Highways that there should not be any more developments with traffic going on to Speldhurst Road after the building of trotting Hill Gardens on the old Speldhurst Road allotment site.
Scottish Road is a very busy narrow road, it links Southbrook with Russell Speldhurst and is used as a rat, run, coming down cables, lane onto Speldhurst Road to avoid the A 26.
with this development it will become more dangerous.
we, we already have perpetual gridlock on the 8 26.
between the A 21, an average through Southborough and Tunbridge Wells, let alone without 100 more houses at Kenwood, a buffer zone between Southbourne Tunbridge Wells would be lost forever.
where is the infrastructure in this plan that there's this little alone enough at the moment, medical or otherwise?
we will lose vital trees and hedgerows destroying the wildlife in a built-up area already the air quality in the area is of catastrophic, catastrophic proportions since moving to southborough either quiet asthma and I'm not unique by any stretch of the imagination.
there are five secondary schools in the vicinity, we really are going to condemn your students, the air of even worse quality and not just them, it's all the other children that travel through the area to and from school every day to and from Tunbridge Crowborough Seven Oaks Paddock Wood,
if you have the misfortune to queue and spell to throat already, you will know about the narrow nose narrowness of that road, the give and take that is there already, without at least another 200 cars emptying onto that road every day.
before the development comes into being, we are heading for an environmental catastrophe with it, we are heading for annihilation, enough is enough.
I and my colleagues from South were in hype rooms cannot vote for an iteration of the Local Plan that contains the came with development.
so we would therefore abstain, as we believe that it's important to have a local plan, but we cannot support this one.
thank you, Mr. Deputy Mayor, thank you, Councillor Lewis, is there anyone else who would like to speak, Councillor Thomas Councillor Dowling?
thank you, Mr. Deputy Mayor.
although the government Inspector was not persuaded by the tiered level ID scheme, I think there are good reasons for the local plan to identify an area for significant development with the necessary supporting infrastructure.
the alternative is, after more haphazard developments with insufficient facilities.
and overloading existing roads, schools and doctors' surgeries.
my concern is the reducing the length of the plan from 15 years to 10 years, potentially puts more pressure for developments in other parts of the borough, including possibly sites in the area of outstanding natural beauty, and especially for as long as Tunbridge Wells does not have a five-year housing supply.
I think there's.
there is a risk that.
the plan will only bring short term release for opponents of Cheveley village, because work on the next.
iteration of the Local Plan, as he goes explained, will need to begin almost immediately, this will involve a further call for sites which creates uncertainty for residents living near those sites, and I would praise a very large bet on the Hasler and the Hadlow estates resubmitting their site for Tudeley village.
I think there needs to be a little more consultation with Parish and Town Councils.
the, and quite specifically for Paddock Wood.
the on the consultation needs to focus on section 1 0 6 contributions and what infrastructure needs to be provided, and I think, clearly interfacing with what the needs of Paddock Wood Town Council are.
more widely, I think that the parishes need to be consulted, because there may be more pressure on housing in their patch, now wouldn't have made that comment had I not received an e-mail from a chairman who attended last night's parish chairs meeting, I don't specifically know what was ahead but his comment was,
the world is going to hell in a handcart.
well, I don't believe that I actually do believe that.
the revised local plan is, is, is, is it is a positive development.
and with assurance on the need for consultation with with parishes and sorting out the infrastructure that spend that Leeds, it is needed in Paddock Wood, I will support the local plan, the the the recommendations, thank you, Mr. Deputy Mayor.
thank you, Councillor dwellings, is there anyone else, Councillor Atkins?
thank you, Deputy Mayor.
I believe this response.
has become nothing more than a tick-box exercise to solely answer the Inspector's findings.
with no regard to how it will actually work in practice, for my ward Perrywood, I hope you took note of pallid town councillor Councillor Williams, who highlighted many issues which had not addressed or inaccurate, I will not repeat them, while this motion is also to put out a consultation which I completely support, I will ensure that the residents and the sports clubs of Hollywood respond to the consultation.
