Last updated: September 2026
Short answer
Why this matters for Chilmington Green residents
Chilmington Green was never approved as a housing estate on its own. Outline permission for up to 5,750 homes came with a 433-page Section 106 agreement signed on 27 February 2017, which Ashford Borough Council still describes as worth around £125m towards local amenities — schools, shops, healthcare, sports and leisure buildings, parks and roads.
The scale of the debts now emerging matters because it tells residents something the council statements cannot: how much money is being chased, by whom, and how far down the queue the public bodies sit. That is the practical question behind every unbuilt road, park and school place.
Six administrations, not one
- 18 March 2026 — Hodson Developments (Ashford) Ltd and four associated Chilmington companies entered administration, with Grant Thornton appointed. Our April report covers that stage.
- 25 June 2026 — Hodson Developments (CG Three) Ltd, one of the five companies that had fought the Section 106 appeal, entered a separate administration under RSM.
The first five administrations came 57 days after planning inspector Grahame Kean dismissed the Section 106 appeal on 20 January 2026. Of 122 requests to change or remove parts of the agreement, only five were allowed, 11 were withdrawn and 106 were dismissed.
Striking timing is not the same as cause. Grant Thornton's own account is that the companies failed because a stalled development created cash-flow pressure: Section 106 payments had to be funded ahead of or alongside home completions, squeezing working capital, while debt secured against the land kept accruing servicing costs. Alongside that, waste-water nutrient neutrality restrictions had held building back, and although permission for a treatment plant had been obtained, an Environment Agency permit had not been issued.
Where the £211.9m comes from
| Claim | Amount | Status |
|---|---|---|
| Secured creditor demand across the five Grant Thornton companies (via security agent Solutus Advisors Ltd) | approx. £179m | One underlying debt, jointly and severally guaranteed — not five separate £179m debts. Still to be proved. |
| Zorin Avenue Lend Co 1 DAC, secured lender to CG Three | £31,283,757 | RSM says assets are insufficient to repay in full. |
| CG Three unsecured creditors, including £315,124 of council tax owed to Ashford Borough Council | £335,064 | No return expected for unsecured creditors. |
| Kent County Council High Court claim over the first primary school contribution (issued 6 March 2025): £639,136.20 indexation plus £172,207.24 interest | £811,343.44 | A claim, not a judgment. |
Two further figures sit outside that total. A small number of creditors have indicated a possible £34.5m of additional claims, of which roughly £24.4m to £34.4m appears to involve connected parties. And Grant Thornton reported that directors had not supplied statements of affairs and key financial information despite repeated requests, leaving the administrators with only a limited picture of assets and liabilities. The eventual number is therefore likely to rise.
Don't confuse the two "£179m" figures
Hodson Developments (Ashford) Ltd's accounts to 31 December 2025, filed weeks before administration, showed gross assets of £179,234,884 — £116,512,569 of stock, £62,691,953 of debtors, £29,612 of fixed assets and £750 of cash — against liabilities of £182,870,122, giving net liabilities of £3,635,238.
That is a coincidence of scale, not the same money as the roughly £179m later demanded by the secured creditor. Book values are also not sale values: Grant Thornton commissioned fresh land valuations and said it expected the secured lender itself to suffer a shortfall.
The roads money and the £28.9m bond
The separate agreement covering A28 Chart Road improvements carried a schedule totalling £28,988,800 in instalments originally running from 2021 to 2030, backed by an on-demand bond of the same amount. Kent County Council was to procure and forward-fund the works; the bond protected the council if the developer failed.
By February 2025 KCC was demanding £13,360,800 of outstanding post-contract instalments, and in April it threatened legal action to stop more than 400 homes being occupied until the bond was provided. Hodson asked the inspector to delete the bond requirement, arguing that this type of bond was no longer obtainable without lodging an equivalent sum in cash. The inspector refused: removing it could let housing continue without the infrastructure that made the development acceptable, and would shift the risk of default onto the council and ultimately the public purse.
