Tunbridge Wells Borough Council has approved the new Civic Centre plans by 30 votes to 13,  with 3 abstentions. The vote by the full council means every household in the borough takes on £1,600 of debt.

New council offices and a new theatre capable of hosting “West End” productions will be built on the edge of Calverley Grounds. The existing civic buildings are expected to be turned into residential flats.

The cost of servicing the £77million debt is estimated to be £60 per household per year but savings are planned to be made in waste collection contracts and cuts will be made to funding for citizens advice bureau and help for carers to offset those extra loan costs, so the council says council tax payers won’t pay any more.

Three opponents of the scheme from the public spoke at the meeting and were clapped from the public gallery. Three supporters from the public also spoke.

There was concern from several councillors that the scheme could mean the closure of the Hoopers department store. Hoopers appear not to want the scheme as it means the store loses its car park in order to provide access for the construction equipment for the new theatre.

An expensive compulsory purchase order is being considered for the Hoppers car park. This  would be funded by the council.

The two Conservative Councillors who represent voters in Southborough North continue to take different approaches to this Wednesday’s crucial Tunbridge Wells council vote on whether to take out a £77million loan to build a brand new Town Hall and Theatre.

The loan would represent £ 1,600 of new debt for every household in Tunbridge Wells and mean that the council tax would have to absorb £60 per household per year in interest payments on the loan.

One of Southborough North’s Conservative Borough Councillors, Joe Simmons, held an informal referendum in October in which 80 per cent of voters were against the scheme.

But this week, the other Conservative Councillor in the same ward, David Elliott (pictured below), told Southborough News that the local referendum in itself would not decide his vote.

Cllr Elliott, who is also Chairman of Tunbridge Wells Conservatives, told Southborough News: “I have not indicated how I am going to vote on Wednesday, so you’ll just have to wait until the meeting. I’ve heard all the arguments for and against the proposals, both from Officers of the Council and my electorate.”

Cllr Elliott continued: “Joe Simmons’ referendum was sent out too early before the electorate had had a chance to hear all the arguments both for and against. He should have done it after the public meetings and briefings had taken place and not before. We are both members of the same political party representing the same ward (Southborough North). The first I heard about his referendum was when it was posted through my letterbox. I was never consulted.”

This week Joe Simmons (pictured below) Southborough News he would stick with his plan to vote against the Civic Complex plans in line with the wishes of voters as indicated by the referendum.

Mr Simmons October referendum recorded 342 votes against the Civic Complex scheme and only 86 in favour. The turnout was 13 per cent.

You can read Tracey Moore putting her case in favour of the new Civic complex by clicking/tapping here

You can read Nicholas Pope putting the case against the scheme by clicking/tapping here

Meanwhile, the Tunbridge Wells Labour Party Chair, Hugo Pound, told Southborough News that the Party was against the scheme.  Mr Pound said: “Labour says that spending £90m plus to provide new council offices, an underground car park and a theatre is money spent on the wrong priorities. It is spending focused in Tunbridge Wells and paid for by taxpayers right across a borough that stretches from Benenden to Ashurst – where most people will never see the benefit.”

Mr Pound continued: “With Kent County Council cutting subsidies for up to 14 local bus services, and Borough Council slashing grants to local charities, and imposing new charges, this is the shape of cuts to come. It is a time when living standards continue to fall, when genuine affordable housing is out of reach, when parents are being asked for contributions to their children’s schooling, and when many roads are gridlocked and dangerously polluted. In view of this Tunbridge Wells Labour cannot support what can only be described as an out of touch and extravagant project which adds little to the lives of most ordinary voters.”

The Chairman of the Friends of Calverley Grounds, Nicholas Pope, has told Southborough News that “much better options have been ignored” in the rush to build on the edge of a listed park in the centre of Tunbridge Wells.

Nicholas Pope said: “The existing Town Hall and Assembly Hall theatre would make a wonderful renewed Town Hall and modern theatre with the right investment, and could even attract Heritage Lottery Fund support, reducing the cost to Tunbridge Wells Borough Council. In 2015 this was the plan!”

He argued: “Just take a look at what Hammersmith & Fulham Council are planning to do with their 1930s Town Hall in Hammersmith after a previous project was stopped because it was no longer financially viable. Now they are looking to revitalise their Town Hall, an iconic building from the 1930s, much like ours, and provide many different uses in the larger space they are creating.”