I wanted assurances that they are listened to and their comments form the final version going forward.
indirect reply to Councillor LB, I do support a local plan but I did not support this plan.
thank you, Councillor Atkins, do I see anybody else wishing to speak Councillor Ellis, thank you, Ms markets brief, I might support the Local Plan here.
not picked pills, particularly the issues around local issues picked in Cambridge, it is the wider issue, has paused it originally and responded now on the basis of the alternative, as Councillor Palmer mentioned, is potential for unrestricted development and causing a lot of problems with legal challenges from the Council, I believe that particularly Cambridge, I was continuing to be fighting against that but I don't think it's the right place to do it, thank you.
thank you, Councillor Ellis.
so there's nowhere else to go back to Councillor Chapman out of step.
Councillor Hayward.
so thank you very much, Mr. Deputy Mayor yeah, my concerns are with in the report it's West Paddock Wood and East cable.
the, I think one of the speakers very rightly suggested that the viability issues have not been addressed properly and.
in the Appendix C
and where it talks of, it says page 145, it starts, which is Policy s t r stroke SSS 1 so that's East, Cable and West Paddock Wood effectively what's happening there is obviously, and I fully support.
the removal of Dudley from from the plan, but that means the 5 0 Green bypass will go, but we still have an extra development in West Paddock, Wood and East Cable, and what will happen there is that the infrastructure, if there is no mention of of infrastructure only in vague terms it talks of,
reasonable and proportionate contributions.
it talks of strategic infrastructure being in this incur in constant discussion and of course it brings us on to the Colts Hill bypass now the 5 0 green bypass, OK without Sudeley village. We can understand why that might not be as necessary as it was, however, Colt's Hill will still be a massive issue and this comes to the main point of of what I wish to say, and that is that and I did bring this up actually during the paperwork or the planning policy working group in that the model changes that are suggested.
so that.
you know, whereby infrastructure is being based on on that there will be more buses, that will mean more people walking, that will be more cycling, Well, we've got a problem there in that the modal change is suggested at 10% now that would make a lot of sense if it was Romney Marsh.
but and to talk of a path from pilot would to Pembury to Tunbridge Wells as part of a mogul change, it is is frankly delusional I I think anybody cycling up Colt's Hill, it would be actually having a bit of a death wish so my concern and of course this does lead onto Kippings Cross which is also mentioned so there'd be with the extra development and the lack of a lot of detail about what's going to happen with infrastructure.
and as we know, Kent Highways have told us there's no money for Coleshill in the days of Mr Bourne, the planning planning officer, he told us that council would only be developed after Chudley Village had been put in place, but for a West Paddock Wood and East cable, the Colts Hill. Infrastructure is an absolute necessity, as is the situation at Kippings Cross with all the extra traffic. So I'm I'm seriously concerned at and I will make the point that I do agree. We need a local plan
however, I am very concerned that these major infrastructures
I'm not gonna be delivered based on strange and possibly delusional modal shifts, thank you.
thank you, Councillor Hayward, her got Councillor O'Connor, Councillor O'Connell.
thank you, Mr. Deputy Mayor, I'm going to vote to support the local plan because to me the alternative is unthinkable, this plan has been many years in development, it's cost millions of pounds, it's been through consultations, it's been through the Planning Inspectorate examination,
I think we are so close to having a viable local plan, it may not meet everybody's idea of what it should be, but it's very close, and I think the alternative of rejecting it and spending many more years, developing a different local plan is just not acceptable, because we will just be at the mercy of developers applying for permission all over the borough, so I you know, it may not be perfect, there may not be all the infrastructure we would want, but I think the time has come to actually go ahead and vote for a local plan that hopefully will be made very soon. Thank you, Councillor
I cannot I'm going to pass, but I'm not saying any hands, I'm gonna pass back to.
I think if he tells people to put their hand to Gerald Caenby HRA or Councillor Moon, but before you speak, if anybody else wants to speak, can you be quick, quick with your hands and that otherwise I'll be passing back to the second-hand?
so yeah, Councillor Murray.
thank you, Mr. Deputy Mayor.
before I make any contribution, I wish to make a smooth statement, I wish to confirm my abolition to the presentation on the agenda 10 or more responses based on that and its content, and our impacts on the residents I represent in Paddock Wood as an independent councillor.
right from the beginning, I want to make this point clear.
