Calverley Square Compulsory Purchase Order 2018 Councillor Nicholas Pope MBA, Beng Why the CPO is not in the public interest Contents 1 Introduction page 1 2 Do the public want a new theatre? page 2 3 The site selection process for the Calverley Square development page 5 4 Damage to the Grade II Listed park, Calverley Grounds page 8 5 Failure to consult page 10 1 Introduction 1.1 My name is Nicholas Pope, I became a councillor on Tunbridge Wells Borough Council in May last year, representing the Tunbridge Wells Alliance party, and am the former chairman of the Friends of Calverley Grounds, the community group registered as a charitable incorporated organisation with an interest in the public park, Calverley Grounds, that is directly affected by the Calverley Square development on the western edge of the park. I am also a resident of Mountfield Road, a residential road that has one of the four public entrances into the public park at the end of the road. My wife owns a one bedroom flat in Grove Hill House and is a statutory objector. 1.2 I have been a resident of Royal Tunbridge Wells since September 2010 and have been involved in a number of community projects including one to build a community funded playground on the retired bowling green in the eastern part of Calverley Grounds. The playground gained enormous support from the community - residents, local businesses and grants with the project team successfully raising more than the 225,000 required to build the playground. 1.3 I have an Engineering degree from the University of Bristol and a Master of Business Studies degree from the Open University Business School. 1.4 I work as a Computer Consultant specialising in complex data projects for large organisations in the public and private sector. I understand the need for accurate and complete information and data to be able to make fully informed decisions. 1.5 I am a founding member of Tunbridge Wells Alliance which was initially founded as a residents action group in October 2016 formed after two separate petitions raised enough signatures to be debated in the Town Hall by councillors on 26 th July 2017. Tunbridge Wells Alliance was registered as a political party at the end of February last year just in time for the 2018 local elections in May. Tunbridge Wells Alliance is often described as a one issue party with the sole purpose of opposing the Calverley Square development.
2 Do the public want a new theatre? 2.1 In a residents survery undertaken on behalf of Tunbridge Wells Borough Council in 2015, one question asked: Would you be willing to pay a bit more in Council Tax (for example 10 a year or 19p a week) if this would allow us to deliver a significant project such as a new theatre worthy of the Borough?. 55% responded No, 32% responded Yes, 13% responded Don't know. The survey was prepared by Lake Market Research for Tunbridge Wells Borough Council on 3 rd November 2015 can be found at http://www.tunbridgewells.gov.uk/ data/assets/pdf_file/0005/120992 /Residents-Survey-Results-2015.pdf 2.2 Online petitions have been created opposing and supporting the Calverley Square development: The Save Our Park petition which opposes the developent and triggered one of the debates in the Town Hall on 26 th July 2017, has received 5,434 signatures. It continues to receive more signatures every week. (https://www.change.org/p/save-calverley-grounds-from-thecouncil-s-70m-civic-complex-before-it-s-too-late) The Stunning new theatre and Civic Complex for Tunbridge Wells petition created to support the Civic Complex project has received 201 signatures since it was created. The last signature was 5 months ago. (https://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/stunning-new-theatre-andcivic-complex-for-tunbridge-wells-yes-please) 96.4% of people who have signed one of these petitions signed the petition opposing the development. 2.3 Two borough councillors held surveys in 2017 to find out whether the residents of their wards supported the Civic Centre Development. The local newspaper, Times of Tunbridge Wells covered these polls on 11 October 2017. (https://www.timeslocalnews.co.uk/tunbridge-wells-news/residents-vote-
against-the-civic-complex-in-unofficial-referendums). A summary of the results is as follows: 2.3.1 Southborough North ward residents voted 342 to 86 or 79.9% against the project with a 13% turnout. The ward ranges from 1.9 miles to 3.8 miles from the proposed development. 2.3.2 Sherwood ward residents voted 452 to 113 or 80.0% against the project with 11.4% turnout. The ward ranges from 1.2 to 3.3 miles from the proposed development. 2.4 Tunbridge Wells Alliance registered as a new political party at the end of February 2018 just 10 weeks before the borough council elections on 3 May. It is often badged as being a one issue party. It fielded candidates in 7 out of the 16 wards in the borough and successfully took an average of 25% of the votes in the 7 wards, ahead of both the Liberal Democrats (19%) and Labour (18%). The Conservatives took 34% of the votes in the 7 wards. Tunbridge Wells Alliance performed best in the ward it won a council seat (34% of the votes) followed by the furthest ward from the proposed development, in Benenden & Cranbrook, where 32% of the votes were taken. It is not only residents who live near the development in Royal Tunbridge Wells who oppose the project but also residents of the borough who live furthest from it. 2.5 The 31 January 2018 edition of Country Life magazine had an Athena article with the title Justified Outrage at Tunbridge Wells which clearly took a position that strongly opposed the development, including words such as The motives of the
Council's leaders are difficult to comprehend. 2.6 Members of the public have filled the town hall to capacity with some being turned away on two occasions. Residents have also stood in the park to protest on three occasions, twice covered in the local newspapers and once appearing in the Mail on Sunday (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article- 6273471/Petition-launched-rescue-open-spaces-sold-cash-strappedcouncils.html) 2.6.1 Over 100 people were turned away from the Town Hall on 26 th July 2017 when the Save Our Park petition was debated because the Council Chamber was full to capacity.
