It was a historic moment for Folkestone on Tuesday night when councillors voted to reject plans to completely transform the town’s harbour.

But what happens now? Will multimillionaire Sir Roger De Haan immediately appeal the decision (and likely win)? Will he send his team back to the drawing board? Or could he walk away from the project altogether?

Here, we look back at how we got to this point - and what is likely to happen next…

What happened on Tuesday night?

In front of a packed public gallery, councillors on Folkestone and Hythe District Council’s planning committee voted to reject an application for 410 new homes in the town’s harbour.

The surprise decision went against the recommendation of council officers that the detailed proposals for this phase be approved - and was made despite Sir Roger’s overall masterplan for the seafront already being granted outline planning permission a decade ago.

This ruling in 2015 had essentially granted approval to build 1,000 homes along the town’s coast, but not for the design and scale of the developments.

Deciding whether to sign off the final proposals proved to be a troublesome task for the planning committee this week. The meeting - with Sir Roger and architect Duarte Lobo Antunes watching on - ran on for hours. At one stage, councillors spent more than 90 minutes discussing with officers how they could legally block the application.

And then the vote itself was won by a whisker - with five councillors backing the motion to reject the plans, four opposing it and one abstaining.

What reasons did they give for refusing the designs?

The committee gave three key reasons for voting to oppose the bid.

1. “The provision of homes does not meet local needs”. Concerns were raised before and during the meeting that just 8% of the homes will be classed as “affordable”. The 53 homes meeting the criteria in this latest phase will be shared ownership properties, with none available for social rent. However, a council officer’s report prepared before the meeting said this level of affordable homes was “acceptable”. The masterplan also includes the Shoreline Crescent flats on the beach which are now completed, with homes on sale for prices ranging from £395,000 to £2.1 million.

2. “The design and appearance of the scheme is out of character and harmful to heritage assets”. The initial designs for the new tower blocks on the harbour arm car park were widely ridiculed - being described as resembling something out of The Flintstones. Following a public consultation the plans were revised, with the buildings now white, rather than brown. The modern-look of the redevelopment has also sparked concerns about its impact on the historic harbour. However, the report from the council’s planning officer says the plans will cause “less-than-substantial harm” to designated heritage assets nearby, such as the lighthouse at the end of the harbour arm, the Viaduct and the Church of St Peter.

3. “It would be detrimental to the setting within the town and views from nearby vantage points”. There is no doubt the proposed tower blocks would dramatically change the seafront’s skyline. KentOnline previously published computer-generated images from planning documents which revealed just how different the coast would look. Cllr Laura Davison told the meeting that if you showed people from outside the town the pictures of the proposed development they would be "baffled".

What has the reaction been?

Speaking after the meeting, campaigners said they were “relieved” with the result but remained sceptical that this was the end of the matter.

Andy Burnett, who ran Sandy's Fish and Chips at the harbour for three years, said: "I'm elated with the decision! The councillors have listened and actually voted for what the people want.

“Unfortunately, I do think it will go to appeal and Sir Roger will get his masterplan completed. I’m just hoping he does the right thing and goes back to the drawing board.”

Folkestone’s Labour MP Tony Vaughan told KentOnline he respected the decision of the planning committee.

“The economic regeneration of Folkestone has been at the heart of why it's such a great place to live. Equally, we have to do regeneration in the right way,” he said.

“Given the large number of objections to the application, there is a lot of feeling among people that these plans have not been done in the right way.

“It's now up to the developers and how they respond.”

A spokesperson for Sir Roger’s Folkestone Harbour & Seafront Development Company (FHSDC) would only say: “We are considering our position following decisions made at the planning committee meeting and will provide an update in due course.”

Will Sir Roger appeal the council’s decision?

This is the route most developers would take - and, given he already has outline permission and officers recommended the harbour designs be given the green light, it is highly likely he would win.

Speaking to KentOnline after the meeting, Conservative councillor Jennifer Hollingsbee, who voted in favour of the plans, said she expects FHSDC to appeal.

"It could cost the council quite a lot of money in defending the decision. This is my concern,” she said.

"Sir Roger isn't going to withdraw the application. It might be that he makes some adjustments.

