Water Campaigners Dismay Over Approval for More Homes on Local Fields

On By southboroughnews1 Comment

A development of 125 homes to the south of Tunbridge Wells at Ramslye Farm has been approved by Tunbridge Wells Borough Councillors.

The decision was described as “a really, really bad step” by campaigners concerned about the shortage of water in the town.

A local group also argued there were multiple errors in the application and warned of safety issues on the busy A26, calling it “a travesty of justice.”

The site was called Spratsbrook Farm by developers but the site is actually at Ramslye Farm, which means “fields of garlic.” (shown below).

The development site is bound by the back-garden fences of properties on Ramslye Road to the north and by Ramslye Farm Cottage (pictured below).

Members of the”Dry Wells Action”group had hoped that the planning committee would delay considering the house building plans in the light of new statements expected soon from South East Water on the company’s ability to supply water to new housing estates.

South East Water has apparently recently told the group there needed to be “an outbreak of the truth.”

Jonathan Hawker of Dry Wells Action told Southborough News that he expected new statements on water supply constraints from South East Water in the next 4-6 weeks and the committee should have put the application on pause to consider them.

But the Tunbridge Wells Planning Committee voted by 5 to 1 approve the plans on the land which is currently cultivated for food (see below).

Liberal Democrat Chris Digby from Paddock Wood was the single vote against. 3 Lib Dems, one Labour and one Conservative supported the application.

Those voting to approve the application were: Hugh Patterson (Lib Dem), Ukonu Obasi (Lib Dem) and Kim Johnson (Lib Dem), plus Lynne Darragh (Conservative) and Hugo Pound (Labour).

The members of the public who attended were shocked by the fact that only 6 of the 11 members of the planning committee turned up for the decision, apparently because the meeting was called at short notice.

Those who didn’t make it were 3 Lib Dems: (Don Kent, Richard Brown and Gavin Barrass), as well as Tom Dawlings (Conservative) and Ellen Neville (TW Alliance).

The developer, Dandara South East, says 40% of the homes will be designated as “affordable”.

There will be 27 two bedroom homes, 61 three bedroom homes and 33 four bedroom homes. An artist’s impression of the new estate is shown below.

The 21 acre site was allocated for residential development in the Borough Council’s Local Plan.

The development (shown below) would take up around 5 hectares of the land, with the rest being used as “an open field for public access and biodiversity”.

The western field of the site partially overlaps the Scheduled Ancient Monument of the Iron Age Hill Fort.

When asked for an explanation of the decision, the Borough Council made this statement: “The Planning Committee considered all the information presented to it before making its decision, including information relating to water supply alongside a range of other planning matters. Anyone who would like to understand how the decision was reached can watch the meeting and read the supporting papers on the Council’s website.”
https://democracy.tunbridgewells.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=377&MId=6117

Liberal Democrat Councillor, Jamie Johnson, (pictured below) has always lived in the area. Jamie said: “I am very very upset about it.”

Jamie Johnson told Southborough News that the developer had worked hard to engage the community. But Jamie believed that the housing development should only have gone ahead if a roundabout had been part of the plans to slow traffic on the already busy and dangerous A26.

A local campaign group issued this statement after the decision: “We are bitterly disappointed that the planning application to build 125 houses on Ramslye Farm has been approved. This decision was made with only six of the eleven members of the Planning Committee present, meaning that few questions were asked and there was virtually no debate.”

The group called “Residents Against Ramslye Development” or RARD said: “This is a travesty of justice given the size of this development and the huge impact it will have on the whole of Tunbridge Wells. The members that were present agreed with us that road safety for the scheme was a major concern, yet they voted for it anyway.”

(Pictures of the site are kindly supplied by Kate Griffiths.)

The RARD group commented on the mood: “Local people are angry that their fears about road safety appear to have been totally ignored. We know that Dandara will now push to extend this scheme by building a further 350 houses on adjoining land, land that is within the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. Of course we will strenuously oppose this.”

RARD continued: “We would like to thank our Ward Councillors Christopher Hall, Jamie Johnson and Pamela Wilkinson for supporting us in our opposition to this planning application. The site is incorrectly named Spratsbrook. It is and always has been Ramslye Farm.”

The RARD statement argued: “We have always argued the Urban land classification in the Local Plan is incorrect. It is Grade 3A and 3B farmland. This error was finally admitted by the Planning Officer at the Planning Meeting.”