The proposed redevelopment in Hammersmith is illustrated below:

Mr Pope believes “there could be some major changes in the political landscape” if Tunbridge Wells councillors vote this week to proceed with the project. A new group called Tunbridge Wells Alliance says it will be standing in seats at next year’s Borough Council election “to push through change” by releasing the grip of the Conservative Party on the Council.

Mr Pope (pictured below) says: “You might think I am anti-theatre and anti-progress. I am not. A better theatre would be wonderful for Tunbridge Wells, but what type of theatre and at what cost? £90 million is excessive for the Civic Complex and the theatre is a fixed seat 19th century design that offers no flexibility for future changes in theatre that new technologies are bringing in now, and will increasingly be used in live productions.”

(Photo above by Ingrid Pope)

Mr Pope’s letter to Southborough News continues: “As chairman of the Friends of Calverley Grounds (shown below), my initial concern was, and still is, the damage to a Grade II Listed park. 5% will be dug up for the underground car park and covered over again, over 2% will be built on with an office building that will mainly be let out for commercial use, 66 trees will be removed, and the western edge of Calverley Grounds will change from a soft green boundary to an edifice of glass and concrete.

He continues: “Initially, we were told the underground car park would not change the topology of Calverley Grounds, the park would be returned to the way it was, but now the land in the north west corner will be raised and the slope on the northern side of the valley much steeper than before. This is not the original promise.”

“Additionally, if the council is going to take some land from the park, it should automatically trigger some form of investment, as compensation, in the rest of the park, and this should be included in the Civic Centre project budget. There are no plans to invest in the rest of the park, and, as an example, the bowling pavilion next to the new playground, which was due to be refurbished at the same time as the community funded Calverley Adventure Grounds was built, has not happened.”

“The tennis courts, the picnic area, the paths and much more need to be upgraded and improved. The park needs a masterplan to help decide what work should take place (e.g. re-routing of paths, review of planting, upgrading of the tired sporting facilities) and a budget put aside to undertake this work. Without a budget set aside to improve the the rest of the park and the failure to refurbish the pavilion, how can we trust the council?”

Mr Pope also cites a survey from 2015 on Tunbridge Wells Borough Council’s own website in which 55 per cent of respondents said they would NOT be prepared to pay an extra £ 10 a year on their council tax to fund “a significant project such as a theatre”.

Mr Pope argues that: “Councillor Tracy Moore’s enthusiastic stories about how much residents want the new theatre are not true. All evidence says Councillor Moore is wrong and is caught up in her own enthusiasm for the hugely expensive project and her role on Cabinet to sell the project to the residents of Tunbridge Wells.”

Mr Pope also states that: “The Marlowe Theatre in Canterbury, (shown below) which is repeatedly used as a model of what a new theatre could do for Royal Tunbridge Wells, is not as financially sound as we have all been led to believe.”

He states: “The theatre in Canterbury has required massive financial support for the last few years, averaging £1 million pounds for the last 3, significantly more than the current Assembly Hall Theatre subisidy of £250,000, or the subsidy that has been put in the budget for the new theatre, £350,000 per year. If the Marlowe Theatre is profitable, why is Canterbury Council handing it over to a charitable trust rather than using the profits to benefit residents?”

Mr Pope continues: “Not only is the subsidy likely to be much larger than expected, but also the cost of the theatre is more than £60 million when you take into account public realm work, inflation, consultancy costs, and the need to provide a new car park. £60 million is more than twice the cost of the Marlow Theatre, which cost £26 million.”

He concludes: “And we are told that is it cheaper to build a new theatre than to redevelop the existing Assembly Hall Theatre building, for this development, it is clearly not true. The Shellard Forumula has often been used to tell us how a new theatre will boost the local economy by £14 million or more, but the realistic figure is estimated at £4 million. The Shellard Formula is flawed and has been strongly criticised by the Arts Council.”

Mr Pope concludes that: “The funding of this large project would be a massive strain on the council and ultimately on residents.” He says the Borough Council’s central government funding is being cut every year and will become a “negative grant” in 2020 when TWBC will have to pay £610,000 back to central government, requiring “more service cuts and increasing costs of other services”.