"If it goes to an appeal I can't see the loose planning reasons for the objection last night being enough."

Elsewhere in Kent, Canterbury City Council recently had to stump up £99,000 of taxpayers’ money on legal fees after councillors shunned its own expert advice over a bid to expand a caravan park near Whitstable.

Why wouldn’t Sir Roger appeal then?

Challenging the ruling would likely result in an easy win for the former Saga boss, who is one of the richest people in the UK and bought the harbour for £11 million in 2004.

But would he really want to completely transform it under these circumstances? It would mean ploughing ahead despite the council voting against it. Meanwhile, 90% of people commenting on the council’s planning portal object to the scheme.

Sir Roger is not just any developer. He has built a reputation as a philanthropist thanks to his role in building Folkestone’s Creative Quarter.

Perhaps there is some wiggle room in the scale of the designs. Could the height of the tower blocks be lowered? Could the number of new flats be reduced? Could more be made “affordable”?

Appealing to the Planning Inspectorate is likely the quickest way to gain permission - but is it the wisest?

Could Sir Roger just walk away altogether?

Things haven’t gone particularly smoothly for FHSDC’s 1,000-home masterplan so far.

It has faced criticism over the cost of homes at Shoreline Crescent, which is Kent’s priciest development. Questions have repeatedly been asked over how many of the 85 homes there have been sold - with only 15 sales agreed by September and bosses declining to be drawn this week on how many more have been snapped up.

Sir Roger also admitted the backlash to the proposals for the harbour arm has been “brutal” and could be seen shaking his head during Tuesday’s meeting as councillors discussed how they could reject the plans.

And when KentOnline asked him in 2023 whether he ever regrets taking on such a mammoth task, he joked: “Every day! I should be playing golf and going on long overseas holidays.

“But no, I am passionate about Folkestone and I’ve been involved with trying to help with its regeneration over the last 20 years.”

Indeed, the 76-year-old has invested an enormous amount of time and money helping to transform Folkestone from a somewhat forgotten seaside town into the best place to live in the south east (according to The Sunday Times).

Yet a huge part of that success is down to the popularity of the harbour arm - drawing hundreds of thousands of tourists annually. If the plans were approved, public parking spaces would be reduced and construction work would inevitably be taking place there for years - likely deterring potential visitors. Could a rethink be on the cards?

Find out about planning applications that affect you by visiting the Public Notice Portal

What does history tell us?

Former Folkestone Herald editor Simon Finlay covered Sir Roger’s efforts in the 2000s to buy up the land on the seafront where the hundreds of new homes are set to be built.

Mr Finlay writes: “It is almost two decades since Sir Roger De Haan agreed a deal with the late property developer Jimmy Godden to buy land to the west of his recently acquired harbour in Folkestone. For Mr De Haan it was the final piece in the jigsaw he needed for his redevelopment and regeneration of the area.

“The land where the crumbling Rotunda amusement arcade once stood like a monument to a seaside town’s faded past became the plot for a vision of luxury flats overlooking a shimmering English Channel.

“It would attract well-heeled Londoners and promote economic growth alongside a burgeoning arts and leisure sector.

“The 'will-they-won't-they?' deal with Mr Godden was like a soap opera played out in the pages of the local paper for nearly two years. In the end, insiders said Mr Godden got a very, very good deal and Mr De Haan got what he wanted.

“Thereafter, the hard work really started. Sir Roger has been single-minded, sure-footed and determined.

“There have been many stumbles since Sir Norman Foster’s masterplan was published with lavish, seductive drawings and almost surreal visions of how it all might look, boardwalks, boulevards and all.

“But Mr De Haan had and still has the best advisers, experts, expensive planners and lawyers, as well as a team of architects to help steer him.

“Make no bones about it, Mr De Haan has not come this far to let this setback deter him.

“Whether he decides to try and work through the differences with the council after such a tight vote or attempt to ‘call it in’ and let an independent planning inspector decide, time will tell.

“One hopes there can be a compromise. While Mr De Haan’s relentlessness is to be admired, hats off to the local council for not making it easy for him.

“But if any Folkestonian casts their mind back 25 years to when that part of town was down at heel, riven by social deprivation and bedevilled by crime, this is not a bad dilemma to have.”