Folkestone & Hythe District Council’s latest asset register shows a leaner estate than four years ago—and a public forced to chase the basics of transparency. A comparison of the 2020, 31 October 2023 and 14 October 2024 registers reveals 17 disposals or removals and 11 additions, a net reduction of six assets since 2020. The detailed schedules of removals and additions—covering every published field—are available alongside this article.
We had to force the 2024 update
It should not require public pressure to deliver a routine legal duty. Yet it did. It took The Shepway Vox Team to compel FHDC to update and publish the 2024 asset register after the council failed to meet the Transparency Code’s annual publication requirement. The council’s own FOI response confirms an internal “last-updated” date of 14/10/2024. The file properties add crucial context: Created: 14/10/2024, 14:12:01 (via openpyxl), and Modified: 24/09/2025, 15:27:37. That timeline speaks for itself—an asset register assembled in October 2024 but not finalised and re-issued until nearly a year later, following sustained scrutiny.
The council pointed to two web locations for the dataset: its Publication Scheme → “6. Lists and Registers” (which had shown 2023 and only later reflected 2024), and Council Transparency → “Local authority land” (which now provides the 2024 file). A contemporaneous web archive capture corroborates this sequence: the snapshot at Archive.is shows the 2023 asset register still live on the publication page on 4 July 2025. Claims that the page had been updated and published with 2024 data before that date therefore cannot be reconciled with the archived record. It is, at best, inconsistent; at worst, it risks misleading the public about when the update actually occurred.
On governance and data quality, the FOI answers were stark. Asked for policies, protocols or internal guidance used to comply with the Code’s data-quality and publication rules, the council replied: “No Information available.” Asked for Monitoring Officer actions and records regarding the missed annual publication (including any consideration of a statutory report), the answer was “N/A – no actions and records as deadline not missed.” The same “N/A” applied to the Head of Paid Service/Chief Executive, and there were no minutes, agendas or papers disclosed where publication was discussed. Required access-to-information records for decisions about the dataset? “No documents available.” Resource sufficiency assessments for statutory officers? “N/A.” Any communications with the external auditor about transparency compliance? Not disclosed.
Taken together, those statements—and the file’s own timestamp trail—underline the central point: without persistent public scrutiny, the 2024 register would not have been made properly available, and the governance record around that duty remains threadbare.
What changed in the estate
Our full spreadsheets (which can be downloaded at the end f the blog post) set out the changes line by line. Broadly:
-
Removals (17): A cluster of non-operational parcels and legacy entries has gone from the list. Examples include small land plots (e.g., near Shorncliffe Crescent and Hythe Close) and consolidation/splitting of records where a single entry has been replaced by clearer, separate records (e.g., the 2020 entry for “Pleydell Gardens public toilets and flat above” becoming distinct listings for the toilets and the flat in later years).
-
Additions (11): New or re-profiled entries skew toward community-facing assets and clearer site delineation: for instance The Stadium area in Folkestone now appears as sports ground/car park plus Shorncliffe Pavilion.
The net effect—a smaller list by six assets—points to modest streamlining rather than a wholesale sell-off, but it still matters. Asset registers are not box-ticking; they are the public’s ledger of what is owned, controlled, leased, occupied or used in their name.
Why Transparency Matters Here
When registers are out of date, public consent for estate management is undermined. Without timely data, residents cannot see whether disposals raise capital for reinvestment, whether acquisitions support community outcomes, or whether “portfolio housekeeping” is actually delivering value. The FOI answers amplify the concern: no published policy framework, no formal officer records, no access-to-information trail—yet somehow no missed deadline.
This is a governance gap, not a clerical quirk. The Transparency Code’s annual requirement is clear in spirit and effect: publish the complete, current register with all fields. If the council considers that it met the deadline, it should be able to show the documented process that made that happen.
What FHDC should do now
-
Publish the process, not just the spreadsheet. Adopt and publish a short data quality and sign-off protocol for the asset register (owners, checks, timetable, and a change log).
-
Keep a simple audit trail. If officers or statutory posts consider publication “on track,” there should be records (advice, decisions, reasons, alternatives considered) consistent with the Constitution’s access-to-information rules.
-
Own the narrative. When entries are split, merged or removed for housekeeping reasons, publish a one-page change note each year explaining why.
Bottom Line
We welcome the 2024 update—but residents shouldn’t need campaigners to prise open routine transparency. The council’s estate did not transform dramatically between 2020 and 2024, yet the story behind the numbers still needs telling: what was removed, what was added, and why. That story depends on timely publication, clear documentation and accountable governance. We’ll keep asking for all three.
Data & Method
We compared every field across the 2020, 2023 and 2024 registers. We matched records usingUPRN, asset/site identifiers, name and address fields to minimise false positives from formatting changes. The outputs include full rows for each removed and added asset:
The Shepway Vox Team
Journalism for the People NOT the Powerful