He asks: “Should we really be cutting important services to help fund a project that some are calling a vanity project, and that will only be enjoyed by the few who can afford to go to the theatre?”

The Tunbridge Wells Civic Society has sent a letter to all Borough Councillors outlining its concerns about the planned new Town Hall, but the Society is staying neutral on whether the project should go ahead.

In a statement to Southborough News, RTWCS Chairman Brian Lippard, said: “The Society has long urged the Council to invest in the town centre and aim to re-establish Tunbridge Wells as a cultural destination. However, our members naturally represent a wide range of views on this very complex proposal, and we are not expressing a view specifically for or against, but pointing out factors that weigh with us as a Society.”

Mr Lippard continued: “It is for the elected members of the Tunbridge Wells Council to decide whether the positives outweigh the negatives.” The Borough Councillors vote on December 6th.

The most critical section of the letter suggests that the new Town Hall office building is “too large…and does not respond well to its sloping site”, due to the creation of an underground car park.  The Society says £20 million could be saved by not incorporating the car park.  On the other hand, the Society says: “We accept the principle of locating two substantial buildings on the edge of Calverley Grounds.”

The Tunbridge Wells Civic Society letter states:

We accept the principle of locating two substantial buildings on the edge of Calverley Grounds, but are concerned that they will transform what is now a significant green space in the town centre. The onus is on the Council to ensure that this transformation is beneficial.

The proposed remedial planting is welcome but not enough to compensate for the loss of 66 trees, among them the finest in the park. We feel strongly that, if the project proceeds in the form proposed, a plan must be drawn up for Calverley Grounds. This must cover activities and facilities, planting and land-form, together with matters such as lighting and the disposal of spoil so they are all implemented in conjunction with the development.

We also feel the office building in particular is too large and does not respond well to its sloping site. A reason for its bulk is the incorporation of parking within the building and under Calverley Grounds. This and the additional parking in Crescent Road, account for a large element of the total cost (£20m out of £72m).

The Calverley Grounds parking is accessed awkwardly from Mt Pleasant, where there are separate proposals to upgrade the urban realm with shared space. Some on-site parking may be unavoidable, but in this form it is very unsatisfactory and we question the need for so much as opposed to alternative parking (existing or new) nearby.

To sum up:

* the Society calls for the future use of the present civic buildings to be decided now together with reasons as to why the Council cannot return there after rebuilding;

* we think the Council should make every effort possible to purchase the Police Station;

* we call for a re-think about the quantity of and access to the underground car-parking associated with the new office building and theatre;

* we want to see the design of the new office building modified as it does not respond well to the sloping site;

* we think there is an urgent need for a comprehensive plan for Calverley Grounds to be implemented in parallel with the civic development.  (Letter ends)

 Above is shown the current Tunbridge Wells Council Chamber.

LISTEN to YouTube film of Cllr Tracy Moore making the case for local taxpayers taking on a £77million debt to build a new Tunbridge Wells Town Hall and Theatre:

Around 50 local people attended a presentation at Southborough Library on Saturday 4 November where Tunbridge Wells Councillors argued that the Borough’s prosperity would be secured by the Council taking on a £77million debt to build a new theatre and Town Hall.

After the event, Borough Councillor Tracy Moore (pictured below) told Southborough News: “A lot of people I have spoken to have experienced for themselves the limitations of the [current] Assembly Hall theatre and are very excited at the prospect of a “fit for purpose” 21st Century theatre that can bring better quality programming to Tunbridge Wells.”

When asked about the local Southborough referendum where 80 per cent of voters (on a 15 per cent turnout) opposed the plan, Cllr Moore said: “I think the difficulty with anything distilling it down to yes/no or black/white binary is that you are not looking at the nuance of the argument.  It is not the case of £77 million or nil.  To do nothing also has an extraordinary cost associated with it.”

The government now allows local authorities to benefit from local economic growth by retaining any increases in revenue from business rates, so Cllr Moore argued that “that growth [in business rates revenue] is what would allow us to fund discretionary and essential services to our residents”.

You can hear the full 11 minute interview with Cllr Tracy Moore making her case for the new Civic Centre (and her argument that views of Calverley Grounds will be improved) by clicking on the arrow below in the soundcloud app:

Councillors in Tunbridge Wells will vote on the Civic centre plans in December. Critics say the plans will require a half million pound annual subsidy to the new theatre and mean council tax payers having to pay £ 2.5 million every year in debt interest payments (or £30 per household per year), forcing cuts in key council services.

