Just hours after Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council voted against taking forward a Local Plan based on Labour’s new housing targets, the council were overruled by the government.
The housing minister sent a letter to council leader, ordering the local council to put the plan forward for public consultation anyway. Council leader Matt Boughton said: “We don’t think that’s right”.
One site vulnerable to house building is the picturesque Medway Valley shown above.
Matt Boughton said: “It flies in the face of the devolution agenda, aimed at empowering communities, that the Government should use its powers to overrule democratically elected Councillors and insist we proceed with the Local Plan, despite there being no guarantee of water supply for around 13,000 homes.”
A council meeting in Tonbridge and Malling has refused to progress with a plan to build the 20,000 new homes demanded by the Labour government, but the decision was then immediately overruled by the government.
The vote to pause the Local Plan was described as “irresponsible” by the Liberal Democrat group. But Conservative councillor, Sarah Hudson, said continuing with the plan would be “irresponsible.”
Meanwhile, a campaigner in Tunbridge Wells, Jonathan Hawker, has spoken about the “anger” in the community about water scarce areas of Kent being told to accept vast new housing estates, as a Kent petition opposing mass housebuilding hit 18,000 signatures.
The Conservative leader of Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council, Matt Boughton, argued that a recent formal statement from South East Water was the key reason to pause the progress of the Local Plan which lays out where houses should be built up to the year 2042.
South East Water had said it could supply only an extra 317 homes a year across the Borough. That’s less than a third of the 1,097 new homes annually demanded by the government.
Matt Boughton said he would be writing to the Government today (Friday) to “urge them to work with us to find a way of progressing the Local Plan which recognises the water supply challenges we have.”
Matt Boughton (pictured below) said unless there was a clear new plan to increase water supply, the government should reduce the house building target for Tonbridge and Malling.
But hours later Matt Boughton revealed that the government sent its own letter on Friday ordering the local council to put the plan forward for public consultation anyway. He said: “We don’t think that’s right”.
Matt Boughton said: “It flies in the face of the devolution agenda, aimed at empowering communities, that the Government should use its powers to overrule democratically elected Councillors and insist we proceed with the Local Plan, despite there being no guarantee of water supply for around 13,000 homes.”
At last night’s council meeting, Matt Boughton thanked the 2,206 residents who responded to the earlier Local Plan consultation last year and the further 2,150 people who attended one of the 27 public meetings the council organised to discuss it.
The Green Party members also voted against progressing the Local Plan until infrastructure issues were resolved.
Green Party councillor Anna Cope (pictured below) issued a statement which argued that the Conservatives had failed to focus on building genuinely affordable homes.
The Green Party statement said: “This evening at full council a sudden amendment was sprung on the meeting asking us to stall the local plan and work with South East Water. We in the Green group obviously support that work – anyone with half a brain can see this is sensible.”
The Green Party continued: “However we are extremely disappointed that TMBC has now failed twice to deliver a local plan. The last local plan that was to cover 2011-2031 and deliver approx 15k houses was rejected by the then Conservative government. This has meant developers have run riot ever since, building for profit rather than providing what local people need.”
The Green Party argued: “We have frequently pushed for an arm’s length housing company to buy and develop land on our own terms to provide the social housing local people desperately need. They chose not to.”
The Green Party concluded: “The current administration must take responsibility for this and we call on them to work with SEW to agree what housing could be supplied and ensure that the houses that are built are the social housing we so desperately need.”
The Liberal Democrats in the Borough took a different approach, voting against a delay to progressing the Local Plan. Cllr Frani Hoskens (pictured below) issued a statement on behalf of the the Lib Dems.
The Lib Dem statement said: “If the water is not sufficient for a planning application, then that application would be refused.”
The Lib Dems concluded: “Leaving us without a local plan leaves us at risk of it being called in by central government who will apply new legislation leaving us with no control and adding to the number of properties we will be expected to provide. This is irresponsible.”
But the decision not to progress the Tonbridge and Malling local plan was welcomed by Tunbridge Wells water campaigner, Jonathan Hawker (pictured below), who runs the “Dry Wells” Action Group.
Jonathan Hawker noted on the Nextdoor site: “It is interesting indeed that such a sensible decision was not made in Tunbridge Wells, the town in Kent that has suffered the most and longest water outages in the country.”
Jonathan Hawker said: “This begs the question- why did our council agree to hundreds of new houses across the borough, knowing full well that South East Water is struggling to supply existing homes, businesses, schools and medical facilities?”
Jonathan Hawker continued: “The answer is party politics. Our MP, Mike Martin…supports the new developments. And that’s the position of his fellow Lib Dems who control our council.”
Jonathan Hawker said: “Anyone who is not driven by party political ideology can surely see the issue: if we add more houses to an already routinely failing water infrastructure, it will make things worse for existing homes.”
A map showing the planned new builds south of Tunbridge Wells (connected to the move of the Rugby Club into Sussex) is shown below:
Jonathan Hawker also discussed the shortages of dentists, school places, GPs and the loss of farmland, concluding: “Dry Wells Action is not a political group but we feel the anger in the community about the lack of regard for people who’ve had to live without water again and again.”
Jonathan Hawker concludes: “We therefore urge councillors of all political persuasions to serve the people you represent and find ways to push back on a policy that ignores the reality in our community. Anyone who supported the local plan which was passed here in December should hang their heads in shame.”
