Folkestone & Hythe District Council’s planning committee has approved the major seafront development—without a single councillor raising, mentioning, or addressing their legal duties under the Equality Act 2010.
The Reserved Matters application (25/0158/FH), covering plots, F, G & H on the site, known locally as, The Harbour Arm, was passed on 17 June by 7 votes for – Councillors Fuller (Lib Dem), Goddard (Con), Godfrey (Con), Jones (Green), Shoob (Green), Speakman (Green) and Thomas (Ind), 2 against – Councillors Cooper (Lab) and Davison (Lab), and 2 abstentions Councillors Lockwood (Lab) and Wing (Green).
Brought forward by Sir Roger De Haan’s (pictured) Folkestone Harbour (GP) Ltd, the scheme was a lightly amended version of a previously rejected proposal. It also made it clear they’d appeal if permission was not granted. Councillors discussed design tweaks and parking ratios—but equality law, a binding legal duty in planning decisions, went completely unmentioned by both officers and elected members.
The decision was made in just 98 minutes—less time than many residents spend on their weekly shop. Yet during that hour and a half, no one referred to the Equality Act 2010, despite its clear relevance to the design and approval process.
As John Halford Head of Public Law and Human Rights at Bindmans LLP has warned:
“Planning authorities often mistakenly assume that equality duties can be discharged by reference to design codes or building regulations. That is incorrect. The Equality Act requires decision-makers to ask specific, rigorous questions about how their actions will affect disadvantaged groups and to modify their proposals accordingly.”
No such questioning occurred in this case.
A Legal Duty, Not a Policy Preference
Under Section 149 of the Equality Act 2010, public authorities are legally required to have “due regard” to:
-
Eliminating discrimination;
-
Advancing equality of opportunity;
-
Fostering good relations between people with and without protected characteristics.
This Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED) applies not just to planning officers, but also to councillors making planning decisions. Yet throughout the entire meeting, no councillor acknowledged or discussed the Council’s legal obligations. No one asked how the development’s design, layout, or housing mix might affect elderly or disabled residents, carers, families with young children, or people on low incomes—all groups protected under the Act.
Equality and Design: A Missing Legal Link
Planning law requires the Design and Access Statement (DAS)—a statutory document submitted with all major applications—to demonstrate how equality has been considered. It is not a stylistic exercise or a basic accessibility checklist.
Yet the DAS for 25/0158/FH includes only a brief general mention:
“The proposals have been designed to be as inclusive and accessible as reasonably possible, in line with Part M4(1) of the Building Regulations…”
But more revealing are the admissions within the developer’s own submission. The Design & Access Statement — Inclusive Design, pages 279–296 — explicitly states:
“For the purposes of this report no specific consultation with disabled users has been undertaken.”
Furthermore, on page 292, it acknowledges:
“There is no requirement to provide M4(3) wheelchair accessible units. It is however recommended that their provision is explored.”
This approach fails to meet both the legal requirements of the Equality Act and best practice standards. The law requires proactive steps to ensure equal access—especially for disabled people, whether in social or market-rate housing. Without such measures, the development risks excluding precisely the people the law is designed to protect.
This approach is insufficient and fails to meet both legal obligations and best practice standards. The Equality Act 2010 mandates that reasonable adjustments be made to ensure disabled individuals have equal access to housing—whether affordable or market-rate. Without such proactive measures, the development risks excluding precisely those groups the law is meant to protect.
Accessibility challenges extend beyond housing. Transport access for disabled users is a serious concern. Pg 288 of the DAS states:
Some users of the development, including people with children, pregnant people, and some disabled people may rely on community transport, taxis, minicabs or private cars driven by others. Particularly as the nearest pair of bus stops to the site are reportedly located at the southern end of Tontine Street, approximately 270m north of the site (approximately 4 minutes’ walk)… It should be noted that the proximity to various bus stops available will vary for each plot, however these exceed what is considered a reasonable walking distance for some disabled people which is likely to be limited to 50m or less.