Tunbridge Wells Borough Council response to the Inspector's letter is not just about item 7 consultation and options it's about whether Members across all parties, including those in the coalition, agree with you if the officers preferred option 3 and recommendations already.
presented delete the to did village allocation from the submitted plan, I remind Members there are other options 1 and 2 to be considered in this debate, a key element of adopting option 3 as one fundamental flaw when considering the need for the draft local plan in the first place which was some time ago and has altered the cost a bit of money since then.
the logical choice, and that comes up quite often in the inspector's letter of a truly garden village in the plan, was obvious, a major element.
one was to produced a DLP with a substantial 15 year to 20 year delivery plan to enable Tunbridge Wells Borough Council.
to formulate a plan for the whole future housing needs across the borough, and other Members have mentioned various locations, the preferred option 3 will only deliver its in small print, I think a 10 year plan and after the consultation will only deliver a 10 year plan and will immediately require a call for sites across the borough.
all that time and effort we gotta go into another call for sides, the inclusion of a garden village as clear objectives and advantages 1, it enables the DLP to have a 15 year plan and a more manageable call for sites in the future.
2, it addresses decline in UK home ownership for those aged 25 to 34.
it produces new home delivery, as that is falling and availability to more affordable housing, which is falling as well.
a long-term solution to the housing crisis requires a bold and long term decisions, no location, I agree, is 100% perfect, the too deep village was well researched and plan to deliver over 2000 houses.
a new village settlement, I'll call it that because it's a bit different in a village, a new village settlement would deliver new infrastructure.
foul water and surface water networks would be new and built for expansion, new roadsides and streets, and bypasses would be built not just for that settlement, but for the future we'd add more schools and GP access with a new settlement for the future so logically,
the Tudeley settlement remains.
the best option, indeed, that option has been mirrored by Sevenoaks council.
with their proposal of over 2000 health settlement in their local plan, they identified the advantages further to the Inspector's letter, it is clear with its comment, palette would an escape or expansion was a logical choice.
that he does not live in Paddock Wood.
along with the existing residents, there is quite clear we bees come in because they feed directly live in Paddock Wood, along with our residents, it would not have made that logical choice.
also with that, Paddock Wood has grown from a small village.
to a large rural town, that's at present.
when the Cuff Cooper, estate houses were built in 1,009 66 that was new infrastructure.
that was new network for future expansion and, if you look through the call for sites over the years in the power, Paddock Wood has taken the most of that expansion because it had that network in 1,009 66, but in reality that is crumbling, it's not fit for purpose now.
since there has been no significant new build, it's just been sticking plaster solutions and unfortunately that's been led by Southern Water, we know the issues with Southern Water.
in fact, a present planning application of hundreds of houses in relation to the east of the town proposes a privately run and managed privately, I mentioned foul water and sewage network, the report also mentions a reduction of 1,000 houses.
in the flood zone.
in the first instance, you might think Christmas has come early for the residents of Paddock Wood.
but we have a 10 year plan, not there thousands more ounces, we would be we've been built in the next school for science, ICT or Cinco is Paddock Wood.
a whole list of documents within this recommendation include post initial findings evidence a bit like a justification for caucuses, highlights various suggestions to mitigate the future increase in new houses PSA, for one Paddock Wood bus service, a 10 year forecast stats 3,677 new houses for Paddock Wood,
presently, this is unsustainable with the predicted call for sites in Paddock Wood, the predicted number of residents within that is 9,500 one night.
that in reality is double the population in Paddock Wood to over 17,000 people.
this is about a proposal for a new bus service within this report to serve the new population.
that is not even deliverable but Tunbridge Wells Borough Council, it is delivered by KCC, the whole identity of Paddock Wood will change with that 17,000 and a new bus service is not really going to change a lot.
the removal opportunities village of 1,000 houses in Paddock Wood identifies no residential economic development or improvements to match skills, and the Paddock Wood Primary School or options for a new Mascord School, and none of those are deliverable but Tunbridge Wells Borough Council.
another feature of the report and the removal of a sports hub that was deleted with proposals to provide various sports facilities in various locations across Paddock Wood.
that has already been identified by a representative of Wood Town Council tonight.
this is again unsustainable, with a projected 9,000 new residents in the next 10 years.
we do indeed new to plan for the future now and include a new sports hub to sustain that rise in the population now that to me is logical, build a new sports up for paddock, Woods future, now I sum up, I haven't gone on too long, many Councillors around this Chamber may be struggling.
with making the right decision, and I've seen that on other committees, but it's not about one listed building.
in the borough, it's about thousands of new houses for Paddock Wood and across the borough.
no sustainable infrastructure, just wishful thinking and words for paddock, woods population being doubled in 10 years, and it's not about, and I hope it isn't about party lines until the moon, if Dave at 10.00 minutes can you wrap up very brightly?