A Conservative Tunbridge Wells Borough Councillor, Tom Mobbs, agrees that Tunbridge Wells should not be accepting the government’s housing targets. He points to a petition which residents can sign opposing mass house building that will be presented to parliament found here: https://www.haltthehouses.com
One controversial housing scheme proposes 66 homes in a field currently used for grazing horses in the picturesque Medway Valley near Wateringbury (shown below).
Councillors and campaigners from “Protect Medway Valley” are trying to reject the planning application in part because it would worsen traffic congestion at the Wateringbury Crossroads junction, which is confirmed by the council’s Air Quality Action Plan 2022 as the most polluted junction in all of Tonbridge and Malling.
Conservative councillor Sarah Hudson (pictured below), who lives in Wateringbury, said she supported the motion to reject the Local Plan, due to insufficient water infrastructure, highways concerns and foul drainage worries.
Cllr Hudson said: “Rejecting the Local Plan in its current form wasn’t about opposing development for the sake of it. My concerns were about whether the scale and location of the development being proposed were genuinely sustainable and whether sufficient consideration had been given to the impact it will have on our communities.”
Cllr Sarah Hudson explained: “One of my biggest concerns is water supply. We are already living in an area where water resources are under significant pressure…New housing must not be approved on the assumption that essential resources and infrastructure will somehow catch up afterwards.”
Meanwhile, a group has been formed in Hadlow to oppose the Local Plan housing allocations there. The “Hadlow Opposes Mass Expansion” campaign has published this map of new homes planned before 2042.
Cllr Hudson said she remained “deeply concerned” about the loss of green spaces and open countryside, arguing: “These spaces are not simply empty areas waiting to be built on. They are an essential part of the environment, provide opportunities for recreation, support wildlife and biodiversity, help with drainage and flooding, and contribute enormously to people’s quality of life.”
Cllr Hudson explained: “There is also a very real danger that the continued expansion of housing will cause our villages to lose their individual identity and character. Our villages have developed over generations, each with its own history, landscape and sense of community.
Cllr Hudson concluded: “If development continually joins settlements together and surrounds villages with large housing estates, we risk losing what makes these places special in the first place.”
The owners of the snooker centre in Tunbridge Wells have spoken for the first time about how they were “devastated” to find the Borough Council wanted to knock down their home, the Friendly Societies’ Hall.
Construction of the ornate Friendly Societies’ Hall (pictured below) began in 1877 after a royal visit by one of Queen Victoria’s daughters, who laid the foundation stone.
A person-to-person meeting finally took place in August between the snooker club and the council which wants to demolish the hall to make way for a three screen “boutique cinema” funded by £68 million of borrowing.
Co-owner of the Victoria Snooker Centre, Graham Martin, (pictured below) told Southborough News: “If it’s knocked down, there’s a lot of community being taken away. What they’re gonna do. I don’t know. I really don’t know, because we are a bit of a meeting place.”
Graham Martin continued: “We do serve the underprivileged…and community groups…it’s just devastating, and it hurts me to the bottom of my stomach, to be fair.”
Graham says the snooker hall has had celebrity visits from all the biggest names in snooker from Jimmy White and Steve Davis to John Higgins and Ronnie O’Sullivan.
The Tunbridge Wells Civic Society has applied to the government for the Friendly Societies’ Hall to be listed to prevent demolition. A decision is expected in September.
The Civic Society has also suggested an alternative scheme that would allow the council to continue with its plans for a 3-screen boutique cinema (pictured below) but without demolishing the snooker hall.
The meeting with the council in August was said by the snooker club owners to be “productive”.
But the council is still adamant it wants to knock down the Victorian hall, leaving only a refurbished facade on Camden Road, including the elephants on the doorway. (see below)
Graham’s son, Liam is another co-owner of the Victoria Snooker Centre. Liam’s family used to live in a flat which is part of the building. The flat is no longer usable because of a leaking roof.
Liam Martin (pictured below) said: “I’ve been here for 16 years, so half of my life, I’ve raised my children here. So to have the thought of losing the building itself, let alone the business that we’ve built and is thriving, the only word we could use is devastating.”
Liam is also critical of the financial thinking behind the entire council scheme. The council’s debt would add another £5 million a year to the council costs, which is a big rise on the £20 million a year the council spends at the moment on all its services.
The £68 million debt is designed to fund the demolition of a large area on the corner of Camden Road, cinema construction and other refurbishment of the council-owned shopping centre.
The debt means the council needs to extract an EXTRA £5 million a year in car park fees, rents and business rates to cover the debt servicing costs of the loan.
Liam Martin says he doesn’t think it is a viable scheme: “I think it’s a massive risk to spend 68 million pounds of us taxpayers’ money. I really don’t see the logic in putting in this massive cinema and increasing the leisure industry and dining, fine dining, because I don’t think it will attract many more people.”
Scott (pictured below) is a member of the snooker club, the Victoria Snooker Centre.
Scott has been perfecting his shots at the hall for 15 years. He says: “It gets me away from reality. I’ll forget everything, and all I can look at is just a ball, and that’s all I need.”
Scott continues: “It’s like, gives me peace and it gives me comfort, somewhere to escape from real life problems. It’s like a family. A lot of the same people that have been coming 20 years, even before I was here. They’re still coming now. So that’s how I like it.”
