Folkestone & Hythe District Council: Councillors Challenge Youth Football Fees, Hythe Pool Spend, Princes Parade Delay and Southern Water

Folkestone & Hythe District Council meets in Full Council on Wednesday 25 February at 7pm, and councillors have published a set of questions that range from the price of youth football and the future of Princes Parade to dog fouling, flood risk on Romney Marsh and the durability of beach huts after winter storms.

The questions are set out in the council’s “Questions from Councillors” paper for the meeting. Up to 45 minutes is allowed for members’ questions. The council meeting will be webcast live via its public-i portal, and that 37 seats will be available for members of the public in the chamber.

The first question that will resonate with many families is about the rising cost of youth football at Folkestone Invicta FC’s “Centre of Excellence” training programmes. Councillor David Godfrey (Con) – pictured – addressing the Cabinet Member for Community and Collaboration, Councillor M Blakemore, says the sign-on fee has risen from £45 to £200, and the monthly fee from £45 to £70 over ten months — a stated total of £900 per child per year. Councillor Godfrey argues that the increase is pricing some families out, at a time when access to grassroots sport can be limited, especially outside larger centres. While accepting the council cannot run the club, the question asks whether the Cabinet Member, in the council’s capacity as landowner, will open a dialogue with the club’s owner and sponsors, the Kent FA and potentially Sport England to explore whether the impact can be mitigated.

From there, the focus shifts sharply back to water quality — this time in legal terms. Councillor Nicola Keen (Lab) asks the Leader of the Council, Councillor J Martin, for an update on legal action that the council and “other interested bodies” have begun against Southern Water, and what progress can be shared with councillors and residents. In plain English, it is a request for a clear public account of where the action has got to, what has been achieved so far, and what residents should realistically expect next.

The third major issue is Hythe Pool, and the scale of planned spending. Councillor David Godfrey (Con) questions the Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Finance and Governance, Councillor Prater, about the council’s Medium Term Capital Programme provision for £6 million of refurbishment, including £2 million expected to come from prudential borrowing in 2026/27. Prudential borrowing is council borrowing that must be demonstrably affordable over time. The councillor says the Conservative group supports having a pool in Hythe, but questions whether it is wise to spend such a large sum on what is described as an “ailing pool” that has already cost residents substantial sums each year “simply to patch it and keep it open”, without a fully supporting income stream. The question asks where members can review the full business case and financial justification, including assumptions on capital funding, borrowing costs, projected income, ongoing operating subsidies, and the pool’s projected lifetime and lifecycle maintenance costs.

Fourth in the reordered run of topics comes Princes Parade — still fenced off, still politically sensitive. Councillor Mrs Jenny Hollingsbee (Con) asks the Leader why the seafront site has “laid dormant and fenced off” for three years, and notes that £3.5 million has been written off in this year’s accounts after the original swimming pool project was abandoned. The councillor asks whether Princes Parade was put forward when the council issued a “call for development sites”, and if not, what the plan is for its future use. Beneath the formal wording sits a question residents have asked repeatedly: when does “temporary fencing” stop being temporary, and who is making a decision about what happens next?

After those headline issues, the remaining questions cover a mix of everyday enforcement, environmental concern, financial risk and climate resilience.

Dog fouling is raised by Councillor Tony Cooper (Lab), who asks Councillor P Blakemore, Cabinet Member for Transport, Regulatory Services and Building Control, whether the council plans to pass a byelaw requiring dog walkers to carry a bag or container to pick up after their pets. The logic is straightforward: if complaints are widespread, a simple “carry the means to clean up” rule could make expectations clearer and enforcement easier, while signalling that responsible owners should not be tarred by the behaviour of a minority.

Two linked questions from Councillor Tony Hills (Con) to the Leader bring the discussion back to the coast and to Romney Marsh. Following a “Beach Bathing Community Engagement Meeting” in Folkestone and Hythe, the councillor asks whether the Leader will write to Emma Reynolds MP — named in the question paper as Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs — to request additional resources for the Environment Agency to investigate the underlying causes of water-quality problems in Hythe Bay. The point being pressed is that monitoring and warnings are not the same as tackling root causes, and that residents want to see deeper investigation and action.

Councillor Hills also asks, following the storm referred to as “Goretti”, for a meeting with the Environment Agency, the Ministry of Defence and Natural England to discuss residents’ concerns about defending Romney Marsh and Lydd from flooding. The question cites an Environment Agency position that the long-term plan is to maintain the current line of defence to a 0.5% AEP standard of protection (roughly 1-in-200 annual probability), linked to MoD requirements until at least 2045, and notes that a future inland realignment may eventually be needed. The councillor adds a sense of urgency, arguing that extreme weather is becoming more frequent as the climate changes.

Finance, governance and risk management return with a question about Folkestone Sports Centre. Councillor Alan Martin (Con) asks Councillor Prater why the council is comfortable paying a £2.4 million grant to support the centre — a one-off capital grant intended, at least in part, to make the facility more sustainable — when the council does not own the asset and does not directly control its management. The councillor contrasts a grant with the idea of a loan secured on land owned by the charity, and asks to see the business case demonstrating that the facility can operate sustainably without risking closure and the loss of public money.

Finally, Councillor Nicola Keen (Lab) raises storm damage to wooden beach huts with the Cabinet Member for Assets and Local Government Reorganisation, Councillor McConville, asking whether wooden huts are “really fit for purpose”, and whether the council should consider more sustainable materials or better-quality structures.

The questions do not, by themselves, decide policy. But they do set the tone for what councillors think the public most needs explained: the affordability of local opportunities for young people, the seriousness of water-quality disputes, the size and risks of major capital spending, and whether long-stalled sites and long-running problems are finally being dealt with at the pace residents expect.

The Shepway Vox Team

Discernibly Different Dissent