In this context, disabled people appear to be directly and indirectly discriminated against through a lack of adequate planning for access and connectivity.
As John Halford, writing for the Environmental Law Foundation, further explains:
“Planning decisions made without demonstrable due regard to the needs of people with protected characteristics are not just bad decisions—they are unlawful decisions.”
There was no such analysis. No equality impact statement. No member of the planning committee raised these legal duties during deliberations. The Council not only overlooked equality—it failed entirely to engage with the law.
Playspace Plans: A Blueprint for Exclusion
The proposed Playspace Areas raise further concerns. Despite allocating over 4,700m² across five play areas, the plans make no reference to the needs of disabled children.
There is no mention of wheelchair-accessible surfaces, sensory equipment, or inclusive design features. This absence is not simply poor planning—it may be unlawful.
Under Section 149(3) of the Equality Act, authorities must:
-
Minimise disadvantages faced by those with protected characteristics;
-
Take steps to meet different needs;
-
Encourage participation in public life.
There is no evidence any of this was considered.
This oversight is not merely bad design—it may be unlawful.
As Halford has written in The Equality Act and Its Impact on Planning Law, warns:
“Planning decisions impact on everyone, but the impact on some more (and in many cases, very considerably more) than others.”
He adds:
“Regardless of whether there is an impact assessment, due regard will require collection and consideration of data and information… sufficient to enable the body in question to assess whether the decision might amount to unlawful discrimination.”
No such data or impact assessment appears in the documentation reviewed.
This legal principle was affirmed in R (Harris) v Haringey LBC [2010], where planning permission was quashed because the council failed to consider the social impact on minority traders. The Court of Appeal ruled that:
“‘Due regard’… required an analysis of that material with the specific statutory considerations in mind.”
The same failure applies here.
Planning documents from Spacehub Design list extensive detail about landscape architecture, but never once consider disabled access. They show:
-
A 1,341m² Seafront Park Play Area
-
A 1,115m² Shingle Garden Play Area
-
A 636m² Resident’s Garden Play Area
-
A 496m² Harbourside Play Area
-
A 2,473m² Local Area for Play
Not one of these designs includes reference to accessible paths, sensory play or inclusive engagement.
Worse still, when the application was considered tonight, 17 June 2025, councillors made no comment on these exclusions.
No Councillor raised the issue of disabled children.
No Councillor raised the issue of transport distances for disabled adults.
No Councillor raised the issue of pregnant women.
No reference was made to the Equality Act 2010. No legal duty was addressed.
As Halford puts it:
“Inattention to [the PSED] is both unlawful and bad government.”
The silence from councillors was, in legal terms, deafening.
The Court of Appeal’s ruling in R (C) v Secretary of State for Justice [2008] makes clear:
“Failure to conduct an equality impact assessment at the proper time is a defect… of very great substantial, and not merely technical, importance.”
Planning law expert Alex Goodman KC echoes this in Equality-Law-and-Planning-Court:
“The duty is one of substance, not form… and where that is not shown, permission may be vulnerable to judicial review.”
Equality Dismissed in Disabled Parking Analysis
The clearest illustration of Folkestone & Hythe District Council’s failure to apply equality law lies in the fine print of its own planning report—specifically paragraphs 8.84, 8.85 and 8.86 of the Committee Report. These sections address the decision to cut disabled residential parking bays from 41 to just 27, yet nowhere in these paragraphs is the Equality Act 2010 mentioned.
Instead, paragraph 8.84 justifies the reduction by citing spatial reconfigurations and design amendments. The justification offered? The remaining provision is “still in line with adopted standards” and therefore considered acceptable. But as public law barrister John Halford warns, “compliance with design codes or building regulations does not discharge the Public Sector Equality Duty.” The duty to consider equality impacts is separate, specific and legal—not optional.