Support worker Ray (pictured below), brings a group of adults to the club every Tuesday from the Crossways Community at the Moxham House residential home.
Ray says: “The support…it’s been immense here. Without having something like this to come to, there’s nothing local. We’d almost have to quit. We can’t go to Maidstone. We can’t go to miles away.”
Ray continues: “So having the facilities here, and having, like, somewhere here that actually makes us feel welcome, which is the number one key, somewhere where people can come, and actually feel safe, and the response here is just fantastic.”
Ray says the residents he supports have a “great time” at the Friendly Societies’ Hall (pictured below from Camden Road) and he concludes: “I just think it would be a crying shame, if anything ever happened here.”
You can watch a 30 minute video report from the snooker club here, including parts of my earlier interviews with Justine Rutland, who’s the Liberal Democrat councillor behind the scheme plus the views of the local MP, Liberal Democrat Mike Martin.
You can read a transcript of the 30 minute video here:
Justine Rutland argues that the scheme will boost council business rates receipts in the town, car park revenues and shopping centre rents so the scheme “pays for itself.”
Justine Rutland says that the town needs a new town centre cinema: “One of the ideas is to ensure that young people can be independent..They can also turn up at the cinema in the way that I might have done when I was young and I went to the cinema in the corner and thought, oh, what’s on? And be able to go and do things spontaneously, which you can’t always do at other venues.”
Justine Rutland makes the case despite fears that a new cinema will eat into revenue from the Trinity Theatre’s film offerings and so potentially puts Trinity’s viability at risk.
There’s concern that no significant assets are set to be given to the brand new Town Council for Tunbridge Wells, so leaving it with little power to enhance the town.
The decision to form the new Town Council was made by Tunbridge Wells Borough Council on 15th July after public consultations.
The Tunbridge Wells Borough will disappear in April 2028 as part of the Labour government’s local government reorganisation, which sees the formation of a vast West Kent Unitary Authority to cover Tunbridge Wells, Sevenoaks, Tonbridge and Maidstone.
Without a Town Council, there would have been no way for people in Tunbridge Wells to have a direct say over local assets.
Other areas already have this very local tier of representation – examples include Southborough Town Council and Bidborough Parish Council.
The Royal Tunbridge Wells Town Council will be elected in May by voters living in the area shown below:
Stuart Anderson, Chair of the Royal Tunbridge Wells Town Forum, said: “This is an important milestone for Royal Tunbridge Wells.”
Stuart Anderson continued: “As West Kent moves to a new unitary council, it is important that Royal Tunbridge Wells has the same opportunity as other towns across West Kent to develop a strong, effective Town Council that reflects the aspirations of its residents.”
But the decisions so far have deeply disappointed David Scott (pictured below), who’s deputy leader of the Town Forum and was previously deputy leader of the Borough.
David Scott said: “I am appalled by the fact that our local Borough has been more concerned about helping the West Kent Authority than they are worried about our local community in Royal Tunbridge Wells.”
He continued: “This is supposed to be about devolution. But power is moving away from Tunbridge Wells to the West Kent Authority.”
He argued: “Allocating only allotments to Town Council will mean all our key town assets will be controlled by the West Kent Authority. These are assets that people in the town have been contributing to for many years. And many of those assets belonged to Tunbridge Wells town – before the creation of the Borough.”
Assets that could be allocated to the Town Council include the town’s parks as well as community spaces such as the Amelia centre (pictured below) and library which connect to the old town hall, which recently housed adult education.
David Scott points out that two-thirds of the space in the existing Town Hall has become office rental, which is an income producer from a building which was historically one of the town’s assets. That income is now set to flow to the West Kent Authority.
David Scott asked: “Why should a council that’s being abolished automatically transfer all its assets to West Kent rather than the town of Tunbridge Wells?”
David Scott argued that while the Borough Council have said they can’t do anything about it until after West Kent is created, that’s not happening in other places.
David Scott said: “A number of other councils up and down the country are creating “letters of intent” to hand some assets to town councils, which in our case could put the onus on West Kent to explain why they should own the assets and not the town.”
He concluded: “Tunbridge Wells is one of the larger towns in Kent. We should have the financial viability of that status. We should not have less power than any other town in Kent. That’s all we are asking for.”
The influence of Tunbridge Wells councillors on the decisions of the new West Kent Authority would be minimal as the town’s representation would be less than 10% of all the councillors in West Kent.
David Scott argues that controls of assets should be placed where it best serves residents. He uses the example of Sevenoaks Town Council (which has existed since 1974) which he says has proved it was the best council to manage the Stag Theatre and the Bat and Ball regeneration, rather than the larger Sevenoaks District Council.
David Scott also points out the four seats on the body running the Tunbridge Wells and Rusthall commons will all go to the West Kent Authority, not the Town Council.
Work can now begin to establish the new Town Council, including appointing a Town Clerk, putting governance arrangements in place and preparing the council’s first budget.
The Town Forum is concerned that many residents are still unaware that changes are taking place. It says it will soon publish a series of clear briefing papers explaining what the new Town Council is, how it fits into wider local government changes, and the choices that future elected Town Councillors will be able to make.
For more information about the Royal Tunbridge Wells Town Forum, click here: http://townforum.org.uk/
Environmental campaigners have said that the climate and the UK economy will suffer as a result of the final approval for a new £2 billion runway at Gatwick Airport.