2.6.2 A large group of people protested at 3pm on Thursday 11 October 2018 at short notice in Calverley Grounds opposing the Calverley Square project, appearing in the Mail on Sunday on 14 October. (Screenshot from dailymail.co.uk.) 3 The site selection process for the Calverley Square development 3.1 The site selection process was limited to a small number of sites which included the existing Town Hall, the Assembly Hall Theatre, the police station, the Mount Pleasant Avenue surface car park and the Great Hall multi-storey car park. Several obvious options for a large development were missed out in the selection process, these include the old cinema site (CS on the map) which has been derelict since the cinema closed on 1 st December 2000, the Crescent Road multi-storey car park (CR on the map), a 1960s concrete structure which takes up a very large area of prime town centre land, and the option to use a temporary theatre, something used during many other theatre refurbishments and redevelopments in towns and cities in the UK and across the world.
Key to the map above: TH - Town Hall AH - Assembly Hall Theatre PS - Police Station CR - Crescent Road car park C2 - Crescent Road car park perimeter space C3 - Town Hall Yard car park CS - Cinema Site MP - Mount Pleasant Avenue car park, site of proposed offices GH - Great Hall car park, site of proposed theatre PG - Playground, a community project completed in 2017 The Cinema Site 3.2 The cinema site (CS on the map) is not owned by the Borough Council, but is the town centre site that many residents have been calling to have developed as it has been a derelict grot spot in the centre of town for over 18 years. The Tunbridge Wells Liberal Democrats ran a campaign to get the site developed and pressured the Borough Council to CPO the site. They have collected 22,000 signatures in support of their campaign. The only action by the Borough Council has been to pressure the (previous) owner of the property to demolish the old cinema which finally took place in 2014. 3.3 The Borough Council has considered compulsory purchasing the cinema site during the 18 years it has sat derelict in the centre of the town centre opposite the Town Hall, but nothing has happened. In 2011, the councillor with the Portfolio for Property & Major Projects, Councillor David Jukes, listed the Cinema Site as the top item on his Portfolio Holder Monthly Update in October of that year. The update said the following:
Cinema Site It now appears to be common knowledge that the Cinema Site has been sold by Savills to a developer called Bellhouse/Joseph. They have informed us that they are funded by the international institution Carlyle Group. Although we have met Mr Bellhouse on a couple of occasions, it would appear that his plans for the Cinema Site are not yet defined. We have agreed to meet him again shortly to gain an update. As this is the third or fourth developer to take over the project in the last eleven years, the Council is still minded to continue with the process of a compulsory purchase with a view to one day having this site for community use. The full document can be found at http://democracy.tunbridgewells.gov.uk/meetings/documents/s1959/october %202011.pdf. 3.4 No compulsory purchase order has been issued on the old cinema site in the 7 years since the above Portfolio Holder Monthly Update in October 2011, and when the site selection process was undertaken, Bellhouse/Joseph were still the owners of the old cinema site and had not progressed with plans to develop the site. The site changed hands again in April 2016, several months after the site selection process had completed. 3.5 It is almost certain that it would cost less to CPO the cinema site than the combined cost to CPO properties around the Calverley Square site and build a replacement underground car park. The total cost for the CPOs and underground car park is budgeted at 19 million ( 4m for the CPO compensation and 15m for the underground car park) but is likely to be significantly more. The cinema site was bought for 12 million in 2011 by Bellhouse/Joseph and changed hands again for an undisclosed amount in April 2016 after the site selection document had been produced in October 2015. 3.6 There would be a significant level of public support if the cinema site was compulsory purchased by the Borough Council to develop the site in some way. The Crescent Road Car Park Site 3.7 The Crescent Road Car Park (CR on the map) was completed in 1968 and is owned by the Borough Council. Many would consider it to be an ugly concrete building. It has 1,061 parking spaces and takes up a large area in the centre of Royal Tunbridge Wells close to the civic buildings, the Town Hall, Assembly Hall Theatre and Police Station. The area taken up by the Crescent Road car park is very similar to that taken up by the civic buildings, and, with the perimeter area (C2) and Town Hall Yard car park (C3), it is a bigger area. 3.8 The Crescent Road car park is a prime site that could be redeveloped in a number of ways, such as building an underground car park with a mixed use development above ground. This would convert a space dominated by the 1960s multi-storey car park into a more human friendly environment with offices, civic buildings, entertainment, residential and retail uses. A Temporary Theatre 3.9 One reason given for not redeveloping the existing Assembly Hall Theatre was to
