Planning and Transportation Cabinet Advisory Board - Monday 22 January 2024, 6:30pm - Tunbridge Wells Borough Council Webcasting

Planning and Transportation Cabinet Advisory Board
Monday, 22nd January 2024 at 6:30pm 

Agenda

Slides

Transcript

Map

Resources

Forums

Speakers

Votes

 
Share this agenda point
  1. Seat 3
  2. Slide 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
  1. Webcast Finished
Slide selection

Seat 3 - 0:00:00
let's start again.
good evening, welcome to this planning and transport Cabinet Advisory Board. Today, Monday, the 22 of January 2024 I am Councillor Hugo Pound and I will be cheering this meeting before we start the meeting. There are a number of procedural issues to go through, which I would be grateful for your attention. I will now pass over to the clerk, Julia Reynolds, thank you
thank you, Chair and good evening everybody in the event of a fire alarm ringing continuously, you must immediately evacuate the building at walking pace officers will escort you via the most direct available route, no one is to use the lift, we will make our way to the fire assembly points by the entrance to the Town Hawkyard car park on once and way once outside a check will be made to ensure everyone has safely left and no one is to re-enter the building until advised that 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 other third party may also record or film meetings unless exempt or confidential information is being considered, but are requested as a courtesy to others to give notice of this to the clock. The Council is not liable for any third party recordings. Can I remind everyone to use the microphones when speaking turn them off when you are not? The red light indicates that the microphone is on any comments that are not recorded for the webcast may not be included in the minutes of the meeting. It's very important that the outcomes of this meeting are clear. At the end of each substantive item, the Chair will ask whether the matter is agreed in the absence of a clear majority, or if the chair decides or full vote is desirable. Excuse me, a vote will be taken by a show of hands Members requesting a recorded vote. We must do so before the vote is taken. Thank you Chair. Thank you very much duly for the benefit of the recording we are going to take a roll call. The clock will call your name and, if you're present, please introduce yourself.
thank you, Chair, Councillor Barrass, at present.
Councillor Barrington, King present Councillor Brice present Councillor O'Connell, present Councillor O'Hara, Councillor Pope Britton Councillor Roberts, present Councillor Rogers
Councillor Wilmington, present Councillor Macmillan, present Councillor pound present and expected officers we have Sharon Evans.
we have Alan Gilbert's present, we have Jane Feynman, present and guest Member, we have Councillor Lidstone, thank you.
thank you Chair.
thank you very much.

1 Apologies

now members of the Committee should be familiar with the process, but for the benefit of any members of the public who may be watching, I would like to explain a couple of things. Committee members have had their agendas for over a week and have had the opportunity to ask any factual questions of the officers ahead of this meeting. When we come to the substantive items on the agenda this evening, the relevant officer will then set out their report. Registered speakers will then be invited to make their statements. We will then move into member discussion at the end of the debate. I will try to summarise the Committee's views, and members should ensure that any proposals or actions are correctly captured before we start that process agenda item 1. Do we have any apologies for absence? Please?
none received Chair and for the benefit of recording Councillor, our power is not present at the start of the meeting, thank you Chair, thank you very much, I also note that Councillor Jane Sharratt is present.
in relation to one of the items, thank you Chair, that's knighthood.

2 Declarations of Interests

agenda item 2 declarations of interest agenda item 2, is to receive any declarations of interest on items on the agenda this evening, does anybody have any such declarations to make, I see none, thank you.

3 Notification of Persons Registered to Speak

agenda Item 3, notification of persons registered speak agenda, item 3 is to note any members of the public or visiting members of the Council who have registered to speak, do we have any such persons?
yes, Chair Councillor Lidstone is registered to speak on Item 7.
thank you.

4 Minutes of the meeting dated 13 November 2023

okay agenda item 4 is the minutes of the meeting dated the 13th of November.
the we now move to approve the minutes of that meeting, held on 13th November, the only issue relating to the minutes that can be discussed now is their accuracy, are there any amendments to those minutes which were pretty substantive, I have to say?
no, thank you were agreed.

5 Forward Plan as at 11 January 2024

thank you agenda, item 5 is the forward plan we now consider the Forward Plan as at the 11th of January 2024, which is before you, do Members have any comments.
I see none can we agree, therefore, the forward plan.
agreed, thank you very much.
agenda item 6.