On Tuesday, the Court of Appeal rejected legal arguments of campaigners trying to block the expansion and refused permission for them to appeal.
Opponents of Gatwick’s new runway say it will worsen noise for residents in West Kent. The airport says night flights will not increase.
The news was celebrated by Labour’s Transport Secretary, Heidi Alexander, who said: “This is a major milestone for Gatwick and for local communities, with expansion unlocking investment and creating thousands of new jobs.”
Ms Alexander (pictured below) continued: “Around 13 million more passengers and 100,000 more flights will give holidaymakers greater choice and strengthen global links to help make the UK one of the most attractive places in the world to invest.”
Ms Alexander concluded: “We’ll back expansion that supports growth and our climate goals. To drive forward sustainable change, we’re also investing over £219m for green fuel production to cut emissions from flying and secure the future of aviation.”
But climate campaigners are dismayed by the prospect of another 100,000 flights every year, amid increasing signs of the damage to the planet’s weather systems from carbon emissions.
Every time a person flies to Greece and back, the plane generates around 0.6 tonnes of carbon emissions per person – that’s about the same as the carbon footprint of what many individuals eat in an entire year. (source: carbon footprint.com)
Sustainable aviation fuel (made from crops rather than oil) currently accounts for only around 0.3% of the total aviation fuel used.
Many economists also dispute the suggestion that more UK citizens travelling abroad more often will boost the UK economy, as spending diverted from UK restaurants and other businesses to foreign holiday destinations actually reduces the size of UK economic output.
In 2024, £46 billion left the UK economy due to more UK tourists going abroad that there were foreign tourists coming to the UK.
Permission for Gatwick expansion was originally rejected by Planning Inspectors due to apparent flaws in the proposal, but that decision was then overruled by the Labour government.
The Chief Executive of London Gatwick, Pierre-Hugues Schmit (pictured below) said: “Today’s Court of Appeal decision to comprehensively reject the legal challenges brought by the two campaign groups opposing London Gatwick’s Northern Runway Project, confirms, yet again, that the September 2025 decision by the Secretary of State for Transport to approve the Northern Runway Project was taken properly and lawfully.”
Pierre-Hugues Schmit continued: “We are also very pleased that this ruling, from senior Court of Appeal Judges, brings to an end an eight-year planning and legal process which has carefully tested and scrutinised every aspect of our expansion plans on multiple occasions.”
He argued: “The Northern Runway project will deliver significant business, tourism and trade benefits for the UK, including 14,000 new jobs, a £1bn boost to the economy every year and a comprehensive education, skills and business strategy designed to bring maximum benefits to local people and the Gatwick region.”
The Gatwick chief executive concluded: “This final ruling means that we can now press on with the important job of bringing this exciting project to life and move forward into the design and delivery phase.”
The anti-expansion campaign group, CAGNE, said: “This is a deeply disappointing reflection of a government that is failing to take a balanced approach to airport expansion, particularly where an airport such as Gatwick seeks to export sterling from the UK economy while imposing significant costs on local authorities, communities and the environment.”
CAGNE, which is funded by local residents, continued: “Residents should be immensely proud of what they have achieved in holding Gatwick Airport’s shareholders to account. This proposed new runway will come at a significant cost to both the taxpayer and the planet.”
The environmental group argued: “Today’s Court of Appeal ruling is a deeply disappointing reflection of recent changes to the legal process, rather than of the strength or commitment of our legal team. We firmly believed the judges understood the serious environmental impacts at stake, including the lack of sufficient sewerage treatment capacity to support an additional runway at this leisure airport.”
CAGNE concluded: “The legal process provides only specific routes for challenging a government error in judgement. As a result, we were unable to resubmit all the grounds that led the Planning Inspectorates to recommend refusal of this new runway application through the planning development consent order.”
In an earlier statement, CAGNE argued: “It is fundamentally wrong that taxpayers should be expected to meet the costs of new runway operations while shareholders stand to profit from an additional 101,000 flights a year and 80 million passengers. The public should not be left to pay for the infrastructure, environmental damage and disruption created by private gain.”
Some readers in the past few days have queried my headline that refers to a “doubling of flights”. I take their point that the airport is currently promising only an extra 100,000 flights a year. So how many are there at the moment?
It depends where you start from. If we average the figures on flights (or “aircraft movements” in the jargon) at Gatwick over the last four years we have seen 214,000, 253,000, 261,000 and then 259,000 last year. That’s an average of 247,000. So an extra 100,000 flights is an extra 40 per cent.
However, in terms of “passenger flights” – that is people with tickets to fly, Gatwick’s business plan ambition is to have 75 to 80 million passengers by the end of the 2030s. Passenger flights have been 32.8m in 2022, then 40.9m, 42.8m and 43.2m in 2025, so an average of 39.9mn.
75-80 million is indeed approximately a “doubling” of 39.9mn, so I stand by my headline, but am pleased to get feedback and clarify the numbers.
Others have pointed out the new runway won’t initially be used for the bigger planes, but it is a commercial operation and – if it would be profitable for the airport – then having been allowed to build a new runway and then new terminals to go with it, there is now nothing logistically to stand in the way of the airport meeting its own goal of adding more than 100,000 extra flights by the end of the 2030s. The 100,000 is not a legally fixed limit for all time.
The new runway could potentially be extended, according to the information I have if new planning permission was approved.
