Martello Lakes Pool Promise Replaced by Hythe Leisure Plan
shepwayvox
Scrutiny councillors backed further work on Martello Lakes and Hythe Pool, but the message was clear: no token container, no unaffordable racket-sport vanity project, and no half-hearted refurbishment that ignores carbon, running costs and long-term swimming need.
At Overview and Scrutiny on Wednesday 26 May, officers set out the latest strategic approach to sport and leisure, covering Martello Lakes and Hythe Pool. The old dream of a new swimming pool at Martello Lakes isn’t what’s now on the table. Instead, the council is looking at racket sports, junior football and a community facility on the Martello Lakes land, while Hythe Pool gets the serious refurbishment options.
The numbers matter. Officers said the £5.5 million Martello Lakes Section 106 contribution has been received and allocated against both the Sports Trust grant for Folkestone Sports Centre and the Hythe Pool development. That means the money associated with Martello Lakes isn’t sitting there waiting to build a Martello Lakes swimming pool. It’s already been directed into the district’s wider swimming rescue package.
At Martello Lakes itself, the council has a land decision deadline. Officers told councillors the authority must decide by 29 October 2026 whether to take the land, and then has a year to submit a reserved matters planning application. The current proposal is a mix of padel, multi-use tennis courts, junior grass football, changing facilities and a community studio or multi-purpose room. The rough capital estimate is £2.5 million, with £250,000 for feasibility and reserved matters work.
That may be useful. It may even be popular. But it isn’t a pool. Residents who remember years of political noise around Martello Lakes and swimming provision will notice the difference between a leisure centre and a padel court, even without help from a consultant.
Councillor Anita Jones welcomed the idea of a proper community space but raised two sharp concerns: padel can be expensive to use, and it can be noisy. Her point was simple: if public land is being used for community benefit, the facility has to be affordable for residents, not just attractive to a private operator looking for the next boom sport.
Councillor John Wing, whose ward includes the area, made the local point. Martello Lakes is growing, but residents have very little there. He also wanted to understand how the padel model would work: does the council build it, does a firm run it, and are profits shared? That’s the right question. “Commercial interest” sounds lovely until the public asks who carries the risk and who banks the upside.
Then came the container problem. The plans had referred to a “container pavilion”, and councillors didn’t like it. Councillor Jones wanted “a really lovely community space”. Councillor Bridget Chapman said residents should have “a proper purpose-built facility”. Councillor Mike Blakemore was blunter: “We’re all in agreement, we don’t want a container.”
Officers said the container wording was from an earlier iteration and that thinking had moved towards something more substantial: changing rooms, showers, toilets and a flexible room that could work for yoga, playgroups or parties. That reassurance matters, because Martello Lakes doesn’t need a shipping container with aspirations. It needs a community building that looks as though the community is expected to last.
Councillor Laura Davison asked how the proposed mix had been reached, what had been rejected, and whether access, inclusion and different demographics had been properly considered. Officers said The Sports Consultancy had looked at provision across the district, including Martello Lakes, Folkestone Sports Centre and Hythe Pool. They said senior football was generally catered for, junior football still needed space, padel was growing fast, and tennis was largely provided for but could take some extra capacity.
Councillor Paul Thomas asked whether the Section 106 agreement tied the land, funding and use together in a way that would require renegotiation or a deed of variation. Officers said there was “no tie, no link” and that the contribution had been paid and received. He also pressed for Sport England to be included and, crucially, returned to the lack of swimming provision on Romney Marsh. That issue remains the ghost in the changing room.
On Hythe Pool, the discussion was more concrete. The building is ageing, the plant room is far from ideal, and officers described seawater getting behind the pool liner because of the rising and falling tide. The council is looking at steel pool liners as part of the solution. In civic-maintenance terms, that isn’t a cosmetic makeover. That’s the building telling you, loudly, that the sea would like a word.
The options range from basic refurbishment to a more ambitious enhanced scheme. The May 2026 papers set out four broad options: £4.0 million for basic refurbishment, £4.7 million for a remodelled option, £6.8 million for a fully electric remodel, and £10.7 million for an enhanced option including gym and studio space. The budget currently in the Medium Term Capital Programme is £6 million.
The revenue figures explain why councillors warmed to the bigger options. Officers said Hythe Pool currently costs the council around £285,000 a year to run once income and costs are netted off. Option one could reduce that to around £45,000 a year. Option two was put at around £50,000. Option three, removing gas and using greener technology, was put at around £37,000. Option four, with gym and studio income, could potentially move the building into surplus.
Councillor Abena Akuffo-Kelly focused on the long-term maths. If option three costs more upfront but reduces running costs and removes gas, when does the investment pay back? Officers said it was too early to say, because the council still needs surveys, mechanical and electrical design, solar-capacity work and fuller costings. That caveat is fair. But the direction of travel was clear: councillors want the carbon and running-cost case properly tested, not treated as a green garnish.
Councillor Alan Martin (Con – pictured) said options three and four appealed to him because they felt closer to a new facility, while still questioning whether the council was limiting itself by assuming the pool had to remain on the existing small site. Officers replied with the cold-water figure: a new standalone pool with minimal facilities is currently around £25 million. Against that, even the expensive Hythe options start to look less like extravagance and more like the price of realism.
Councillor Jones (Green) strongly backed option four, particularly because Hythe lacks a gym facility. Councillor Chapman also favoured developing options three and four, saying the council needed to look at “getting gas out of that building”. Councillor Davison (Lab) asked for cycle parking, electric charging and payback periods to be considered. Councillor Thomas asked for a proper update on Folkestone Sports Centre, because the timing of Hythe works depends on whether Folkestone’s pool reopens as expected.
The committee’s recommendation was to receive and note the report. But the chair, Councillor Tony Hills, made clear that Martello Lakes and Hythe Pool should be treated as distinct issues, and that councillors’ concerns should be passed back: no container-style community afterthought at Martello Lakes, and a more environmentally friendly future for Hythe Pool.
That’s the grown-up position. Martello Lakes may yet get a useful facility, but councillors shouldn’t let the old swimming-pool promise disappear beneath a pile of padel bats and consultant slides. Hythe Pool may finally get the investment it needs, but councillors now need hard numbers on costs, carbon, payback, closure time, grants and long-term swimming provision across the district.
The public doesn’t need another leisure mirage. It needs places to swim, places to exercise, places to meet, and a council willing to say plainly what it can afford, what it can’t, and what political promises have quietly gone for a dip and never come back.
Seen something the public should know about? Send tips, documents or concerns to TheShepwayVoxTeam(at)proton(dot)me. You can contact us in confidence, speak off the record in the first instance, and help us follow the evidence where it leads.
