The Finance, Innovation and Transformation Cabinet Advisory Board of Tunbridge Wells Council met on Monday 8 June 2026. The meeting discussed the sale of Cemetery Lodge, reviewed investment transactions at Royal Victoria Place, and considered performance summaries for Quarter 4, complaints received, treasury management, capital management, and revenue management.

Sale of Cemetery Lodge

The Board recommended to Cabinet the approval of the disposal of Cemetery Lodge, located on Benhall Mill Road. The property is an old, stone-built building requiring significant repairs to bring it back into use. It has been on the market for almost a year, and an offer has been received that meets the Red Book valuation. Delegated authority was granted to the Head of Property and Estates to negotiate and agree the terms of the disposal, with the Head of Mid-Kent Legal Services authorised to complete the necessary legal documentation. Councillor Matthew Sankey noted that disposals of this nature sometimes attract public concern, but he had not encountered any significant objections to this particular sale. Councillor Ukono Abasi inquired about the historical significance of the building, and it was confirmed that the building is not listed.

RVP Investment Transactions January to March 2026

The Board noted the report detailing property transactions undertaken at the Royal Victoria Place (RVP) shopping centre between January 1st and March 31st, 2026. David Candlin, Head of Economic Development and Major Projects, reported that occupancy at the centre had risen to 94% from 81% at acquisition. He explained that while there is an ongoing use of shorter-term arrangements, this is partly due to planned redevelopment of Ely Court and Palm Court, which requires flexibility for vacant possession. He also highlighted a 20% increase in footfall since acquisition, reaching pre-COVID levels, and a significant increase in car park income. Councillor Christopher Digby asked about the reliance on temporary licences and short-term arrangements, and Mr Candlin clarified that while they are a useful tool, the council is moving away from a heavy reliance on them. Councillor Hugo Pound requested that the council communicate more positively about the centre's performance, noting that despite positive statistics, there is some public negativity. Mr Candlin agreed and stated that information is being made more publicly available.

Performance Summary Quarter 4

The Board received the performance summary for Quarter 4 (January to March 2026). Jane Clark, Head of Policy and Governance, reported that out of 21 performance indicators, 16 have targets, and all 16 were performing. For two indicators, Quarter 3 data was used due to reliance on Kent County Council for information. Councillor Christopher Digby raised concerns about operational pressures over the next 12 months, particularly in light of local government reorganisation, and the sustainability of recycling performance levels. Ms Clark confirmed that the council was one of the earlier adopters of the national waste collection method and was confident in its provider. Regarding website analytics issues due to bot activity, she stated that new software had been purchased to mitigate this. Councillor Mark Ellis, Cabinet Member for Innovation & Transformation, highlighted that local government reorganisation would be a key focus for the next 12 months and noted that the council was the best in Kent for recycling. Councillor Hugo Pound raised concerns about the strategic plan's inclusion of affordable housing acquisitions that predated the plan and requested more detailed performance data for the farmers' market. He also questioned the origin and aspiration levels of performance targets. Ms Clark agreed to clarify the source of targets in future reports. Councillor Ukono Abasi inquired about a drop in a specific health indicator over the year, and Ms Clark undertook to investigate this further. Councillor Matthew Sankey made a comment regarding tree planting updates.

Complaints Summary Quarters 3 and 4

The Board reviewed the complaints summary for the entire year 2025-26. Jane Clark reported that the council received 318 complaints, an increase from previous years, with a notable rise in Stage 2 complaints. Planning was identified as a common area for complaints, often characterised by winners and losers. The council responded to 79% of complaints within agreed timescales, exceeding the 70% target. Of the complaints investigated, 31% were upheld. The most common reason for complaints was not following our processes, highlighting a need for robust staff training. The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) received 14 complaints, investigated one, which was not upheld. Councillor Christopher Digby asked about the reasons for the rise in Stage 2 complaints and lessons learned from planning-related escalations. Ms Clark attributed the rise anecdotally to the use of AI in complaint generation and noted that planning complaints are proactively managed through the complaints process. Councillor Hugo Pound questioned the 70% target for Stage 1 complaint responses, suggesting the aim should be 100%. He also highlighted that the 31% overall upheld rate masked higher percentages in specific areas like process complaints (over 50%) and staff conduct (over 40%), suggesting a need to address process and capability. Councillor Mark Ellis acknowledged the concerns and stated that work was underway to improve operational capacity. Councillor O'Connor Abasi expressed satisfaction with the report and the learning points regarding staff training. Councillor Matthew Sankey inquired if complaints about external contractors were included, and Ms Clark confirmed they were, provided the council could offer a remedy.