Another point is that the objections aren’t just about noise which is related to the number of plane take offs. The other objections (like the hit to other people and businesses from increased M25 and local road congestion and need for rail investment by taxpayers) are more a factor of the number of “passenger flight tickets” which indeed is the the number that may – or may not depending on the economy – double in the next 15 years.
REACTIONS ADDED FRI 7 AUGUST:
There’s been a mix of reactions by local people to my article. Of the 3,200 people who viewed my headline on Nextdoor, Marcus from Ramslye said “Love Gatwick, more Spain flights please.” Darren in St James said: “Excellent news.”
Michael from Estcots said: “Consider the number of jobs that will create, can only be a positive move.”
William from Pembury said: “Obviously there is a bit of noise, but also keep in account that planes are getting less noisy, and even cleaner!!”
But Peter from Higham Wood said: “That’s Labour’s net zero out of the window then!”
Jane from Hawkenbury said: “And there was I thinking this government was determined to go green. Ha!”
Steve from East Malling said: “We have an astonishing ability to ignore the evidence of our impending demise in the face of chance for more profit.”
Ken from Speldhurst said: “In Langton Green in the last week we have had on 3 days flights directly over our house about every 2-4 minutes during daytime. We are next to countryside, so the noise impact is more than annoying.”
Over on Facebook, Aimee said: “Absolutely disgusting – there is no hope.” Sara said: “The noise will be awful.”
But James said: “I wonder how many of these complainers fly, for work or pleasure. NIMB but it has to be in somebodies.”
And Michael said: “Fantastic News” while David said: “Love watching the planes fly over my house. Good news for the local economy.”
Elections will take place next year for a powerful new West Kent council which will replace four existing local authorities.
The West Kent Unitary Authority will cover the area currently run by Tunbridge Wells Borough Council, Maidstone Borough, Tonbridge and Malling Borough and Sevenoaks District Council.
On Thursday, the Labour government confirmed its plans to abolish all the Borough and District Councils in Kent, as well as Kent County Council and the Medway Unitary Authority.
The smaller existing Parish and Town Councils, such as Southborough Town Council, will remain in place.
The aim is to save money by replacing 14 councils in Kent with just four. The new councils will start delivering services from April 2028.
It’s also hoped that decision making will be more coherent than the current system whereby roads are maintained by Kent County Council, while a different set of councillors and officials in the Borough Council deal with planning and economic development.
The current two-tier arrangement of local government was brought in in 1974 when local urban and rural district councils were abolished.
Earlier it had looked likely that just three new councils would be created in Kent, but splitting the county into four areas had become a more likely prospect after Labour’s other county reorganizations had created slightly smaller councils than the initial suggested guidance for a minimum of half a million population in each unitary.
The other three Unitaries in Kent will cover North (Dartford, Gravesham and Medway), Mid Kent (Swale, Ashford and Folkestone & Hythe) and East (Canterbury, Dover and Thanet).
Under the current system Kent County Council (KCC) delivers some services like education, libraries, social services and roads, while district or borough councils deliver rubbish collection, council housing and planning services.
In the proposed new system unitary councils would deliver all council services in one area. Medway Council operates in that way today.
The Reform UK leader of Kent County Council, Linden Kemkaran (pictured below), said this was not the option she had supported. Reform UK proposed just one council covering all of Kent.
Linden Kemkaren stated: “The Government has made its decision and we will now review the detail to understand what it means for Kent.”
Tunbridge Wells Conservative Borough Councillor, Tom Mobbs, (pictured below) said: “From the outset, I have consistently said that if Kent was to be divided, this was the most sensible geography. Our communities have strong economic, transport and service links, and it reflects the way many residents already live and work.”
Tom Mobbs continued: “That said, I remain unconvinced that this model will deliver the financial savings that have been promised.”
Tom Mobbs stated: “As we move towards implementation, I will continue to argue that parish and town councils must have a stronger voice within the new arrangements. With decisions being taken over a much larger geographical area, our parish councils will become even more important in ensuring that local communities continue to be properly represented.”
One Kent MP, Helen Whately (pictured below), who represents Faversham expressed strong criticism of the government, stating: “The Labour Government is clearly determined to destroy Kent. Kent has a history going back over 1,000 years and a proud identity, but they care nothing for that. It’s an abomination.”
Helen Whately continued: “Kent as a county has real clout with Government – it looks like Labour is so scared of Kent they have decided to destroy it. The reorganisation plans say nothing about a Mayor for Kent or strategic authority for the county. We are just to be broken up into four parts with no single voice to represent 1.6 million residents.”
Helen Whately continued: “Meanwhile, other counties and regions are getting Mayors with extra powers, and extra money. Kent risks being overlooked and left behind. Even if a Mayor or strategic authority is on their way, they will come after the Kent-wide infrastructure has been disbanded and absorbed into the four new councils. This is madness. Any savings made from the reorganisation will quickly disappear.”
The current Independent Councillor on Tunbridge Wells Borough Council, David Hayward, (pictured below) said: “Having a quick look I would suggest the new (West Kent) Unitary will, politically, be of no overall control. In my view that is a good thing.”
David Hayard continued: “Independents, like me, will find it very hard to win a seat against the massively funded national parties. One delivering notoriously misleading messaging. Still, I’ll give it a go!”
