Council scorecard

Tunbridge Wells Borough Council

Type
borough
Population
116,000 (ONS mid-year estimate, rounded)
Political control
Liberal Democrat majority (since May 2024; held at May 2026 election)
Next election
6 May 2027 (by thirds — about a third of 39 seats)
Council website
tunbridgewells.gov.uk

Scorecard

Methodology published 2026-05-18. Pending cells reflect data collection in progress, not methodology uncertainty — they will populate as the underlying data is gathered.

Refuse collection

Missed bin reports, recycling rates, complaint resolution time

72 B

Scored on the two DEFRA-published components — recycling rate and residual household waste, FY 2024-25 final data (England averages: 42.0% / 513.3kg per household) — with the remaining components (missed-bin reports, complaint resolution time, service consistency) pending data ingest. Tunbridge Wells recycled 51.4% of household waste in 2024-25 — the best rate in Kent, well above the England average of 42.0% — with the lowest residual waste in Kent at 381.6kg per household (England: 513.3kg). Attribution: Liberal Democrat administration (Ben Chapelard) — LD majority from May 2024; the opening weeks of the year under the same leader's Borough Partnership coalition.

as of 2026-07-02 · source

Complaints handling

Volume, response times, LGSCO upheld findings

67 C

Small-numbers caveat: district-tier LGSCO investigation counts are tiny (0–4 a year) and a single case can swing the uphold percentage from 0% to 100%, so this score rests on process indicators — upheld volume per 100,000 residents vs the 1.0 district average, remedies offered before the Ombudsman, and compliance with recommendations — across 2025-26 and 2024-25, never on the raw uphold percentage alone. 2025-26 figures precede the LGSCO annual letters (due ~July 2026) and may be revised. The cleanest Ombudsman record in Kent: 2025-26 — 9 complaints dealt with (the lowest volume in Kent), 1 investigation completed, 0 upheld, and no recommendations due for compliance; 2024-25: no investigations completed. The small numbers preclude a higher-band claim. Attribution: Liberal Democrat majority administration (Ben Chapelard) throughout both years.

as of 2026-07-02 · source

FOI response

Average response time, refusal/exemption rate, compliance with 20-day statutory deadline

Pending

Score pending — Tunbridge Wells publishes no FOI performance statistics (checked 2026-07-03; neither the FOI pages nor the open-data portal carry performance data), so no component of this metric can be scored from public data. What is known: 1 ICO decision notice in the three years to July 2026, not upheld (a vexatious-request finding, Sep 2024), and ~703 requests via WhatDoTheyKnow (Sep 2025 snapshot). A standardised information request for the missing statistics is planned for the next refresh.

as of 2026-07-03

Financial health & budget discipline

Revenue budget variance, capital programme delivery, reserves + Section 114 risk, external auditor VfM judgment, council tax positioning + trajectory vs national

58 C

Weighted across the six published components: revenue budget variance 25%, capital programme delivery 20%, reserves & Section 114 risk 20%, external auditor VfM judgement 15%, council tax positioning 10%, council tax trajectory 10%. The only unqualified ("true and fair") 2024/25 audit opinion in its data cohort, with no significant value-for-money weaknesses; usable reserves £23.4m ≈ 149% of the cost-of-services budget, though down £4.0m in the year (car-park refurbishment funding). Scored down on forecasting and delivery: the 2025/26 draft outturn came in 10.4% (£1.6m) under budget on cost of services — a large underspend the methodology penalises as poor forecasting — and £14.2m gross of capital was deferred to 2026/27 in a substantial rolling-deferral pattern. Council tax: Band D £217.10, 4th-lowest of the 12 Kent districts, and the only 2026-27 district rise set under the referendum cap (2.79%); 5-yr CAGR 2.84% vs 2.64% nationally. Attribution: Liberal Democrat majority administration (Ben Chapelard) throughout.

as of 2026-07-03 · source

Transparency

Open data publication, councillor expenses, contract register, committee paper publication

43 D

Fixed-date website audit (2026-07-03) against the Transparency Code checklist: spending-data currency and format, contracts register, councillor allowances, interests, committee papers, senior pay, open data, FOI disclosure log. Items not individually verified this quarter are scored neutrally and flagged. Headline audit finding: the council states it has published £250+ spending data "since June 2012", but the newest dataset on its portal is FY 2024-25, last modified January 2025 — roughly 18 months stale at the audit date and prima facie short of the Transparency Code's quarterly minimum. The open-data portal (the only dedicated one among Kent districts) is otherwise decaying: allowances datasets stop at 2020-21, no contracts register was found among its 207 datasets, and some dataset titles are corrupted. Committee papers are live and current, and an allowances policy page exists. Attribution: audit conducted under the Liberal Democrat majority administration (Ben Chapelard); the staleness window falls almost entirely within its tenure.

