Folkestone Harbour’s Second Bite at the Cherry: Revised Development Plans Return to Planning Committee

Folkestone & Hythe District Council Planning Committee will once again consider major redevelopment proposals for the town’s historic harbour area, with a fresh reserved matters planning application—25/0158/FH—set to come before the Planning Committee on Tuesday 17 June 2025 at 7:00pm.

The proposal covers all reserved matters—Layout, Access, Scale, Appearance, and Landscaping—for Phases 5 and 6 of the Folkestone Seafront Development. Specifically, the plans relate to Plots F1, F2, G1, G2 and H, and the adjoining harbour public realm. The application seeks permission for the construction of 410 residential dwellings, commercial space, car and cycle parking, landscaping, playspace, and various associated amenities, along with the formal discharge of key conditions concerning public open space, water use, biodiversity, wind flow mitigation, and surface water drainage.

This marks the second attempt to gain approval for this segment of the wider seafront regeneration, following the narrow refusal of the earlier application—24/0505/FH—by the Planning Committee on 21 January 2025, with councillors voting 5–4 against the plans. That refusal was formally confirmed on 30 January 2025.

Yet in a move of meticulous timing, the applicant—Folkestone Harbour (GP) Ltd, owned by Sir Roger De Haan (pictured)—submitted revised plans on 28 January 2025, just one day before the outline planning permission for the site was due to lapse. According to Companies House, Folkestone Harbour (GP) Ltd is wholly controlled by Sir Roger, a man described by former colleague Trevor Minter—AKA “Ming the Merciless—as someone who “doesn’t understand the words ‘No’ or ‘Can’t’.”

An Appeal in Waiting

The covering letter to the new application, submitted by agents Savills on behalf of Sir Roger, makes clear that an appeal against the January refusal is ready to be launched. However, the applicant expresses hope that this revised submission may render that appeal unnecessary.

“The applicant hopes that the need for such an appeal could be averted by this resubmission, which includes amendments to the development that respond to the discussions and concerns raised by Planning Committee Members,” the letter states.

The letter further emphasises that public access to key areas—including the station and the harbour arm—hinges on the application being approved. “The site’s ongoing accessibility as an amenity for the enjoyment of the public is predicated on this application receiving permission,” it reads.

A particularly contentious element is Plot G2, which in this version of the plans will be handed over as public realm—but only if permission is granted. “This offer to provide public access to the Plot G2 site is only possible if permission is granted,” the letter makes clear.

Community Reaction

That conditional promise has prompted strong responses from local stakeholders. Mark Hourahane, Vice Chair of the New Folkestone Society, criticised the tone of the developer’s letter:

“It is a shame that the applicant is now suggesting that access to the station, harbour arm, and other existing facilities might hinge on the development going ahead.”

The letter also accuses members of the Planning Committee of being “misguided and poorly informed by local pressure groups” regarding the site’s heritage—an apparent reference to the New Folkestone Society, which was explicitly mentioned by Green councillor Mike Blakemore during the January committee hearing.

As of publication, the revised application has received 747 objections from members of the public—ranging from concerns over heritage, scale, and traffic impact—while just 50 representations of support have been logged. The weight of local opposition is once again likely to be a decisive factor at committee.

A History of Pressure

This is not the first time bold development proposals have stirred controversy on the harbour arm. Back in 1989, a company owned by the offshore-based Sea Containers Property Services Ltd submitted an application for a scheme dubbed “Folkestone Harbour Village,” involving over 500 apartments and a sprawling leisure and festival centre. That project never materialised.

Nor is it the first time Sir Roger De Haan has played hardball over planning matters. In 1993, as Group Chairman of Saga, he warned that the company might leave the district if planning permission for the firm’s new Enbrook headquarters was not granted. “That’s not a threat, just sheer reality,” Sir Roger told the Folkestone Herald at the time. Planning permission was eventually secured in January 1996 after a lengthy negotiation.

What’s New This Time?

Key changes in the new application include an increase in proposed parking—from 328 to 500 spaces—and an uplift in the proportion of affordable homes. Of the 410 units now proposed, 53 (13%) are designated for shared ownership. This exceeds the 8% affordable housing target set out in the outline planning permission and represents the highest proportion to date in any phase of the harbour development.

Importantly, the application also carries with it over £5.15 million in potential Section 106 contributions for local infrastructure. But if this second attempt fails, those funds will not be forthcoming.

“That’s not a threat, just sheer reality,” as Sir Roger might put it.

The Bigger Picture

The public are encouraged to view and comment on the reserved matters application—25/0158/FH—especially given its potential to reshape the very heart of Folkestone’s seafront.

In the spirit of transparency, the Shepway Vox Team notes that land title data from HM Land Registry confirms that the relevant land is owned by Folkestone Harbour Nominee (1) Ltd, whose person of significant control is Sir Roger De Haan.

Whether residents view the revised plans as a bold and necessary continuation of regeneration or an attempt to strongarm the town into acquiescence may once again come down to a single vote at the Council’s Planning Committee.

Either way, the stakes—political, financial, and cultural—are high. And the message from Sir Roger’s camp remains unmistakably clear: Folkestone Harbour will not be left to drift quietly into the tide.

The Shepway Vox Team

The Velvet Voices of Voxatiousness