It is understood that voting will take place next May along existing county election boundaries but with 3 councillors elected in each seat instead of one. Tonbridge Central and Maidstone Central wards would be split to avoid them having to elect 6 councillors in the one seat.
At a point where the Conservatives hit a low in popular support less than a year after their general election defeat, the 28 KCC seats in West Kent in May 2025 were won by Reform 12, Liberal Democrats 8, Conservatives 5 and Green Party 3.
This could suggest a coalition of right of centre parties is likely to control the West Kent Unitary Authority when the vote take place next year.
Stuart Jeffery, Green Party leader of Maidstone Borough Council said: “It marks a new beginning for West Kent. We are committed to working with our partners to shape a council that delivers the very best for our communities.”
Antony Hook (pictured below), Leader of the Liberal Democrat Opposition on Kent County Council commented: “Whether we like it or not, it is clear Local Government is going to be reconfigured.”
Anthony Hook continued: “Reform UK’s madcap plan to merge the whole of Kent and Medway into one huge mega-council that would he hopelessly remote from local communities has been rejected and I am delighted that we have been saved from that.
Anthony Hook stated: “The option selected by government is not my preferred choice but if it is happening we need to put the public first. That means getting council services, like social care, libraries, public health and SEND ready for transfer seamlessly to new councils in just 20 months’ time. We need to make sure those services are ready to go, serving people who need them, under the new councils from day one.”
Anthony Hook concluded: “Reform UK have talked about judicial review (JR) to stop local government reorganisation. That will require a lot of money that will be better spent on services. JR should only be pursued if independent legal counsel advises that it is likely to be won. If the council gets legal advice it should be shared so we can see whether money is being used responsibly or wasted on political grandstanding at taxpayers’ expense.”
Following a government consultation which attracted around 3,000 responses, the Secretary of State Steve Reed, (pictured below) said: “We’re shaking up local government so that people get the services they deserve – cleaner streets, better care, and money spent on what matters most to local people.”
Steve Reed continued: “These reforms create stronger, more efficient councils that lay the foundations for real devolution and the economic growth that will bring new jobs and opportunities to communities right across England.”
The government believes its changes will end unnecessary duplication and create one finance department and one set of senior leaders instead of many.
In a statement, Kent and Medway’s council leaders said: “All of the councils in Kent and Medway have a long history of working closely together to do the very best for the people we serve and that will not change one bit.”
The statement continued: “This is the start of the process of bringing our different teams together with the aim of designing then delivering the best possible services for the people we serve.”
The leaders concluded: “Of course, this change affects the thousands of council staff across the county who work incredibly hard day in and day out. Our focus will be supporting them through this change while helping them to carry on delivering our business-as-usual services seamlessly.”
Meanwhile in East Sussex and Brighton and Hove, 7 councils are being reorganised into 2 unitaries with boundary modifications.
The government decided that Brighton and Hove’s area should be expanded to boost its planning footprint and tax base in order to “tackle housing unaffordability and support growth across connected communities”.
People in Southborough and High Brooms were being asked vote “yes” in a vote on the town’s Neighbourhood Development Plan to endorse many years of hard work by local volunteers in putting it together.
The referendum took place on Thursday 18th June 2026 and 1,194 votes were cast in favour and 152 against. The turnout was 15.2%, given a total electorate of 8,897 people.
All towns and parishes are encouraged to adopt such a plan to ensure future housing development is sympathetic to local heritage, to maintain access to the countryside and to improve cycling and walking routes.
A seven minute interview explaining the referendum is available now on the YouTube Southborough News channel which you can view on computers or watch on most modern TVs. Here is the link: https://youtu.be/cNV7pOFTLkY
In the interview, the Chair of the Southborough and High Brooms Neighbourhood Development Plan, Nicholas Woollett, explains: “What we are looking for is a nice positive result. Please go out and vote: YES.”
Nicholas Woollett (pictured below) continued: “We now have the power to ensure the Borough Council really takes account of what is in the report.”
Nicholas Woollett paid tribute to all the many people who have put hours of work into the project including an expert consultant, Alison Eardley.
He said the Neighbourhood Development Plans arose from national legislation put forward by the former MP for Tunbridge Wells Greg Clark.
The plan – if endorsed by the referendum – will help protect local heritage buildings and views like the one below of the area known locally as “the south of France” looking at Holden Road.
Another view with extra protection is that down the “Hilly Fields” in Pennington Road – shown below:
The Southborough and High Brooms Neighbourhood Development Plan is available to view on this link:
The Liberal Democrats remain in charge of Tunbridge Wells Borough Council with an increased majority.
The Lib Dems have won 11 seats: Culverden, Pantiles, Paddock Wood, Park, Rusthall, Southborough (2), Sherwood (2), St John’s and St James’ all went Lib Dem.
There were no victories for either the Greens or Reform.
The Conservative vote share was 24% – ahead of Reform’s 21%. The Lib Dems were clear winners with a 37% share of votes.
Ben Chapelard leader of the Council (pictured below) said voters had rewarded the Lib Dems for delivering on their promises for improving the town centre, planting a tree for every resident and boosting infrastructure in Paddock Wood.
Cranbrook and Rural Tunbridge Wells were held by the Conservatives. Hawkhurst was held by Tunbridge Wells Alliance.
Labour lost 2 seats they had previously held.
David Hayward held onto his seat in Pembury by just 18 votes. David Hayward is from the Independents for Tunbridge Wells party.