A petition has been launched which argues that: “Reworking and renovating the existing civic buildings would be far greater value for money than the current proposal with significantly less disruption.”

The petition link is here:
http://bit.ly/2gDRqJK

The Conservative Borough Councillor for Southborough North is to vote against his own Conservative group’s plans to borrow £72 million to build a new Civic Centre and theatre in Tunbridge Wells.

Cllr Joe Simmons (below) called a referendum among his constituents on the Civic Centre plans and 80 per cent were against it.  The vote was 342 votes against and only 86 in favour. The turnout was 13 per cent of the electorate after leaflets were hand delivered to residents’ homes.

Cllr Joe Simmons was asked by Southborough News what his Conservative colleagues made of his referendum.  He replied: “I think it is fair to say that I was not favourably considered as a result of it.  But I think they understood that it is up to me to decide on how I consult with my residents, just as I wouldn’t try to tell them how to consult with theirs.”

The Tunbridge Wells Conservative Group says the existing Town Hall and Assembly Hall theatre are out of date and can’t be refurbished.  But the development plans are opposed by those who say council tax will have to rise to pay for the venture and Calverley Grounds will be overshadowed by the tall new buildings (shown below).

A petition has been launched which argues that: “Reworking and renovating the existing civic buildings would be far greater value for money than the current proposal with significantly less disruption.” Critics say the plans will require a half million pound annual subsidy to the new theatre and mean council tax payers having to pay £ 2.5 million every year in debt interest payments, forcing cuts in key council services.

The petition link is here:
http://bit.ly/2gDRqJK

By contrast, Tunbridge Wells Borough Council says the new development looking out over Calverley Grounds would provide “much-needed new commercial office space” and “be part of the wider regeneration of the town and borough”.

The Hoopers Department store has warned the scheme could threaten its future as it would lose its car park during the development. Tunbridge Wells Borough Councillors will vote on the scheme at a full debate on Wednesday 6 December at 6:30pm in the Town Hall. 

Residents of Sherwood have also voted in a referendum by 80 per cent against the project. 452 voters were opposed with 113 supporting it on a turnout of 11 per cent. Councillor Frank Williams said a new theatre would be of “little benefit” to the people of Sherwood.

This is a transcript of the rest of the Southborough News interview with Southborough North’s Councillor, Joe Simmons.

Q: The Conservative supporters of the scheme would say that only those opposed to the plans would have bothered to vote in the referendum and the silent majority would be in favour of it?

Joe Simmons: There is a perception that that is the case. It’s not actually a perception that I would agree with. I think it is a highly unlikely hypothesis.

Q: What do you think the majority of Conservative Councillors will vote when it comes to a vote in December?

Joe Simmons: My impression – and it is only an impression – is that probably the majority would be in favour of it.

Q: Personally, do you think borrowing that amount of money for the Civic Centre is worth it given the potential benefits?

Joe Simmons: I think it is possible to make a case for it. But as far as my residents are concerned – whom I am there to represent – if they don’t want it, then what I feel about it – what my own personal prejudices might be – are irrelevant.

Q: But some people might say that as a councillor you need to lead with a vision and come to a view. How did you vote in your own referendum?

Joe Simmons: I didn’t vote in my referendum.  That would seem to be a conflict of interest somehow.

Q: Do you think the council business plan should be considered by an independent group?

Joe Simmons: It is going to be considered by independent experts…the business plan is evolving…there is a “stage three” report expected in the next week. But it’s a simple decision which people up here have decided on: “do you think we should be spending so much money on a new theatre and Town Hall” and the resounding answer was “no”.

Q: Do you think the existing Town Hall could be refurbished and updated?

Joe Simmons: On the numbers we have been presented with so far, I don’t think so. It would be a costly option and not necessarily the best option for that particular site. I think there are other things that could be more usefully done on that site than continuing to have the Town Hall there.

Q: So you don’t think the staff could just carry on in their offices as they are?

Joe Simmons: I am persuaded that the facilities are pretty unsatisfactory for modern office working. That bit I am convinced by. And if that is the case, they are better off finding somewhere else. Whether the current programme is the way to do it – or not – is a different discussion I think.

