Stoneleigh House and the £1.716m Question: Where Did the Affordable Homes Go?

Updated: 09:35 on 3 Nov 2025

A fire-damaged Stoneleigh House on Tram Road, Folkestone, goes to auction this month with its 2018 consent for 14 affordable flats long since lapsed. The council’s official explanation for why neither those homes nor the £1.716m fallback materialised leans on an old permission and a supposed drafting flaw—yet the planning paperwork says something very different. Even Leader Cllr Jim Martin appeared unconvinced as he read out he’s response to Cllr Keen’s question in July 2025.

Explainer: What The Law Actually Lets The Council Do (And Why “Missing Cash” Is not The Right Lens)

The 2018 consent for 14 affordable flats (ref. Y16/0333/SH) was granted on 26 October 2018, never started, and has since lapsed. Most Section 106 obligations only become payable on triggers—typically commencement or occupation. If a permission expires unimplemented, those triggers never bite. In plain terms: there is usually no debt to collect, but there is a lost delivery of the affordable homes that the community was expecting.

Enforcement by injunction under s106 is powerful, but it only works where there’s a live breach of a live obligation (for example, occupation without delivering what the deed requires). An injunction cannot revive a lapsed consent that was never started. The right questions here are whether any pre-commencement payments or security (e.g., a bond) were agreed—and, if so, whether they were properly pursued—rather than assuming there is “missing cash.”

Bottom line: keep asking where the affordable homes went—that’s the real loss—and then test whether the council’s systems to secure, monitor and, if needed, enforce the fallback actually worked when they needed to.

What’s Happening Now

• Auction: Allsop lists Stoneleigh House, Tram Road, Folkestone, CT20 1QR as Lot 23, describing a vacant freehold former office building with lapsed planning permission. Guide: £675,000+. 

• Fire: A major derelict building fire on 19 Aug 2025 at Tram Road was widely reported locally; residents were advised to keep windows shut.

The Planning Record (What The Council’s Own Records Say)

2018: Full permission for 14 affordable units at Stoneleigh House (lapsed).
Folkestone & Hythe’s Brownfield Land Register 2023/24 (page 4) records Stoneleigh House as having Full Planning Permission on 26/10/2018 (ref. Y16/0333/SH) for “an apartment building of 14 affordable residential units following the demolition of Stoneleigh House.” It cross-references Y13/0858/SH, and notes the site was not started (last update 07/11/2024). The current auction particulars and aggregators also reference the December 2018 permission.

2016: Encombe consent premised on off-site delivery at Tram Road—or a £1.716m fallback. The Planning Committee report for 3 May 2016 (Application Y15/1154/SH – Land Adjoining 20 Encombe, Sandgate) shows members were asked to grant permission subject to a Section 106 securing contributions including affordable housing; the report acknowledges the Tram Road (Stoneleigh) 14-unit scheme had been received as a full application—the intended off-site delivery route—with a legal framework to secure contributions.

2008: The appeal decision required an “affordable housing scheme” to be approved and implemented.The Planning Inspectorate appeal decision (APP-L2250-A-08-2063316) for Encombe allowed development with Condition 13 requiring a scheme covering timing, affordability and occupancy of affordable housing (contemplating off-site/commuted solutions)

The Coucil’s July 2025 Answer – And Why It’s Hard To Credit

At Full Council on 23 July 2025, Cllr Nicola Keen asked how the council failed to secure either the 14 off-site affordable homes at Tram Road or the £1.7m fallback; her question stated administrators had confirmed triggers were reached. The written answer—read out by Cllr Jim Martin—asserted:

• the £1.7m was linked to a 2016 permission but the developer “implemented a 2011 permission instead,” so the 2016 s106 “was not engaged”; and

• because of a historic Secretary of State drafting error, the authority “could not enforce” delivery under the older permission; therefore “no financial sum was lost.”
  Independent reporting records the exchange and notes the Leader looked visibly uncomfortable reading it.

That response collides with the documentary trail:

1. Condition 13 in the 2008 appeal is a standard require-and-implement scheme condition used across England. Claiming a historic “drafting error” categorically prevented delivery demands legal chapter-and-verse that has not been published.

2. By May 2016, officers presented a belt-and-braces approach: secure affordable housing via s106, with Tram Road (Stoneleigh) providing the off-site units and a £1.716m fallback via legal triggers if off-site delivery did not occur. That is exactly how councils avoid unenforceability—by nailing it in a deed. 

3. The council’s own Brownfield Land Register confirms that Stoneleigh House did obtain full permission in 2018 for 14 affordable units. The consent later lapsed unused—which only heightens the question: why weren’t the fallback triggers called before the developer group slid into administration?

Insolvency Matters (Why Timing Mattered)

Multiple Sunningdale House Developments entities were in administration from 9 Aug 2023 (formalized in the Gazette; further procedural notices followed in Feb 2024 and related group companies). If legal triggers for a fallback contribution existed, waiting until or after insolvency made recovery harder, not easier.