6 Plan for RTW Town Centre Draft Vision

we turn now to the plan for the Royal Tunbridge Wells town centre draft vision.
which is a matter which we will be taking to Cabinet very shortly and as the portfolio holder for planning, and
housing, I am a particular interest and I will be making notes of any comments that come forward and ensure that they are represented at Cabinet, could I hand over please to both Sharon Evans, I think initially, and also to Alan Gilbert who are going to talk through this item, thank you.
thank you good evening, Chair Members and say item 6 before you this evening relates to the emerging Royal Tunbridge Wells town centre plan is progress and a proposed public consultation to commence in February this year.
the report explained that the Royal Tunbridge Wells town centre plan builds on a strategic policy for Royal Tunbridge Wells Town Centre, which is policy es, t r r t to Bellucci, which is set out in the new Local Plan this identifies, amongst other things, that the Council will develop a strategy for Royal Tunbridge Wells Town Centre,
providing a framework for the development of a future town centre area plan, the policy SDL TW 2 is attached at Appendix A of the report and the geographical area to which the policy and the the plan relates is defined within that policy and is also included within Appendix A of the report.
to assist in the preparation of Town Centre Plan, the report identifies that a town centre working group has been established which has a wide ranging membership with a breadth of knowledge and experience, and that meets on a regular and frequent basis.
at paragraph 1.5 of the report, it explains the progress to date on the production of evidence to support the emerging plan, and that includes initial work undertaken by consultants LGA, Design, alongside Knight Frank and City Science, and that's resulted in a town centre study which comprises of a number of individual reports that together have informed along with community engagement and a first call for sites the Royal Tunbridge Wells town centre plan draft vision 2040 which is before you this evening the draft vision is attached as Appendix B to this report.
the draft vision is an early stage consultation documents and is proposed to be published upon public consultation starting in February paragraph 4 for point 1 sorry for point 2, of the report sets out that the Council will seek to gain views on the documents which comprise of a number of sections as as you'll see, there's an introduction to the Plan, a draft town centre vision 2040 it sets out the Royal spa town principles and ambitions, it sets out a section on the town centre as it is today also draft Master Plan Framework, possible sites and project opportunities, the engagement so far and next steps and then have your say and how you can have your say in the process.
there are a number of focus questions throughout the document, and running concurrently with the consultation will be a second call for sites.
the consultation will be wide, ranging and officers will work with the Council's Communications Team to ensure the document is published, publicised widely, with a focus on hard to reach groups, particularly the youth and younger people officers, are working on an engagement strategy which will include a number of events, examples are given at paragraph 4.6 of the report and that includes drop-in sessions at a number of venues across the town and the use of social media and online exhibition.
briefings to parish councils, members that and the Town Forum.
an online portal where all the documentation will be, and also focused engagement, events with existing youth groups and and tapping into activities and clubs.
as set out in the report, there were a series of stages in the production of the Plan, this constitutes the first stage of plan preparation, which is called in issues and options consultation under Regulation 18 is therefore of a high level evidence gathering nature it is hoped that the document will encourage a high level of participation in the process and promotes a good level of input to inform the next stage of the process which will be a full draft plan and that will undergo further public consultation in due course.
so, moving onto the recommendations, this report makes the following recommendations to planning and transportation and
cabinet advisory board number 1 that the draft vision for the Royal Tunbridge Wells Town Centre Plan be noted and that officers should be given delegated authority to carry out further presentation or refinement work, along with any minor changes needed to the document ready for public consultation.
the 10 early engagement consultation be carried out on the draft vision for the road Tunbridge Wells town centre plan for a period of a minimum of six weeks and that the responses to the public consultation be collated and taken account of in drafting the next iteration of the plan, the Regulation 18 part 2 full draft role rota modules, town centre plan ahead of further public consultation.
OK, thank you.
thank you very much and I hope that everybody had enjoyed reading both the vision and some of the background papers which have been worked on pretty seriously by officers for quite a while now, and I think they are very well presented, I have to say I think the whole document looks very good and it is accessible for residents and others to do work with does anybody have any questions or issues that they want to raise?
either with Sharon or with Alan Councillor Pope.
well, I don't like that you had some involvement on this all the way through, I think you've now got a good document, I've just got one.
this is pedantic point which I've raised before, the the name for the Grove is is currently still Grove Park, and I can assure you there will be people, residents and talent who will point out is not correct.
and the the Ordnance Survey map on page 58 of this report has got it correct, but page 64 69 and 73 still have it as a Grove Park, that's took the first two are on a map, and the third one is in a table, it's just, I think let's refer to it as a correct name thanks.
thank you.
I don't think that requires a response, but it will be noted, I suspect yeah, I think well we'll be checking for consistency across the document and will ensure it's updated to the grave, I think the issue of the map is something we have discussed before because it's on the Ordnance Survey maps so but we will double check that for you OK.