Q: And what about the impact on the Calverley Grounds?

Joe Simmons: Well the local residents clearly are very unhappy about it and anyone within striking distance of it seems to be unhappy about it. It is easy up here in Southborough North to take a more elevated view of a slight infringement on Calverley Grounds. I personally don’t think it is a big imposition, frankly.  But I don’t use Calverley Grounds that much, so it is not something I have a strong feeling for or against. Towns have to evolve. They can’t stay still. I accept that concept.

Q: So why do you think 80 per cent were so strongly against it?

Joe Simmons: It was a question of money. People just thought it was a lot of money for a particular project that maybe they don’t feel particularly strongly about. A lot of people didn’t even know about it when I spoke to them.

Q: Are there different investments that you think should have a higher priority?

Joe Simmons: None that I can put my finger on right now. But I think so. I think it is wonderful to have a new theatre.  But is that the best way to spend a lot of money?

Q: What about Southborough’s new theatre? Do you have any thoughts on how that is progressing?

Joe Simmons: No I haven’t. The Southborough development is very much within the orbit of Southborough Town Council, which I am not a member of. And it doesn’t really come up as far as Borough is concerned, except when it came up in Planning Committee – and I am not on Planning.  It is not something we have any direct involvement in as councillors. It remains to be seen – I think – what finally goes up on that site.

Q: So you think they may not build the exact design that has been put forward up to now?

Joe Simmons: I honestly have no idea. I wouldn’t say I’m kept very far away from it.  But as a Borough Councillor I am not in the loop.

The Labour Party Candidate won 51% of the vote in Thursday’s by-election, taking the seat from the Conservatives, but the Conservatives will retain a clear majority on Southborough Town Council.

The by-election was held in the Council ward covering High Brooms and East Southborough and followed the surprise resignation of the Conservative, Glenn Lester, who had been one of the two key councillors driving forward the scheme to demolish the Royal Victoria Hall Theatre and replace it with the Southborough Hub.

The victorious Labour candidate, Alain Lewis (pictured below), told Southborough News:  “I am grateful for the support of over 50% of people who voted in Southborough and High Brooms Ward who have said resoundingly that they want a local candidate to represent them on their Town Council.”

Mr Lewis continued: “These voters have sent another strong message to the ruling Conservative group that they are fed up with the secrecy that surrounds the Community Hub project, and that they back Labour’s plan for the Ridgewaye Fields to be given Village Green status to ensure that they are never built on again.’

Of the 3,106 people on the electoral role, 643 voters cast their ballot which calculates as a turnout of 21 %. This was 35 more people voting than in a similar poll in 2011.

The full votes are in the table below, indicating that Labour managed to boost its supporters by 76 per cent compared with the similar poll in 2011 when Glenn Lester joined the Town Council.

NB A different set of candidates stood between 2011 and 2017 and the % figure indicates the support for each party, with Labour increasing its share from 31% to 51% over the six years.

The party representation in the Town Council is now Conservative 11, Labour 6 and  Liberal Democrat 1. The Hub scheme brings together resources and land from three Councils (Kent County Council, Southborough Town Council and Tunbridge Wells Borough Council) which are all run by the Conservatives.

The Conservative Cllr Peter Oakford, who lives in Pennington Road, remains a strong advocate of the Hub scheme and his hopes for the development are outlined in previous Southborough News posts, including an extended recorded interview with him from November 2016. Click here:

http://bit.ly/2wNcp1Z

The Liberal Democrat candidate for tomorrow’s by-election (7th September) in High Brooms and east Southborough is arguing that the local environment urgently needs to be improved.

In a statement to Southborough News, candidate Allen Lear (below) said: “I support the Lib Dem vision to clean up the toxic air pollution in Tunbridge Wells, through measures such as 20mph zones and investment in active transport.”

The Lib Dem Party statement said: “Allen Lear rings a wealth of commercial experience, having run public houses and a petrol station franchise. He is now a self-employed childminder, living in Ruscombe Close, Southborough.”

The statement continued: “If elected, Allen will fight for transparency and accountability for the Southborough Hub  development. He believes the development should deliver affordable housing and have a minimal impact on the already congested roads around the site.”