Retention & Disclosure: The Documents Which Should Still Exist

FHDC says most planning decisions and documents from October 2002 onwards are downloadable via the online planning register; older documents (pre-1974) are not held. The council also publishes a Corporate_Retention_Schedule (XLSX). In short, the case record, decision notice(s) and any s106 should be held and disclosable (subject to lawful redactions).

Portal migration note (with dates):

FHDC’s legacy planning portal at folkestonehythedc.force.com/pr was still being publicly linked by the Public Notice Portal on 16 Apr 2025 and 11 Jun 2025. 
The replacement PR3 public register at folkestonehythedc.my.site.com/PR3 was already live by 13 Nov 2024/4 Dec 2024 (New Romney Town Council papers: “updated… Public Register… hyperlinks … new webpage”), and remains the active register now. 
What this means: there was an overlap window with PR3 live by Nov–Dec 2024 while public bodies continued publishing the old force.com/pr link into mid-2025. If any s106 PDFs or DoVs aren’t visible on PR3, the council should supply them on request under EIR/FOI or explain their non-availability.

Timeline (Evidenced)

• 15 May 2008 – Appeal allowed at Encombe with Condition 13 requiring an affordable housing scheme (timing, affordability, occupancy).

• 3 May 2016 – Committee report recommends granting Y15/1154/SH subject to s106; papers recognise Tram Road/Stoneleigh (14 units) as a full application—the off-site route, with legal contributions to be secured. 

• 26 Oct 2018 – Stoneleigh House (Y16/0333/SH) granted full permission for 14 affordable units (later lapsed; site not started per register). 

• 19 Aug 2025 – Fire at the derelict building on Tram Road.

• 1 Nov 2025 – KentOnline reports auction listing; Allsop catalogue shows Lot 23 with lapsed planning.

What Requires Answers Now (Legal & Operational)

• Where is the executed s106/DoV trail?
  Provide the sealed Section 106 for Y15/1154/SH (Encombe) and any Deed(s) of Variation linking off-site delivery at Tram Road or setting cash fallback triggers. If no DoV was completed, state who decided not to complete it, when, and why—given officers’ 2016 recommendation. 

• Which permission was “implemented,” and what are the trigger records?
  The July 2025 answer claims the 2011 route was implemented; publish the evidence (commencement notices, inspection logs, affordability scheme approvals under Condition 13, and the s106 trigger ledger). Cllr Keen’s question says administrators confirmed triggers were reached—put those confirmations in the public domain. 

• Why weren’t fallback sums secured before insolvency?
  A £1.716m fallback is, by definition, a risk-mitigation device. The council should evidence enforcement actions taken pre-August 2023 to call any due sums. 

• Register access & retention
  If the council says historic portal links are “deleted,” point to the current PR3 location of documents for relevant cases, or release copies. The council’s own pages make clear that, absent a statutory exemption, planning records should be available. 

Why The Council’s “No Money Wast Lost” Line Is Untenable On The Papers

• The 2008 appeal imposed a deliverable scheme requirement; that’s an enforcement hook, not an excuse. 

• The 2016 committee explicitly contemplated Tram Road off-site delivery and fallback triggers via s106. That’s a conscious, protective policy choice—not an administrative nicety.

• The 2018 Stoneleigh permission shows off-site delivery was actually capable of being permitted (it was) but then allowed to lapse—precisely when legal fallback should have been activated.

Conclusion

On the evidence that is publicly available, the statement that “no money was lost” looks, at best, an exercise in framing rather than a satisfying account of stewardship. A lawful planning route existed (Appeal Condition 13); officers later proposed a belt-and-braces solution (off-site delivery at Stoneleigh or a £1.716m fallback); and the off-site scheme itself obtained full permission in 2018 before lapsing. A reasonable reader could conclude that, whatever paperwork path the developer ultimately trod, the Council’s systems for securing, monitoring, and—if necessary—enforcing the obligation did not deliver the outcome members and residents were entitled to expect.

That is not an allegation of bad faith. It is a fair observation about outcomes versus intentions, and it raises proper questions of governance, especially as its related to affordable housing in the most deprived ward in the district. If the Council now wishes its position to be accepted, the remedy is simple and procedural: publish the sealed s106 for Y15/1154/SH, any Deeds of Variation that were contemplated, the trigger/monitoring logs, and the contemporaneous legal advice that underpinned the July 2025 response. If those documents do not exist, or were not actioned, the Council should say so plainly and explain the decision-making. Either way, transparency is the only route to restoring confidence.

Pending that disclosure, the prudent, good-administration view is that this matter merits independent assurance: a time-lined internal review reported to Audit & Governance, with the Section 151 Officer and Monitoring Officer advising; and, if warranted by what the documents show, engagement with the external auditor under the Local Audit and Accountability Act 2014. That is not punitive; it is the ordinary machinery of accountability. Until such a review is done—and the papers are out in full—the claim that “no money was lost” remains unpersuasive on the record.

The Shepway Vox Team

Dissent is NOT a Crime