thank you and slightly less heinous than cooling Calverley grounds, Calverley Park, but any other any other questions or issues for the officers in relation to this matter. Yes, Councillor Roberts, thank you so thank you for the report. I suppose please leave the question I mean reduce. Obviously, around is Tunbridge Wells, Centre owner and his culture or in trying to draw people into the town. I'm just wondering I can find anything in an onslaught of science and technology and engineering into a mass garden that sort of all that Andrew at that area, where the future of the country is sort of going down, R and D
and that's where you know we've got our opportunity and I think can't be Scotter Aston, hope there and Sue to get from Canterbury here is quite a distance and I I don't know what the next one is sort of west or north of here but,
I think we seem to avoid of STEM subject or STEM opportunities for the youth, which are, you know, really so it being driven and enjoy STEM, and I just wondered.
it may be a bit too late for this, I don't know, but I suppose what you know, but was it deliberately omitted or or or should it have been included or or what I suppose?
I think we've been working closely with our colleagues in the economic development team, so I'm aware that you'll see that there are opportunities within the town, and I think this is early stage of consultation at the moment and it's an opportunity for people to
express what they think is important, and what uses could be you could come forward in the town and culture, Leisure, ENO businesses, and so there is an opportunity for people to to make those comments if you think that's something that.
it is important I mean, obviously the town centre is is is is just one area, but there are opportunities across the whole borough and it's something within within the borough wide local plan in terms of allocations for.
business use and science parks, and things like that, so I don't think it's been missed, but it is something that we can have a look at.
just sorry pretty worth just adding that in the the documents are in the summary, for example and elsewhere we set out that we we do want people who live and use the town, we want an understanding of what they want to see in the town in the future as well, so any other uses that are not listed in the document at the moment, if people put those through the consultation then obviously we would consider that for the next stage of the plan making.
Q
can I also just seek clarity, pull that you're talking about employment opportunities and apprenticeships and and not not just educational STEM, but in employment.
yes, you say you cannot technical technical hubs and smaller towns on our motions got one.
the I'm on. Obviously we got a train station here with a hub and opportunity but to get here, so it's a combination of both. It was Councillor Barry Hughes established not necessarily educational, one is also an innovation one, allowing for you know R and D to be greater than those or ideas to be packed into or explode or yeah. You know future developments to come out and that so and to some degree that and I'm sure we'd all agree that that's where the country is going to some extent and as well opportunities are is in on day two to have those great ideas that we can
the
them and enhance the the future of the country, because that's where we got great ideas and that's all as one of the things we can sell.
no, thank you, thank you for that, are there any other questions or issues in relation to this paper?
Councillor O'Connell, thank you, you mentioned the para 4.6 that gives examples of this sort of engagement that's going to take place, and I know that's not comprehensive, but I just wondered if it would be good to mention at this early stage people with disabilities of various sort so it's truly inclusive right from the start rather than that being seen as something added in later so just a minor point.
thank you would take that on board and as Sharon's already indicated, when the process of working up an engagement strategy, so we'll give further thought to that.
I've got one more, can I make a comment on the recommendations if that's all right, just to to be clear, on recommendation to says Sharon's indicated, the consultation will be for a minimum of six weeks, the printed report does say six weeks, so I just want to be clear on that point because it's possible it will overlap slightly with the Easter bank holidays, so we would extend the consultation accordingly. So when we finalise the report for Cabinet, we'll just tweak that recommendation
thank you OK, thank you, yes, I heard today that it was going to be seven weeks because of used to break that will confirm that any other issues or questions of officers no, I don't sense from the questions and debate so far that we're straying very far from one of our three options.
of the Cabinet Advisory Board, the first one is that the Cabinet Advisory Board supports the recommendation in the report, secondly, it could support the recommendations subject to the issues that it has identified, being taken into account by the Cabinet, and I will state what I have got so far.
or third option is that we do not support the recommendation on at least one of a number of grounds, I don't sense that we are not supportive of the recommendation, but I have taken on board.
they need to get the wording of certain locations correct from Councillor Pope
I think are completely valid exploration of innovation and technology and development within the borough, but also within the town centre and from Councillor Roberts, and a recognition at this early stage of its development of disabilities and and access matters from Councillor O'Connell is there anything else that we need to take on board to go back to Cabinet?
well, on that basis, can I suggest, therefore, that we adopt our recommendation B, which is that the Cabinet has advised report supports the recommendations subject to the issues that has been that have been identified.
will be taken into account by the Cabinet,
that's agreeable, I will read out the recommendations and we can make a judgement on them.
right, the recommendations are that one, the draft vision for the Royal Tunbridge Wells town centre plan be noted and that officers shall be given delegated authority to carry out further presentational refinement work, along with any minor changes needed to the document ready for publication and consultation to there's an early engagement consultation be carried out on the draft vision for the Royal Tunbridge Wells town centre plan for a period of
to be corrected seven weeks, and three, that the responses to the public consultation be collated and taken into account of in drafting the next iteration of the plan, the Regulation 18 part 2 full draft Royal Tunbridge Wells towns into plan ahead of further consultation.
are we agreed on those recommendations?
thank you very much that is carried, I believe, unanimously.