The Conservatives returned to second place in the 2026 vote share across the Tunbridge Wells. Even so, Conservative Daniel Dzenkowski failed to topple the Lib Dems in Pantiles – he blamed the large Reform vote.
Some Lib Dem leaflets during the campaign had said: “The Conservatives are disappearing”. Yet – when adjusted for the double counting of voters in Sherwood and Southborough – and compared with the County vote last year, the Conservative share rose from 22% to 24%, while Reform fell from 23% to 21%.
The Green Party’s Kate Sergeant said: “I do find it quite difficult that we get into this tactical voting argument that it’s about who you vote for to stop someone else…we should be voting about the things we want to happen in our community.”
Reform’s Tunbridge Wells Chair, Rob Grindlay, said: “we are just going to get stronger as time goes on.”
There’s an update on the RVP development, which is to be funded by a big new debt of up to £68 million taken out by the council. Ellen Neville from the Tunbridge Wells Alliance says she thinks not everything is fixed with the planned demolition of the Friendly Societies’ Hall, which currently houses the snooker hall (shown below).
It was the only council vote in Kent, so regional media were at the count in force. The Kent Current blog came up with this interesting insight in their conversation with Martin Brice, who’s the Lib Dem County Councillor for Tunbridge Wells South and Borough Councillor for Culverden.
Martin Brice said: “Today’s result is a complete wipeout for Reform…Linden Kemkaran, the leader of Kent County Council, turned up in Sherwood about an hour before dark on election day. That’s not how you win elections.”
Martin Brice says that elections were not won in the final hours of polling day, arguing: “Almost half of votes cast in local elections are postal votes, and they are cast well before election day.”
Martin Brice continued: “You don’t really win an election during the campaign. What you do during a campaign is you get your voters to turn out and actually vote for you. You win an election in the year before, showing that you are competent, sensible and doing what people want you to do.”
Overall, the Lib Dems now have 25 of the 39 seats on the council, Conservatives have 7, Labour 3, Tunbridge Wells Alliance 3 and Independents for Tunbridge Wells 1. Compared with two years ago, Lib Dems are up 3, Labour down 2 and TW Alliance down 1.
15 seats were being contested this year – of those Lib Dems won 11, Conservatives 2, Tunbridge Wells Alliance 1 and Independents for TW 1.
The vote share above doesn’t take into account double counting of voters in Sherwood and Southborough as there were two vacant seats there.
There was concern among some voters about the Liberal Democrat plan for a the planned £68 million council debt to revamp the shopping centre which includes a “boutique cinema” and demolition of the Victorian Friendly Societies’ Hall, which houses the snooker club. But the issue didn’t appear to impact on voting intentions.
Thirteen of the 14 wards in the Borough went to the polls – the only area not voting was High Brooms, as it is a small ward with just one councillor, currently Labour’s Dianne Hill. Here’s how the seats went:
Cranbrook – Conservative hold Culverden – Lib Dem mayor David Osborne held his seat Hawkhurst – TW Alliance retained its seat
Paddock Wood – Lib Dems retained their seat Pantiles – Local campaigner Daniel Dzenkowski failed to take from Lib Dems Park – Lib Dem hold
Pembury – Independents for Tunbridge Wells candidate David Hayward retained his seat from Lib Dem challenge by just 18 votes Rural T Wells – Conservative hold Rusthall – Labour seat fell to Lib Dems
Sherwood – Lib Dem took both seats. One from Conservative and one from Labour. Southborough – Lib Dem held both seats.
The chief executive of South East Water, David Hinton, has resigned from his job after months of criticism of the firm’s failures in Tunbridge Wells.
South East Water said David Hinton (pictured below) had decided to step down but would remain in post “to allow an orderly transition over the summer period”.
The company said: “He feels his position has become an increasing distraction from South East Water’s most important priority, which is to deliver a resilient water supply for its customers.”
The announcement comes just seven days after the Chair of South East Water, Chris Train, resigned.
Jonathan Hawker (pictured below) who’s the Chair of the Tunbridge Wells residents group, Dry Wells Action said: “About time.”
Jonathan Hawker continued: “Dry Wells Action will continue to press SEW for investment in the infrastructure serving our town. Sadly, not enough progress has been made since the January outage. And communication from the company continues to be inadequate.”
Interim Chair of South East Water Lisa Clement said: “The board acknowledges and thanks Dave for his many years of loyal dedication and service to South East Water.”
The Liberal Democrat plan to take on a council debt of £68 million to finance town centre development work appears to have turned into the major local election issue for voters who make their choice tomorrow (Thursday 7th).
The Conservative candidate in Sherwood, Christian Atwood, told Southborough News today: “A lot of people are against the proposed cinema ‘Vanity Project 2.0’ – as I’m calling it.”
Sherwood is being targeted by both Reform UK and the Greens as both parties attempt to win their first seats on Tunbridge Wells Borough Council.
Christian Atwood of the Conservatives continued: “Honestly I can’t wrap my head around it. You’ve got a council that only has one year left in its existence before we move into a unitary authority. The new cinema is going to be in competition with Trinity and the Knight’s Park cinema. Financially, my mind boggles as to why they thought it up.”
Christian Atwood said on Wednesday that he believed his chances of being re-elected in Sherwood were “tentatively good” and he is “quietly hopeful”. He said: “I’ve not found much support for the Green Party on the doorstep…our feeling is that it is between Conservatives and Reform at the moment.”
