Folkestone Sports Centre’s £2.4m Grant Question: Why Not Use Surplus Land to Help Fund the Rebuild?

If there’s one thing Britain still does reliably, it’s asking the public to pay twice: once through taxes, and again through politely worded “one-off” grant requests that have a habit of becoming sequels.

So here we are. The Sports Trust – charity, company limited by guarantee, and now owner of Folkestone Sports Centre – is seeking a £2.4 million capital grant from Folkestone & Hythe District Council to get the swimming pool and associated areas reopened. The council’s own line is that long-term revenue support isn’t on the table, so the ask is framed as a one-time investment with conditions and clawback clauses.

All very grown-up. Except for one small detail that keeps poking its head up like a rubber duck in the deep end: the Trust owns the site – and the title paperwork suggests it wasn’t acquired for the price of a cornflakes.

The Land Registry title register records The Sports Trust as proprietor and notes a price paid of £1,484,277 on 21 May 2025 (the register makes clear the figure relates to this and related titles, not necessarily just one neat rectangle on a map).

Now, nobody sensible is suggesting the Trust should melt the building down and sell it as scrap to fund a new boiler. But when an organisation owns a large site and asks the council for millions, residents are entitled to wonder: has the Trust explored raising money from the land itself?

The “Surplus Land” Elephant in the Car Park

The idea is simple enough for even a council report to understand: if there is excess land not essential to the sports centre’s core function, why not apply for planning permission, sell a portion, and contribute something to the upgrade costs?

Not necessarily the full £2.4m. Not necessarily housebuilding. But something that shows this isn’t a pure “taxpayers to the rescue” script.

Because without that, the optics risk being… well… very British: “We own the asset. You fund the repairs. Thank you for your service.”

And Before You Ask: Yes, the Land Has Been Dealt With Before

The title register also refers to land that was previously transferred out in a deed dated 7 August 2020 involving Leith Park Developments (Cornwallis) Limited, with rights reserved for the land that remained – land mark in orange.

In plain English: parts of this landholding have been carved up before.

If you’re hoping for the punchline – “and it sold for £X” – the register summary doesn’t hand it to us. It references the transfer, but doesn’t show a sale price for that 2020 disposal. If someone wants the number, they’ll likely need the relevant carved-off title documents.

Still, the existence of a prior carve-off matters, because it means “land solutions” aren’t some heretical new idea invented by a developer in shiny shoes. The site has history.

The Spoilsports Section: Covenants, Greensward, and Charity Law

Of course, the Trust can’t simply slap “Luxury Apartments Coming Soon” on the fence and call it a feasibility study.

The register contains restrictive covenants that, in essence, push the land towards sports and recreation, and refer to maintaining areas as greensward.  There are also restrictions reflecting charity governance – including compliance with the Charities Act 2011 on disposals – and a reference to safeguards tied to the Localism Act 2011.

So yes: selling land is not necessarily easy. But “not easy” is not the same as “not worth asking about”, especially when the figure being discussed is £2.4m.

The Straight Question the Council Should Ask

Before councillors reach for the ceremonial cheque stub, they should ask The Sports Trust – publicly, on the record:

• Is any part of the land genuinely surplus to sporting use?

• If yes, what could realistically get planning permission, given the covenants?

• If no, why no, in plain English?

• And either way: what financial contribution can the Trust make from its own assets and fundraising, even if it’s partial?

Because the public doesn’t just want a reopened pool. It wants a deal that looks like shared responsibility, not a familiar local-government fairytale where the taxpayer is the only character with a wallet.

And if the Trust’s answer is “we can’t sell anything”, then fine – but let’s hear the reasoning clearly, with the paperwork, not just the pleading.

The Shepway Vox Team

Dissent is Not a Crime

Song Title: God Bless You Mr De Haan – The Dennis Hoppers