From Beach Huts to the Constitution: FHDC meetings Wednesday 23 July
Wednesday 23th July was something of a meeting marathon for some of us at Folkestone & Hythe District Council.
Cabinet Members were treated to a Folkestone Parks and Pleasure Grounds meeting starting at 4.30pm, then a Cabinet Meeting, then a Full Council Meeting. As Full Council ended around 9.50pm, it was a long day…
Special thoughts go to colleagues Jim and Connor who had a preceding meeting before even the Parks and Pleasure Grounds meeting - they
Some updates from each of those meetings.
Folkestone Parks and Pleasure Grounds Charity
https://folkestone-hythe.moderngov.co.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=507&MId=5923
In January 2026, Storm Goretti damage meant five beach huts were lost and several others damaged. The repairs have been completed, and an order has been placed for replacement huts, which should arrive in August 2026. Great to see the five replacement huts should get back in place soon - look forward to seeing them painted up and in place!
Also, after significant land movement, the Warren campsite (the former Camping and Caravanning site, NOT Little Switzerland) is no longer fit for purpose / lattable as a camp site, and will be left to return to nature. Officers will now work with White Cliffs Countryside Partnership to oversee this process, which may require funding to demolish existing buildings.
Although the area has been without toilet facilities now since the campsite closed a couple of seasons ago, I raised a question as to if any provision can be made, but the answer made it clear its going to be really hard. The land movement has effectively destroyed the water and sewage connections as I understand it. Reinstating those (even if possible) would massively increase the cost of putting any provision there. However Councillors and Officers do understand its a popular beach with local residents and a really long walk to the nearest public toilets at Jock's Pitch: I hope they come up with an option…
Cabinet
https://folkestone-hythe.moderngov.co.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=142&MId=5899
5. New Leisure Provision at Martello Lakes
I totally support new provision at Martello Lakes, and was delighted to support work to make that happen.
My first speech back in the chamber in 2019 said we should buy the Martello Lakes site for £1. This report unlocks the way to doing so.
But something has changed from there to here. We then thought that would be a good site for a replacement for Hythe Pool. Now we don’t. And that’s because things have changed.
We can now, for less than the cost of building a new pool, refurbish Hythe Pool – and I hope that we agree to progress that with our next item.
And refurbishing Hythe Pool massively changes the maths, and the need.
Without Hythe Pool, a new swimming pool at Martello Lakes would have clear demand and be rational. With Hythe Pool, the surveys that underpin our leisure strategy make clear there is insufficient sufficient demand to support a new pool at Martello Lakes. But swimming is not the only sport, and there is clear demand, which can be met at a new leisure site at Martello Lakes, to provide facilities for other sports, for residents old and young, from across Hythe and Romney Marsh.
When the facts change we should change our mind. Martello Lakes is still needed as a leisure site as it was in 2019. But the facilities needed there are different now. I’m longing to get on and start building them, and look forward to detailed discussions over what will work there, and what people would use.
6. Hythe Pool
I was really, really delighted to support moving ahead getting plans and costings for 2 options for Hythe Pool: a full refurb to make it fit for the future, and an extension plan that would add new facilities including a gym. Look forward to seeing the costings and then running cost implications for the two options, which will allow us to decide if investing more up front gives a better long term income which meets that upfront investment.
As you might expect I would like to go to section 6.0 on Finance where it says:
“The consultant will carry out stakeholder consultation including consultation with swimming clubs and the Local Planning Authority.”.
I think that’s critical, and it should be for ALL clubs that use the pool including Hythe Aqua and Hythe Artistic Swimming. They will have specific needs – and I know pool depths and profile have already been discussed and considered .I’d expect to see that the final options should include the feedback from both these clubs, and others, on how well the new pool will support them and their members, and allow them to thrive and grow in future in massively improved facilities.
7. Ship Street.
With a site that has been unoccupied since the 1950's, and that no developer, public or private, business or charity has taken on it the last 70 years, getting the area back into use would be a huge win, and doing so with a partner who wants to provide 100% affordable homes across the area is a big win.
By investing a bit more in the planning process to meet the potential purchasers needs right now, they will hopefully then buy the site, and bring homes to it - new homes for local residents, who will also then support local businesses, use our town centre, and bring additional life to the area. And most of the up front investment should be recouped from a sale, meaning the council should for very limited net spend finally fixed a 70 year old problem…
A few people question why we don't build Council houses there, and its a fair question. We've got a budget of a few million a year for new council houses: why not spend it there on a site we already own, and use it all for council housing? And the answer is simple - its an expensive site to develop, and the housing market is currently “difficult” for developers, which means the council is buying new properties for Council housing much cheaper than we could get them built. Much cheaper. Maybe a half.
So if we can spend our budget providing twice as many new council homes by buying rather than building, AND can get Ship Street developed by another provider as 100% affordable homes, we get many more people into lower cost, high quality housing. I'm all about the results, and support the proposals for Ship Street.
8. Quarter 4/Annual Corporate and Housing Performance report 2025/26
These reports take us to the end of March this year, so are both Quarter 4 and full year reports on our performance as a Council and landlord service through to there, as well as the draft but discussed with Scrutiny and revised accordingly.
I’ve sat in enough different places of the Council chamber (opposition and administration) to know the pages people flick to first will vary. Some of us will look for the targets we hit, and others first at the ones we miss.
And actually both points are valid.
Where we’re doing well, and hitting demanding targets that we set ourselves we should celebrate that, and these reports draw out some of those examples, as ever.
But equally there are targets we missed, and the report doesn’t just record them, but discusses them, looks for reasons, highlights the actions being taken on them, and gives us the route to improve, as ever. Only through that cycle of assessment, evaluation and action will you get improvement – and as a long term student of these reports over years, we have.
