The Southborough Hub Planning Application has been approved by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, Sajid Javid, despite the objections of Sport England to the loss of recreation space.

The decision of Mr Javid (pictured below) was expected as central government generally only intervenes in cases of “national significance”. Mr Javid could have overruled the local planning authority and “called in” the application for it to be examined by an independent public inquiry .

It is understood that the outright objections from Sport England and the Football Association to the current Hub scheme remained and were considered by the central government planning casework officer, but their objections were not considered important enough to warrant a “call in.”

A letter sent by Karen Partridge, a Planning Manager at the Department for Communities and Local Government to the Tunbridge Wells Borough Council  dated 19th December says:

“I refer to your email of 29 November referring to the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (“The Secretary of State”) an application for planning permission for the above development. The Secretary of State has carefully considered the case against call-in policy, as set out in the Written Ministerial Statement by Nick Boles on 26 October 2012. The policy makes it clear that the power to call in a case will only be used very selectively.”

The statement continues: “The Government is committed to give more power to councils and communities to make their own decisions on planning issues, and believes planning decisions should be made at the local level wherever possible. In deciding whether to call in the application, the Secretary of State has considered his policy on calling in planning applications. This policy gives examples of the types of issues which may lead him to conclude, in his opinion that applications should be called in. The Secretary of State has decided, having had regard to this policy, not to call in the application. He is content that the application should be determined by the local planning authority.

It ends: “In considering whether to exercise the discretion to call in the application, the Secretary of State has not considered the matter of whether the application is EIA Development for the purposes of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011. The local planning authority responsible for determining these applications remains the relevant authority responsible for considering whether these Regulations apply to these proposed developments and, if so, for ensuring that the requirements of the Regulations are complied with.”

Voters in the north of Southborough will have a chance to give their verdict on the ruling Conservative Party’s plans for  a modern “Hub” building in the town in a by-election, which is likely to be held on February 9th.

Meanwhile the Liberal Democrat on Southborough Town Council, Trevor Poile, has told Southborough News it is “outrageous” that councillors have not been able to view the business plan for the Hub to allow them to assess independently if the Hub scheme is workable.

The by-election was triggered by Cllr Poile (pictured below) who submitted the necessary ten signatures for a public election.  Sometimes councillors are replaced by agreement among existing councillors without a public vote if a single seat suddenly becomes vacant.

The vote will only take place in the Southborough North ward, which is usually a Conservative stronghold. The seat became vacant after the resignation of Councillor Bill LeGrys three weeks ago. Mr LeGrys said he was leaving as he was fed up with the infighting in the council over the proposed Southborough Hub.

It is not clear when nominations close for candidates. The election is organised by Tunbridge Wells Borough Council, who’s election team couldn’t be contacted as they were “away for training” for three days.

The Southborough Hub scheme (artist’s impression above) remains hugely controversial. It is still being opposed by Sport England due to the loss of playing field space, while many local people maintain any new development should have been designed around the existing Royal Victoria Hall.

A petition recently signed by 1,300 people wanted the old Hall retained (pictured below before its frontage was overhauled in 1977), but was ignored by planning committee in Tunbridge Wells. The application is now being considered by central government.

Cllr Poile says he personally believes in keeping the Hall, although the view of the Liberal Democrat who will be standing in the forthcoming by-election may not be the same. The name of the Liberal Democrat candidate may not be revealed until nominations close.

A council meeting on Thursday 22nd December is expected to discuss a controversial Conservative plan to borrow £ 100,000 to fund immediate demolition of the Royal Victoria Hall and the existing council offices. The motion will be strongly opposed by Cllr Poile and the five Labour members.

Mr Poile told Southborough News: “I’d like to keep the Hall, but if the Hall has to be demolished I would want the land sale to go through first, so you have got the money to fund the demolition”.

He continued: “What worries me is if you demolish the Hall and the council offices first, and then there is some sort of delay in implementing the planning application or selling the land or whatever, then you have unnecessarily made the town council homeless for a longer period than is necessary.”

Trevor Poile also believes it is wrong that only two people on Southborough Town Council, the Conservatives Glenn Lester and Peter Oakford, have had access to the detailed business plan for the Hub. Several Conservative councillors have also expressed their disappointment at the secrecy involved.

Cllr Poile said: “The councillors haven’t been shown the figures in the business plan. While I can understand it has to be kept confidential from the general public, as a town councillor, I have not been shown the business plan with the figures in it. I think it is outrageous that we are making decisions based on a business plan with no figures in.”

Cllr Oakford (pictured above), the Conservative who negotiated the Hub plan between all the landowners involved, told Southborough News last month that the numbers in the business plan had to be kept confidential in order to get the best offers for the land.

Cllr Oakford said: “From day one, this project has to be self-financing through the sale of the piece of land that’s going to be used for residential. If we say it is going to cost X to build the Hub, whoever is going to buy that land, knows exactly how much money we need and that will limit the offers that are placed on that piece of land. So I am sure people understand that we don’t want to say that the Hub is going to cost X, because the value of the land is X”.

He continued: “What we want to do is maximise the value of the land.  The more money that we get from the land, the more enhancements we can put into the Hub as we build it. So that’s the reason that – at this moment in time – there is commercial sensitivity around the overall construction costs.”

I have just posted a video update to youtube (click below) recapping the key debate over whether the Royal Victoria Hall should be refurbished or demolished, as part of the development plans.

Cllr Peter Oakford insists an actual wall of the RVH is “bowed”, making a new build the only option. Meanwhile Cllr Nick Blackwell says surveyors’ reports show the bowed wall in question to be definitely not part of the RVH.

The same video was published to Facebook on the New Old Tunbridge Wells Photos page.

