A borough council has lost its residents £1.9m through an “incompetent” property deal, Green Party councillors are claiming.

The allegation has been denied by Tonbridge and Malling which says the difference was simply due to an increase in value after the granting of planning permission.

The council sold a property in Tonbridge town centre for £1.515m, but less than a year later, the purchasing company sold it on for £3.45m – a gain of £1.935m.

Suggestions of incompetence come from local Green Party leader Cllr Mark Hood, who said: “We have always opposed the sale of borough council property without the consent of residents.

“We believe a responsible council will have a range of investments and part of those assets should be property-based to provide a steady return from tenants and leaseholders. This is the policy which is adopted by almost all councils.

“Instead, our council has overseen property deals which are costing us a fortune, the last one has undervalued a building by £1.9m.”

The building in question was No.1-4 River Walk, which had initially been used as rent collection office; then it had been leased to the local Chamber of Commerce; finally it was used by the Citizens’ Advice Bureau until it moved to new premises at the castle.

When the council first considered selling it – and the neighbouring open space known as Riverside Walk – there was a public outcry with a petition signed by more than 3,500 people against.

Tonbridge and Malling relented as far as the open space went, but the then Conservative administration went ahead with the sale of 1-4 River Walk to a company called River Walk House Ltd.

That firm applied for planning permission for 36 apartments. The permission was refused by the borough council in October 2020, but was granted on appeal in June 2021.

Cllr Hood said: “We have recently discovered the building was sold on by River Walk House to a company called Sorbon Developments for £3.45m.”

He said: “One of the key reasons why the Green Party opposes the general principle of selling property for development to a third party is that they make the lion’s share of the profit and benefit from ongoing income if the properties are leased.”

“The council by contrast gets a one-off sum which, bizarrely, in this case it has spent on property investments elsewhere in the UK.

“We are proud of our town and our money should be invested in our own community.

“We always believed River Walk had been undervalued and its sale was a poor commercial decision.”

Cllr Hood said he has asked for the sale to be reviewed by the council’s overview and scrutiny committee, though the borough said it was not on the committee’s agenda.

He added: “There is an obligation on the council to achieve the best possible price for our property if it sells it, so what has happened here?”

It is not the case that money was lost

He said: “No. 1-4 River Walk could have been re-purposed as a restaurant or riverside bar, just as Sevenoaks District Council successfully leased the Restoration Pub to Shepherd Neame. This would have been a better option than selling to a developer and ending up with a block of flats.”

The development site is still at the foundation piling stage at present. Nevertheless, Shanley Homes said it will be marketing the properties off-plan from July.

A council spokesman said: “The income we receive from disposing of surplus property is a vital part of our financial strategy and supports our aim of delivering value for council tax payers.

“It is not the case that money was ‘lost’ on this sale for which contracts for sale were exchanged in early 2019.

“The land was valued and bids invited on the open market by a leading firm of property consultants, who continued to advise the council throughout the sale process.”

“The buyers subsequently secured planning permission for housing development at a time when property prices were rising. It is therefore no surprise that when it was sold on in 2022, the value had increased significantly.”

Since Cllr Hood’s complaint, the local elections have seen the Conservatives lose their overall majority on the council. They now hold 20 of the 44 seats. We will not know until the council’s annual meeting on Wednesday, May 17, who will be in charge of the next administration.