Highview Folkestone: Listed at £1.895m, Sold by Council for £800k

Highview School in Folkestone was closed in 2016 as part of a merger that created a new special education facility, The Beacon. The following year, Kent County Council (KCC) put the vacated 2.25-acre school site on the market. Folkestone & Hythe District Council (FHDC) stepped in and purchased the former Highview School site for £750,000 on 18 December 2017. FHDC’s cabinet had approved acquiring the land earlier in 2017, viewing it as an opportunity to develop much-needed housing. At the time, the transaction transferred the brownfield plot from county to district ownership, setting the stage for an ambitious council-led housing project.

Eco Homes & Planning Approval

FHDC initially intended to build a wholly affordable, eco-friendly housing scheme on the Highview site. In 2021, the council’s in-house design team unveiled plans for 30 “zero-carbon” homes – a mix of 24 houses and six flats – all designated as affordable units. “A new development of affordable housing designed by a district council aims to provide 30 zero-carbon homes,” reported KentOnline in October 2021. The design incorporated solar panels, heat pumps, battery storage and high insulation to achieve carbon-neutral performance. Work was expected to start in early 2022, pending planning consent.

Approval did come: On 2 August 2022, FHDC’s planning committee granted permission for 30 homes at Highview (Y19/0704/FH – in orange above). The scheme was to be council-developed, with all houses either let or sold as affordable housing under FHDC ownership. This milestone increased the site’s value and development potential. By this point, the council had also demolished the old school buildings and completed ecological surveys, funded in part by a central government Brownfield Land Release Fund grant. These steps were meant to “de-risk” the project: Money secured through the Brownfield Land Release Fund was used. Interventions included demolishing the derelict school, completing essential ecology work and securing planning permission. FHDC’s investment of time and resources aimed to create a shovel-ready, climate-friendly housing scheme to address local needs.

Cost Pressures and Affordable Housing U-Turn

Despite planning approval, the council’s build-out of Highview stalled. By early 2023, economic currents had shifted — rising construction costs and interest rates undermined the project’s viability. In February 2023, FHDC paused the development, citing “current market conditions” and even began considering selling the land to a partner. A council report revealed the estimated construction cost had nearly doubled from £5.9 million to over £11 million, far exceeding original budgets. Facing a projected £18.5 million deficit over the next four years, FHDC’s new Green-led administration reassessed its options.

A pivotal decision came in November 2023, when FHDC formally scaled back its affordable housing commitment for Highview by nearly 80%. The council “cut back its social housing scheme in November… meaning any new owners will now only have to build the minimum required level of 22% as affordable”. In practice, this reduced the site’s affordable units from all 30 homes down to about 7 homes (22%). FHDC acknowledged this reversal was to make the project more attractive to developers: the reduction was approved “due to the financial viability of the scheme,” bringing it in line with the district’s 22% affordable housing policy. The remaining 23 homes could be sold at market rates by any developer taking on the site. At the same time, the council indicated it might accept a deal where a buyer delivers extra affordable housing in lieu of paying full price for the land. This controversial U-turn – effectively dropping a 100% affordable council-build plan – drew concern from some local leaders. “Personally, I would still want to see the site be offered as 100% council-owned and retained,” said Cllr. Connor McConville Leader of the Labour Group at the time, and a Folkestone ward councillor, called on the administration to seek developers willing to exceed the 22% affordable minimum.

Sale to Developer at a Fraction of Expected Value

After reducing the affordable housing requirement, FHDC moved quickly to dispose of the Highview site. In February 2024, the council officially put the land on the market with an asking price around £1.5 million. The sales brochure, marketed by local agent Motis Estates, advertised “an opportunity to purchase a plot of 2.25 acres… Full planning permission for 30 affordable dwellings with the potential to alter the plans to 22% affordable”. Initially listed as “Offers for £1,895,000” on property websites, the site carried a seven-figure price tag reflecting its planning consent and preparatory works. FHDC hoped to recoup significantly more than its 2017 purchase price, and use the proceeds (or an equivalent partnership deal) to see the homes built by the private sector.

However, the outcome fell far short of expectations. On 11 September 2025, FHDC announced it had sold the Highview land to a company called Highview Development Company for just £800,000. This sale price was barely £50,000 above what the council originally paid eight years earlier. It was also roughly half of the £1.5m–£1.9m range the council had hoped to fetch for the site. The council’s press release framed the transaction positively, noting that a local developer would now deliver the 30 homes (with 22% affordable) according to the sustainable design the council created. “Our positive intervention has de-risked the site and enabled a local developer to take it forward and provide much-needed new homes,” said Cllr. Rebecca Shoob, cabinet member for housing. FHDC argued that by doing the demolition, planning and design work, it made development feasible where the council itself could not shoulder the costs. Indeed, the new owner is set to construct the homes largely as per the original plans, including the eco-friendly features, which might not have happened if the project had collapsed entirely.

