Folkestone & Hythe discretionary fees up; bereavement leads, court costs frozen

What is a cynic? A man who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing.” — Oscar Wilde

Over five budgets from 2022/23 to the proposed 2026/27 schedule, Folkestone & Hythe District Council’s discretionary fees and charges show a mix of inflationary uplifts, bespoke re-pricings and statutory caps. The big story is in the bereavement line: cemetery and crematoria-adjacent charges have climbed far faster than CPI, while court-cost add-ons were frozen and pavement-licence fees hit new national caps. The 2026/27 figures remain proposals, due to go before the Finance and Performance Scrutiny Sub-Committee on Tuesday, 18 November, and may change at the vote.

What Rose The Most

Across the council’s “Discretionary Fees & Charges” schedules (with VAT), items consistently present over the five years show steep increases concentrated in bereavement services:

• Burial: person over 12 – double depth digging: from £895 (2022/23) to £1,150 (proposed 2026/27), +28.5% overall; +5.9% year-on-year from 2025/26 (then £1,086). Sourced from FHDC 2022/23 schedule and 2026/27 Appendix 2B (proposals).

• Internment of ashes: £153 → £210 (proposed 2026/27), +37.3% over five years; +13.5% YoY (2025/26: £185 → 2026/27: £210).

• Use of chapel: £151 → £195 (proposed 2026/27), +29.1% over five years; +6.6% YoY (2025/26: £183 → 2026/27: £195).

Many other cemetery items in 2026/27 are marked “CPI (rounded)” in Appendix 2C (proposals), but the steepest jumps above inflation sit in the “Bespoke” table (Appendix 2B), where the council explicitly re-sets key price points. These proposal tables are in the published agenda pack and await decision.

By contrast, court cost add-ons for council tax and business rates are proposed to remain frozen into 2026/27 (Council Tax Summons & Liability Order: £100; Business Rates: £174), reflecting the principle that such fees must be justifiable in court. Final adoption still depends on the committee vote.

Meanwhile, pavement licences are proposed at the national fee caps: £500 new / £350 renewal, per the permanent regime under the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023. The agenda proposes adopting the maximums, but these too are subject to approval.

Parking sits in a separate schedule (Appendix 3). For 2026/27 (proposed) most tariffs show CPI-rounded rises (e.g., Folkestone short stay 1hr £2.00→£2.10), with some lines frozen; parking charges are not part of the discretionary Appendix 2, but are included here for context. They also await the committee decision.

Why The Law Matters

Three planks frame what councils may charge:

1. Local Government Act 2003, s.93 – discretionary services may be charged at cost; income must not exceed the cost of provision, and authorities must have regard to statutory guidance when setting fees.

2. Localism Act 2011 (General Power of Competence) – broad power, but charging is constrained: no profit, and not where another statute governs charges.

3. Provision of Services Regulations 2009 – authorisation/licensing fees must be transparent and proportionate to administrative costs. Hemming v Westminster confirms councils cannot front-load enforcement costs into application fees where the Services Directive applies.

For pavement licences, government guidance caps fees at £500/£350—hence FHDC’s proposed maximums.

What The Pattern Suggests

FHDC’s Fees & Charges Policy (Dec 2024) sets full cost recovery as the default and uses CPI as the baseline unless there’s a reason to deviate. It also notes court fees as a special case: increases must be defendable in court—which is consistent with a proposed freeze.

In bereavement services, however, the council’s proposals go beyond CPI in places via “Bespoke” resets. That can be lawful—if the council evidences its actual costs (labour, plant, overheads, grounds maintenance, chapel utilities, volumes) and shows charges are no more than cost overall. Where increases materially exceed CPI (e.g., internment of ashes +37.3%, double depth digging +28.5% over five years), the burden of transparency is higher—especially before the vote.

Method In Brief

We aligned identical line-items across 22/23, 23/24, 24/25, 25/26, and 26/27 and computed YoY (2025/26→2026/27) and five-year (2022/23→2026/27) changes using with-VAT figures (what residents actually pay). For 2026/27 we used the published proposal tables in the agenda pack; all figures marked proposed remain subject to approval.

Conclusion

FHDC deserves credit for proposing a continued freeze on court add-ons and for complying with national caps on pavement licences. Those moves sit squarely within the legal framework and public interest.

But in bereavement fees, several proposed “Bespoke” uplifts significantly outpace inflation and would land hardest on families at their most vulnerable. Given the Local Government Act 2003 and PSR 2009 require no-profit cost recovery and proportionate, transparent charges, councillors should not rubber-stamp these lines without a published costing workbook per item (digging, ashes, chapel, maintenance) showing staff time, equipment, overhead allocation and expected volumes. Absent that evidence, the scale of the increases looks like a revenue strategy by another name—and risks both non-compliance and public trust.

If the evidence is robust, approve and publish it. If it isn’t, amend the proposals: re-profile uplifts toward demonstrated cost, phase any residual gaps, and commit to annual, published costings. Freeze where you must, cap where the law says—then prove the rest before you vote.

The Shepway Vox Team

Discernibly Different Dissent