Tunbridge Wells Borough Council says auditors have not given specific approval for its plan to use a 50 year loan to fund the £27m Palm Court renovation, even though a council official recently appeared to suggest that the auditors were indeed on board.
Senior council finance official Jane Fineman told an October meeting that “the auditors were comfortable with this” in answer to a question on why the council loan wouldn’t be repaid for 50 years when the new roof, floor and other fittings wouldn’t last 50 years.
But the council told Southborough News that it “does not accept the suggestion that Members or the public were misled.”
Meanwhile, a former leader of the council, Bob Atwood (pictured below) has issued a statement opposing the council’s plans to take on a total of around £50 million of debt saying “they are likely to fail.”
Bob Atwood is a retired Finance Director and former leader of the Conservatives. He then became a founder member and Chairman of the Tunbridge Wells Alliance Party, which successfully opposed the Conservative’s £100m debt for its Calverley Square theatre scheme six years ago.
Bob Atwood told Southborough News: “Surely we have been here before with the doomed theatre project. Councils should be very careful before embarking on any commercial venture, if at all.”
Bob Atwood said: “Councillors do not have the expertise and are advised by the officers, and although apparently it is bad form to criticise them, the officers at the top of the Tunbridge Wells pile do not have a good record.”
Bob Atwood continued: “Why then should they again be taking risks with taxpayers money? Why should they take out huge loans knowing that the servicing costs will put future finances at risk, and will limit the Council’s ability to borrow should real emergencies arise in the future?”
The former TWBC leader said: “Many other councils have failed miserably when they entered into commercial ventures, and some have bankrupted themselves in the process. If there is no commercial interest in a project such as the RVP refurbishment it is probably because it is likely to fail.”
Bob Atwood concluded: “A council should be enabling bold and exciting projects where they fit with overall policy, but should not be undertaking them themselves.”
The Borough Council’s current Director of Finance, Lee Colyer, and chief executive, William Benson, were both in the same jobs when the Calverley Square scheme was being promoted by the council six years ago. It cost £10 million before being abandoned.
The controversy at the meeting in October involved a question asked by resident, James Tansley, who wanted to know how the official financial assessment (that predicts profits from the Palm Court project) could justifiably use a lending cost on the basis of loan repayments spread out over 50 years.
The council’s answer came from Jane Fineman, who is the council’s Head of Finance, Procurement & Parking and she ended her answer by saying: “the auditors are comfortable with this.”
James Tansley later obtained a Freedom of Information request which established that the auditors had not been asked about the Palm Court 50 year loan.
You can watch Jane Fineman’s answer here from the meeting to see what impression you got from her 2 minute statement:
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/KwyBySOWSNM
This was Jane Fineman’s answer in full:
“So, your first question was around the 50 years, that we’ve used for the loan. And your query was around international financial reporting standards. Where you say that it’s NOT in line with those.
“International Financial Reporting Standards don’t actually set specific time periods for assets. IAS 16, which is property, plant and equipment, it basically leaves it to organisations to determine the useful life of that asset themselves, based upon their expected utility to the entity.
“With property, plant and equipment valuations, you then get into component accounting. And you can actually split components of projects into useful lives. And for this particular project, a lot of it is structural, and therefore, we would expect for it to be useful for 30 to 50 years.
“This is what the industry would expect, and certainly what Rivington Hark have suggested, but I’ve done my due diligence, and I’ve done some Googling myself, and indeed, this is what a lot of organisations use, and the auditors are comfortable with this.“
After a Freedom of Information request by James Tansley, the council stated that the auditors Grant Thornton had NOT in fact given an opinion on whether the 50 year loan was appropriate for the Palm Court project.
The council statement continued:
“The comment made during the committee discussion was not intended to suggest that the Council’s external auditor had undertaken a project-specific review of the Palm Court scheme. As set out in the Freedom of Information response, the point related to the principle of aligning borrowing periods, where appropriate, to the expected useful life of the assets being funded.
“The Council does not accept the suggestion that Members or the public were misled, or that the Freedom of Information response calls into question the viability of the scheme.“
Meanwhile, it’s emerged that the RVP shopping centre cost council tax payers £79,000 last year despite a rise in footfall and the arrival of Primark. The council bought the RVP for £9 million three years ago.
At another meeting the following day, the Liberal Democrat council’s deputy leader, Justine Rutland, (pictured below) stated: “The RVP is now firmly on the up, but we’ve got to keep going and finish the job.”
Justine Rutland continued: “As town centres evolve, that means moving with the times, with new leisure uses, modern retail spaces, and energy efficiency and accessibility as priorities. I can’t overstate the positive impact this investment will have as a catalyst for the town centre, making it more vibrant now and more resilient into the future.”
Justine Rutland concluded: “A town that businesses want to open in, and a town that people want to live in, work in, and visit. Not a stagnating, complacent, backward looking town, but a forward thinking, ambitious, “go getting town” that caters for, and gives opportunities to people of all ages, especially our young people, whose voices are not always heard.”
Meanwhile, another former Chairman of the Tunbridge Wells Alliance Party, Nick Pope (pictured below), told Southborough News that the council was planning to spend “a crazy amount of money.”
Nick Pope, who is also a former deputy mayor of Tunbridge Wells, said that the RVP had “improved” since the council took over with the units being “more proactively managed.”
But Nick Pope continued: “My main concern is over so much being spent to increase footfall by a relatively small amount. There are much less costly projects that could add a similar footfall, and, therefore, provide a much better return.”
It has emerged that the revenue from the hoped-for new “competitive leisure” operator in newly enlarged basement the basement is expected to be just £ 216,000 per year (£ 12 per sq foot pa in 18,000 sq feet of space).
£ 1.1 million of projected extra rental revenue is put in the cash flow appraisal that rates the Palm Court scheme as profitable, meaning £900,000 pa of revenue is assumed to be coming from increased rents in nearby parts of the centre.
This has led to new questions as to whether spending roughly £ 17 million on creating this new basement “competitive leisure” space by shortening the atrium and putting a new roof on the basement can possibly achieve an adequate financial return.
You can read more details of the council’s case for spending £27 million on the Palm Court project by reading this article:
https://southborough-news.com/2026/10/23/tunbridge-wells-council-explains-23-million-loan-for-shopping-centre-revamp/
The Palm Court plan is likely to be approved by councillors at a vote on November 11th. It has already passed planning approval.