Meanwhile, Southborough News has not managed to obtain any further response from the Conservative candidate about criticism from Labour that she does not live in the Southborough Town Council area.

However, some comments on social media suggest the Conservative candidate, Judith Symes, has lived in Tunbridge Wells since childhood and knows the area well. It is also understood she is a former candidate for a seat at Westminster and has been involved in politics for many years.

The Labour candidate, Alain Lewis, made an extensive statement in an article on this blog last weekend (see below).

The Labour candidate in the by-election for the vacant seat on Southborough Town Council has said he regrets the Conservative Party’s decision to put up a by-election candidate who doesn’t live in the Town Council area.

In a statement on Saturday to Southborough News, Labour’s Alain Lewis (pictured below) said: ” I genuinely believe that town councillors should live and pay taxes in the town they represent.”  Mr Lewis also criticised the Conservative’s Southborough Hub development scheme.

The by-election takes place on Thursday 7th September in a seat left vacant by the unexpected resignation of the Conservative, Glenn Lester, (below) who had been one of the key supporters of the Southborough Hub scheme, which is due to offer a new library, medical centre and community hall – all funded by housing development on the Ridgewaye playing fields.  The Hub replaces the now demolished Royal Victoria Hall Theatre.

The election leaflet for the Conservative candidate, Judith Symes, referred to a “big investment” underway to build the community Hub.  It continued: “This brings with it new opportunities for Southborough and High Brooms.”

The Conservative majority on the Town Council is not at risk, but the vote will inevitably be seen as a test of how well the people of Southborough and High Brooms think the Hub plans have been managed by the Conservative Party.

Three candidates are standing. They are:
Allen LEAR of the Liberal Democrats of 8 Ruscombe Close, Southborough TN4 0SG
Alain LEWIS of the Labour Party of 25 Holden Park Road, Southborough TN4 0ER
Judith SYMES of the Conservatives who lives at 94 Upper Grosvenor Road, Tunbridge Wells TN1 2EU

Southborough News asked all 3 candidates for statements by Saturday lunchtime but only Labour had responded by the deadline with a statement.

Mr Lewis’s statement continues:
“I have lived in Southborough with my wife for over 12 years and during this time have shown my commitment to the area by serving as a town and borough councillor. I have fought to preserve our heritage and green spaces and to develop our town centre by involving local residents who will be using and paying for its facilities.”

Mr Lewis also discussed the Hub:
” I have opposed the way that the Hub has been developed by a small group of Conservative councillors acting in secret, refusing to reveal the financial details of the project, and happy to use a part of Ridgewaye fields for building flats. If elected, together with my Labour colleagues, I will work for a council that is open in the way it deals with the public and that ensures our town remains a place that future generations will love to live in.”

The current mix of councillors in the Southborough and High Brooms Town Council area is Conservative 11, Labour 5, Liberal Democrat 1, Vacant 1.

Judith Symes election leaflet also states: “I am an experienced politician.  I have a background in senior management, with many years working across sectors, with people from all “walks of life””.

There was some comment in the past week on the Southborough Forum Facebook page about the fact that the Conservative candidate lived just outside High Brooms.  The Chairman of the Southborough Society, Michael Howes, said he had been asked to stand by the Conservatives but declined.

When asked why he declined to stand, Mr Howes stated on Facebook: “Too busy and why should I give my time to be shot down by outspoken idiots?”

Two new managers have just taken charge of the area’s buses and they are promising to listen to what passengers are saying and make sure services are as reliable as possible.

The new Area Managing Director for Arriva in Kent and Surrey, Oliver Monahan (below) told Southborough News: “We want to reset the relationship with customers and engage with people. We want to be embedded in the community and grow the market. We have been too remote and we want to change that.”

Mr Monahan promised to look again at timings of some services in Southborough, which have been criticised by users for their poor frequency at peak times.  Arriva says reliability was improved after a major review was completed in April and Mr Monahan says the emphasis now is: “to drive performance and look to become a part of the communities that we serve”. Mr Monahan has just arrived from Transport For London.

Meanwhile, Adrian Tullett (below) is also just settling into his new role as the Area General Manager for Tunbridge Wells. Mr Tullett previously drove buses in the area in the late 1980s, went onto manage services around southern England, did a stint in Singapore before most recently managing buses in Brighton.

