Victorian Snooker Hall Still Set for Demolition

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:


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

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

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.”