A housing developer is bidding to pull out of contributing more than £50 million worth of new infrastructure and community facilities - including a £30m major road improvement.

The future of the A28 dualling project in Ashford has been thrown into doubt as it emerged Hodson Developments wants to scrap or delay dozens of agreed commitments.

The housebuilder, the lead company behind the 5,750-home Chilmington Green development on the outskirts of the town, signed the legally binding agreement - known as a Section 106 Agreement (S106) - in 2017.

But Hodson is now seeking to discharge or delay several of those obligations - including provision for education, affordable housing, social care and community facilities - having applied to the Planning Inspectorate to determine its application to vary 33 conditions.

Details have finally emerged about the application - made in 2022 - after the Planning Inspectorate launched the initial stages of the public inquiry it will now host to assess whether to agree to the developer’s proposals.

The A28 upgrades to dual a stretch of Chart Road between the Matalan and ‘Tank’ roundabouts is seen by Kent County Council as an “integral part” of the Chilmington Green development.

The highways authority says if Hodson’s proposal to remove funding is approved, then the project will be scrapped.

A spokesman added the scheme is key to mitigating traffic issues, as the road already often jams up regularly with huge queues during rush hours and other peak times.

A legal agreement between Hodson and KCC made under the S106 states the developer must put forward the money when 400 homes are occupied, a figure it is close to reaching.

Documents submitted on behalf of Hodson say it has “ceased to be possible in the financial markets” to obtain the money needed to pay for the dualling scheme that would be “prohibitively expensive and self-defeating”.

The agreement states the maximum contribution expected from Hodson is £32.7m - £28.9m for construction works, £303,000 for design and consultancy costs and a £3.5m contingency.

It comes as Hodson has also had plans to build a further 665 new homes at Possingham Farm next to Chilmington Green approved despite the development being refused by Ashford Borough Council (ABC) last December.

The Planning Inspectorate gave the development the green light on November 22, saying the planned upgrades to the A28 would “mitigate the traffic effects”.

The inspector said: "I have found the appellant’s A28 improvement scheme would satisfactorily mitigate the traffic effects of the development to at least a nil-detriment position.

"Taking a conservative approach highway matters are therefore neutral in the planning balance.”

However, as Hodson now wants to ditch its obligation to carry out these improvements, the issue will now be at the centre of the S106 appeal.

KCC and ABC say they will “robustly defend against the proposed changes” as the funding is “an integral part in making this development a success”.

“The current estimate for the dualling scheme is £29.7 million of which £2.7 million has come from Local Growth Funding with the remainder required from Hodson Developments.

“The project cost is subject to further inflation uplifts.

“The Section 106 legal agreement requires Hodson Developments to provide KCC with the bond for the A28 dualling scheme when occupations at the site reach 400, and the total maximum contribution towards the A28 dualling scheme by Hodson Developments is set at £32.7m.

“If the appeal is allowed it will remove the developer funding for the scheme, and it will not be delivered.

“The dualling scheme supports the delivery of the Chilmington Green development and is therefore an integral part in making this development a success.

“Kent County Council intends, alongside Ashford Borough Council, to robustly defend against the proposed changes.”

Cllr Linda Harman (Ash Ind), ABC’s portfolio holder for planning, reiterated the council will “appeal robustly against the proposed changes” alongside KCC.

She added: “We do not feel [the proposals] will benefit local residents, or the wider community of Ashford at all.

“We want Chilmington Green to be the sustainable development it was planned to be, with all the community facilities intended, so we will make the case that the proposed amendments to the Section 106 agreement will only short-change residents.”

Work to dual the notoriously congested road was supposed to start in 2018 when scores of trees were felled along the stretch in preparation.

But constant delays to the project mean work has never started and now might not start at all.

What else does Hodson want to remove?

In total, there are 33 areas of commitments Hodson wishes to either remove entirely or vary its obligations.

Analysis by KentOnline has found the housebuilder wants to discharge at least £52.5m of its agreed major contributions to infrastructure and community facilities.

The final total amount it wishes to discharge will be higher due to additional smaller payments and community services it previously agreed to commit to.

It is not just the A28 road scheme the developer is looking to change, it has also asked to remove millions from its obligation towards schools, social care provisions and community projects to name a few.

Four primary schools and a secondary school are proposed for the development which Hodson is also set to contribute towards.

But now it is looking to axe £14.9m in the amount it puts forward for education provision linked to the development.

In the primary sector, Hodson says a planned fourth school should be scrapped. It had been due to contribute £4.5m to the project.

Its justification is that a fourth school is no longer needed as the agreement was initially based on the development being 7,000 homes.

The housebuilder has also proposed to ditch a final contribution to the first primary school - saving it £1.46m.

While it will still contribute £13.55m to the new Chilmington Green Secondary School, Hodson wants to cut its second phase contribution totalling £8.95m.

In terms of adult learning provision, it wants to cut £213,000 from its obligation as it says there are already "ample provisions" locally.

A sum of £900,000 that would have been used to expand the library service capacity, in particular, a library access point at a community hub building, is also set to be cut.