Labour’s Cllr Nick Blackwell has said the Conservative promises to quickly eliminate all council taxpayer subsidies to the planned new theatre in Southborough are “very unrealistic”.

Mr Blackwell also says the Conservatives leaders have: “gone out of their way to pretty much alienate and hack off everybody who has ever been associated with the Royal Victoria Hall”, which would also hinder any efforts to set up a volunteer trust to run productions in the future.

Here is the remainder of the interview transcript with Mr Blackwell (below), with a link to listen to the audio at the end.

Q: The plan is for the Assembly Hall in Tunbridge Wells to provide professional technical expertise for this new Hall. Do you think, given that they are the professionals, that they will actually make the Hall busier, more viable than it was before?

A: Well, it remains to be seen because of course we read about these things in the Courier. We get them second and third hand. So, we haven’t seen exactly how that’s going to operate. The thing to remember is that you don’t make money from local arts. You know if you look at the Assembly Hall, it has a massive subsidy. I think it is about £ 225,000 a year of subsidy. Trinity £ 50,000.

Q: Cllr Oakford said he would be able to organise it so there would be no subsidy after 3 years.

A: I think if he could do that, he could probably package it and sell it to every arts organisation in the country. I think it’s very unrealistic. You are going to have to subsidise the arts. The Royal Victoria Hall – yes was subsidised – but it provided a service for the people of Southborough. We are not out to make a profit. We don’t want to be irresponsible with the tax payers money, but whether it is a bowls club or a theatre, these are local amenities that are run for the benefit of the community of Southborough.

FROM 50520 (Second Tape at 1’30”)

Q: Can Cllr Oakford get the volunteers who used to work on the Victoria Hall involved in this new professional theatre?

A: Well they have gone out of their way to pretty much alienate and hack off everybody who has ever been associated with the Royal Victoria Hall. We had a fantastic base of volunteers, experts – some of them with national and international expertise – who were willing to give up their time and energy to work with the Hall and the local community and over a period of 18 months, they have managed to upset pretty much everybody. And you can see that from the letters that were written in from the planning application and the representations that were made to the Town Council. So if they are hoping to run a Trust model (after the 3 years with the Assembly Hall in charge), where are these people going to come from? Because they have really burnt all their bridges.

Q: What about the design of the new building? Cllr Oakford did say to me that he quite liked red brick and perhaps that could be part of the design but he would leave it to the experts at KCC. What do you think of the designs as they stand?

A: I think at the moment, they look cheap and nasty. It is one of those “off the peg” public sector builds that you can see right across the country. I can see it is cheap, but does it relate to Southborough? Does it have anything to do with our locality? It is the kind of building that you see popping up all over the place from Milton Keynes to South Croydon. It’s going to look like what it costs to build. And this is a cheap build and it will look like it.

Q: So, what do you hope will happen next?

A: I hope that people will start to listen. People will start to respond. People start to be a little more accommodating. Perhaps I hold out a bit of hope because we have been told there is another architect who has brought on for the last part of the project. I think everybody is suitably unimpressed with what has been offered up from Pick Everard…. They still have a chance to turn this around, but they have got to start listening to people and actually making changes. If they just carry on with this headstrong – we’re just going to ignore you – demolish the Hall prematurely, we’re not going to get anywhere.

Q: Could they come up with a scheme that kept the Hall but also delivered the Hub benefits of the other community buildings?

A: Of course they could. But there has got to be a will on the part of the project board to actually listen and work with the people in the town. I am sure this is not a project that is beyond the wit of a group of architects and town planners. I know when we had the original brief from Allies Morrison, they put forward some excellent suggestions about incorporating the historical with the modern and making them work sympathetically. And I think a lot of people in the town were really energised and excited by that. That was within the last 3 years. They started the project and then they moved off the scene when KCC came in. We got Pick Everard and we’ve got this thing that looks like a pre-fabricated industrial unit. Not good.

The Head of the Labour Party group on Southborough Town Council, Nick Blackwell, has  said the Royal Victoria Hall is “fit for purpose” and he rejected the argument made by the Conservatives that refurbishing it would not be viable.

Mr Blackwell, who’s a former Town mayor, said that Cllr Oakford of the Conservatives was “categorically wrong” when he told Southborough News last week that a wall that was part of the Royal Victoria Hall was “bowed” and therefore the building would cost too much to save.

Mr Blackwell insists the designs for the new community facilities could still incorporate the Royal Victoria Hall. Mr Blackwell said the Hall: “hasn’t got any structural issues. It just seems a much better idea to work with an existing asset, rather than to demolish it and start again”.

Mr Blackwell (pictured below) gave an extended interview to Southborough News in response to the detailed account published last week that spelt out the Hub project team’s vision of the development.

Listen to the first ten minutes of  Cllr Blackwell’s interview by clicking this arrow below or else read the full transcript further down:

Q: Cllr Oakford said to me that he was now 100% confident that the Hub as currently designed with the polycarbonate cladding and the end of the Victoria Hall WILL happen. Do you agree? Is he right?

A: I’m not sure how he can be that confident. Obviously, Tunbridge Wells (Planning Authority) have said that they support the application but the statutory bodies – the statutory consultees – Sports England, have said they are very unhappy. And it’s not just the loss of playing fields, it’s the reprovision, it is the levelling off, it’s the retaining walls, it’s the changing rooms that don’t meet FA regulations. There’s a whole list of things as long as your arm that they are unhappy about.

There’s also the Theatres Trust, who I have spoken to in the last few days, and they’re very unhappy about the way that they perceive that they have been ignored and that their comments were misconstrued to the planning committee. They have also written in to express their dismay at the way things have been handled. So, it could yet go to the Secretary of State. I know it is a slim, outside chance.

