FHDC Wants New Romney to Take Over Its Public Buildings and Land

New Romney Town Council is being urged to take ownership of a sprawling portfolio of public assets from Folkestone & Hythe District Council (FHDC), including toilets, car parks, play areas, and open spaces. While the move is presented as an act of local empowerment ahead of a planned local government shake-up, a closer look reveals a more complicated picture—and potentially a major new financial burden for residents.

FHDC is also in active talks with other local councils, including Dymchurch and St Mary’s Bay, suggesting a coordinated push to divest district-owned assets before a new unitary authority takes control. The question is whether this is about protecting local interests—or shielding the district council from its own deteriorating finances.

What’s Being Handed Over?

Documents prepared for New Romney’s Especial Full Council Meeting on 19 May 2025 outline an ambitious and far-reaching plan. The proposed asset transfer includes:

• Income-generating car parks: West Street, Church Road, Coast Drive, and the Jolly Fisherman.
• Public toilets that require routine maintenance and cleaning.
• The former One Stop Shop building, currently let on a commercial lease.
• Cemeteries, open spaces, and small parcels of agricultural land.
• The Station Road Play Area, which is not currently listed on FHDC’s asset register but is recognised locally as essential and in urgent need of £100,000 worth of repairs.

While the inclusion of income-generating assets may appear attractive, their financial benefit is far from guaranteed. Usage levels, maintenance costs, future capital outlay, and the impact of wider economic conditions (such as parking demand and lease renewals) all introduce uncertainty. Meanwhile, non-income-generating assets come with significant costs, including insurance liabilities, staffing, health and safety duties, and infrastructure upkeep.

A Time-Limited Window — Or a Rushed Deal Disguised as Prudence?

FHDC claims that the government may freeze all asset transfers as early as September 2025, at which point the power to make such decisions would pass to the new unitary authority. Yet a detailed review of government statements and documentation reveals no such official policy or instruction.

Instead, the sense of urgency appears grounded in precedent rather than policy. Past reorganisations, notably in Somerset and Cumbria, saw temporary halts to asset transfers as new governance structures were introduced. These delays were designed to ensure stability, not to preclude transfers outright—and importantly, they were implemented at the discretion of local transitional arrangements, not by central government decree.

So what is driving the haste? The council’s real concern may be losing control—or losing financial flexibility. By accelerating transfers, FHDC relieves itself of a raft of liabilities that would otherwise fall to the new unitary authority. This is not necessarily strategic foresight; it could be a form of balance sheet cleansing, executed under the guise of localism.

The pace of this handover plan is revealing. FHDC is simultaneously engaging with other parish-level councils, including Dymchurch and St Mary’s Bay, to facilitate similar transfers. The coordinated timing suggests a broad and deliberate campaign to downsize the district’s asset responsibilities before reorganisation limits its discretion. While this may protect local use of the assets, it raises questions about transparency, fairness, and long-term affordability for smaller councils.

Localism — or a Financial Escape Plan?

According to FHDC’s Medium Term Financial Strategy (MTFS), published in February 2025, the council is facing a sharp and growing financial cliff. Annual budget deficits are forecast to grow to £2.9 million by 2027/28, with a total shortfall of £5.5 million expected by 2028/29.

Even in the immediate term, the situation is dire. To balance its 2024/25 budget, the council has had to draw £2.16 million from earmarked reserves—a solution it concedes is not sustainable. With income from government grants stagnant and expenditure pressures mounting, the district is running out of levers.

In this context, transferring financial responsibilities to parish councils is not just convenient—it may be essential for the district’s financial survival. This reality reframes the proposed asset handovers. What FHDC presents as empowerment for local towns could be better understood as delegated austerity.

New Romney would be inheriting assets precisely because they cost money to maintain, and because the district can no longer afford to do so.

What It Will Cost New Romney

If the asset transfer goes ahead, New Romney Town Council would take on an immediate financial load of £158,550 in the first year. This includes payroll for additional caretaking and cleaning staff, equipment purchases, maintenance contracts, utility bills, and liability cover.

Projected income—from car park fees and leases—sits at £109,000 per annum. This leaves a projected annual funding gap of nearly £50,000.

There is only one realistic way to close that gap: increase the local council tax precept. New Romney already has the highest Band D precept of any parish in the district. This arrangement would virtually guarantee a tenth year at the top—possibly by a record margin.

The concern is that residents will face higher bills in return for assuming risks and liabilities they did not ask for and were not consulted about.

Disappearing Assets — or Disappearing Accountability?

FHDC warns that some assets could “disappear amongst the huge burden of work that the new unitary authority is required to manage.” But this claim deserves greater scrutiny.

How exactly does a car park “disappear”? Or a public toilet? Assets don’t simply vanish—they are managed, neglected, closed, or repurposed. The more likely scenario is that they would be absorbed into a county-wide maintenance regime, possibly under-prioritised, but not erased.

A more serious risk is that in the handover to local councils, accountability disappears. Once transferred, upkeep and financial planning become the responsibility of a small town council with modest capacity and limited transparency mechanisms. Without robust planning and public scrutiny, New Romney could find itself shouldering responsibility for assets that prove more liability than legacy.

The choice is not between disappearance and control, but between rushed devolution and carefully considered delegation.

Where Is the Public in All This?

Despite the far-reaching implications of this transfer—financial, operational, and political—New Romney Town Council has not initiated any formal public consultation.

This is legally permissible. Unlike district councils, town and parish councils are not bound by the Best Value consultation duties laid out in the Local Government Act 1999. But legality does not equal legitimacy.

For a proposal that may directly lead to higher taxes and expanded responsibilities, a public voice should be not only welcomed but sought. Surveys, drop-in sessions, and published business cases would all help ensure residents understand and consent to what is being proposed on their behalf.

Transparency now may save discontent later.

A Joint Strategy — or a Race Against Reorganisation?

New Romney is not alone in facing this dilemma. Councils across Romney Marsh are reportedly exploring a joint approach to asset transfer, potentially offering economies of scale or shared service models. A preliminary meeting has already taken place, with another planned.

While regional coordination can be a strength, it does not resolve the central questions: Who will bear the risk? Who will pay the bill? And who will be held accountable if the cost model fails?

A rushed group agreement may give the appearance of unity, but the liabilities will still be shouldered locally. It is essential that each council individually assesses affordability, capacity, and community backing before proceeding.

The district council’s narrative is one of empowerment. But behind the language of localism lies a more pragmatic, if troubling, reality: Folkestone & Hythe is trying to offload its problems before the reorganisation clock runs out.

The principle of local control is sound. But it must be accompanied by the resources and planning needed to make it work. Without those, local control becomes local exposure—to financial risk, public dissatisfaction, and unforeseen obligations.

This is not just a decision for councillors. It is a decision for the public, whose money will pay for it and whose services will be affected.

Because if public assets really can “disappear,” the question that matters most is: who’s watching the sofa?

The Shepway Vox Team

Not Owned By Hedgefunds or Barons