I will last last and it is about a lack of 10 year plan across the bar, it's a bell, the common good.
for the whole borough and making a bold decision and a logical decision for future growth,
not at the expense of Paddock Wood and residents of the whole borough, thank you, thank you very happy, Councillor, I apologise for going on.
Councillor Macmillan.
thank you, Deputy Chair and I'd like to God, I'd like to echo Councillor O'Connell's comments in terms of I will be supporting this this motion we, as borough councillors, find ourselves in a difficult position, we have to come together to build a local plan but we don't have the control of the levers of power in terms of schools, roads, etc transport and then in the midst of all that we have to cut where we were were given the responsibility to come up with a local plan that can't necessarily change will have control over the infrastructure.
given that given over that period of time over the last two years, what since I have been a Councillor, I've felt that I've had the empty, the the opportunity and the time to engage with the officers and with the the portfolio holder and other members of the Council to get to them to discuss and understand the implications of the Local Plan, having one not having one changing one changing bits and pieces, and I think we have done some positive changes on the previous local plan and I'm first of all I am very supportive of this one here we've had we've had also tonight that
that all if we take the plan as it currently stands, we only have a 10 year supply. That means we have to go for a recall for sites and look out for as immediately starting a new process. I see that as a positive thing, because I think then we can review everything that we have taken on board so far, and let's see if we are going to make the right week if we can improve on the next stage of this plan and the people who are going to take that decision. Other people who are here around this table or who get elected at the next May's elections, and they should be given the responsibility to try and make to take that take on the mantle and to take that forward. That's why I'm very supportive of this plan. I think is a better thing. That is a 10 year plan and we'd go forward from there
thank you, Councillor Milne, I'm gonna pass back to the seconder Councillor Chappell to say your piece.
thank you, Mr. Deputy Mayor, I don't want to talk about the local plan, I want to talk about a ball boy called 0 I'm going to call him 0 for the purposes of my point in many ways, O is a model student hard-working, committed, inquisitive geeky, unfailingly polite and for many teachers an absolute.
pleasure to work with, unfortunately, O's world fell apart recently.
he told me that life was quote too much unquote.
the reason may surprise you, he got his first ever detention and then he got a second one and, after an exemplary career nervous about local cladding, I am coming on to at secondary school.
he thanks for picking me up on this one. He got his detention, his world came crashing down, so what has this got to do with housing risks? Deputy Mayor, I was just about to come on to this. The fundamental problem in Oz life is the quality of the housing that he lives in. Let me go through the front door to up to down Victorian terrace. Five people live in it, two bedrooms parents share with their five-year-old he has to share with these 12 year old brother. There is no room in that house for him to work and pursue his studies, whilst a five-year old and a 10 year old are playing playing around mum, works on her laptop on the bed in the house, okay, father is out, doing, shift work 0 suffers from everything that is wrong with housing in this country. Poor availability, poor quality and poor affordability, because those parents, whilst well educated, cannot afford to buy a property.
lot of life-chances are already being limited.
by that quality of housing.
and is always going to be a struggle for him to compete, as with other students, that I teach to get the top grades to have the best education that he can, and whilst I understand that reservations about the plan, we must never forget that this plan is more than site allocations lines on maps.
etc etc. It's about the quality of our residents is about schoolchildren having the quality of a conversation that allows them to get on to learn, it's about providing quality housing for our public servant service workers, the NHS told me very clearly they are struggling to recruit because there is not enough affordable housing in the borough to recruit staff for Pembury hospital, it's about grandparents who want to downsize to smaller economy accommodation, it's about making sure that people who need sheltered living are provided for.
and in my acceptance speech, if you'll permit me, this indulgence, I did say. Whilst many residents enjoy living in some of the most desirable postcodes in the country, sadly, for too many residents this is unaffordable, denying them the quality of life. We would all expect. I believe, that Tunbridge Wells Borough Council can play a transformative role in the lives of our most needy residents, and one of the proudest things I am in out in the Local Plan is that some of those sites will have 40% affordable housing.
18 months into the role as council leader, I am more convinced that that paragraph and my maiden speech is real, we need this local plan because it's about quality of life for our residents and I urge you all to support it tonight, thank you very much.
thank you, thank you, Councillor, Sheppard I'm going to pass to the proposer Councillor LB John, to thank you very much.