The RARD statement concluded: “It was drawn to the meeting’s attention that the current plan did not allow for access to Grade 3A land adjoining the application site to enable it to continue to be farmed. This was not even commented on at the meeting let alone allowed for. These errors mean that the planning process was not transparent and therefore unfair.”

Jonathan Hawker from Dry Wells Action (pictured below) said: “Whilst we understand that local authorities are under pressure to approve new housing estates from a government desperate to kickstart the economy, it is bizarre that the Committee pressed ahead rather than wait for the South East Water letter.”

Jonathan Hawker argued: “Headline grabbing government housing targets do not add a single drop of water to our taps. It’s a simple point really and one the councillors should have grasped.”

Jonathan Hawker continued: “We have a fragile water infrastructure. Given an almost year-round hosepipe ban and repeat outages suffered by everyone in our community, which go beyond anything experienced anywhere else in the country, a water company in operational and financial distress that is losing 100m litres of water a day through leaks and which has yet to consider fully how to modernise Pembury Treatment Works, adding more homes requiring a water feed from the same creaking infrastructure is premature.”

Marianne Amos, from Dry Wells Action, had told the planning committee: “We have too few reservoirs. We have an ageing pipe network which South East Water says would require around £1.8 billion of investment to rectify.”

She continued: “Here in Tunbridge Wells, the system is already under severe strain. The company is only now trying to determine how to address the problems at Pembury Treatment Works. Blackhurst Lane reservoir is another critical constraint. When supply falls, or demand rises, its water level can drop to the point at which pumping is affected — threatening supply to around 7,000 pumped properties.”

Marianne Amos concluded: “This is not a resilient network with comfortable spare capacity. It is a network already struggling to supply the homes we have.”

Marianne Amos also quoted the chief executive of South East Water as saying that planning assumptions rely upon people reducing their water consumption by around 10 per cent. She said that hasn’t happened and South East Water has not even achieved a 3 per cent reduction.

“Shambles” as Labour’s Local Council Changes “Paused”

On By southboroughnewsLeave a comment

Escalating costs involved in restructuring local councils in Kent could mean the changes never happen.

A shock announcement last Monday 7th September by the Labour government put on “pause” plans to abolish both Kent County Council and all the existing Borough Councils – with no timetable to resume the process.

Indeed, it was announced that voting next May – that was due to elect the new authorities – will now elect new members to the existing structures, suggesting the “pause” could be indefinite.

The Conservative leader of Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council called the situation “a complete mess”, while the Lib Dem Tunbridge Wells Borough Council said it was “very frustrating” and Kent County Council’s Reform UK leader said it was a “shambles.”

In Parliament, Local Government Secretary Angela Rayner (pictured below) told MPs that: “In light of legal advice, I want to satisfy myself firstly that the right process is in place, that it is robust, and of course complies with the law.”

Ms Rayner added: “And secondly, I want to fully test whether our proposals for local government reorganisation meet the priorities of a new administration and a new prime minister and any additional considerations.”

Her statement was a clear hint that the new administration of Andy Burnham is trying to focus on its key priorities, like funding defence and social care. It doesn’t seem to want to get distracted by paying the escalating transitional costs of setting up new local authorities and winding up the old ones.

The government had tried to frame the initial council set up costs as ones that would be recouped later by later savings once the new structures were up and running. But the accountants seem set to veto that approach due to the decisions to create smaller sized councils than were initially suggested.

Latest estimates by accountants PwC for the County Councils Network suggested that new unitary authorities covering more than 500,000 people would save money, but authorities covering populations of only 300,000 people would cost money and provide no long term savings.

The PwC report put the bill at £ 850 million with no savings if every two-tier area was split into 58 unitary authorities with a 300,000 population.

The decisions in Kent meant two of the four new proposed authorities covered populations of only around 400,000 people.

The idea of unitary authorities is to simplify things for voters. But they would also add to duplication in Kent, with each unitary authority having to set up departments to run highways, education and social care – things that are currently done by Kent County Council.

Ben Chapelard (pictured below), who’s the Liberal Democrat leader of Tunbridge Wells Borough Council, described the government’s announcement as “very frustrating.”

Ben Chapelard said: “Together with our West Kent partner councils, we have put in significant time, energy and money to shape a new super council for our area. Our goal remains the same: to create a stronger council that can make a bigger impact on our residents’ lives.”

He continued: “The pause – and the lack of a timetable – from the Government, is disappointing. However, I am optimistic that if the review is quick and the Government allows us to get on with it, I think with the additional time we can make an even better start.”

