Methane and CO₂ Emissions at Princes Parade Clash with Council’s Climate Commitments

Updated 09:30, 7 July 2025

The future of Princes Parade—a contentious strip of coastal land owned by Folkestone & Hythe District Council—has resurfaced as a hot-button issue. Residents were invited to help shape its future at two public drop-in sessions held at Hythe Town Hall on Friday 4 July and Saturday 5 July, as the council renewed efforts to engage the community over the long-disputed 18-acre site in Seabrook.

The sessions—hosted in Hythe Town Hall (pictured)—offered a chance for locals to raise concerns, ask questions, and suggest ideas about the land’s future. While all topics were welcome, particular attention was expected around the future of Seapoint Canoe Club, Seabrook Park’s play equipment, and the adjacent car park. District councillors Jim Martin, Anita Jones, and Rich Holgate – all pictured below – were present throughout both days to listen to residents’ views and answer questions.

A Toxic Legacy Beneath the Surface

Once a cherished recreation area, Princes Parade was fenced off in the early 2000s following environmental disruption. Councillor Jim Martin explained how it began:

“In 2003… the Environment Agency needed to clean the canal. So they dredged all of the sludge… and they spooned it up onto Princes Parade… That’s when it got fenced up… it imported the Japanese knotweed and hogweed.”

But invasive plants were only the beginning. Buried beneath the surface is decomposing organic waste—“potato peelings and cabbage,” in Martin’s words—releasing methane and carbon dioxide, both potent greenhouse gases.

Over the years, environmental reports have contradicted each other about the extent of the risk.

“Some of them… say the gas is amazingly high… methane, CO₂ coming off it. And then you read others… and they say, well, there’s hardly any methane,” noted one attendee.

Martin acknowledged the emissions but insisted they posed no danger:

“There is methane constantly coming off… it’s nothing to be concerned about. There’s no risk to anyone.”

However, a 2021 contamination report provides a more cautious assessment. While it finds that gas emissions currently pose no significant human health risk, it explicitly states:

“It is evident from the monitoring undertaken to date that the site generates gas.”

The report continues:

“The data shows that gas continues to be produced from the waste… and it is not known how long this will continue for.”

More notably, it warns of broader environmental implications, directly referencing the council’s climate commitments:

“The generation of landfill gas from the waste material is a source of greenhouse gases which contribute to climate change.”

This finding brings the council’s own climate policies into sharper focus. The Carbon Action Plan adopted by Folkestone & Hythe District Council sets out a clear framework for managing greenhouse gas emissions:

“The protocol is intended to be used by businesses, non-governmental organisations, universities and other bodies with operations that give rise to greenhouse gas emissions. It covers the accounting and reporting of the six greenhouse gases covered by the Kyoto Protocol: carbon dioxide (CO₂), methane (CH₄), nitrous oxide (N₂O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs) and sulphur hexafluoride (SF₆).”

And it is known—both from monitoring and the council’s own statements—that methane and carbon dioxide are being emitted by the Princes Parade site.

This contradiction was not lost on some of the attendees. One resident put it plainly:

“You’ve got one part of the council saying… we’re not going to allow this to happen. We own the land, and yet we know it’s happening… How does that balance?”

To Seal or Not to Seal?

A technical fix—laying a gas-proof membrane—was debated. Martin described the engineering involved:

“This sort of butyl membrane would be necessary… they would lay pipes with holes… the methane would go in there… If it’s left as it is, then the methane just dissipates naturally.”

Hythe Town Councillor Stephen Bailey (pictured) added:

“If we don’t do anything, then you won’t need [the membrane].”

However, updated contamination data and the council’s own climate pledges have cast doubt on the wisdom of doing nothing. The site continues to emit methane and carbon dioxide—both recognised under the council’s Carbon Action Plan as Kyoto Protocol greenhouse gases—and a 2015 estimate put the cost of installing gas protection measures at £285,000. This assumes a membrane would be laid over approximately 30,000 square metres, or 40% of the total site area, at a rate of £9.50 per square metre. This figure appears in the Council’s Estimate of Remediation Costs.