I have to say I didn't know where Councillor Chappell was going either, so that's fine, but I'm glad he did, I think it made made a degree of sense. First of all I just want to thank the speakers this evening we had Mr Gledhill Mr. Wise, Mr Watson Councillor Williams, and then we had Councillors Johnson Lewis darlings Atkins, Ellis Heywood, O'Connell Moon and Macmillan, I think that's everyone and I made notes on all of them. I won't be able to respond to everything, but I just want to make a couple of things clear, if I may. The first thing is in relation to those Members who are still considering voting against this motion because of a particular allocation, whether that's Ramsay Fields or Kenwood or anywhere else,
the this journey is not over, there is still a consultation to come which will be taking place in the new year, and in answer to Mr. Gledhill question it will be a six-week consultation, including six weekends in acknowledgement of the comment that you made at the CAB last week I can't confirm the start date but it will include six weekends so that people have that weekend to prepare before they present them.
the point is that there was a consultation taking place in January and there will be an opportunity within one of the boxes in that consultation to add further comments, and I'm sure that many members and members of the public will take the opportunity to add comments there is then going to be a period of reflection with the Inspector before he undertakes further public hearings which will be an opportunity for people to voice their concerns, particularly about the matters that he has raised in his initial findings.
then, at later points, they will undeniably be pre-application meetings. There will be an application, there will be an opportunity for it to come to planning, because almost every development that we're looking at in this Local Plan will have a requirement to come before Planning Committee at which Members will be able to speak, at which point members of the public will be able to speak and other agencies and partners, Town Councils and Parish Councils and others, so to say, I'm voting against this local plan because of a single allocation which I don't feel comfortable with at the moment. To me, I'm afraid, is a nonsense. It is a democratic process that we are going through and there are still many opportunities for Members to raise their concerns and express them firmly through the process that we already undertake through the planning through planning. So to those Members who are saying I'm really don't think that I can support it, I ask you again to consider you need to act and consider yourselves as borough councillors for the benefit of the whole borough, not in relation to single allocations, just on one or two other points at the point that has been raised, and I'm afraid it has consumed a lot of officer time over the last few weeks
is the allocation of? Ramsay Farm in, interestingly, in Rye. In answer to Mr. Voss, and I think we've said this the other night, it's called Spratt's Brook in the plan, because that was the name that was given to it when the site was submitted to the Council. It's nothing to do with the council's wrong naming. That is the name that was given to them when the site was submitted for then for consideration and the agricultural allocation of that site, and was drawn from the charts which had been given to some Members from natural England. It is for natural England, clarify why there has been a change in that classification, which we acknowledge that there has that matter can be raised in the consultation. It can be discussed again with the Inspector if he feels that it is an issue that needs to be explored and if it ever comes forward to planning. It will clearly be one of the considerations at Planning Committee that that's how these things work, and I can't understand why anybody would do any different in relation to one or two of the other comments I do take on board, and I do accept Councillor Rawlings,
a strong advocacy that we need to engage fully with both parish and town councils, I think there have been quite strong efforts to do so, but it's clear from some of the comments this evening that more of that work needs to be undertaken and I think that we can take that on board I am also grateful to some members for expressing their support.
just the last comment I will make in relation to some of the speakers.
is that the call for sites that Councillor Moon mentioned doesn't mean that thousands more houses will be built in Paddock Wood. A call for sites seeks sites that may be considered, not all of which will be acceptable undeniably, and therefore the idea of the Call for sites is that we go through a process that we have done before and it is important to understand that we as Members and members of the public will have opportunities to be consulted and engaged in that dialogue, and that is what we need to do. I would urge you again, please, to vote for this
recommendations to go back to the Inspector so that the process can continue, thank you.
thank you, Councillor Palmer, and I I did ask for a recorded vote, I'm sure you promise, and just to bore people a little bit more, I'm actually going to read out the motion in detail because it's important and for those who are listening to the recording so the motion is as follows 1 to agree that the examination of the Local Plan be progressed in accordance with Section 6 of this report and the Inspector's option 3 paragraph 5.1 6 and 5.1 7 of the Inspector's initial findings.
that Chudley Village allocation SDSS 3 be removed from the plan.
the housing in Paddock Wood and East Caple SDSS, 1 be reduced, with all housing being on flood zone 1 and employment land on Flood Zone 2 along with changes to the development strategy at Hawkhurst, to revise site all h A 5 in accordance with the planning committee resolution of application reference 2 2 stroke 0 2 6 6 for stroke hybrid and to remove site all h A 8 limes Grove and to progress a 10 year housing land supply position including the requirement for an immediate review of the plan and that these changes with a sustainability appraisal be the subject of public consultation.
point to that, the responses to the public consultation be collated and put forward with the additional evidence to the Inspector for further consideration in order to progress the examination of the submission Local Plan, 3, that up until the date of the start of the consultation on the strategic changes to the Local Plan the Head of Planning be authorised to make minor modifications to the consultation information should it be deemed necessary to correct minor errors.