Christian Atwood is a sitting councillor and works as a full time chef and so was unavailable for a round of video interviews conducted by Southborough News over the weekend. You can see the arguments of the Green, Reform and Labour candidates in Sherwood here:
During the interview, Oliver Kinkade of Reform said he was definitely against the cinema project. He called it a “huge risk” and asked: “When do these projects ever go well?”
Oliver Kinkade said: “The momentum we’ve got now is massive. I think it will be close for us (in Sherwood).”
Kate Sergeant (pictured below), who’s one of of the Green Party candidates, explained that the Green Party was targeting Sherwood to try to gain its first foothold on Tunbridge Wells Borough Council. Greens already have strong representation in Tonbridge and Tunbridge Wells.
Kate Sergeant argued that: “It does look like it could be between Green and Reform.” She said she was “pretty sceptical” about the Lib Dem plans for the cinema and that providing “social housing” might be a better way of investing any council borrowings.
The Labour candidate in Sherwood, Tina Kesterton, was more neutral on the £68 million debt, arguing: “I would want to see the plans, the budget and then make an informed decision.”
Tina Kesterton said she was the best person to serve the people of Sherwood, as she was “a local person with great local knowledge.”
The Liberal Democrats have declined to be interviewed in recent weeks, but the deputy leader of the council, Justine Rutland, set out her case for the redevelopment plans for the Royal Victoria Place shopping centre in this interview recorded at the start of April, which you can watch on this link: https://youtu.be/C-jPzKdYzzI
The Liberal Democrat MP for Tunbridge Wells, Mike Martin, said recently: “The Liberal Democrats and I were elected with a mandate to revitalise the Tunbridge Wells town centre, and that’s exactly what we’re doing.”
Mike Martin continued: “I’m delighted with the Borough Council’s plans to deliver brand new purpose-built retail, hospitality and leisure units, while also maintaining the town centre’s heritage and historic facade on Camden Road.”
The council have now issued an order to try to prevent the historic Friendly Societies’ Hall (pictured below) from being listed.
The Tunbridge Wells Civic Society has applied for an emergency listing to try to save the Hall from demolition. The Liberal Democrat council scheme involves keeping just the facade of the building, arguing the Hall needs to make way for the new cinema.
Southborough News published a piece on 10th April as opposition to the scheme was voiced from several directions.
David Hayward (pictured below) from the Independents for Tunbridge Wells Party in Pembury called the Lib Dem plans “a ridiculous construct which will place the council in debt and destroy heritage assets.”
David Hayward said: “This proposal is ignoring the whole borough’s needs without proper scrutiny as to whether these plans are value for money.”
And Nick Pope, who is a candidate for the Tunbridge Wells Alliance Party in Park ward, stated his opposition to the cinema plan. He said: “The architects should be given a lower cost brief that keeps the existing buildings, bringing them back into use, and makes Ely Court a much more welcoming space for customers and small businesses.”
In Pantiles ward, the only candidate available for interview was the Conservative Daniel Dzenkowski (pictured below), who stated his opposition to the Cinema scheme and demanded more scrutiny of house building schemes in the south of Tunbridge Wells.
Daniel Dzenkowski said: “I think rather than focus on new big projects, maybe we should focus on the basics and what we have here and what makes the town special.” Watch his interview here: https://youtube.com/shorts/fc2In4uYWb8
In the Southborough and Bidborough ward, there are two seats available but the Labour Party failed to find any party member to stand. So the front runners are the Liberal Democrats who currently hold all 3 seats, with an expected challenge from the Conservatives who came second in 2024 in an area where they’ve traditionally polled strongly.
There is no voting in High Brooms ward, which elects just one councillor, who was voted in two years ago.
The Southborough and Bidborough candidates chasing two seats are: 2 Liberal Democrats (Kimberley Johnson & Ash Shukla), 2 Conservatives (Richard Long & Jack Bradley), 2 Reform UK (Stephen Humphreys & Robert Mayall), 2 Green (Maria Gavin & Iqbal Sidhu), 1 English Democrats (Aaron Brand)
Aaron Brand explained that he was standing for the right wing English Democrats party to “Push the council to celebrate English heritage” and “to make sure any housing built is in keeping with the local area, aesthetically pleasing and is prioritised towards young people. Any social housing should be for people from the area.”
Aaron continued: “I will push back and stop the housing of migrants in the area, as they pose a constant danger, especially towards women and girls. I will make sure the red brick paving is restored and not botched with tarmac, as it is part of our town’s heritage.”
The Liberal Democrats currently hold a overall majority on Tunbridge Wells Borough Council with 21 seats out of 39. Conservatives have 8, Labour 4, Tunbridge Wells Alliance 3 and Independents for Tunbridge Wells one seat. There are 2 vacancies.
Only 15 seats are being contested tomorrow (Thursday) as the system in Tunbridge Wells is that a third of seats are voted on in each year, plus any vacancies. This means that the Liberal Democrats are bound to remain the biggest party, although their absolute grip on decision making could be loosened.
63 candidates are standing in total in the 7th May local elections, with Conservatives, Lib Dems, Reform and Greens each contributing 13 candidates, Labour 6, Tunbridge Wells Alliance 3, Independents for Tunbridge Wells Party 1, plus one Independent & one English Democrats candidate.
Southborough News 