What this does and does not change for you
- Your home and your sale. The council's August 2026 conveyancing guidance still stands: Section 106 breaches are not private homeowners' or lenders' liability, subject to two narrow exceptions around the RCD1 rentcharge deed and affordable housing tenure.
- Homes built by other developers. The administrations concern Hodson companies. Barratt David Wilson and Jarvis Homes parcels are not part of them.
- Timings for unbuilt infrastructure. These are now genuinely uncertain. The obligations survive, and both councils say they intend to enforce them, but delivery depends on who ends up owning the land and on the outcome of the insolvency processes.
- Rentcharge and estate upkeep. Day-to-day maintenance of adopted communal areas continues through the Chilmington Management Organisation, funded by the estate rentcharge rather than by the developer's balance sheet.
What to watch next
- Administrators' progress reports and any sale of the Chilmington land holdings to a new developer.
- Whether Kent County Council's primary school contribution claim is pursued through the insolvency.
- Any council statement on how the A28 obligations and the bond will be handled now the original covenantors are insolvent.
- The Ashford Local Plan 2043, which will have to take a view on how many Chilmington homes can realistically be delivered and when.
Sources
- ShepwayVox — Part 3: Hodson's Chilmington Green Collapse, £211.9m in creditor claims (4 September 2026)
- ShepwayVox — Part One: Alan Hodson and Hodson Developments (1 September 2026)
- Ashford Borough Council — Chilmington Green update
- Companies House — Hodson Developments (Ashford) Ltd
- Companies House — Hodson Developments (CG Three) Ltd
- KentOnline — Chilmington Green developer enters administration
Frequently asked questions
How much do the Hodson companies owe?
Insolvency documents published in September 2026 point to around £211.9m of identifiable creditor demands and balances across the separate Hodson insolvency estates. That is made up of roughly £179m demanded by the secured creditor across the five companies in the Grant Thornton administration, £31,283,757 secured plus £335,064 unsecured at Hodson Developments (CG Three) Ltd, and a £811,343.44 High Court claim by Kent County Council. These are claims and demands, not proven final debts, and the eventual figure could be higher.
How many Hodson companies are in administration?
Six. Hodson Developments (Ashford) Ltd and four associated companies entered administration in March 2026 with Grant Thornton appointed. A sixth company, Hodson Developments (CG Three) Ltd, entered a separate administration under RSM on 25 June 2026.
Did losing the Section 106 appeal cause the collapse?
Not directly, on the administrators' own account. The appeal decision came on 20 January 2026 and the first five administrations followed 57 days later, but Grant Thornton attributes the failures to cash-flow pressure from a stalled development, Section 106 payments falling due ahead of completions, mounting finance costs on land debt, and nutrient-neutrality waste-water restrictions that held back building.
Does this affect my home or my sale?
Ashford Borough Council's August 2026 guidance says private homeowners and their mortgage lenders are released from liability for Section 106 breaches, with two narrow exceptions, so sales should not be blocked. Nothing in the September insolvency reporting changes that, but it does make the timing of outstanding infrastructure less certain.
What happened to the £28.9m A28 road bond?
The Section 106 package required an on-demand bond of £28,988,800 as security for the A28 improvement instalments. Hodson asked the planning inspector to remove that requirement; the request was dismissed, because removing it could let housing continue without the road works and shift the risk of developer default onto Kent County Council and the public purse.
Is Ashford Borough Council owed money too?
Administrators for CG Three listed £315,124 of council tax owed to Ashford Borough Council among the unsecured creditors, and said they expect no return for unsecured creditors.
Related guides
Hodson administration
The full plain-English explainer on the collapse.
Section 106 explained
The obligations behind the roads, schools and parks.
A28 Chart Road scheme
Where the £30m dualling scheme stands.
Buying a home
Checks for buyers during the administration.
Homes
Which developments are built, selling and planned.
All updates
Everything happening locally, newest first.