And then we’ve got the finances. We haven’t got any. We don’t know what it’s going to cost. We don’t know where the money is coming from. We’ve seen a bit of the risk register. We only got it in our last meeting. But one of the things that is a risk is the possible 20% devaluation in the land values. Now, if we get 20% less money than we are expecting for this project, we are definitely going to need to cut our cloth accordingly.

Q: That’s because of the BREXIT vote?

A: Exactly. And this might seem incredible to people who don’t come along to the council meetings, but none of the councillors – apart from Cllr Oakford and Cllr Lester – have even seen the figures. We are not allowed to see them, because apparently they are commercially confidential.

Q: So, what you are saying is that you don’t know whether the amount of money raised from selling the land for housing will actually pay for the buildings that have now been promised.

A: We don’t know at all. One other thing that is very alarming is in the business plan. If people go online on the Southborough Town Council website to find it, they will find that most of it is just blank. But it talks about the VAT situation. I am not a financial expert by any means, but the idea at the moment is that the VAT will go through KCC’s books. That means we save 20%. Now, if they take on a couple of other projects, which KCC said they are planning to do, they won’t have that exemption. It will be used up on the other developments.

The only other way that Southborough could afford that – and obviously our VAT exemption is tiny – is if we run it as a Trust model. Now, the catch is that we don’t get a council office and we can’t derive any profit for the Town for it. Basically, we will not have any involvement in our own facility.

Q: You have said the RVH could be saved – it could be refurbished, but Cllr Oakford has said the experts have looked at it and it is just too expensive an option. He says it is just not viable to refurbish the Royal Victoria Hall. Hasn’t he got the evidence from the experts to prove him right?

A: Well unfortunately, we have never looked at that option. Even though, early on, that was what the majority of the people wanted to see – a repurposed Hall or a restoration of the Hall. But that was dispensed with fairly early on. There were no figures to support that.

Now, we know there are some things that need sorting out. The façade at the front looks awful. That was some Conservative councillors in the 1970s who thought modernisation was the way forward then as well. So that needs some time and money spending on it.

The toilets at the front need some time and money spending on it as well. But most of the Hall is pretty much in tact. For a building that is over 100 years old, it has survived remarkably well. It is a really good quality build. It is fit for purpose. It is weather tight.

It hasn’t got any structural issues. It just seems a much better idea to work with an existing asset rather than to demolish it and start again and also, loss of green playing fields and traffic etc.

Q: And so on the structural soundness of the Hall, Cllr Oakford told me that one of the walls of the Hall was bowed and he said that was one of the actual walls of the Victoria Hall. Is that correct?

A: That is not correct and Cllr Oakford knows that, because he is the Chair of the Finance and General Purposes Committee. We have got retaining walls and that (bowed) wall is part of a garage at the back of the property, but it is set apart from the Victoria Hall.

Q: Is it part of the extension?

A: No, it’s not part of the extension.

Q: So, the wall that he was talking about, the bowed wall, which he told me was a reason to demolish the Hall because it is not straight any more, you are saying that he is wrong.

A: I can categorically say that he is wrong. And if people, want to check out, it is in the public domain because all of those reports were commissioned by Southborough Town Council. When we had our Fire Safety report, it was one of the issues because one of the Fire Exits, the supporting legs of the Fire Exit, sat on that wall. And even without that wall, we were still able to operate a full Hall and meet all the fire safety requirements.

Q: So your position on the safety and the structural soundness of the Hall is that it could be used again?

A: Of course, the fact is that it was available. We had sell out performances. This idea that we weren’t able to operate due to Health and Safety or insurance is just nonsense. Because we wouldn’t – as a local authority – be able to rent out a Hall and have packed out matinee performances for a pantomime if we weren’t able to do things that we have to do. So the fire regulations, health and safety, seating, we had to deal with all of those things before we could actually hire it out

Q: You mean for that last pantomime nearly two years ago.

A: Yes. Which again, Cllr Oakford knows. He was there.

Q: Cllr Oakford also says that these problems of the nasty smells in the Hall are to do with blocked drains and he says all those pipes run under the floor of the Victoria Hall, which means to mend them you would need to dig up the floor of the Hall, which means it is so expensive, it is better to start again.

A: We definitely need some investment in the drains and the toilets, which is in the front of House area. I don’t see how the drains could go under the main Hall. I don’t know where that idea would have come from. The Hall needs some money spending on it. I would think £250,000 would probably not be unreasonable.

Q: And how much do you think building a new Hall from scratch is going to be costing?

A: Well, of course, we haven’t seen the figures. But one of our councillors has done some calculations working out land values. I think we are looking at around £ 3 million for the actual development.

Q: Does that include the new medical centre as well?

A: That’s everything. It’s as cheap as chips. We are getting a sports pavilion, a library, it is supposed to do absolutely everything. They are spending minimal amounts of money, which – as people have pointed out – that’s why it looks so cheap. It is a polycarbonate Hub. It’s concrete tiles. It’s a pre-fabricated building. The same kind of thing you see right across the country from Milton Keynes to South Croydon.

Q: Another point that Cllr Oakford made was – when I suggested they could put some new buildings, say a new library and medical centre on the derelict land that the project has now bought, while leaving the Royal Victoria Hall as it is – or possibly be handed to a Trust for theatre enthusiasts to run – he said Kent County Council are backing this project, they’ve put a lot of effort into it and what they wanted was THIS design of building. In other words, a Hub with a foyer so you get all this footfall with the medical centre and the library, all in one place. They say that is the most viable form of building.

A: I think the model that KCC is following is what they call their “transformation processes”, which is where you take existing buildings, you sell off the land, you put them on one site, you save money in that way. So the library site, we have a fantastic library (we need some money spending on it because KCC have spent absolutely no money on it in the last 20 years) but it is a great little facility. It has a separate area for children. It is very well supported. The borrowing numbers are some of the best in West Kent. But they are going to sell it off (for housing). It is about £ 1 million that they are going to realise. That £ 1 million is NOT going into the Hub project, that is going towards the KCC books.

