Kingston Homes’ Hythe Plan: Luxury Builds, Zero Affordable Housing

Ladies and Gentlemen of the Planning Committee,

(18 March 2025)

Gather ’round, for we have a mystery on our hands—a mystery so baffling, so ludicrous, that even Agatha Christie would have thrown in the typewriter and taken up knitting instead. The crime? The vanishing act of “affordable housing” from the proposed development by Kingston Homes at Station Road, Hythe (Application Ref: 21/0553/FH).

This 40-dwelling scheme promises to bring much-needed housing to Hythe. But wait—where are the affordable homes? Poof! Gone. Like a magician’s rabbit, they’ve disappeared into thin air. Kingston Homes, in their infinite wisdom, has submitted a Viability Report claiming that the project is so financially precarious that not a single affordable home can be squeezed in. Their profit? A “paltry” 9% (£5.4 million), which they claim is “barely enough to keep the yacht afloat.” Poor dears.

But fear not Cllrs, for we have a Clawback Mechanism! Yes, a magical clause in the S106 Agreement that promises to claw back some of the developer’s profits if they miraculously make more money than expected. It’s like a financial Hail Mary, except the only ones praying are the residents of Hythe, who are left clutching at straws—or rather, clutching at the invisible affordable homes that will never materialise, especially for those on the Council’s housing waiting list.

A Tale of Luxury and Flood Zones

The site (pictured), a sprawling 1.43 hectares of what was once agricultural land (or, as the report calls it, “vacant greenspace“), is now set to become a haven for the well-heeled. With a single vehicle access point, flood zones, and a 14-meter level difference, this development is not just a housing project—it’s an obstacle course. Who doesn’t love a bit of adventure when trying to get home?

And let’s not forget the retaining walls. So many retaining walls. If this development were a video game, the final boss would be a giant retaining wall demanding you pay £3,000 per square metre just to pass.

The Farce of the Traffic Survey

Now, let’s turn our attention to the traffic survey. Oh, what a masterpiece of comedic timing! Conducted during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, when the streets were emptier than a politician’s promises, the survey claims that traffic won’t be an issue. Residents, however, have conducted their own survey, revealing that over 34,000 vehicles passed through the area in a week, with 14.8% speeding. Where were the Police? That’s over 5,000 potential accidents waiting to happen. But who cares about facts when you have a developer’s traffic survey that conveniently ignores reality.

That Viability Report – A Masterclass in Creative Accounting?

Armed with a viability report thicker than a stack of unread planning policies, the developer has proven that affordable housing is as mythical as a unicorn in a council meeting. Come closer Cllrs, let’s dissect this fiscal farce! Let’s dive deeper into the Viability Report.

The developer, Cllrs, claims the project will make a measly 9% profit (£5.4 million), which is apparently not enough to fund any affordable housing. But wait—we the Council instructed DSP, our independent consultants, to review Kingston’s viability report, and guess what? They found that the build costs were overstated by £380,000. That’s right, Cllrs. The developer’s numbers are as reliable as a weather forecast in April.

The assumptions in this report are a work of art:

• Sales values? Let’s go with £4,700 per square metre for flats and £4,400 for houses.
• Build costs? A cool £3,017 per square meter.
• Profit margin? 20%, because why not?
• Finance interest rate? 7.5%, because banks love charging developers as much as possible.

The report also assumes a benchmark land value of £350,000, based on the site’s agricultural use. But let’s be real—this isn’t farmland. It’s a prime piece of real estate in Hythe, a stone’s throw from the High Street. The developer’s valuation is about as accurate as a broken clock.

The Core Strategy: A Houdini Act

Ah, our Core Strategy, the Folkestone and Hythe District Council Core Strategy—a noble plan that insists 22% of housing in larger developments must be affordable. But wait! This particular development has pulled a Houdini and wriggled out of that obligation. How, you ask Cllrs? By waving around a jaw-dropping negative residual land value of -£2,650,889 like a magic wand. Apparently, building 40 swanky luxury homes is so astronomically expensive that affordable housing simply evaporates into thin air. Who could have predicted such a twist? (Spoiler: Everyone.)

But fear not, dear Cllr, for the developer has a cunning plan: value engineering. Sounds fancy, right? In reality, it’s corporate speak for “let’s trim the fat, keep the price tag sky-high, and maybe, just maybe, scrape together a 9% profit (£5.4 million).” It’s like serving a gourmet meal but swapping the truffles for instant noodles—while still charging you for the truffles. Genius, really. Affordable housing? Nah, let’s just engineer some value instead. Problem solved!

Public Outrage and the Farce of Consultation

The people of Hythe, as you might expect Cllrs, are outraged. Letters of objection have flooded in, with residents pointing out the glaring flaws in the proposal. The development is too big, too tall, and completely out of character with the area. The loss of trees and open space is a tragedy, and the impact on local infrastructure is a disaster waiting to happen.

But the developer’s response? “We’ve made significant amendments.” Oh, really? Reducing the number of flats from 15 to 12 and shaving 0.5 meters off the roof height is hardly a game-changer. It’s like putting a Band-Aid on a broken leg and calling it fixed.

And let’s not forget the consultation process. The developer held an online event, which excluded many residents who aren’t tech-savvy. It’s like holding a town hall meeting in a library and then locking the doors. Bravo, Kingston Homes, bravo.

The Verdict

So, what’s the verdict, Cllrs, committee members? Do we approve a development that offers no affordable housing, ignores public concerns, and relies on understated sales values and overstated build costs in the Viability Report to justify its existence? Or do we stand up for the community, demand better, and send the developer back to the drawing board?

The choice is yours. But remember, the eyes of Hythe are upon you. Will you be the heroes who stood up for affordable housing and sustainable development? Or will you be the villains who rubber-stamped a farce?

Epilogue: The Clawback Clause Strikes Again

As the committee deliberates, let us not forget the Clawback Clause. It’s the developer’s ace in the hole, their golden parachute, their escape route. But let’s call it what it really is—a betrayal of the public trust. A promise of affordable housing that some how never materializes, a fig leaf to cover the naked greed of a development that puts profits before people.

So, dear Cllrs, committee members, as you cast your votes, remember this: the future of Hythe is in your hands. Will you let the Clawback Clause claw its way into history, or will you claw back some dignity and demand better for your community?

Signed,
The Office of Sarcasm and Affordable Housing Outrage
“Because someone has to say it.”

This blog post, serves as a satirical lens to explore the very real fact of no affordable homes, on an up market site in Hythe, going before the planning committee on the 18 March 2025 . While the characters and storyline are exaggerated for dramatic and humorous effect, the underlying themes of affordable housing, viability reports, traffic and other material matters remain important. They are raised, so we might not lose sight of the importance of local voices; and communities in the planning system; and to remind you, developers, regardless of who they might be, do take liberties in our honest opinion.

The planning meeting tonight can be watch on the Council’s webcast. Or you can attend the Civic Centre in person. The Committee starts at 7pm

The Shepway Vox Team

The Velvet Voices of Voxatiousness