Best Value Duty and Public Value Concerns

The Highview saga has prompted scrutiny over whether the council achieved value for money for local taxpayers. Under local government law, councils have a “Best Value Duty” to “make arrangements to secure continuous improvement… having regard to a combination of economy, efficiency and effectiveness”, i.e. to obtain good value in all their activities. Statutory guidance updated by the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (DLUHC) in July 2023 underscores that authorities must “secure value for money in all spending decisions” and “safeguard the use of resources” through effective internal controls. In light of those principles, FHDC’s handling of Highview raises difficult questions.

Public financial implications: FHDC invested considerable public resources into Highview. The £750k acquisition cost in 2017, though now recovered, yielded no real profit – the resale in 2025 for £800k barely covers inflation, meaning the council tied up capital for years with minimal return. Additionally, site preparation was subsidized by government grants (the Brownfield Land Release Fund) and council funds for design work and consultancy (more than £330,000 on architects in 202, plus other contracts). These sunk costs improved the land’s value, yet the benefits were largely realized by the private buyer at a discounted price. Had the land sold for the anticipated £1.5–£1.9 million, the council might have netted an extra £700k–£1.1m. That difference represents a lost opportunity to bolster the council’s coffers or fund other projects. It also arguably undervalues the planning permission and “shovel-ready” status achieved using public money.

Opportunity cost: The Highview site was once envisioned to deliver 30 affordable homes owned by the council – a social benefit now foregone. By reducing the affordable requirement to 22% and selling to a private developer, FHDC relinquished control over 23 homes that could have been council housing or affordable units. In a district with housing shortages, critics say this is a significant opportunity cost. “In a time when we need more social/council housing, not less, the council are jettisoning 23 homes,” commented local watchdog Shepway Vox, noting that the land is now destined for mostly market-rate housing because “they are skint”. FHDC maintains that without offloading the site, no homes would be built there in the foreseeable future – an even worse outcome – and that 6 or 7 affordable homes are better than 30 units stuck on paper. The council also points out it has recently purchased 44 other affordable homes in the district to address waiting lists, softening the blow of Highview’s downsizing. Still, the perception remains that the public sector (KCC and FHDC together) spent years recycling this asset only for a private firm to reap the development profits.

Value-for-money debate: Was selling at £800k a case of cutting losses, or a failure of governance? FHDC’s leadership argues that market conditions left them little choice – construction cost inflation and rising interest rates in 2022–2023 made the self-build plan financially untenable. By late 2023, even developers were wary, hence the need to slash the affordable quota to attract interest. The eventual sale price of £800k may reflect what the market would bear given the costly obligation to actually construct the homes. In that view, FHDC did achieve best value under constrained circumstances: it avoided spending £10+ million it didn’t have, and at least recovered the land value. “Investment decisions must have a commensurate level of scrutiny, transparency and approval to make sure officers and members fully understand the risks,” DLUHC’s Best Value guidance notes – and FHDC did subject the Highview project to multiple cabinet reviews as the finances worsened. On the other hand, the optics of buying low, investing public funds, then selling low are difficult to defend. Taxpayers effectively subsidized a private development: by one calculation, each affordable home to be delivered at Highview (7 total) came at a hefty public cost when factoring in the grant-funded works and foregone land value. The Best Value Duty calls for “continuous improvement” and accountable stewardship of assets – a standard some feel was not met in this case.

Conclusion

The story of Highview, Folkestone is a cautionary tale in local government finance. What began as a bold plan to directly deliver green, affordable homes evolved into a more conventional outcome: a private sale and a scaled-down affordability promise. The chronology – from KCC’s £750k sale to FHDC in 2017, to FHDC’s eco-home plans in 2021, planning approval in 2022, the affordability cut in 2023, and the £800k resale in 2025 – reflects the pressures councils face balancing community ambitions with fiscal realities. FHDC’s decisions will be judged against the metric of “best value”: whether the council made the most economical and effective use of public resources. On paper, the council’s Best Value obligations are clear: “secure value for money in all spending decisions” and protect the public purse. In practice, determining if FHDC achieved that at Highview depends on perspective. Thirty new homes will finally be built – including a handful of affordable units – addressing some local housing need. But the council’s slim financial return and the downsizing of affordable housing have prompted calls for greater accountability. As Folkestone’s residents watch the Highview development move forward under private ownership, questions linger over whether more prudent, innovative action by the council could have delivered a better deal for the public. The Highview timeline, now laid bare, offers lessons for councils everywhere on the importance of rigorous planning, market awareness, and upholding the spirit of the Best Value Duty in every decision made. In this particular case we don’t believe it was achieved, but as always we’ll let you decide.

The Shepway Vox Team

Dissent is NOT a Crime