ensure there was continuity of theatre operation (see TWBC's CPO Statement of Case, p15, 2.72) to avoid losing an audience during the redevelopment. An option that offers continuity of theatre operation that has not appeared in any documents is to use a temporary theatre. The use of temporary theatres is common practice in the UK and in other countries to provide continuity whilst major work is undertaken on the theatre building. Some examples are as follows: 3.9.1 In Geneva, a temporary theatre that could seat 1,118 (seen below) was used whilst L'Opera Des Nations had a major refurbishment. It was dismantled in 2018 and sold to China. (https://www.thelocal.ch/20160202/temporary-wooden-opera-houseopens-in-geneva) 3.9.2 In Chichester, in 2013 the Theatre In The Park temporary theatre could seat 1,400 and was used whilst the Chichester Festival Theatre was being renovated. (https://www.theargus.co.uk/news/10543059.raising_the_curtain_on_ Chichester_s_newest_venue Theatre_In_The_Park/)The National 3.9.3 In London, in 2014, the National Theatre built a temporary theatre called The Shed which could seat 220. (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-27339926) 3.9.4 In Colchester, a temporary theatre with 800 seats will be used whilst the Mercury Theatre is having an extension built. (https://www.mercurytheatre.co.uk/blog/mercury-theatre-announcessparkling-pantomime-cinderella-in-temporary-venue-for-autumn-2019/) 4 Damage to the Grade II Listed park, Calverley Grounds The Views 4.1 Historic England, in the Grade II Listing entry, describes the view from Calverley Grounds and Calverley Park as follows: From the higher slopes and the plateau there are extensive views westwards and southwards, through tree cover, over Tunbridge Wells and to the more distant countryside. (https://historicengland.org.uk/listing/the-list/list-entry/1000266) 4.2 The construction of the Calverley Square development will block this view through tree cover, replacing it with a wall of glass and concrete. It might be possible to see some of the distant view through the gap between the new buildings and, from higher ground, over the lower parts of the buildings.
4.3 The Statement of Case, section 2.50, talks about reflections from vehicle windscreens which spoil views from within the grounds. The only place where these reflections might be seen is from the vehicles parked in the Great Hall car park, but these vehicles are barely visible from most places within the park. During the winter the car park is part concealed by trees, and in the summer is almost completely concealed as can be seen from these photographs taken in May 2017. 4.3.1 In this photograph, taken from near the top of the long steps behind the bench near the entrance to the picnic area in Calverley Grounds, the Great Hall car park is barely visible, largely hidden by trees and foliage. Note how green and open the view is, looking across trees and over rooftops across to Mount Ephraim. 4.3.2 This photograph, taken from near the Mountfield Gardens entrance, also looking westwards and slightly to the north shows the Great Hall car park completely hidden. The car park is behind the trees on the left hand side of the photograph. There are no reflections off any car windscreens. The western edge of the park is green and there are only glimpses of buildings through the trees. The western edge of the park is where the office building and theatre will be built, completely changing the character of the park in the centre of the town. 4.4 The Great Hall car park was built in the 1980s and designed to blend in with the
Great Hall by using matching bricks and arches in the design to mimic the Great Hall (as stated in the Statement of Reasons, section 2.49). It was built as a low structure to minimise the impact on the park, with the lower levels of parking built below ground level. The new theatre and office building would significantly impact on the character of the park, replacing the green western edge with an abrupt, hard boundary of glass and concrete several storeys high. 5 Failure to consult 5.1 There have been a significant number of consultations with various stakeholder groups as listed in the Statement of Reasons, section 2.53. However, the most important decision of this project by the Council was never put out for consultation or discussed with stakeholders. The decision that was not consulted on was the site selection which had completed before October 2015 when the document Civic Complex Options, Appendix 1 - Design options report was published. As noted above in section 3, a number of sites that should have been included in the site selection were totally ignored. 5.2 The list of consultations in the Statement of Reasons, section 2.53, shows a meeting with Historic England and a media briefing before the end of October 2015. There is no evidence of any consultation on the site selection process or the decision. The evidence shows that this important decision was made with no consultation with any stakeholders. 5.3 I attended a presentation about the site selection as a member of the Friends of Calverley Grounds. A number of questions were asked at the presentation, but answers were not forthcoming and no explanation of how the 13 initial options were shortlisted to five and then to the final selection was given. Many felt it was a fait accompli. 5.4 I attended a number of later consultations and presentations as a member of and chairman of the Friends of Calverley Grounds and had a meeting in the park with the architect, Paddy Dillon, to understand the design in more detail, and another meeting in the park to identify the positions from which the verified views should be generated.