More on KentOnline
Home Folkestone News Article
Plans for the most significant transformation of a Kent town in decades have been rejected in a shock decision.
The proposals, submitted by Sir Roger De Haan’s Folkestone Harbour & Seafront Development Company (FHSDC), were snubbed by councillors last night
The narrow vote means the next 410 homes and 54 commercial units in the controversial development of the town’s harbour and seafront have been thrown into doubt.
Councillors are now demanding that the developers revisit the proposals following a three-hour debate at Folkestone and Hythe District Council’s planning committee meeting.
After a wave of back-and-forth arguments and a proposal to approve the application failing, councillors then spent more than 90 minutes trying to establish grounds on which it could legally block the application.
Finally, shortly after 10pm a motion to refuse - going against the council’s planning officers’ recommendation - was passed by a whisker, with five councillors backing it, four opposed and one abstention.
The committee voted to oppose the bid stating their objections that the provision of homes does not meet local needs; the design and appearance of the scheme is out of character and harmful to heritage assets; and it would be detrimental to the setting within the town and views from nearby vantage points.
Speaking after the meeting, Georgina Baker, who has campaigned against the development, told KentOnline she was "elated and relieved" by the decision.
She said: "I think it was a really democratic decision, I was thinking we were not going to get heard as the public and the community, but I'm pleased that the local councillors were behind us, believing that this isn't the right development for the harbour.
“I think through all of the public consultations we were there, all of us didn't want this development to go ahead.
“The percentages were there in the paperwork. I was thinking it was going to be a tick-box process, and this has given me a bit of hope to think that it won't happen.
“None of us want this, and I don't think it's the right space, and I don't want it to ruin the history of our harbour.
“If it goes to appeal, those councillors have got to stick by what they believe and what the community believes so that we can have some trust back in the political system again."
Initial designs for the harbour were compared to something out of The Flintstones amid what Sir Roger, the multi-millionaire former owner of Saga, described as a “brutal” backlash.
But speaking at the planning meeting yesterday, he says that "extensive stakeholder and public consultations" have led to scrutiny and amendments to plans.
“We have modified our plans and responded to feedback. Our scheme has been very well scrutinised,” he said.
“I’m very proud of our application.
“Our scheme has already had a very positive impact on Folkestone and its economy.
“This is very important for our town.”
You can follow our live blog of last night’s events by clicking here.
But Mark Hourahane, vice-chairman of the New Folkestone Society, admitted he was surprised at the outcome of yesterday’s meeting.
He said: "I'm very happy with the result. It is great to see the councillors listening to the people, and having their own concerns. It was a considerable debate, we were in there for a few hours, and I feel it was given proper thought, which is great.
“"I am slightly sceptical about what will happen next of course, it could go to appeal.
“I think it probably will go to appeal, to be honest, but then it's either going to go to appeal or there will be a new planning application."
KentOnline previously reported how the ambitious proposals have been revised, with the height of some of the towers lowered and the colour of some buildings changed from brown to white.
Yet despite the changes, nine in 10 people commenting on the application on the council’s planning portal are opposed.
Speaking against the application last night, Folkestone resident Ania Gałandzij highlighted a number of concerns, including the impact on heritage assets, the affordability and the impact on views.
“I believe the proposal shows a poor response to community concerns,” she said.
“It will impact the views for so many in the town and only 8% of the new homes are marked as affordable.
“The design of underground car parks is unclear and there will be restricted public space.”
A round of applause was heard by the chamber following her speech.
While the masterplan approved nine years ago includes proposals for up to 1,000 new homes, the latest phase rejected by the committee this week is for 410 in the harbour area, with 141 of these being one-bedroom flats and 217 two-bedroom apartments.
Just 8% of the masterplan’s total units will be affordable homes. The 53 homes meeting the criteria in this phase will be shared ownership properties, with none available for social rent.
While some have criticised this as insufficient, the developers argue that smaller shared ownership units align with local affordability needs.
Speaking on behalf of Folkestone Town Council last night, Cllr Bridget Chapman said the plans are “not yet good enough for Folkestone”.
She added: “The town council prioritises those who live in Folkestone. It wants new developments but for everyone to have the chance to thrive.