7 Agreement with Kent County Council to Enforce Public Realm 2

thank you OK, let's move on, if we may, thank you very much both of you for coming and presenting that if we move on to agenda item 7, this is on a public realm to I don't know whether Councillor Sharratt wants to say a few words or introduce it or just be responding to questions if and when they arise.
no, that's fine, I in that case I invite Jane Jane Feynman please, as head of finance procurement and parking, to introduce the item.
I think we'll have them afterwards.
thank you, Councillor Dobson will come to you after after Jane has presented, thank you.
the public realm team is a streetscene improvement initiative for Mount Pleasant Road, it stretches from its junction, with Munson, Road Church, Road restricting traffic to buses taxis and cycles only 9 am to 6 pm daily.
it was completed in 2019 and Tunbridge Wells began, enforcing in 2020 enforcement was suspended due to Covid but as traffic volumes, increased enforcement was once again required, as the scheme had been designed for much smaller volumes of traffic KCC are the Highways Authority for Kent and we were all anticipating them recommencing enforcement through their new moving traffic offence powers, unfortunately their tender process was delayed.
and it was agreed that Tunbridge Wells would enforce on their behalf.
implementation costs were forecast to be significant, but KCC were unable to underwrite the costs so it was agreed in order to match cost risk with income reward.
that TW B C would would be able to retain any income surplus to WBC members would determine where this money was spent, providing that it was in line with the on-street enforcement legislation.
now the level of income and costs require now require a Cabinet decision to approve the signing of the contract, they're now a key decision.
KCC have already extended the term of the agreement once to the 30th of June, as is now in this paper, but there is a request to be able to extend again should the need arise.
and finally, the paper also asks for authorisation to allocate the surpluses in line with the legislation for on-street surpluses, so essentially we're asking for Cabinet approval to go ahead and sign this contract in order to provide the enforcement for KCC, thank you, thank you Jane very much.
I'm looking straight to Councillor Roberts because you sent an e-mail today, but I thought you might want to raise as questions this evening is that for?
yes, I did send an e-mail, though particularly it was on the 14th of January.
I don't know his life, sorry.
OK, so, two questions that were related to the report Mum was paragraph 1.8 where it study says increasingly there were calls to reintroduce.
enforcement operations.
as there is a residents' petition calling for the scrapping the scheme, which attracted over 1,000 signatures, a mixture of online and
I return handed in be extremely beneficial if these calls for the reintroduction of the screen could be evidenced and referenced.
because obviously we've got residents on one hand claiming the scheme is unwanted and managed to get an awful lot of signatures, bringing the report is currently about evidence that the there was a call for it to be reintroduced, I think and the JCB is going to be.
moving forward to try to resolve these issues, but if there's counter evidence suggesting that the scheme should remain awesome road is one that then I think the evidence should be brought forward to the public domain, so could that evidence be referenced and highlighted, please?
and then there was, in the same paragraph, it also states in January 23, at the request of KCC Tunbridge Wells Borough Council agree to recommend enforcement of Part 2 in the February.
I believe this is a mistake and this I did ask this question of the JCB.
last week and KCC were vehement in the fact they never didn't ask Tunbridge Wells Borough Council and I think even the Chief Exec as I supported that as well, so I think just from a factual perspective we just need to clarify that KCC didn't request Tunbridge Wells Borough accounts to recommence from January 2023 the enforcement but that's for those two questions irrelevant to that report.
thank you, so the re introduction.
essentially was asked for by the members of Tunbridge Wells Borough Council, but I do have e-mails also from members of the public, who were were basically saying you've had the cameras up, you've had all of the signs up, but you're not doing anything about it, isn't it time that you started doing that again, so I do have some of those e-mails, we we obviously don't record every time somebody writes in, and it would be quite a large job to go back through many, many e-mails that I've got about PR too, but I'm very happy to to put into the report that the the enforcement was
arced effectively for by members of TW B C.
to to be reinstated after the the COVID low.
this was on the basis of health and safety, basically the scheme was created.
to to manage far far smaller volumes of traffic and therefore it was deemed unsafe not to not to enforce because, as I'm sure you are aware, we had about a thousand vehicles per day travelling through there and we're now down to 80 to 100 a day, so there was a health and safety element to that request.
but it was also the ambition of the project to reduce the traffic flow through the centre of town to improve the streetscene, as, as I've already explained, so it it, it initially came from from the members asking for the enforcement to be reintroduced.
the
I guess we've got six to one and a half a dozen of the other roof who asked who to do what enforcement in that we thought at the time we me and my parking team, we thought that KCC would be undertaking the enforcement under their new moving traffic offences. So at that time we were ready to hand everything over to KCC and they were preparing to put up CCTV cameras as as per their new tender. The the process was delayed for them and they therefore asked us if we would carry out that enforcement on their behalf and that's where the comment about KCC asking us to do the enforcement came from initially, it was the members that were asking for the reintroduction of the enforcement, but then KCC couldn't deliver that enforcement and therefore asked my parking team if we will be able to do it on their behalf. So I hope that clarifies things for you
it's not been a straightforward process.
OK, thank you now, the reason I went there rather than to a guest speaker first was because it was an outstanding matter and I just thought that, as you send an e-mail that haven't yet been responded to, we could deal with that now.
if I may well now move to Peter Alliston.
guest speaker on this matter.
I won't be too punitive Peter, but you do have three minutes, thank you chopping stress on the word guessed there evening, members and officers, so I'm I'm vice-chair of the the JCB and last Monday's joint transportation board councillors from all parties and Tunbridge Wells Borough Council and Kent County Council and I know there are a couple of here this evening unanimously agreed to continue enforcing P or T scheme with some minor visual improvements.
so are additions of salt paint and signage to make the scheme clearer to the to visitors and which are estimated to come in at around 15,000 pounds.