as of 2026-07-03 · source

Planning

Application approval ratios, appeal-overturn rate, determination time vs statutory targets

69 C

Scored against the England averages (majors in time 91.0%, non-majors 90.8%, major appeal overturns 3.1%) over the 24 months to March 2026 (speed) and June 2025 (appeal quality), from MHCLG designation-regime tables; the enforcement-trend component (15%) is pending and the three measured components are re-weighted pro rata. The national "in time" measure includes agreed extensions of time. 90.5% of major applications (74 decisions) and 95.5% of non-majors decided in time, with a low 1.9% major appeal-overturn rate vs 3.1% for England. Attribution: Liberal Democrat majority administration (Ben Chapelard) throughout the April 2024 – March 2026 window.

as of 2026-07-02 · source

Education & children's services

SEND/EHCP statutory processing, SEND tribunal LA-loss rate, children's services Ofsted rating, school transport delivery (county + unitary only)

N/A

Education and children's services are not a district/borough function. The county council (or, for Medway, the unitary authority) holds this remit.

Safeguarding & LADO

LADO referral handling, multi-agency safeguarding (MASH) timeliness, Section 47 enquiry compliance, independent safeguarding audit findings (county + unitary only)

N/A

Safeguarding is the statutory function of the county council or unitary authority via the LADO (Local Authority Designated Officer) and multi-agency safeguarding hub.

Manifesto delivery (Trust)

KLN tracks what the controlling party promised at the most recent election vs what was actually delivered. KEPT/PARTIAL/BROKEN/PENDING/OUT_OF_SCOPE categorisation.

50 D

Trust score: 3 categorised public issues (no scoreable pledges yet).

as of 2026-09-29

Top public issues for Tunbridge Wells residents

This is editorial assessment, not a metric score. Each issue carries an alignment tag — ALIGNED (council in step with residents), MIXED (some action falls short), COUNTERACTING (council against residents on this), or SILENT (no clear position). KLN-curated. Council positions added verbatim where provided. Right-of-reply opens with initial publication.

  1. 🟡Mixed

    Planning pressure + overdevelopment in the borough

    Tunbridge Wells faces sustained planning pressure for new housing on greenfield + greenbelt sites; residents express concern about loss of character + infrastructure capacity.

    Council position

    Lib Dem control historically resistant to large speculative developments outside the Local Plan; case-by-case planning decisions vary.

    KLN assessment

    Statements lean protective, actions need verification. Planning decision approval rates + Planning Inspectorate appeal outcomes are the action evidence; KLN has not yet reviewed those against the 2026 baseline. Per the "actions, not statements" principle: MIXED until action data is in.

  2. 🟡Mixed

    Village road safety + rural infrastructure

    Rural villages in the TWBC area face speeding, HGV traffic, and limited pedestrian/cycle infrastructure.

    Council position

    Mike Martin MP + TWBC Lib Dems committed £25,000 per Parish Council for road safety delivery 2026-2027.

    KLN assessment

    Commitment made; delivery pending. Whether the £25k-per-parish funding materialises in tangible 20mph zones / crossings / signage by end of 2027 is the action test. Per the "actions, not statements" principle: MIXED until parish-level delivery is verified.

  3. 🟡Mixed

    Climate action and environmental sustainability

    Residents increasingly demand visible climate action — solar, EV infrastructure, building retrofit, tree planting, biodiversity.

    Council position

    TWBC Lib Dem-led environmental programme tracks delivery via the council's climate action plan; specific delivery targets per service line.

    KLN assessment

    Plan in place; delivery against milestones is the action evidence. Per the "actions, not statements" principle: MIXED until tangible programme outcomes (carbon reduction, retrofit rates, EV chargepoint installs) are evidenced.

News from this council's area

How this scorecard works

Each metric is scored 0-100 and banded A through F. We do NOT aggregate to a single overall ranking — combining unrelated performance areas would mislead. See the methodology page for full details, thresholds, and data sources.

Spot an error or have data we should add for Tunbridge Wells? editor@kentlocalnews.co.uk.