Now that construction is nearing completion on the controversial flats development at the former CAB site in Tonbridge’s Conservation Area, local reactions are as strong as ever—and the ones we hear are negative. For many residents and campaigners, the final outcome confirms their worst fears. From what we believe to be questionable design choices to a complete disregard for community needs, the development stands as a glaring symbol of what happens when top-down planning overrides local voices.
A Long History of Local Opposition
The project was contentious from the beginning. In April 2022, we reported that the developer behind the scheme had announced when the flats would be on sale, despite fierce local resistance. The original application had been refused by Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council, citing serious concerns about its design and the impact on the historic environment. Objections ranged from the height and bulk of the building—rising to 14.2 metres—to its proximity to the iconic Tonbridge Castle, a Grade I listed building and Scheduled Ancient Monument.
There was also widespread concern about the loss of a public space beside the River Medway that had long been a peaceful area for walking, sitting, and enjoying the riverside. Many saw the development as a missed opportunity to create a space that truly enhanced the public realm, especially in such a central and picturesque part of town.
Ignoring Local Knowledge
Despite the council’s refusal and a petition signed by over 3,200 residents—driven by Green Party councillors—the developer appealed the decision. The Government’s Planning Inspectorate ultimately granted permission, citing the local authority’s failure to demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites. The inspector acknowledged “significant social and economic benefits” from the provision of 36 new homes, but critics argue that these benefits were vastly overstated.
This outcome has raised serious questions about democratic accountability in planning decisions. Should unelected inspectors be allowed to override local councils, especially when those councils are acting in line with the wishes of their residents? And more importantly, is it acceptable for central government figures, such as former Secretary of State for Housing Michael Gove, to have the final say on a development that so clearly contradicts the local vision for Tonbridge?
The Finished Product: Aesthetic and Functional Failures
Now that the development is complete, the community can see for themselves what they were never given the chance to properly influence. Unfortunately, it appears their concerns were justified.
The flats, set prominently on the corner of River Walk and New Wharf Road, have been described by residents as having the look and feel of an outdated retirement home. The pale green window frames—a colour found on no other building in Tonbridge—feel jarringly out of place. In our opinion, the façade lacks cohesion and architectural sensitivity, particularly given the site’s importance as a visual focal point near Tonbridge Castle and the River Medway.
Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council had initially warned that the development would appear “as a disjointed feature which does not treat the corner in an acceptable way and as a result would be visually harmful to the immediate street scene and wider views towards the site.” Now that the building stands complete, many agree this prediction was accurate.
The council also criticised the southern elevation of the building, which faces New Wharf Road, for failing to create a “suitably animated frontage.” Indeed, the ground floor feels dead and uninviting—a far cry from what many had hoped would be a lively space featuring cafés, shops, or community venues that would bring life to the area and complement the town’s riverside character.
Instead, the ground floor is composed of blank walls and closed doors—wasted potential in a location that could have significantly enhanced Tonbridge’s town centre offering.
No Affordable Housing, No Compromise
Adding insult to injury is the fact that the development contains no affordable housing whatsoever. Planning documents revealed early on that Shanly Homes, the developer, had chosen not to include any such units, citing viability issues. This is in direct contradiction with the council’s adopted policy and represents a major loss for local residents—particularly young people and key workers—struggling to get onto the housing ladder.
The lack of affordable housing in a town where average property prices continue to rise sharply is deeply frustrating. The council had explicitly flagged this as a major reason for refusing the development in the first place, saying it showed “a clear divergence from adopted policy.” Yet this concern was brushed aside by the planning inspector, who prioritised raw housing numbers over the type of housing needed and wanted locally.
A Cautionary Tale for Future Development
The Civic Society summed it up best in its second official response to the application, calling the site “probably the most important to come up for development in a generation” in terms of its visual importance to Tonbridge. They urged the council to encourage the developer to return with improved designs. Sadly, that never happened.
Instead, Tonbridge has been left with a building that fails to meet the town’s architectural, cultural, and social needs. It has become a case study in how not to develop key urban sites, particularly in conservation areas that demand thoughtful design and community engagement.
More broadly, this case raises fundamental questions about how housing policy is made and implemented in the UK. Should central government continue to override local planning authorities under the pretext of housing targets? Or should there be greater respect for localism—especially when those authorities have robust and credible reasons for rejecting a proposal?
Michael Gove, in his former role as Housing Secretary, played a significant part in enabling this development to go ahead against the will of the local council and thousands of residents. It’s hard not to see the final outcome as a legacy of that decision: a building that symbolises frustration, disappointment, and missed opportunity.
Conclusion
Tonbridge deserved better in our view. The community asked for better. And the local council tried to deliver better. But in the end, none of that mattered.
Now that the flats are finished, it’s clear that the town has gained little from the development and lost much. A valued community space has been replaced by a building many describe as uninspiring at best—and actively damaging to the town’s character at worst.
If there is a lesson to be learned, it is that local voices must be at the heart of planning decisions, particularly in places with as much heritage, community spirit, and potential as Tonbridge. The town can—and must—do better next time.
Leave a Reply