what's important is we also unanimously agreed to work with the residents of York and Dudley Road to resolve the issues they face with currently at the three quarter-mile, detour or, if they're unable to find a parking space.
the plan is for officers to continue to work on potential solutions and to meet with the UK and Dudley Road residents to seek their agreement on which to proceed with the costs will depend on the solution chosen.
I have to stress that reaching consensus on this was not an easy task and I am proud of the way or two authorities have come together for the benefit of residents.
seeing tonight's agenda papers and point 2.5 on page 79 concerned me slightly it states, it was finally advised that the proceeds from P are 1 and 2 enforcement could be used for highways, improvements, climate change projects or public passenger transport services, which are within the remit of TW B C.
I am a strong advocate of both carbon reduction and public transport, however, at this stage, if the part surplus is spent on projects other than PR too, I fear a situation arising whereby residents and Kent County Council agree on a solution which we cannot fund and I think that would be a disaster.
this paper makes it clear that Tunbridge Wells Borough Council took on the risk of enforcing piety and and have enjoyed the benefits. In my view, the right thing to do is to ensure that these benefits go towards any improvements needed to the scheme first and only then look at alternative uses. So I'm asking you tonight if this board is so minded to add a recommendation to Cabinet that any P or T surplus is only spent on other areas once we are satisfied that the issues with plots have been resolved, we are in a rare situation where we do have the funding necessary to make the public room really special and let's use it wisely. Thank you
thank you very much, Peter, I don't know whether you have the wording of your proposal that duly or I could have, but I didn't get it down at a speed of which you spoke.
we can write it now and then give it to account.
thank you.
OK, thank you for that and other any other questions or issues, Councillor Wellington.
thank you Chair, and this is immediately off the back of council incidents for a helpful.
as presentation to the to the Rosewood, it relates to my question relates to recommendation 4, which reads that Cabinet authorise the Director of Finance Policy and Development, section 1 5 1, in consultation with Cabinet Members for carbon reduction, sustainability and transport, and the Cabinet Member for Finance and performance to allocate any proceeds of the contract in accordance with legal advice etc etc etc
I am very keen to understand what in consultation means, because my understanding of the terminology is that, in consultation means that the section 1 5 1 officer needs to speak to those people, but does not need to act on their response to the consultation, is that correct?
my understanding is that they would have to reach agreement, and I'm if it would give you a comfort, I am more than happy to change that to say in agreement with, rather than in consultation with, if it will give you comfort, that that's the meaning of it.
yes.
are not a problem.
OK, thank you, I'll make that amendment.
and will come back to it.
let me read the when we read the motion, yes, Councillor Pope.
thank you, Chair, I say I think everybody is aware that this report has been causing a lot of a lot of feedback from.
residents and probably people further afield, and I think I think what is it, how the money that's coming from it is spent, I think it is critical that I think resolving the issues that it's currently got in the design is possibly a two-step process there's the more immediate changes which will make it more obvious to people that there's a restriction
but they are probably unlikely to be further changes tonight I would like to assume that any moneys will be kept set aside to complete any final changes, the second set of changes, because the initial changes are probably quite quick, but they don't really resolve all the issues that I've raised and I think other people are raising as well.
I think it's important that we hold on to the money until we are happy, we have got a design that works.
better than it does today, significantly better, not not just a quick fix.
OK, thank you, Jane, do you want to come back on on those two or three comments now that have been made in relation to recommendation 4?
yes, a.
I sat through a considerable number of debates.
on PR to and have received many, many questions on it also.
it concerns me that if we say in a recommendation that we can only spend that surplus if the issues are resolved, it may sit there forever, because I really don't believe that we will ever reach a consensus that everybody, but everybody is happy with and how do we reach that position of saying the issue is resolved.
if we can never reach a consensus, so I would, I would urge you to be very careful with the wording that she put to ensure that you don't tie yourself into a position whereby we can never spend the money.
come back to Councillor Pope and then we'll go to Councillor Robertson, when Councillor Bennett, I completely take your point and I think I think really my point is that there is the quick fix which was discussed at J TB and then I think there's kind of a further fix and you can't keep going back round and round. It's gonna be, that's got a bit into it. I think it's an important thing as you're trying to say thank you, I'll come back and I have some proposed slightly altered wording, which will we'll talk about in a minute, Councillor Roberts, thank you Chair
just recalling last week's meeting of the JCB I I can't recall what Councillor Lisa said that we agree to maintain enforcement, I don't think that was an option, it was to do with.
why are monitoring the signage and putting some red paint on on to make it more clearly aware the places where so there's still an outstanding issue with appear to, and there's a report gonna be put together for the offices and also I believe our local MP has written to the chair of the
the JCB wisdom outstanding concerns around the enforcement and the and the fines and those sort of things, so should we not suspend.
this consideration until the JCB next meets and these issues are resolved.
we can certainly discuss that as a proposal, if you wish to this, is the MP who said he wouldn't interfere in Borough Council business, I understand.
Councillor Barrington King.
thank you, Chairman.
once again, to, I think, reinforce sir, the GTB meeting on the 15th, it was extremely rigorous and robust meeting and cathartic to some degree because of all the red herrings that have been out there.
in the public domain, Samwell, who did this, whose responsibility is it, and there's been some erroneous comments?
ad nauseum out there, but we find it now that the JCB, when the Deputy Leader of Kent County Council, Peter Otford, gave a common public statement there which came directly from Simon Jones, who is the director of Highways at County Hall at KCC and where it was made crystal clear that KCC did not make this decision for enforcement and that it came directly from TWC which you know we call into question.
the agenda item here on 1.8 at the request of KCC, which is within these papers now, I beg to be corrected, but what I heard Jo TB was the fact that it was a TW B C decision.
and I think it would help if we actually qualify that at this meeting this evening and I what was also evident as.