Treasury and Prudential Indicator Management Report Q4

Jane Fineman, Head of Finance, Procurement and Parking, presented the report on treasury management and prudential indicators for Quarter 4. The unaudited actual interest from investments and bank accounts for 2025-26 was £2.738 million, an increase of £738,000 from the approved budget. Other interest and investment income received was £69,000, an increase of £20,000 from the budget. The bank interest rate fell from 4.5% to 3.75% during the year. The Council achieved an actual interest rate of 4.58%, slightly below the budget of 4.82%, due to additional funds being invested at lower rates. None of the prudential indicators were breached. Councillor Hugo Pound inquired about the PR2 money, and Ms Fineman clarified it was not in this report but would be covered in the Revenue Management Report. Councillor David Osborne asked if the investment profile, with 90% rolling over within 12 months, was in line with other councils. Ms Fineman stated she did not know but confirmed the council outperforms other Kent boroughs in investment interest earned. She explained the shorter investment periods were due to anticipated interest rate falls and the upcoming local government reorganisation, as well as managing cash flow fluctuations related to council tax and precept payments.

Capital Management Report Q4

Jane Fineman presented the capital management report for Quarter 4. Cabinet had originally approved capital expenditure of £24.9 million for 2025-26, but the actual expenditure decreased to £14.2 million by Quarter 4 due to additions, deletions, and deferrals. The largest schemes included the RVP car park refurbishment (£7.3 million) and the Local Authority Housing Fund 3 (£2 million). New proposed schemes include £3.2 million for leisure centre improvements, linked to a lease with Serco. Councillor Christopher Digby noted he had asked five questions in advance and was satisfied with the answers. Councillor Hugo Pound inquired about the criteria for Local Authority Housing Fund Round 4 properties and the plans for the remaining £5.7 million of unallocated Section 106 monies, expressing concern about losing these funds during local government reorganisation. Ms Fineman confirmed her understanding that LAHF properties would eventually return to the council as affordable or social housing, but guidance on the timing and criteria was awaited. Regarding Section 106 monies, she explained that some were allocated to multi-year projects, while others were being closely monitored for expiry. She noted that while the borough would not lose the money, the new unitary authority would need to find ways to spend it.

Revenue Management Report Q4

Jane Fineman presented the revenue management report for Quarter 4. Unaudited actual expenditure for the year was £14.04 million, £1.62 million under budget, while income was £0.46 million above budget. This included £0.42 million from on-street parking income and £0.68 million from off-street parking income. RVP shopping centre income was £340,000 below budget, attributed to delays in Primark's opening, though rental income for the year was still £317,000 more than in 2024-25. Crematorium income was £357,000 below budget due to a lower national death rate and increased market competition. Staff vacancies resulted in savings of £767,000. Partnership costs had overspends, but overall employee costs were close to budget. Utility bills were £340,000 under budget. Business rates from the collection fund were £1.46 million greater than budgeted, with the surplus transferred to reserves. Councillor Matthew Sankey inquired about the PR2 money, and Ms Fineman explained it was a contractual agreement with Kent County Council for bus lane enforcement, with surpluses of £2.934 million placed into a reserve for highways improvements or climate change initiatives. She detailed expenditures including £1.8 million for photovoltaic systems on the RVP car park. Councillor Hugo Pound commented on the language used to describe underspends and raised concerns about staff numbers being down across most areas, questioning preparedness for local government reorganisation. He also highlighted underspends in planning staffing. Councillor Ukono Abasi reinforced concerns about recruitment gaps impacting current service delivery. Ms Fineman acknowledged the difficulties in recruiting staff, particularly in planning, but noted improvements in her own teams. She stated that revenue services were generally prioritised, and capital programmes tended to suffer from slippage due to staffing shortages. Councillor Andrew Wallace asked about projected electrical savings from the RVP photovoltaic system, and Ms Fineman stated the payback period was 11 years, with an estimated 40% of RVP's electricity consumption being covered. Councillor David Osborne congratulated the council on a surplus of £3.8 million this year, adding to £3.25 million last year. He raised concerns about consistently overestimating income from the RVP shopping centre, noting a cumulative underachievement of nearly £1 million over two years. Ms Fineman clarified that the RVP income shortfall was due to delays in Primark's occupation and refitting, not lower-than-expected income from Primark itself. She explained the strategy was to achieve occupancy for vitality, which had increased footfall and car park income, but redevelopment was needed for higher-end brands and diversification. She also confirmed that the £2.5 million received under the Extended Producer Responsibility scheme would likely be needed to fund additional costs of the waste and street cleansing contract from 2027-28.

Urgent Business and Next Meeting

There was no urgent business. The date of the next meeting was scheduled for Monday 6 July 2026.

The meeting concluded at 8:12 PM.