Yet many at the meeting questioned whether allowing methane to “just dissipate” into the atmosphere aligns with the council’s environmental goals—particularly under a Green-led administration. Recent surveys showed strong local support for non-development, with 37% and 23% backing various versions of “leave it as it is.” But that sentiment sits uneasily next to the climate consequences of inaction.

The contamination report reinforces this, stating:

“Consideration should also be given to the Council’s own policies and climate change strategy.”

Legal and Protective Avenues Explored

With trust in future decision-making low, residents and councillors explored ways to permanently safeguard the land from future development.

• Village Green status? Not an option. “Once a planning application has been submitted… that scuppers it.” said Cllr Bailey

• Fields in Trust? “They won’t protect contaminated land because it becomes a liability.”

One proposal stood out: transfer the land into a charitable trust.

“Put it into a private trust… ultimately a charitable trust… then that nulls it [development] completely.”

Such a move could future-proof the site, especially as Folkestone & Hythe prepares for transition to a unitary authority.

“Ultimately it’s so contaminated you’d be bonkers to try and develop it… But that won’t stop someone from potentially trying,” said Cllr Martin.

A Lesson from the Past—And a Warning for the Future

Martin reflected on the cycle of amnesia that haunts long-running planning disputes over the site:

“In 1983 there was the Marina idea, then 20 years later, someone came up with a new idea: ‘Why don’t we develop Princes Parade?’ Because that kind of organisational pain had all passed.”

Cllr Martin added:

“If you go into the officers at the moment and mention Princes Parade, their eyes glaze over and their heads drop…because they’ve sweated blood over it.”

There was broad support for alternative, low-impact uses of the land—such as a coastal park, a sleeper walkway like the Folkestone Harbour Arm, or even disease-resistant elm trees. These ideas were well received, though Martin admitted their feasibility remains uncertain.

District-Wide Development Tensions

The discussion also touched on wider inconsistencies in the council’s planning policies. One resident pointed to adjacent sites:

“You’ve got a piece of brownfield land in the urban area right next to something that they’re proposing as public open space.”

Another said bluntly:

“Any developer must realise local people will kick their heads in [metaphorically speaking]… if they try to purchase and develop Princes Parade.”

The neighbouring golf course, previously earmarked by its owner for possible development, sparked colourful commentary:

“Seriously, this is a man who failed to pay an installment on a €38 million for a boat, and was ordered to pay €7.6 million. For People like Darrell Healey... money is no object… nor are protesters.”

Otterpool: The Elephant in the Room

The future of Otterpool Park—a major housing development near Sellindge—was raised as the district’s best hope for meeting housing quotas:

“If Otterpool pushes on, then that ticks the housing targets quite considerably… I’m more optimistic now than I’ve ever been.”

But Cllr Martin offered a dose of realism:

“The government… want volume but they want speed… We can do numbers at Otterpool, but we can’t do them quickly.”

What Comes Next for Princes Parade?

At present, the council remains undecided. Environmental concerns, legal constraints, and deep public opposition all point to one outcome: no development. Yet as history has shown, political memory can be short, and protections must be made permanent if they are to last.

“The purpose of this is really just to ask people what do they think should happen to Princes Parade.”

After the consultation closed on Saturday, Cllr Jim Martin confirmed he would write to the council’s Head of Planning, Llywelyn Lloyd, to formally convey the public’s views. That, he said, would “close the file” on Princes Parade—for now.

Whether it stays closed forever remains uncertain.

In an era marked by climate crisis, housing pressure, and political distrust, the fight for Princes Parade has become more than a local planning dispute. It has been a test of how a community has defended its environment, remembered its past, and sought to protect its shared future.

We would be interested in hearing about your experiences of Fokestone & Hythe District Council. Email: TheShepwayVoxTeam@proton.me in confidence.

The Shepway Vox Team

The Velvet Voices of Voxatiousness