I think Councillor Robertson and others this evening have touched upon is the appalling position of the residents in York, Road and Dudley Road, and we had an excellent rational proposition by one of the restaurants which made sense in Safari as far from cutting out any savings in carbon emissions etc that to the residents of those two roads were taken a security journey.
which was well over a mile, I believe, most of the time I imagine in gridlock.
to get to their own homes, and one could only feel, and I think that was the consensus of the meeting that this dreadful position they found themselves in.
and although we voted on option B at J T B, which was, as has been mentioned, a stepping stone, then I look forward with some appetite to see that we can help those residents and actually make this a scheme that she works for everybody, thank you Chairman.
thank you, Councillor.
does anybody else have any comments or issues Councillor O'Callaghan?
thank you Chair.
the residents of York and Dudley Road, that's going to be a difficult issue, to come up with criteria to say when that has been resolved, but do we have in mind a level of
PCNs that would be acceptable for a traffic scheme of this sort, I mean, I think, Pearl 1, it's of the order of it at about 17 a day, something like that, so is that what we should be aiming at or are there other factors that would affect when that part of the issue is resolved.
do you want to come back on that?
you're you're right, it's between 15 and 20 per day for public realm, 1.
at the moment, as I say, is between 80 and 100 down from a thousand a day and that compliance continues to improve and the numbers are coming down more more and more.
so in terms of the scheme and the understand ability of the scheme that is improving all the time, and certainly the decision that was made at the J T B is again helping to put better signage and and better informative information on the road to help people understand the scheme, I think what's going to be more difficult to deal with is the issues of the residents and indeed some of the issues that they're raising about having,
reserved on-street parking, just for them, is something that they have been asking for way before PR to ever ever became an issue which was ever even created, so I think some of these things.
are a consequence of PR too, but some of these things they they were issues before
and are being raised again by the same set of of of residents.
I think I think my concern is how we help those residents, whether we can help those residents without undermining the whole scheme and the effectiveness of delivering that scheme, and that's what the next stage of of the report to J. TB and the investigations will on earth is whether we can,
help to improve the situation and, if so, how so yeah, I think I think where we've sort of come through state one, where we're going to start trying to resolve some of the issues that that the residents are coming up with, but we will need a little bit of of time but it is possible that we get to the end of that report.
and we can't do anything substantial, and I'm really hoping that won't be the case and we will try everything we possibly can to do something positive, but there is the possibility that that we won't be able to, and that's what I'm trying to make sure that we have a backstop for.
OK, thank you.
Councillor Richards,
I am sorry, I have to say I'm not sure if what I'm saying is for the debate or for questions draw me to.
sorry.
I am just saying in response to Councillor Roberts about postponing this decision until the next GTB from what I understand of the what we're discussing today is just to allow the officers to continue things as they are for now and potentially extend the contract of the
PR to restrictions.
if we put that on hold, then if they're not allowed to extend it, does that not mean, then we would have to stop enforcing it for that period of time, in which case stopping it and then potentially restarting again in the future, which would cause more confusion for everybody all around so.
is it not?
in the best interests for the lack of confusion for everybody just to continue as it is, whilst all these decisions are ongoing rather than actually potentially make or break in the enforcement.
I just before I was trained to answer that question which is fairly valid, I do just need to remind the the advisory board that we are considering the recommendations in front of us plus any amendments that there might be so the debate about whether we stop enforcement now is not actually within the recommendations that are under discussion, we have an option before us for this Cabinet Board which I will come to in a moment which is option C of our choices.
but I would urge Members to consider the recommendations that are before us, and one which I I will give the wording of.
shortly, if we get to that point, as Jane Doe would just want to respond in terms of the does or does the enforcement stop if it doesn't have the support of the council initially?
we do need a contract in order to be able to enforce, and if Cabinet can't support that contract, then we we can't enforce and if it would, it would have to to stop.
we have an e-mail agreement at the moment, but it does need to be formalised, and that's what recommendation 1 and to.
enable us to do, which is continue with the enforcement recommendation 3. It is trying to deal with the fact that KCC have already come back towards once and asked us to extend to the 30th of June. We'd originally only been asked to enforce up until the 31st of March because KCC have tendered for this work, but the new contractor isn't ready to take over the enforcement on KCC's behalf, so therefore they have asked us if we, if we will continue to enforce until the end of June, whereupon they will then take the enforcement and the entire control of off of the of the restriction back under their own wing
and then for is to enable us, or at some point when Cabinet chooses and for what to spend, the surplus, that is that is made.
does it answer a question that you wanted a bit more, I just say Yes, that's how I understood it, which is that if we if we choose not to recommend or ask Cabinet not to, then we will have to terminate the is the
but the enforcement of it, which, in my view, would be then make it far more confusing for residents if, in six months, when KCC are ready to take it over, it came back in again.
OK, thank you, Councillor Barrass, first, then I think it's Councillor Roberts just to finish, Councillor Wilmington, thank you, thank you, so I wanted to check the obviously the County Council delayed in their commissioning of the enforcement.
what are are there any possibilities and one thing how confident that we are, are we that they will complete and they'll be ready to take on the company that the enforcement in at the time, and is there any possibility of them being able to bring in that enforcement earlier given a negotiation with their with with the contractor?
my understanding is that they can't bring it in any earlier, it's more of an operational issues and than anything else.
I'm not privy to exactly what their tendering process and implementation process has been, but we do meet regularly with KCC for them to give us updates as to where they are, and at the moment they're saying the 30th of June is is whether they are headed and they want us to enforce until then I can't really give you more definition than that sorry.