Paragraph 8.85 continues the oversight by arguing that because no objections were received specifically about the reduction in disabled bays, the proposal is acceptable. But the law is clear: the Equality Act imposes a proactive obligation on decision-makers to consider how their actions affect people with protected characteristics. This duty applies regardless of whether formal objections are lodged. As the Court of Appeal held in R (BAPIO Action Ltd) v Secretary of State for the Home Department, the Public Sector Equality Duty must be engaged even where no member of the public raises it.
Paragraph 8.86 compounds the issue, claiming that no “significant equality issues have been identified.” This is a deeply misleading statement. The loss of over a third of disabled parking bays in a large seafront development is a material change with direct consequences for disabled residents and visitors. The report fails to quantify how many Blue Badge holders might live in or visit the development. It fails to consider whether 27 bays are sufficient. It fails to ask whether reductions in disabled parking disproportionately disadvantage certain groups—particularly older adults, disabled children, carers, or mobility-impaired visitors.
All three paragraphs commit the same fundamental error: they treat equality as a technicality, when the law demands it be treated as a central pillar of public decision-making.
As Halford writes in his guide for the Environmental Law Foundation:
“Regardless of whether there is an impact assessment, due regard will require collection and consideration of data and information… sufficient to enable the body in question to assess whether the decision might amount to unlawful discrimination.”
There is no such data here. No evidence of meaningful analysis. No Equality Impact Assessment. No discussion of the needs of people with protected characteristics. No councillor raised these issues. No officer addressed them. And yet the development was approved.
When taken together with the failure to design inclusive playspaces, address accessible transport links, or provide M4(3) wheelchair housing, the disabled parking downgrade is not an isolated oversight—it is part of a pattern of systemic exclusion.
As Halford himself has warned: “Planning decisions made without demonstrable due regard to the needs of people with protected characteristics are not just bad decisions—they are unlawful decisions.”
In this case, the law was not applied. It was ignored.
Legal Risk Set Aside for Fear of Appeal
Instead of upholding statutory duties, councillors appeared more concerned about the financial risk of a developer appeal if the application were refused costing tax payers money.
Yet this argument jars with recent events. Just this month, Folkestone & Hythe District Council spent £26,400 on a failed judicial review, which it pursued despite little to no chance of success. That case—widely viewed as an avoidable waste of public money—undermines claims that the Council is now exercising financial caution.
A resident who attended the meeting said:
“They say they can’t afford an appeal, but they wasted over twenty-six grand on a pointless legal challenge. Why is equality law treated as optional while developer threats are taken as gospel?”
Case Law: Courts Will Intervene
Recent rulings reinforce the importance of compliance with Section 149. In LDRA Ltd v Secretary of State, the High Court quashed planning permission where the impact on disabled people was not assessed. In Williams v Caerphilly CBC, the closure of a leisure centre was overturned because the Council failed to consider how it would affect elderly and disabled users.
As Alex Goodman KC, a leading barrister in planning and equality law, has written:
“The Public Sector Equality Duty is not a box-ticking exercise. It is a continuing legal obligation that must inform the substance of decision-making, not merely the process.”
In this case, there is no evidence of any such substance. There is no evidence that councillors—or planning officers—considered the duty at all.
Consent Granted, Compliance Absent
The approval of 25/0158/FH enables Sir Roger De Haan’s final phase of Folkestone’s Seafront Development. But it does so in breach of a central pillar of public law. Not one councillor raised the Equality Act. The Design and Access Statement failed to address protected groups. Playspace design excluded disabled children entirely and “reasonable walking distance” for disabled people to access public transport was ignored. In these contexts, disabled people appear to be directly and indirectly discriminated against through omission.
No assessment was undertaken of who might be excluded or disadvantaged by the scheme.
This is not merely an oversight. It is a legal failure—by councillors to apply the Equality Act to planning law as they must and are empowered by the courts.
The development may proceed. But unless the Council begins to take equality law seriously, it may soon find itself back in court.
The Shepway Vox Team
Discernibly different Dissent