Voters in Tunbridge Wells Borough will now go to the polls to elect a third of councillors to the existing Borough Council next May.

There was a stronger reaction from Matt Boughton (pictured below), who’s the Conservative leader of Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council.

Matt Boughton said: “Local Government Reorganisation is a complete mess entirely caused by the Government. The process has been characterised by u-turns galore and has wasted millions of pounds of taxpayers money and an awful lot of time.”

Matt Boughton continued: “If the Government wishes to bring this back then it will need to do an awful lot first to win back the trust from councils who feel extremely let down by its approach.”

In a video posted on Monday, Matt Boughton said he had been in Westminster to listen to Angela Rayner’s statement in the House of Commons. He said: “What she’s announced is the end of the local government reorganisation process. She said in the House of Commons behind me, that they would pause the process, but there’s no timing or indication as to what happens next.”

Matt Boughton concluded: “What a waste of time and money this has been. Over the last couple of years, we have put a lot into the reorganisation process…So (now) nothing will change. We will continue to serve everyone across the borough, and elections for Tunbridge and Malling Borough Council will now be happening in May next year.”

One factor that was contributing to escalating estimated costs of the reorganisation process is the prospect of legal challenges, which Reform UK has already begun in some areas and was considering in Kent. It’s possible that this was the factor that triggered the government statement last week.

The leader of Kent County Council, Linden Kemkaren (pictured below) of Reform UK said: “This is absolutely huge.”

Linden Kemkaren stated: “We’ve been working on this for almost 18 months at the government’s instruction. It’s cost taxpayers around a million pounds so far and it’s taken up so much council time. And now what? Kent is left hanging. Staff have yet more uncertainty over their jobs.”

She said: “I mean you literally couldn’t make up this level of incompetence from the government. They clearly don’t know what they’re doing. What a shambles.”

Linden Kemkaren argued: “But this is yet another victory by Reform against a failing government. Several of our Reform-led councils were in the process of launching a judicial review.”

Linden Kemkaren continued: “Kent was about to follow suit as the Secretary of State had repeatedly ignored my letters, three in total, questioning the process behind the decision. Angela Rayner clearly didn’t fancy her chances in court, so she’s pulled the plug.”

A total of 14 local authority areas are being reviewed, while plans for Essex, Hampshire, Norfolk and Suffolk – only just approved by the government – have been withdrawn entirely. In Surrey, which is further through the process, the two new unitary authorities will continue to take over from current structures.

Still Wanted! Any More News About Pennington Road?

On By southboroughnewsLeave a comment

Way back on 3rd March 2019, I published one of my most successful blogs. It was about the history of the road I live in: Pennington Road.

If you missed it, do click on this link:
https://southborough-news.com/2019/03/03/wanted-old-news-about-pennington-road/

I followed it up with an article about the history of Brooklands School that was once a stunning building in Pennington Road:
https://southborough-news.com/2022/11/15/brooklands-school-in-pennington-road/

And I explained how we had managed to trace the residents of our own house back to someone whose family had moved here in the 1950s to look after an aunt – Isabella Gallard – who had lived in our house in the 1890s. We even unearthed a picture of her on a horse! Read more here:
https://southborough-news.com/2021/02/07/a-successful-hunt-for-our-homes-history/

I have since learnt that Amelia Scott (who gives her name to the Tunbridge Wells library) was almost certainly a resident of two homes in Pennington Road. Her family lived in the current 40A until her father died. Then they apparently moved into our house number 36, with a Mrs Scott living in number 36 in 1867 according to the Kelly directory.

I have also now added an update to the original article, with a few extra details and refinements. This is the updated section, but do read the original if you haven’t seen it.

UPDATE AUGUST 2026:

I have discovered that after Park Road the house number changes in 1891 were a little more complicated and they didn’t all just double on the south side of the road.

That’s because a semi-detatched house on the eastern corner of the Park Road junction (which still exists) seems to have been given a new number in Park Road in the 1891 change (number 36) when it was previously 25 Pennington Road.

Therefore the terraced houses on the south side which were built by and all owned by Richard Hobbs (who bought the land from Mary Castle) were renumbered from 27-31 to 52-60.

A further complication is that after that another house number seems to have been added when the 1891 renumbering happened. So the famous house number 36 occupied by a Baroness in 1881 (and then the VAD Crothers hospital in 1914) does seem to have doubled to number 72.

All the original Pennington Road numbers from 1881 are in brackets in the maps below and the numbers used from the 1891 census (and up to now – unless demolished) underneath are them. It should help you to look up who lived in each house through time.