The local estate agent Bill LeGrys resigned yesterday from the Town Council saying he was fed up with the infighting in the council over the proposed Southborough Hub.

There will now be a by-election in Southborough North before the end of January.

Mr LeGrys, who is a Conservative, told Southborough News: “The Hub is being used as a political weapon. The 18 Town councillors should just sit down round a table and get it sorted for the people of Southborough.”

The Southborough Town Councillor who’s been driving the Hub project says he hopes the Assembly Hall theatre in Tunbridge Wells will run the replacement for the old Royal Victoria Hall in Southborough for at least three years.

Cllr Peter Oakford repeatedly insisted that the Victoria Hall was “not viable” and that last winter’s official consultation gave him a mandate to push ahead with its demolition.

In the official consultation just 214 people (that is 58 % out of 369 respondents) supported the RVH complete demolition “new build” compared with the 1,300  (of which 850 people were from Southborough) who have signed a petition in recent weeks opposing the current Hub scheme.

You can hear the second part of the interview by clicking on the link above.

Question: Could you give us a timescale on it?  You say you are 100% confident that central government will not view this as a nationally important scheme, and so planning permission would be confirmed, but presumably you have to actually sell the land.  How long is all that going to take?

Answer from Cllr Oakford (pictured below): All of that work has been going on in the background. All of the land will be offered for tender in the very near future. I don’t have an exact date, but I know that the group that sells the land in the real estate department are working on that. We have our agreements so Kent County Council will “call in” all of the land into their ownership and start developing the project and that’s all down for the end of the first quarter next year.

The site will be cleared in preparation for that. And I would most certainly hope that everything is underway by the middle of next year. Obviously, there will be different things that will come into play, but that’s what we are working on at this moment in time.
Q: So everything will be flattened by next summer and then by what time will the actual Hub be open?

A: Probably the middle of 2018. 18 months away.

Q: There has been criticism not necessarily of the logic or the facilities of the Hub, but the design. The fact that it is – as they said in the planning meeting – “uncompromisingly modern”. Why did it have to be like that?

A: I am not a designer. I am not an architect.  And I’ve got myself into trouble before with comments on this. I think design is very subjective. What I think looks good, other people may not like. It is the same with art.  It’s the same with sculptures. And buildings very much fall into that category. Unfortunately, the leaflet that was distributed had one of the very first iterations of the design on it. And as was pointed out by the planners during the planning meeting, that was slightly misleading because the other drawings were quite a lot different than the one that was put out.

I think the latest drawings have dealt with a number of the criticisms that were made of the plastic box. The finish has still got to be finalised and that will depend on the revenue from the land. There are some of us that would hope that there is some red brick.  But, at the end of the day, the design is subjective. I would be guided by what looks best by the professionals in that field.

My focus from day one working on the project is that whatever is built has to be financially viable. It has to be there for the future.  And it has to stand on its own two feet, without having the subsidies paid through council tax that has happened for many many years for the buildings that are currently there.

We were at one time spending up to £ 55,000 in one single year just to keep the Royal Victoria Hall alive and everytime we did more work on it, it bit back and something else went wrong. And it got to the stage where financially it just wasn’t viable. That cannot happen with this new concept.

It has to be self-financing. It has to be self sufficient. It has to be able to carry itself onto the future.

(15’57”)
Q: So, how will the bookings work in the new theatre? Because, before you rang up Southborough Town Council Clerk  to see if it was available and she looked at who you were and if health and safety was met and it was booked out. Is that going to be different in the new arrangements?

A: Most certainly. Nothing has been formalised at this moment in time. But what we are currently doing is we are working with Tunbridge Wells Borough Council and the people who run the theatre on their behalf and what we are looking to do is for the first period of time, perhaps two or three years, have a contract that the Assembly Halls will actually run the theatre in Southborough.

So they will use all of their infrastructure – their box office – they will book the acts, they will put the shows on, they will supply the technical skills and technical staff. And we will work through that for the first two or three years.

We will then be able to work out a much more robust financial package and then the idea is that we would probably like to put the operation out to some form of tender for a charitable trust or a theatre group to come in and take over the management. One thing that we have all agreed already is that it will not be run by Southborough Town Council.

Q: And you say that the Assembly Hall will bring in their expertise and their time. Surely that is all going to cost money. Is that not going to cost more than the £ 50,000 a year that we were spending on the Victoria Hall.

A: No because the Assembly Hall will be managing the new theatre as a subset of the Assembly Hall. So they will be booking the acts and making sure that it is financially viable.

Q: So, for the first couple of years they have agreed to do this without a revenue cost to taxpayers in Southborough?

A: There may well be a small subsidy for the first three years – a decreasing subsidy, but the idea is that – at the end of three years – there won’t be any subsidy paid for by the council. But the one thing that we do know is that it will be substantially below the subsidies that  had to be paid for the Royal Victoria Hall.

Currently the manager of the Assembly Halls is working on a business plan for that and developing a proposal to bring in to the board to have a look at which we would hope to see in the first quarter of next year.

(18’32”)

Q: And obviously these local theatres, like the Assembly Hall and particularly the Trinity did rely on that volunteer support. They rely mainly on hundreds of volunteers. Are you worried by the fact that a lot of the people who volunteered in the Royal Victoria Hall are still not supporting the new designs and the new theatre.