Having been shown the evidence of the scarcity of buses in Southborough at peak times, Mr Tullett says they are now actively looking for solutions. Mr Tullett says he has asked the timetable experts in Arriva’s commercial department “to thrash out some ideas and options to improve the corridor.”

There may be a rethink when the opening of the dualled A21 later this year reduces some journey times and creates more capacity. Another major development will be when the ageing bus depot in St John’s (shown below) closes in the next few months.

As clearly advertised outside, it will be demolished and replaced by housing.

Mr Monahan says Arriva are “investing heavily” in the area. It plans to build a brand new bus depot in North Farm industrial estate.

Mr Monahan questioned a recent decision to remove a section of the bus lane next to Southborough cricket ground to create a short cycle lane.  He thinks removing bus lanes will “create more congestion and drive that viscous circle of slower buses, fewer customers and higher fares.”

Mr Monahan points out that bus operators like Arriva are not allowed by law to run routes at a loss, so lower revenues often have to be dealt with by higher fares, which then creates this viscous circle of reduced passenger numbers and yet higher fares.

Bus travel overall is on the decline in Britain, which has angered many campaigners as most experts say bus travel should actually be increasing as it leads to reduced congestion and pollution, amid the widely accepted need to tackle climate change by reducing carbon emissions from cars. A double decker bus can take up to 76 vehicles off the road.

Mr Monahan said: “Arriva’s fleet uses very clean diesel engines and we now have a UK wide policy of only buying the latest Euro 6 engines which are actually cleaner than most hybrids in the level of NOx particles they generate. “

High fares and the move to online shopping have been blamed for falling passenger use. Even older passengers seem to be ordering more online and so apparently feel the need to go to the shops less often.

Mr Monahan says he wants to recast the industry with experimental new innovations such as ArrivaClick which was launched this year in Sittingbourne.  Passengers can call wi-fi enabled mini-buses when they need them using their phones.  ArrivaClick fares are  much lower than the cost of taxis.

Mr Monahan said: “I am actively looking to launch ArrivaClick into those semi-urban areas which do not warrant a huge (but so often empty) bus but which instead can operate on demand – people want to travel when they want to and not when not when I decide for them a few months or even years before in a bus they don’t even want most of the time! This is demand responsive travel and is set to revolutionise bus travel in those areas where this model works – the iPhone of buses!”

Since a new timetable started last April, Arriva says that reliability has been improved. But on some services on days with low to average congestion, passengers are finding their buses are sitting at bus stops for many minutes waiting for the journey to slow down to the timetable.

Southborough News has highlighted three major problems with the current services:
(1) Long waits for the peak weekday morning service northwards from Southborough to Tonbridge. This is now:
0605, 0631, 0645, 0650
0714, 0725, 0731, 0739h, 0753
  0810, 0835,  0905

This suggests long scheduled gaps of:
25 mins from 0650 to 0714,
22 mins from 0731 to 0753 (if Hugh Christie school bus not running),
23 mins from 0753 to 0810
25 mins from 0810 to 0835
30 mins from 0835 to 0905

(2) Long waits for the peak weekday morning service southwards from Southborough to Tunbridge Wells. This is now:
0600, 0615, 0630, 0645
0700, 0724, 0740, 0754b
0805b, 0808b, 0815, 0844, 0907

This suggests long scheduled gaps of:
24 mins from 0700 to 0724
35 mins on non-school days from 0740 to 0815
29 mins from 0815 to 0844
23 mins from 0844 to 0907

(3) After 8pm, the evening service from Tonbridge station returning to Southborough  leaves long gaps for commuters. Some services are poorly spaced. This is the service from Tonbridge Quarry Hill to Southborough from Monday.
1702, 1724, 1727, 1744, 1758,
1803, 1812, 1821, 1839, 1857,
1902, 1918, 1929, 1938, 1956, 1959
2029, 2059
2159
2259

(BOLD is 7 to and from Maidstone, Regular type is 402 Dunton Green service
h – Hugh Christie bus only runs during school days
b – Bennett Memorial and other services to TW on school days only)

Some 402 services ended last Friday when the hourly Arriva buses heading for Bromley were discontinued.  Another operator is starting a partial replacement starting at Sevenoaks and operating 4 times a day.