Council’s Property Development Company Otterpool Park request a further £80m
Perhaps Cllr Susan Carey was right after all when she said we should sell Otterpool Park in February 2023. I say that as the company set up to deliver the Otterpool Project, is requesting a further £80m loan facility from Folkestone & Hythe District Council
On the 20 April 2023, at the last Cabinet meeting before the elections, Otterpool Park LLP, has requested the Council increase its loan facility by an additional £80m, to £199m, according to Report Number C/22/109.
This, so the Council say is “to cover peak debt requirements.”
As you may or may not know, the current agreed loan facility is £119m; which consists of £44m for land acquisition, and £75m for working capital.
The LLPs additional £80m funding request is comprised of £49m for accelerated land acquisitions and £31m for inflationary cost pressures on infrastructure provision.
The loan facility sought by the LLP is for two things
1 To address the project’s peak debt period,
2 Securing land options as early as possible and facilitate timely delivery of necessary key phase 1 infrastructure of for utilities and the upgrade of Westenhanger Station to accommodate HS1.
The previous peak debt levels were £60-65m, meaning the additional loan facility by the Council will take the peak debt levels to around £90 -95m.
The level of funding from the Council to the LLP is a very significant undertaking at a scale
which has not previously been considered in the Council’s Medium Term Financial Strategy (MTFS), nor its Medium Term Capital_Programme (MTCP).
The increase in the loan facility will require consideration of Cabinet, and agreement of the next full Council at some point in May, after the elections; with new Cllrs who next to nothing about this project.
So, before the project has begun, the Council’s property development company needs more cash to make the 8,500 homes become a reality.
The Council have shown themselves not to be property developers. Just think Princes Parade, which has had to be “paused” due to persevering campaigners, costs and inflationary pressures; which has all but killed this project thankfully.
Perhaps Cllr Susan Carey’s comments at Overview & Scrutiny on the 14 Feb 2023 are wise and prudent ones.
I for one would agree with her wise words. That said I would prefer to stop the project, but before committing to that step, I would need to know, if elected, at what cost it would come to all the residents of the district. I say that because cutting our loses on to two large scale projects would affect the Council’s balance sheet and its income and expenditure. And as you may or may not know, we already have a forecasted £16m pound deficit to overcome over the next four years.
Furthermore, the Council have also shown themselves to be one of the only Council’s in the Country who cannot make an operating profit on its property letting company – Oportunitas – which will not generate sufficient profit to meet its operating costs until 2031.
Such a track record does not bode well for council tax payers of the district.
The Council as Cllr Carey says are not property developers and many who have tried have failed. These are words echoed by Ian Hislop, editor of Private Eye Magazine recently on the BBCs Question Time programme.
Given all this, perhaps the next Council, with new Cllrs no doubt, do need to pause, reflect, assess and look at all the options available, so as not to lump the ratepayers of the district with a millstone of debt, for the next 50 -75 years.
VOTE RYLANDS
FOLKESTONE CENTRAL
MAY 4
Promoted & Published by Bryan Rylands Flat D Avenay Court, Sandgate Rd, Folkestone CT20 2LN


The proposed upgrade of the station to HS1 serves only one purpose, to take Otterpool Park residents to London for work, shopping and entertainment. People are not going to commute to Westenhanger for these, only away. If they are coming down to Folkestone, it already has an HS1 station.
There are no guarantees that the Council will be able to provide staff for the proposed schools, medical facilities etc, nor can they guarantee that investors will provide employment. All they can guarantee is that local taxpayers will be liable for this vanity project for years.
So Otterpool LLP want to “borrow” a further £80 million from FHDC so for all intents and purposes robbing Peter to pay Paul .
As we expect there to be a deficit of £16million over the next four years where is this £80 million coming from and surely no loan is interest free .
I thought they already owned the racecourse so what other land are they trying to buy ..
Monk and Monk alone is costing us Council Tax payers millions and all because he loves a vanity project duly endorsed by his Tory and Independent cronies .
Vote them out on May 4th
One notes the Labour led Town Council in Folkestone didn’t raise an objection against Otterpool Park. One notes in the report which went before the Special Planning Committee on the 4 April it states:
Folkestone Town Council
June 2019, June 2022
At the town council meeting the Councillors resolved that they would
construct a combined response. No further comments were received.
What Labour say about objecting to Otterpool, and what they do are two different things as the evidence in the report makes clear.
My suggestion for what it is worth is: Don’t vote Labour on May 4.
From Otterpool Park Planning Committee 4 April 2023 Labour, Lib Dems and Green voted against.
Another point is that Cons set up their own postal voting postalvote.conservitive.com without the official link added. Think this probably breaks the ministerial code?
Why single out Labour? It is Monk and his Conservatives together with the so called Independents that supported him that we should be voting OUT on May 4th. New Council to scrap Otterpool
The council need to stop this madness now as they have never delivered any scheme of note. They are not property developers and if they went to any other lending organisation other than the publics works loan board for funding they would be turned down flat due to a raft of reasons amongst them being lack of track record experience etc.
@Guy
They may not be property developers, but they have donors who are.