Superimposed on this map is an indication where today’s roads are east of Park Road, still showing the “ghosts” of the old villas, including the old number 72 villa which once housed the Baroness de Hochepied Larpent:

Here is a picture of number 72 (in the new numbering system), which housed a hospital during the First World War – the VAD Crothers Hospital. Here is a picture of the back of it – on what looks like a warm summer’s day in about 1917:

The Voluntary Aid Detachment (VAD) was a voluntary unit of civilians providing nursing care for military personnel.

Robertina Crothers owned number 72 (it is in what has now become Colonel’s Way) but was living in another impressive  house, which she also owned, coincidentally the Gallard’s former house now number 24 near the London Road end of Pennington.  

A Courier article of 18th September 1914 reported that 72 Pennington Rd had been placed by Robertina Crothers “at the disposal of the Committee”. The committee concerned was tasked with offering accommodation to injured Belgian service people.

Here is the house number 72 from the front.

Here are some further maps showing how the eastern side of Pennington Lane then Pennington Road was developed. First a map from 1860.

The 1860 map above stops before the eastern end of Pennington Road. But other maps show that number 37 (later 74) was the last house on the south of Pennington Road before White House Farm and Ivy House Farm.

In 1868, there were still only 3 buildings to the north of Pennington Lane: St Thomas’s Church, St Peter’s Parsonage and the building we now call “The Old Dairy”, which is now number 7 (and was number 44 and 45 when they were two houses).

But in the next 30 years more buildings appeared on the north side – see these maps below – picturing Pennington Road as far as Argyle Road – from 1896 and then 1936.

And here are maps showing the full length of Pennington Road including Argyle Road, first from the 1895 survey then 1907:

I have also just found this quote (source Courier 5 July 1963) said to be from a “Guide to Southborough” in 1885 by E. Paget Thurstan: “Speaking broadly the better classes are composed of retired military and naval men, clergymen with private means, gentlemen of moderate private fortune and the usual sprinkling of professional men, clergy, medical men and schoolmasters…and one or two gentlemen who have taken up farms in the neighbourhood.”

I have also compiled this PDF showing the detail of early residents of Pennington Lane then Pennington Road, which you can download here:

PennRd residents v2Download

If you have any more information about Pennington Road’s history, do get in touch by leaving a comment on this story.

Council Decision Overturned By Government

On By southboroughnewsLeave a comment

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.”

Read the full background here:
https://southborough-news.com/2026/09/04/kents-rebellion-over-mass-housebuilding/

Kent’s Rebellion Over Mass Housebuilding

On By southboroughnewsLeave a comment

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.”

Victorian Snooker Hall Still Set for Demolition

On By southboroughnewsLeave a comment

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.

You can watch a 5 minute video report from the snooker club by clicking here:
https://youtube.com/shorts/WXFbpdU6d3s

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:

Snooker i:v 11.8.26 transcriptDownload


For more on the history of the Friendly Societies’ Hall, click on this story:
https://southborough-news.com/2026/03/19/heritage-group-tries-to-save-historic-snooker-hall/

The case for the demolition and the rest of the development scheme is explained at length by Cllr Justine Rutland (pictured below) in this story:
https://southborough-news.com/2026/04/04/lib-dems-push-for-big-council-debt-to-boost-shopping-centre/

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.

Other councillors opposing the scale of the council borrowing make their views known in this story from April 2026:
https://southborough-news.com/2026/04/10/opposition-builds-to-lib-dem-plan-for-68-million-council-debt/

More information about the council scheme published by the council’s consultants is at:
https://rvpfuture.com/

The petition to save the snooker hall now has more than 6,000 signatures and is at:
https://c.org/wDcWGyb9Hv

Royal Tunbridge Wells to have its own Town Council

On By southboroughnewsLeave a comment

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/

Gatwick Airport Flights to Double

On By southboroughnewsLeave a comment

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.”

The arguments over Gatwick expansion were covered in the WEST KENT TALKING PODCAST back in 2023 with interviews with a local Kent campaigner and a senior Gatwick executive. Listen here:
https://open.spotify.com/episode/36JUZWlaU4nJvuHPmfSxzp?si=50e240a60028458d

ADDED FRI 7 AUGUST:

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.”

Abolition of Tunbridge Wells Borough Council Confirmed

On By southboroughnewsLeave a comment

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”.

Southborough Votes On Neighbourhood Plan

On By southboroughnewsLeave a comment

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:

www.shbndp.com