A: Unfortunately, as I said, we will never please everybody all of the time. the format that we had for the Royal Victoria Hall just wasn’t working. It was being utilised about 30% of the time. It wasn’t flexible and it only suited one type of operation. Unfortunately we haven’t been able to please everybody. But we have been able to work with a number of professional theatre organisations including Charcoal Blue – a well known theatre consultant – in order  to develop – what we hope – will be a much better offering for the public.

And I would hope that some of the groups that have utilised the old building will come back and utilise it again. But all the bookings will be made through the Assembly Halls.

Q: You say in 3 years, you want it actually to move to a local charitable trust, why not go to that for the Royal Victoria Hall? I am told there were people who wanted to do that and had some funding a couple of years ago. Wouldn’t that have been worth one last try for this building that has been there for 116 years?

A: We did an awful lot of work on the Royal Victoria Hall and we looked at lots of options for  it. But there wasn’t any way that the finances stacked up to make it pay. There was a group that put together a business plan, but their business plan said in the first year that the Royal Victoria Hall would make a profit. And that most of their finances were promises of money that would come in from groups or individuals. That money wasn’t in the bank and the risk was too high.

We had a one time opportunity to work with the Borough Council and the County Council to pull this entire project up. Remember this has been going on for over 20 years. I have been trying to pull the three councils together to make this work for over 10 years.

We were told in no uncertain terms that so much money had been spent in the past in trying to pull this project together in different ways, this was our last opportunity. If we hadn’t made this work, I have absolutely no doubt in my mind that Southborough would have been left high and dry.

That Kent County Council would have disposed of their assets and they would have moved forward. Tunbridge Wells would have done the same thing. And we would have lost the opportunity to pull everything together and actually develop the heart that our town really needs.

(21’20”)

Q: And there have been people signing a petition. How are you going to win them round and convince them that when the next election comes that you’ve done the right thing. 

A: I don’t see this has got anything to do with an election. This is about doing what’s right for our town. I have always said that this is what I want to do. It is up to the people. If you were aiming that question at me, if they elect me that’s entirely up to them. If they don’t, I still believe I’ve done the right thing, working with my colleagues to drive this project forward.

I think in 5 years time, people will be very happy with what we have developed. It is unfortunate that you can’t please everybody with things that you do and there will always be a small group that likes what’s there.  And I can totally understand that. If people have memories and they have worked with those buildings and seen shows in those buildings over the years.

But times do move forward and unfortunately that building just isn’t viable and I know people will disagree with that.

(22’25”)

Q: But there are a lot of other Victorian theatres still going aren’t there.

A: There are. But that one needed a huge amount. Hundreds of thousands of pounds spent on it in order to do anything. And the only way to generate any cash, would have been to sell the piece of the land that we are selling.  The only way to get the agreement to get the 50% clawback reinvested in the project was to do what we are doing.

Q: Why weren’t Kent County Council happy with putting a new library and council offices in the empty old Tesco land and leaving the Royal Victoria Hall as it is – to see if it could be made viable for a bit longer given that there seem to be people who believe it could have been made viable.

A: Well. We have been trying to make it viable for an awful long time. For 10 years that I’ve been involved in and a lot more years before that. And I think the time had come where all 3 local authorities had spent a lot of money doing that. And so the decision was made we’ve got to do something different. If Kent is going to reinvest their land they wanted their new library. They wanted a library of a certain type in a certain design. And it was all part of the negotiation in order to get our project move forward.

Q: Could there have been a referendum just to endorse it, just to bring round people, because when people feel something has been done without their consent, it’s not necessarily the best way to start an exciting new project?

A: We did a full 8 week consultation with open days in more than one location, we had exhibition going on at the library going on with officers from Kent and Tunbridge Wells Council there during the day. There was an online consultation. Everybody had the opportunity to go online and complete a questionaire and to make comments what they wanted or what they didn’t want and to vote for either an option that retained part of the Royal Victoria Hall or an option that knocked it down and we started again afresh. 85% approximately said knock it down and start again.

And I know that there’s an argument that only so many hundred people responded to the consultation.

Q: It was less than 400 people wasn’t it?

A: Everybody had the opportunity to do so.

Q: But also they didn’t have the option of refurbishing the whole building. Why didn’t you put that as one of the specific options?

A: It wasn’t a viable option.

Councillor Peter Oakford, who’s been the main driving force behind the Southborough Hub project, says he is now “100 %” confident that the scheme will happen, despite the fact that central government is now considering whether to set up a public inquiry.

Cllr Oakford (below) was speaking to Southborough News just as the statutory body Sport England and the Football Association reaffirmed their opposition to the current scheme due to the loss of the football pitches and – what they say – is a substandard proposed replacement pavillion for the soccer players.

Central government’s National Planning Casework Unit says members of the public can write to them to indicate why they think Tunbridge Wells Borough Council was wrong to approve the Hub and why they want the Secretary of State to “call this in” for the evidence to be assessed by an inspector at a public inquiry.  Around a dozen planning applications a year nationally are called in under this procedure.

Anyone with comments on the planning issues that they want to send to the National Planning Casework Unit needs to state the Tunbridge Wells Borough Council reference number (16/06081/HYBRID) and that the development is in the town of Southborough in Kent, with comments emailed to:  npcu@communities.gsi.gov.uk

Despite Mr Oakford insisting on Friday morning that the issue of the replacement football pitches was “resolved”, Dylan Evans of the Football Association said later on Friday “the pitch issues have not been resolved”.

Mr Evans said he was aware of a Council plan to mitigate the pitch losses, but no details had been provided so the FA position was “unchanged on this matter”.

The FA statement said: “We have objected due to the loss of football pitches in keeping with Sport England policy on playing fields. In keeping with the policy, the principles of improving the pitches as a way of increasing the playing capacity on the site to mitigate the loss could form part of the solution, together with a secure, fit for purpose pavilion with sufficient security of tenure for the club. However, we have not received any detailed plans to our satisfaction and therefore we continue to support Sport England in their objection.”