Hodson says the reason behind this is that the library service is already included in the community hub, so their funding would be "duplicative" and "surplus to requirements".

Up to £239,000 could be cut from youth service funding because there are "ample provisions" already.

Documents show Hodson also wants to submit a new planning application to redesign and remove the proposed district centre - currently earmarked to include a supermarket, retail units, office space, a pub and a day nursery.

It says: “The obligations to provide a district centre with the facilities indicated no longer serve any useful purpose.

“The current retail market is such that there is no demand for such facilities and they are unsustainable.”

Hodson says it wants to “remove the obligations to permit a revised scheme” but no further details have been revealed.

It has also asked to remove its obligation to pay £5.62m towards highway improvements that have already happened elsewhere in Ashford.

Upgrades to the Drover’s Roundabout and the construction of the Eureka Skyway bridge that connects Sainsbury's to Eureka Park have already been completed and were paid for by a government grant.

That money is supposed to be paid back by developers through Section 106 money as and when schemes are delivered.

Developments in Ashford have contributed to infrastructure upgrades in similar ways already - including the Junction 10a redevelopment which recouped cash from builders at the Finberry development near Sevington.

Now Hodson says these payments are “undermining viability” and therefore “cannot be said to serve any useful purpose” and it wants to remove the obligation entirely.

The company has also applied to delay the start of what's known as Chilmington Hamlet which would include a range of facilities such as a cricket pitch, community pavilion, batting cage, bowling green, two tennis courts, car park and storage facility.

‘We want Chilmington Green to be the sustainable development it was planned to be, with all the community facilities intended…’

There is also an application to delay the construction of children’s play area spaces and the Discovery Park sports facilities.

It has also requested to cut £800,000 worth of contributions to a new cemetery and remove previously allocated space for new allotments.

Further removal of contributions to off-site pedestrian and cycling routes, delaying implementation of bus services and removal of £450 per household bus vouchers totalling £2.5m have also been proposed.

Are changes being made to the housing element?

Hodson also wants to make changes to its affordable housing provisions by changing the proportion of homes for affordable rent and shared ownership.

It says the current allocation to affordable rent and shared ownership units is “not sustainable or feasible” and “compromises cashflow and viability”.

It adds the homes’ useful purpose will be “served equally well, or better” by modifying the affordable housing tenure so it is split between 30% affordable rents and 70% shared ownership”.

Why does the developer say it wants to back out of the payments?

Hodson says the cost and burden of the S106 contributions are “undermining viability” and “deliverability” of the development.

But it insists “none” of the changes relate to it wanting to “enhance its profit margin”.

It states “a number of factors have adversely affected the delivery and viability of the development” such as planning delays, delays in getting utilities and electricity to the site, reconstitution of the development model and a reduced build rate.

It also blames delays on uncertainties surrounding nutrient neutrality requirements and the Covid-19 pandemic.

The build rate was originally expected to be 300 units per year, but this is said to be at most 150 units.

It means the Main Phase 1, which was originally expected to be completed within five years, is now not expected to be completed until 2031.

It says many of the upfront costs required to make the previously agreed contributions are impacting the “viability and the deliverability” of the development.

‘Kent County Council intends, alongside Ashford Borough Council, to robustly defend against the proposed changes…’

The combined effect has been to “invalidate many of the build assumptions on which the Section 106 agreement was based”.

Hodson’s submitted documents state: “The S106 agreement was drafted in relation to a fundamentally different development than that which has emerged.

“The modifications and/or discharge of obligations are necessary in order to address critical viability and deliverability challenges that have arisen as a result of a range of circumstances beyond the appellant's control.

“The proposed changes enable the delivery of the development and wider scheme.

“With regards to viability, the appellant will demonstrate that provided peak debt levels can be reduced in accordance with the variations requested, the scheme can be delivered by the appellant and will ultimately prosper in a way that will offer the opportunity in later Review Phases to increase the affordable housing provision, whilst ensuring the delivery of all essential infrastructure.”

What happens next?

The appeal will be determined by a planning inspector following a public inquiry.

Residents are invited to have their say and comments must be submitted by December 18.

Once a decision has been made it will be published online.

Comments must be sent to ABC via the following methods:

Email: planning.comments@ashford.gov.uk

Post: Planning Applications, Ashford Borough Council, Tannery Lane, Ashford, TN23 1PL

Or by raising concerns with your relevant borough, parish or town councillor.

Why has it taken two years for the application to come forward?

Hodson first submitted the changes in two applications in May and October 2022.

But ABC did not make a ruling on them stating they had not been submitted in accordance with the relevant legal requirements and therefore never validated the applications.

This means they were never published as a matter of public record until the appeal process was started by the Planning Inspectorate earlier this month.

But Hodson says ABC has failed to make a decision and has appealed due to the council's “non-determination”.

This allows applicants to challenge if they feel the planning authority has taken too long to make a decision without a good reason and passes the decision-making process to the government’s planning arm, the Planning Inspectorate.

KentOnline contacted Hodson Developments for comment on this article but did not receive a response.