“This proposal is out of keeping with the town.”
“Shoreline is already being used as a holiday let and it looks as if that trend will continue with these new homes.
“Many of the people we represent are struggling. The development of this background is not good enough.
“The community deserves more.”
The masterplan also includes the 84 beachfront properties at Shoreline Crescent, which are now completed, with homes on sale for prices ranging from £430,000 to £2.1 million.
Further designs for the remaining phases of the development - between the now-rejected harbour plans and the completed Shoreline phase - have not yet been finalised.
The plans for the harbour area featured a major revamp of the existing land, with new tower blocks replacing the current car park.
This would be replaced with 323 public spaces, mostly located on a new basement level, meaning a loss of 240 spaces for visitors in total.
There are also proposals for 582 parking bays for residents, with the vast majority of these also underground.
FHSDC says it is committed to ensuring the new parking arrangements include management systems for busy periods.
Councillors yesterday raised many concerns about the development and said the committee is “shackled” by the previous approval of the outline plans a decade ago.
Cllr Mike Blakemore says he fears this is the "wrong development in the wrong location" and more appropriate for a city than a small seaside town.
Cllr Belinda Walker says she “has never known an application like this” and believes the fact that 96% of people have objected is “colossal”.
Cllr Tony Cooper added: "I feel the applicant needs to be reminded this is Folkestone, we're not here to replicate the pier head of Liverpool.
The proposed redevelopment would create 7,489sq m of commercial space, divided between leisure facilities, restaurants, bars, and retail outlets - comprising 54 units.
A redesigned Goods Yard to create an indoor food hall will house 14 permanent food stalls and an events space, with flats above the venue.
Storms during December devastated traders at the harbour arm’s outdoor Christmas market as the strong winds and downpours kept visitors away.
Bosses at FHSDC say the new Goods Yard, which will have flats above it, will be able to stay open all-year round.
The main entrance would feature large folding doors to create an indoor-outdoor experience, with spill-out areas in good weather.
Other key elements of the scheme include a new seafront park, a shingle garden, improved cycling and pedestrian pathways, and a public viewing terrace at the Rotunda building.
Economic benefits from the redevelopment are projected to include the creation of 476 full-time jobs and more than £12 million in annual economic activity, according to FHSDC.
The scheme also includes significant community investments, such as £3.7 million for primary education, £1.3 million for healthcare improvements, and £925,000 for the restoration of the historic Leas Lift.
Concerns for the scheme have focused on the visual impact of the development on the historic harbour, the loss of parking, and the limited number of affordable homes.
In response to earlier criticism, FHSDC made revisions to the designs, including lowering the height of some buildings, changing their colour to white, and increasing green spaces.
Before the rethink, there were 660 comments on the council’s planning portal, with 92% objecting.
Despite the changes being made, a further 150 comments were posted, with 96% opposed.
One person wrote: “Whilst I support the regeneration of our town, the plans put forward are excessive.
“The harbour will become a ghost town - nowhere to park, natural views obscured by high-rise blocks and minimal places to eat and drink.”
But another added: “I wholeheartedly support this transformation of formerly semi-derelict wasteland.
“The quality of the development so far is fantastic. This can only be for the good of Folkestone's image and help to further local prosperity.”
Last year, Folkestone was crowned the best place to live in the south east with Sunday Times judges gushing over its cool shops, excellent schools and transport links.
But in 2023, reporter Rhys Griffiths revealed how just a short walk from the street food stalls and quirky boutiques are pockets of deprivation where vandalism, petty crime and a sense of despondency remain stubbornly entrenched.
Sir Roger, who has invested millions into regenerating Folkestone since purchasing the harbour in 2004, said previously: “Our plans will enhance the spaces that have already transformed the vibrancy of the area and create an exciting legacy project that will provide a year-round offering and a major boost to the local economy.”
Lead architect Duarte Lobo Antunes added: “Our aim is to produce a scheme that is of huge benefit to the town of Folkestone and for those that live and work here.”
Following the decision, a spokesperson for FHSDC said: “We are considering our position following decisions made at FHDC’s recent Planning Committee meeting and will provide an update in due course.”