Local people have queried the idea that the land can be easily levelled to create a total of five large pitches on the northern Ridgewaye fields on the proposed scheme below:

You can listen here to the audio of the first part of Mr Oakford’s 25 minute interview with Southborough News:

This is a transcript of the first half of that interview given by Cllr Peter Oakford to Martin Webber of Southborough News:

Question: How confident are you now that the Southborough Hub scheme is going to go ahead, after being supported by the planning committee but there are still questions.

Answer: Extremely confident.  In fact I am 100% confident it will still go through. We have a package of material all ready that’s on its way to the Secretary of State asking whether or not they would like to call this in.  We are working very closely with the FA and with Sport England. We have resolved the issue around the football pitches, because working with the football club and the work we are going to do they actually have the opportunity to gain two extra junior pitches above what they already have.

And the only issue we have now is around the football pavillion.  The football pavillion was designed by the football club. We are very happy as the football club are very happy with what we are offering.

Unfortunately the FA have come back and they want to increase the standards and add a few more changing rooms and add some more showers and really build it to the level of a premier league type changing room.  So we are currently working with the football club and the FA on that issue and we are pretty sure we will get that resolved before much longer.

Q: Can I come back on the issue of the fields because various local people have questioned whether that area where you want to put the replacement football pitches really can be flattened in the way that was described.

A: A report is being commissioned at this moment in time.  The topography experts have actually looked at the land and we believe that – yes – it can be done.
Q: So you have had independent surveyors actually measuring the heights of the land and checking it out?

A: Absolutely.  All the work is being done now at this moment in time and the funds have been made available, so – yes – we are very confident that that can be done.

Q: And for the people who say – well yes you can mark out new pitches having flattened the land – but there will still be a loss of recreation space.  Isn’t that an issue? Isn’t that why Sport England are still objecting?

A: I think what people have forgotten is – a couple of years ago – Tunbridge Wells Borough Council had the whole of the Ridgewaye playing fields zoned for a new school and a new housing estate.  And Southborough Town Council really fought back and said we are not going to do that. We own that piece of land.

And the compromise was the small area of land, which is mainly shrubland now that is going to be used for this development was the only part of the fields that were left under the zoning for future housing development.  So we have already saved a huge amount of the playing fields that were going to be developed.

Q: But doesn’t Southborough Town Council own it?

A: Southborough Town Council own it, but Kent County Council have a 50% clawback on any revenue generated from that land. But yes it is in the ownership of Southborough Town Council.

Q: So could the Borough have built the houses and the school if the Town Council hadn’t wanted it to?

A: Yes, they could have compulsory purchased the land and moved forward.
Q: So you say you are 100% confident the scheme will go ahead, what are the benefits that you see for the people of Southborough?

A: My personal feeling having lived here for very many years is that Southborough doesn’t have a heart.  I know that whatever we do will never please everybody, but I think we are pleasing a large majority at this moment in time. What we are doing is creating a heart to the town where we have the council offices and the old hall at this moment in time. Unfortunately the old Hall has over the years been changed and messed around with by previous occupants and the lovely old Victorian wrought iron frontage that was on there  and other bits have been removed, so it doesn’t have a lot of its history left with it.

Q: But the actual theatre part is still there, which is what the actors seem – on the planning comments – to have commented on in terms of the wonderful acoustics and that generations of their family have been there.  There is still a big attachment to it, is there not?

There may be by some, but not by others. We went out to a full consultation and those that responded to the consultation over the eight week period, 85 per cent said “no” lets have something brand new.  We have worked very closely with a number of professionals.  And one thing that has come through quite loud and clear through the work that’s been done is that amateur dramatic groups have a very different opinion than professionals.

And so the opinion of the likes of the STAG theatre, Charcoal Blue – the theatre consultants – and of Trinity Theatre are different than some of the amateur dramatic groups.  And obviously, we have gone with the opinion of the professionals in most cases.

Q: And have they all said that the old theatre couldn’t be rennovated, couldn’t be kept?

A: Anything could be done.  But when it was looked at.  When you start renovating a building, you have to build it up to new building standards as I’m sure you area aware and what that would have meant is you would have been left with the 4 walls and absolutely nothing else.  Not even the same roof that’s on there at the moment and we would have had to start all over again.
Q: So, what exactly does it fail at at the moment, because I know that in the planning documents, it said that the walls of the Hall were falling down and some people questioned that.  What wall was actually falling down?

A: No, it’s not all the walls that are falling down. There is one wall at the back that is bowed, under the pressure.

Q: Is that of the actual Hall, or the extension?

A: No, that’s of the Hall. And there was a wall at the side that had to be taken down where the fire exit is and the fire exit had closed.  But there’s lots of other things that are wrong with that Hall.  The drainage has collapsed underneath it and it needs constantly rodding through and that is the sewerage, not just the drainage, and that was rather unpleasant. There’s Health and Safety aspects.  There’s all sorts of things that are wrong with it.

Q: Can you just spell out the Health and Safety, because – again – hundreds of people have said – the Hall still looks fine to me, and so they are still puzzled.

A: All of this is in the public domain. There are reports that have been done, so there are lots of issues with the Hall that need to be addressed. And that’s “by the bye”, because the decision has been made now that the Royal Victoria Hall will be demolished and a brand new theatre will be built in its place.

Q: And how do you think this new “heart” that you explain will work in practice with all these different facilities in the same place?

A: I think it brings all the community aspects in one place. We have to remember there is going to be a new super medical centre there and my understanding is that it will be one of the latest medical centres where you can have x-rays and minor ops and that type of thing, which is desperately needed. And if it wasn’t going ahead, the NHS have said there is no guarantee there is going to be medical services in Southborough and High Brooms going forward, which means residents would have to go to Tonbridge or Tunbridge Wells.
Q: Do they not have to provide services within a certain range of a large community like Southborough?