OK, thank you, Councillor Roberts.
thank you Chair.
so from what you've said, is it the plan is to hand over the enforcement through KCC in June 24.
which is obviously only five months away, and the GTB is gonna, be reporting on its options in sort of April time, and I get the impression that KCC won't fund any changes to the public realm, whether it's signage or tyros or whatever it is to help the residents. So so if we do hand over in June, if theoretically, we will retain the fines and the money KCC or take responsibility, but whatever the report potentially says, they will make new managers, say when we're not going to do anything because we've got no money because the money is retained here, so the the the residents I left Ratuvou are and the visitors and all the other people impact to date, but potentially left without us being able to implement a solution, because KCC won't do it and because we hold the funds, do you think potentially, then it's better if you want to continue with the enforcement which ceased, and it's not until we get this resolved. It is not a bad thing in my opinion, but if you do want to retain enforcement,
do we, as Tunbridge Wells Borough Council, want to retain that until the duty until the issue is resolved with the evidence are resolved, which are more than rightly going to be towards the end of the year?
we have a really good working relationship with KC full and indeed the whole scheme we have developed along with them, they're the Highways Authority, we can't do anything without their support, the project was initiated as a joint project, it was funded as a joint project and I fully anticipate that we can work successfully together in order to,
finish the last stage of the project, hopefully, which is to resolve the issues that the residents still have and the outstanding issues from the report from the GTB, I don't think that our cabinet would say No, you can't use the money KCC from the surpluses, I think there's there's an understanding that we we would,
I foresee us working very, very well together and particularly if their contract says that they will start the enforcement from the 1st of July, I think we should allow them to do that.
I appreciated if you've got a good working relationship, but a lot of that was hypothetical and superstition, so it's not really any sort of factual evidence that we will the Cabinet will agree to fund maybe 700,000 pounds for the work you may consider it too expensive.
because they've allocated to other things, so is it not possible that we could? I think it was Nick suggested earlier that we saw ring-fence the money until there wasn't an agreement to have some sort of loose wording around that to ensure that the funds are available to support any improvements necessary?
that's entirely at the discretion of Cabinet, absolutely that's absolutely what what you can do, my words of caution are about somehow putting a backstop to that so that it doesn't run on forever, I'm going to go to Councillor Wellington next and then I'm going to give you some wording on a possible fifth recommendation.
and then I would like to test where we are as a cab about how we're going to move this forward, Councillor Worthington last comments, thank you Chair, it's it's, it's a very quick point rather than a full question and I don't needed along applied it's just around the use of wording I think we've all spoken to residents who are,
understandably quite annoyed about receiving fines, and I'm sure we've all seen some of the discourse on the subject on social media, I think that we might consider more temperate language than talking about the rewards of the scheme, I think most people probably wouldn't consider that to be entirely appropriate, particularly given the sentiment generated by it, so perhaps we could look at some of the wording we use in our reports and and maybe pick something a bit more neutral, thank you.
good comment, I have won just one final comment as well, which is at 2.00.3 in the papers.
I appreciate that earlier it says Tunbridge Wells Borough Council, agreed with KCC that they would undertake the cost risk, who is they, they presumably is Tunbridge Wells Borough Council, but as it comes after both of those bodies are named, it's not clear who actually is taking the risk and it needs to be rewarded.
just to be pedantic.
2.3
now what I'm going to do it in a minute, as I said, I'm going to test options C which is available to us, which really has been raised as a potential, a sense by Councillor Roberts, but we will test that in a minute but before that going back to Councillor instance talk to us earlier he kindly has now shared some of the wording of his potential recommendation and I've just redrafted it slightly and I would suggest that we possibly could have a fifth recommendation to Cabinet which says,
any PR to surplus is only spent on other areas once the listed officers and members at recommendation 4 are satisfied that the issues in PR to have been resolved, and if you go to recommendation 4 you will see us section 1 5 Officer 2 of the Cabinet members and the someone else I think, a finance manager, so that was a suggestion for recommendation 5, I'll just say it again before I come to Councillor Wellington that any PR to surplus is only spent on other areas once the listed officers and members at recommendation 4 are satisfied that the issues with PR to have been resolved Councillor Wilmington,
or in principle, I think that sounds sensible, I just aware that you know where we are coming up to May and yeah, the structure of the Council may change and all our elections anything can happen, and I wonder if we, if there is there a way of phrasing the language so that we safeguard the spirit of what we've suggested,
but allows it to continue in, for example, a situation in which a new or a leader wants to change cabinet positions, areas of responsibility, so I just wonder if we, if we fix it to these cabinet positions, do we tell to ourselves and not later if we have a sort of constitutional change at the cabinet level?
I think that's a fair question, but the recommendations as I've drafted it here was an inclusive statement of the section 1 5 Officer that the other finance officers and two members of cabinet, the portfolio holder and the Leader, presumably if we have a new or different administration then that Cabinet may come to a different decision but that in reality is the inevitability of change.
yes, absolutely, I totally accept that, but sorry, my comment wasn't about a change of personality, it was about a change of cabinet roles because obviously, sometimes when things change.
the very the very nature of the role changes rather than the individuals was my question, I wonder if there is another phrasing that sort of, as I said, safeguards the spirit of what you're saying, because I think it's good, but I think that's a potential pit hole we might fall into.
okay, now I take that point, so elicited officers, the responsible Member and Leader.
Councillor Roberts, what it would be possible to include the Chair of the GTB, because the JCB is in a Advisory Board, has got no powers, but so therefore the Cabinet Member could disregard what the JCB said, but the Chair of the GTP, who hopefully would make a recommendation to the Cabinet Holder but they would listed and adhere to,