4, that subject to the conclusion of the consideration of the additional evidence and hearings, should they be necessary by the Inspector and TW B C, receiving a recommendation from him that the local plan can move forward to main modifications.
that the Head of Planning, in consultation with the Chief Executive, the Leader of the Council and portfolio holder for housing and planning, be granted the authority to undertake the main modification process in accordance with the detailed strategic changes made in this report and a schedule of other modifications as deemed necessary by the Local Plan Inspector in order to make the Plan sound.
5, that public consultation on proposed changes to the Local Plan, as set out in this report and at recommendation 1, shall not start until January 2024 and shall run for a period of six weeks.
a recorded vote has been requested, so can we take a vote please?
thank you, Mr Deputy Mayor, so when I call your name, could you please indicate whether you are for those recommendations on block against those recommendations or whether you wish to abstain, Councillor Shabir Elad?
4 Councillor Sharratt.
for Councillor pound for Councillor Hall, against Councillor Neville for
Councillor Wilkinson, 4, Councillor Rutland 4, Councillor Barris, 4, Councillor Brice, 4 Councillor Ellis 4, Councillor para 4, Councillor Johnson against Councillor Page 4, Councillor Lidstone,
4 Councillor Osborne, 4 Councillor Warmington, 4, Councillor Fitzsimons, 4 Councillor Munday, 4, Councillor McMillan, 4, Councillor Knight 4, Councillor Sankey, 4, Councillor Currie, 4, Councillor Wakeman, against Councillor O'Connell, 4, Councillor Webster, 4 Councillor Brits' Allen for Councillor R Lewis,
abstain Councillor Hill abstain, Councillor Rogers 4 Councillor Francis abstain.
Councillor Atkins against.
Councillor Heywood against Councillor Noon, against Councillor Alan for
Councillor Barrington, King for Councillor darlings.
4 Councillor fairweather, 4, Councillor Good Ship, 4, Councillor, Ms Palmer.
4
Councillor Bland for Councillor March 4, Councillor Pope 4.
thank you, Mr. Mayor, there were 33 votes for 6 against with 3 abstentions, so the motion is carried.
thank you, we will now wait for the Members who left to return to the Chamber.
some of the
I shall wait for.
thank you, ladies and gentlemen, item 11 is the constitutional working group.
there is a covering report that starts on page 160 of our agenda pack and there are no public register to speak on this item.
I am going to ask Councillor Shepherd to introduce the item and move the recommendation, thank thank you, Mr. Mayor, I'd like to re recommend the paper.
Councillor Ward, you happy to second the motion, I'm happy to second the motion and reserve my right to speak, thank you, don't speak.
well, sorry ma here, sorry, sorry, I'll.
but.
thank you, Mr. Mayor, like most constitutional amendments, this is a a housekeeping item, but there is a this time there is a wide range of items which are laid out in your papers.
for consideration tonight there will be further constitutional changes coming down the line as we make a governance changes as we move from 48 councillors to 39, I'd like to thank members of the Audit AC governance committee, who had a very fulsome debate on these amendments and that we have their recommendations in front of us tonight I think we have a very much enhanced Constitution.
from this paper I don't say, and you have anything more about that.
thank you
thank you, Councillor Chappell, does anybody want to speak on this item?
I can't see anyone.
Councillor Warren.
I have nothing further to add, Mr.
OK to ask that the Council supports the recommendations, thank you.
Councillor Chappelow, do you want to, I beg to move both move, OK, thank you.
so
the
motion is to approve the amendments to the Constitution, as set out in appendices A to them in this report and that Full Council approve that the Monitoring Officer be authorised to make all other necessary and consequential changes to the Constitution to give effect to these recommendations so all those in favour please say yes, yes,
all those against they know
the motion is carried.