A: I am only repeating what the NHS have said.  They’ve said without it there is no guarantee that they will be there in the future. So that the heart of the town will have a brand new modern library that offers all of the facilties that a modern library should do.  It will have a new “heart” of some retail space. It will have the new multi-functional Hall and I think that’s what’s very important.  The old Victoria Hall could either be a theatre or a Hall. It took a couple of days to change it.

The new one will have all the modern technology so a flat Hall can be developed on the press of a button. The seats will go back into the wall.  The floor will level up with the stage and so we will have a modern flat hall that can be utilised by a wider element of the  community.

Then of course, there will be new council offices. There will be new football pavillion and there will be some retail space.

Q: Just going back to the medical centre, I think a lot of people are enthusiastic about getting new facilities, but some people again have queried whether it should be up to the parish council to put up a building for a doctors’ practice which they view as a private practice. Should the money not come from the doctors’ practice or the NHS, rather than the parish council putting up a building and then renting it out for income later.

A: Well the first thing is that the parish council isn’t doing this. This is a 3 way project with Kent County Council, Tunbridge Wells and Southborough Town Council. If it wasn’t for the fact that Kent County Council have agreed to come into the project with certain terms and conditions which includes reinvesting their clawback on the land, then this project wouldn’t happen anyway.

Q: Could you just explain that a bit more?

A: When Southborough Town Council purchased the Ridgewaye land, Kent County Council have a 50% clawback on any future sale value, so 50% of any revenue that’s generated from the sale goes back into the coffers of Kent County Council.  I was able to go in and negotiate with Kent County Council as part of pulling all the three local authorities together. And I negotiated two things with them.  One is that they would include the Ridgewaye units in this project.  And at the time, they were looking to dispose of the Ridgewaye units.  And the second thing is that they would reinvest the clawback from the land sale which means that goes back into the pot towards developing the Hub, on the condition that a new library was part of that facility.

Q: And it says in the business plan that’s been issued this week that they (KCC) will pay a “peppercorn rent” for the library, but then the advantage for people in Southborough is that they are guaranteed to keep a library, is that the thinking?

A: Absolutely, yes.
Q: So was the clawback by Kent County Council indefinite or was there a time limit on the clawback?

A: No, that’s indefinite.
Q: So, the business plan was released this week and various people have been asking what revenue do you expect to get from the medical centre, from the theatre and hall hirings out but the business plan that was issued didn’t seem to have many numbers in it. Are you going to issue another one with more numbers in it?

A: At this moment in time, there is a lot of commercial sensitivity around the finances. Let me explain that.

From day one, this project has to be self-financing through the sale of the piece of land that’s going to be used for residential. If we say it is going to cost X to build the Hub, whoever is going to buy that land, knows exactly how much money we need and that will limit the offers that are placed on that piece of land. So I am sure people understand that we don’t want to say that the Hub is going to cost X, because the value of the land is X.

What we want to do is maximise the value of the land.  The more money that we get from the land, the more enhancements we can put into the Hub as we build it. So that’s the reason that – at this moment in time – there is commercial sensitivity around the overall construction costs.

Around the running costs, there’s very similar aspects to the finances. There are a number of retail units that are being developed. There’s a coffee shop that’s being developed. The finances include the revenues that we expect to get for the lease costs for the retail units, for the coffee shop and for all the other aspects. Again, if  that goes into the public domain, when we put out the retail space for tender, everybody knows the level of revenue that we need to get to make the project work. Therefore, until we get to that stage, we don’t want to put those finances into the public domain and I would hope most people would understand that reasoning.

Another dispute over basic facts has erupted between supporters and opponents of Southborough Council’s Hub plans – this time over the shape of the Ridgewaye fields.

The Borough’s Planning officer, Lynda Middlemiss, told the planning committee on Wednesday that there was a “hill” in the centre of the northern part of the Ridgewaye fields, which could be levelled off to create replacement soccer pitches for those lost to the new housing that is funding the Hub buildings.

Several local people this weekend described her descriptions as a “fantasy”, arguing instead that the northern Ridgewaye fields (pictured below) are basically flat, but slope away steeply towards the Ridgewaye lane. They argue that levelling would require planning permission for retaining walls to hold back earth so the sloping area can be flattened.

But Lynda Middlemiss told the committee: “There is absolutely no intention and no need to provide any retaining walls, simply a question of moving earth from one part of the pitches where they are presently raised to the area where the land slopes away.”

After last week’s committee meeting, objectors continue to dispute a large number of assertions by the Hub supporters including over the state of the Royal Victoria Hall, and whether the proposed new soccer pavillion and theatre are better or worse than the existing provision.

The playing field issue was discussed in detail because Ms Middlemiss had to ensure the committee wasn’t swayed by the “outright objection” to the scheme by Sport England and the Football Association. In the event, the planning committee thought Sport England’s concerns had been dealt with and they accepted the planning officer’s argument that new pitches could be easily created to replace those lost due to the new housing.

A plan of the varying descriptions of the northern Ridgewaye fields is below:

Ms Middlemiss stated at the meeting: “The important thing to understand is that there is no – from the proposals – there will be no loss of playing pitch capacity in terms of the number and types of pitches that could be provided on the site. There’s obviously a loss of land that is currently in playing field use. That’s always been envisaged in the Site Allocation Local Plan. But in terms of the impact that that has on local clubs to use the space as playing pitches, the proposals show that there won’t be any reduction in playing pitches”.