no, I don't think that that is right, I think that the GTB would give advice as a working group to cabinet.
they don't they don't have decision-making powers within the Council.
sorry, I'm looking, is that right yeah, it's not a decision-making body, Councillor Barrett.
I wondered if, given the discussion we had earlier about the difficulties of having a edifice, a definitive resolution, is it possible to would it be appropriate to caveat that, maybe to the best of resolved for the best of our ability or something like that, because it might be that you end up creating a too high bar,
I will impractically high bar, if you say they are, I think the expression was resolved, or is that just me?
the definition of resolution will reside with those officers and members because it is their decision as the as the way we proceed and they will be held accountable for it.
so look, can I can I just suggest, if we go back and you'll find it at page 3 of your papers, if you have them in front of you that one of the options available to this Cabinet Advisory Board is that the Cabinet Advisory Board does not support the recommendations on at least one of the following grounds, 3.1 is inadequate consultation with stakeholders and or 3.2 inadequate evidence on which to base the decision and or 3.3 insufficient consideration of legal and financial information.
and all three point for another reason, as decided by the meeting of the Cabinet Advisory Board,
can I ask, do we have?
a sense that this board wishes to not support the recommendations that are before us this evening.
does anyone support that that suggestion that we do not support the recommendations, I don't think it's enough personally and information to be able to support it.
does anybody else feel that we should not support the recommendations?
patterns in the areas.
the erroneous.
parts of the agenda here so.
no, I am minded to to abstain on this one, thank you.
and no one else, I think on that basis I'm afraid we will not be going to option C, but you will have an opportunity, of course, to express a view in relation to one of the others, OK, so then, if I go to option A which is before us,
which is that the Cabinet Advisory Board supports the recommendations in the report, I would suggest that we say no to that because we have amendments that need to be made.
and if everyone agrees with that suggestion, I would like to propose that we move straight onto option B.
it is unacceptable option B is that the Cabinet Advisory Board supports the recommendations subject to the issues it has identified being taken into account by the Cabinet. Any issues identified should be stated and recorded,
and what we have got is obviously we have a clear expressions of concern about the residents, particularly of York and Dudley Road, there was an expression of consensus from both KCC and and Thomas Wells Borough Council about the implementation of the enforcement currently.
there have been issues about the scheme itself and clearly where the responsibility for it resides and we're never going to resolve that, it seems just bounced backwards and forwards all the time.
and we've had a good discussion about where those pl 2 revenues should be spent. Councillor Lidstone and others have now had a view which has been accommodated in our potential recommendation, and we've had a slight change, which I think will be acceptable, which is in recommendation for that, rather than in Cole's consultation with the Cabinet Member for carbon reduction, sustainability and transportation. It should be in agreement with both of those two members. So at B, if Councillor Sharratt, who is here this evening and I go back to Cabinet with a recognition of the issues that you've talked about, and we include recommendation 5 as one of our Cabinet Advisory Board recommendations, they will all be considered by by cabinet. I'll repeat again because you haven't got it in front of you. Recommendation 5 might read something like any PR to surplus is only spent on other areas once the listed officer officers and responsible Member and Leader are satisfied that the issues with P or to have been resolved
OK, so that would be in addition to the first, for which I will now read, which is.
recommendation 1 that Cabinet agree to provide a service to Kent County Council to enforce the public realm 1 and 2 restrictions on Mount Pleasant Road Tunbridge Wells between the 20th of February 2023 and the 30th of June 2024 to that Cabinet authorise the Director of Finance Policy and Development, Section 1 5 1, in consultation with the Cabinet Member for carbon reduction, sustainability and transportation to enter into a contractual agreement with KCC to this effect, including the key terms laid out in this paper, 3, that Cabinet authorise the Director of Finance Policy and Development, Section 1 5 1, in consultation with the Cabinet Member for carbon reduction, sustainability and transportation to vary the contract at the end of the term, if necessary, to protect the service going forward
4 that Cabinet authorise the Director of Finance policy and development, section 1 5 1, in agreement with the Cabinet Member for carbon reduction, sustainability and transportation, and the Cabinet Member for Finance and performance to allocate any proceeds of the contract in accordance with the legal advice outlined in Note 2.5 of the report, and additionally we are recommending a further recommendation, which is that PR any PR to surplus is only spent on other areas once the listed officers. There is a responsible Member, and the Leader of the Council are satisfied that the issues with PR to have been resolved.
Councillor Wilmington, I, I do apologise for what may be an excessively part one in a number of perhaps quite a detailed focus points, but we we agreed a changing of the wording to recommendation 5 to reflect the fact that we're going through a period of change I wonder if,
either we take a step back and say, Well, we can interpret this for later on down the line and keep the wording consistent throughout the awful recommend, all five recommendations, I think, is what I'm driving at here I I suggested the wording for 4 5. I'm happy to revert to the wording to the previous wording for five of if that's going to be easier or alternatively change the wording of the other four recommendations to reflect the new wording in recommendation 5
that is a very precise intervention, thank you.
I'm perfectly happy if other other Members are to rue revert to the wording of the officers and Members, as listed in the previous four recommendations.
OK.
right.
for consistency, so can I ask, please, can I have a show of hands just to be clear on where we are, and this can I see those in favour of option B, which is to use the wording support the recommendation subject to the issues that have been identified being taken into account by Cabinet which includes our own recommendation those unfavourably show.
and against.
that is a majority with one objection.
OK, thank you very much right, we move on agenda item.
it is urgent business.

8 Urgent Business

9 Date of the Next Meeting

to consider any urgent business, I confirm that we have no such business for this evening, the date of the next meeting, which I think will be the last one of the municipal year, will take place on Monday, the 4th of March 2024 at 6.30 p.m. Here in the Council Chamber the meeting is closed. Thank you all very much.