The Brook redevelopment: 319 homes, parking and affordability — what do you think?
The former Tesco, Go Outdoors and Market Hall site at The Brook is set for a major transformation. Arpenteur Nightingale’s plans include 319 homes across five blocks of five to seven storeys, up to 744 m² of commercial space, communal facilities and landscaped public areas.
Medway Council’s planning committee unanimously supported the scheme on 4 June 2025, subject to a Section 106 agreement and planning conditions.
What could this bring to Chatham?
-
More homes: 319 apartments would increase housing supply, with studios and one-, two- and three-bedroom flats.
-
Reuse of a vacant site: Redevelopment could bring activity back to an underused part of the town centre.
-
Support for local businesses: More residents and new commercial space could increase footfall and demand for nearby shops and services.
-
Improved surroundings: The proposed central public space, courtyards and landscaping could make the area more welcoming.
-
Community investment: The committee decision specified £610,000 in developer contributions towards habitat mitigation, public realm and community facilities, and open space and play improvements.
The main concerns and trade-offs
1. Housing supply versus affordability
The approved scheme does not include affordable housing. Council officers cited financial viability when explaining this position.
Will these homes meet local housing needs? What information should residents expect about the viability assessment? The committee also called for a mechanism to seek additional contributions if the scheme’s financial position improves. How should the outcome of that review be communicated?
2. Parking and accessibility
No residential parking is proposed within the development itself. Five spaces were to be secured in the neighbouring Market Hall/Cross Street car park, with additional rented spaces envisaged following its reopening.
Is that a workable approach for a town-centre development? What arrangements would residents, disabled people, carers, visitors and delivery drivers need? How could parking demand affect surrounding streets and businesses?
3. Building height and neighbourhood character
Five blocks of five to seven storeys would noticeably change the site. Supporters may see this as an appropriate use of central land; others have raised concerns about scale and the surrounding townscape.
Does the design strike the right balance between providing homes, protecting neighbouring amenity and improving the appearance of the area?
4. Local services and transport
More households will use the surrounding area. What do the published assessments say about healthcare, school places, public transport, drainage and pedestrian access?
Which improvements, if any, should be prioritised before residents move in?
5. Community involvement
The Arches Chatham Neighbourhood Forum objected to aspects of the proposals and their relationship with the neighbourhood plan. Committee discussions also acknowledged shortcomings in early engagement, while officers said the neighbourhood plan had been considered.
How should residents and local groups be involved during delivery? Would regular public updates or a resident liaison group help?
6. Public spaces and community benefits
The landscaping and developer contributions could offer benefits beyond the new apartments. Residents will need clarity about which spaces are publicly accessible, who maintains them and when improvements will happen.
Where should the public realm, community and open-space contributions make the greatest difference?
7. Delivery and construction impacts
KKB Group reports that demolition and enabling works finished in July 2025. The sources linked below do not establish the current stage of apartment construction or a confirmed completion date for the whole development.
What delivery milestones should be published? How should remaining construction work manage noise, dust, pedestrian access and disruption to neighbouring businesses?
A note on the figures
The reported £950,000 contract value relates to demolition and enabling works. An overall development budget has not been independently verified.
The £610,000 in Section 106 contributions represents obligations specified in the committee decision; it does not confirm that the money has been paid or spent.
Join the discussion
Do you support the scheme as approved, support it with changes, or oppose it—and why?
Which issue matters most to you: affordability, parking, design, local services, public space or delivery timescales? What specific change or commitment would most improve the outcome?
If you live, work or regularly travel nearby, share your experience. Please link any newer planning documents or verified progress updates so the discussion can reflect the latest information.
Sources
Linked item location
ME4 4NG
Attached images