The planning officers report concluded: “The new sports pavilion, improvements to the playing pitch levels in parts of the site to increase of the playable area of the adjacent playing fields will increase the playing capacity and enhance the facilities offered here”.

Because Sport England are continuing to object, the matter is now referred to central government.  It is not known if officials there at the National Planning Casework Unit will think the issues raised will be serious enough to “call in” the application so it is considered by a public enquiry.

If central government planners decide they don’t want to intervene, Tunbridge Wells Borough Council could grant planning permission in the next few weeks, although the Hub project team say that no demolition is likely to start until “the early summer.”

No professional survey appears to have been undertaken in coming to the conclusions on the pitches. Below is a view looking north over the top of the Yew Tree allotments, with the Ridgewaye lane and hedge on the right of the picture:

The FA made it clear they would only be satisfied if the replacement soccer pitches were provided before the two junior pitches were removed from use due to the building work.  The Council Hub team estimate the levelling work to create new pitches would be done within 18 months.

Below is the existing layout of pitches on the Ridgewaye and Yew Tree fields, which Ms Middlemiss described as “2 senior pitches…4 Youth pitches…2 junior pitches and 4 mini-pitches:

Below is one of the proposed layouts of pitches after the loss of the two junior pitches to the far south west of the site when the housing is built:

Mr Oakford said: “To modernise the theatre, by law we’d need to completely bring it up to modern standards and that means everything but its four walls would have to be stripped down, costing a lot more money than knocking it down, so the easiest thing was to give the town a brand new theatre.”

Mr Oakford, who is from the Conservative Party, said the proposal would in fact increase the provision of football pitches on the site – something he says Sport England was unaware of when submitting its objection.  He said: “We have worked to level off the entire field which means we actually get two more pitches than we currently have and the club is going to gain a state-of-the-art pavilion”.

Sport England says it was aware of the replacement pitch proposals but not enough work was done to see if the scheme was viable and so it was maintaining its objection.

The main Kent on Sunday paper contains an extended piece with Mr Oakford and a shortened version is available online at:

http://bit.ly/2fOJ8vY

The full article can also be found by turning to page 12 of the digital pdf style version:

http://bit.ly/2fPyt2q

Southborough News will provide a full transcript of last Wednesday’s Tunbridge Wells Borough Council Planning Committee meeting (pictured above) that voted 11-0 to approve the Hub plans, so readers can decide for themselves how well all the issues were debated.

This link sends you to the transcript – there are still some gaps in the 1 1/2 hour recordinng as of Sunday 13th November. UPDATE WEDNESDAY: I have now also posted the audio on the following page, although the sound quality is not brilliant.

Click here:

Planning 2016

Central government planners are set to decide the fate of the Southborough Hub after the planning committee of Tunbridge Wells council voted by 11 to 0 with one abstention to approve the plans.

Councillors usually follow advice of planning officers who argued strongly for the scheme at Wednesday night’s meeting.

Speakers from the Stag theatre in Sevenoaks, the treasurer of the Ridgewaye football club, the St Andrew’s medical centre and Ian Kinghorn from the Southborough Society spoke at the meeting in favour of the scheme.  The speaker from the Stag Theatre was the General Manager, Andrew Eyre, who’s also a local Conservative District Councillor (pictured below).

But Sport England are still objecting to the loss of recreation space and “sub-standard” replacement soccer pavillion so the borough lose their power to decide the outcome. It is not clear how long the process of referral to central government will take.

The man who has pushed the current Hub plans to their current stage, Cllr Peter Oakford said afterwards he was “ecstatic”. He said Southborough could now “move forward for the next generation.”  Cllr Oakford is on the Southborough Town Council, the Borough Council and Kent County Council, but didn’t have a vote at the planning meeting.

Afterwards, Cllr Heasman (Conservative), who represents the Pantiles & St Mark’s Ward and who voted for the demolition of the Royal Victoria Hall said he knew lots of people in Southborough and the “silent majority” wanted a new building. In the meeting, he said the Royal Victoria Hall “was not a pretty building.”

Cllr Dianne Hill (Labour), who didn’t have a vote as she is not on the planning committee, said “I’m not surprised but it is very disappointing the people of Southborough are being ignored. It was acknowledged by some members of the committee that the consultation was flawed. We are pleased that Sport England upheld their objection to protect the sports fields.”

The picture (from google maps) above illustrates what the centre of Southborough may feel like after the Hub is built.  This is the polycarbonate clad Trinity Laban Dance Studio in Deptford.  Tunbridge Wells council’s Urban Design expert, Alan Legg, referred to this building in his upbeat assessment of the proposed Southborough Hub designs. Some of the Hub will be clad in this material.

All the councillors who had a vote on the planning committee on the application were from the Conservative Party. Cllr Joy Podbury representing Rusthall abstained. The following eleven Borough Councillors all supported the planning application:

Cllr Mrs Julia Soyke (Chairman)   of Speldhurst & Bidborough
Cllr Barry Noakes (Vice-Chairman) of Goudhurst & Lamberhurst
Cllr Godfrey Bland of Hawkhurst & Sandhurst
Cllr Mrs Barbara Cobbold of Broadwater
Cllr Tom Dawlings of Benenden & Cranbrook
Cllr Sarah Hamilton of Paddock Wood (East)
Cllr Lawrence Heasman of Pantiles & St Mark’s
Cllr Carol Mackonochie of Capel
Cllr David Reilly of Pembury
Cllr Don Sloan  of Culverden
Cllr Mrs Elizabeth Thomas of Paddock Wood (West)

The two Southborough councillors on the Borough Council planning committee had been involved in the decision on Southborough Town Council, so each made a speech, but couldn’t take part in the decision making discussion among councillors or vote. They were Bob Backhouse (Conservative in favour) and Graham Munn (Labour against).