And as its timely, this annual report breaks out the report and results of our Landlord Service too, as it's efficient and aligns with other reporting requirements.
I think its hugely to the credit of the Housing Team, Rebecca, and I’ll even name check David Godfrey as the previous Cabinet Member for Housing, about how far we’ve come since leaving East Kent Housing and taking back control of our own stock. When we’re to the level of 1 property in 2,808 not having a gas certificate on a particular day, and even knowing that property was booked in to do, we’re light years from where we have been.
Obviously we're still waiting for the publication of the external Regulator of Social Housing inspection judgement for our Landlord Service. I’m sure they have studied these results, and much more, before scoring our service. They’ll know that although these are good results, there remains an ongoing commitment to improve, and I really hope they will acknowledge an excellent landlord service when they see one.
10. General Fund Revenue 2025/26 Provisional Outturn
This report summarises the 2025/26 “provisional outturn” position prior to external audit for the General Fund revenue outturn.
The highlights in the recommendations for me include that we budgeted for a break even last year, and we are now reporting a £90,000 surplus.
An even bigger highlight is that we are carrying forward £5.468m to Specific Carry Forward Earmarked Reserves, which will allow us to close financial gaps we could see in future years, also increase teams to improve service, fix things like Mermaid beach and more – Appendix D lists them in great details.
And also that we have now finally written off the remaining money the previous administration wasted on their Princes Parade project before it failed under the weight of its own debt and risk, as we spent years telling them it would. However we had put that money aside, and it is now fully dealt with.
The work by Alan, Jonathan and the whole team that has brought us to this point, where we have what I think can now be described as a robust financial position, modern systems, a focused team and fully up to date and audited accounts has been extraordinary: those directors and officers all deserve huge thanks.
As the Cabinet Member for Finance since 2023, this is by some distance the best financial outturn report I’ve been able to present in our time here.
11. General Fund Capital programme provisional outturn 2025/26
The Capital twin of the last report, with the provisional outturn prior to external audit of the current financial position for the General Fund capital programme in 2025/26, with variances from the planned budget.
As ever with capital programmes, there are a large number of carry forwards, almost all for work which is in progress but not finished yet, as programmes rarely finish neatly on 31 March with all invoices in and paid. The report details the bigger bits of those in section 2, and the appendices give them in glorious detail.
As per the written recommendations, the last report rolled £200,000 of revenue underspend from last year to repair the Mermaid Beach wall: this report would take that money and add it to this years capital budget, so that those repairs can be made in this financial year. Indeed, with a following wind, albeit less than a Storm Goretti level of wind, we hope we may even see them done in this calendar year.
Full Council
https://folkestone-hythe.moderngov.co.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=122&MId=5876
Although a number of the items discussed in Cabinet were then discussed again at Full Council, and there seems a little point on saying the same things again! However there were a few items that were not:
11. Motion on Solar Farms
A really helpful motion (helpfully amended on the night by Jackie Meade) proposed by Alan Martin and seconded Stephen Scoffham on Solar Farms. Although all made the point that they were not anti solar, current planning law doesn't make take into account the total number of farms in an area, but treats each on its standalone merits. That seems bonkers: it's obviously different having one solar farm in an area or 10. The government should make that a “material" consideration, and cap the total amount of land in an area that can be taken. Motion was passed, unanimously.
12. Updates to the council's constitution
Following a review of the Constitution, a number of recommendations for improvements in line with best practice have been identified.
This report captures those suggestions, as well as further amendments to support legislative changes and efficient decision making.
What I found really helpful was that these proposals were taken to the Audit and Governance Committee in July, who considered them in detail and suggested a number of amendments, changes and suggestions. All of those are reflected in the report and the recommendations in front of you – all of them. Thank you to A&G for your detailed consideration and time – I hope you can see you’ve improved what we are bringing to Council today.
However to pick up on a point around why we’re proposing earlier submission of Councillor questions, I hope 2.8.3 explains that: it’s simply to allow both officers and responding Councillors a little more time to get a complete answer together. On current deadlines it can be quite difficult when the input of a number of different people is required.
If things happen in the few days before a meeting that can usefully be addressed through a Councillor question, there is a provision to do so up to noon on the day of the meeting, subject to the consent of the Chair.
13. Analogue to Digital implications for the Lifeline 365 Service
Final thing to mention - a proposal to purchase the kit to transfer all the remaining 1,588 Lifeline users from an analogue to digital based service.
From the Lifeline 365 website: "Folkestone & Hythe District Council’s Lifeline365 service has been helping and supporting residents and their families across Kent since it was established in 1982. With our suite of products you can be assured that our specialist team is on hand 24 hours a day, 365 days a year to help you feel safe whilst staying independent at home."
Without that transfer, we'll not be confident we can offer a service after analogue lines are switched off by the telecoms industry UK wide by end January 2027.
The Lifeline service is entirely “opt in” and users (and often their families) pay to have an immediate, monitored point of emergency contact if there is a problem. A digital unit will use a multi-provider mobile SIM to connect, and has been found to work well (even in areas a traditional single SIM mobile has poor reception.
Without switching people over, the service can't be guaranteed beyond Jan 2027. The cot of buying enough digital units with first years SIM for all current analogue users (and installing them) is £337,000 in the first year. There would be no upfront cost for the new unit to users who would pay £5 + VAT a week for the digital system (compared to £3.67 + VAT a week now for the analogue system, that will no longer work). Protecting those users from the upfront cost, but continuing to keep them safe, and getting that investment back over around the next 5 years felt a fair balance to me.