12 Council Tax Reduction Scheme 2024-25

item 12 is a council tax reduction scheme 2024 2025 the report begins on page 202 of our agenda where you will find there are three recommendations, there are no members of the public registered to speak on this item, I am going to ask Councillor Christopher Hall, the Cabinet Member for Finance and performance to introduce this item and move recommendation Councillor Hall.
thank you, Mr. Ma yeah, I'm seeking approval from Council for the council tax reduction scheme for another year, the Council Tax reduction scheme has been in place since 2013 in April 2021, the scheme has changed to abandoned scheme to take account of the introduction of universal credit this simplified the claiming process 65% of 65% of the information received from universal credit is automated and the take-up for claiming support has increased.
constant liability changes are now avoided and revised bills are only issued where earnings cross into another income band. This leaves the revenues and benefits team time to deal with more complex claims and to provide support to the most vulnerable claimants the minimum amount that working age claimants have to pay is 20%, and this is comparable with most Districts in Kent. To ensure that claimants stay in the same band and their support isn't reduced. We are recommending that the grid amounts in table 1 are increased by the D W P annual uprating percentage. This was announced in the Autumn Statement as 6.7%. If claimants are struggling to pay their council tax, additional support can be awarded through the exceptional hardship scheme and also a small amount of funding has also been provided by the Department for Work and Pensions.
the Council Tax reduction scheme will be reviewed in 2024 25 and a full range of council tax reduction schemes, including variations on the the discount, will be provided before the scheme is considered for 2025 26, and I'd like to move the motion. Thank you, Councillor Hall.
Councillor Shepherd, would you like to second the motion
yes, thank you Mr. Mayor and reserve my right to speak, thank you, Councillor, does anybody else wish to speak on this item?
it seems not Councillor settler.
I have nothing further to say, apart from pass back to the proposer,
nothing both to and okay, so the motion is set out in the report.
I have to read out the motion because we have a recorded vote at the end of it.
the Council.
notes the progress of the income band in Council Tax reduction scheme to the Council recommends that no changes are made to the council tax reduction scheme for 2024 5, except for a percentage increase the income bands in line with the DWB annual percentage uprating in Greece and 3 that Cabinet fully costs out the financial impacts to Tunbridge Wells Borough Council of a full range of council tax reduction schemes, so I will ask the Chief Executive now to take a recorded vote.
thank you, Mr. Mayor, so when I call out your name, could you please indicate whether you are for those recommendations against or whether you wish to abstain, Councillor Chappelow for Councillor Sharratt?
4 Councillor pounds.
for Councillor Hall for Councillor Vaughan or Councillor Neville for Councillor Wilkinson,
Councillor Rutland for Councillor Barrass, for Councillor Brice, 4 Councillor Ellis 4, Councillor para 4, Councillor Johnson, 4, Councillor Page 4, Councillor Lidstone, 4, Councillor Osborne, 4 Councillor Warmington, 4, Councillor Fitzsimons, 4 Councillor Munday or Councillor Macmillan or Councillor Knights for
Councillor Sankey 4, Councillor Currie, 4, Councillor Wakeman, 4, Councillor O'Connell, 4 Councillor Webster, 4 Councillor British Allen abstain.
Councillor Lewis update Councillor Hill, but Councillor Rogers 4 Councillor Francis 4, Councillor Atkins 4 Councillor Heywood, 4 Councillor Noon, 4, Councillor Alan for Councillor Barons, McCain, 4, Councillor darlings, 4, Councillor fair weather or Councillor good ship or,
Councillor Bland Bore, Councillor March 4, Councillor, Pope 4 and Councillor Patterson for
thank you, Mr. Mayor, there were 41 votes for and 2 abstentions, no votes against, so the recommendations are carried.
thank you agenda item 13 is urgent business.

13 Urgent Business

but I can confirm there was no urgent business for the Council consider this evening.

14 Common Seal of the Council

agenda Item 14, to authorise the common seal, as set out on page 211 of the agenda. I so move Councillor Popper, you happy to second, I second the motion. Thank you. The motion is to authorise the Common Seal of the Council to be affixed to any contract, a minute notice or other document arising out of the minutes or pursuant to any delegation authority or power conferred by the Council. Are we agreed

15 Date of Next Meeting

thank you agenda, item 15 is the date of next meeting, which is Wednesday, the 28th of February 2024, thank you for your attendance, the time is now 8 52 and the meeting is closed, thank you.