Cllr Jim Martin Held 18 Meetings With Sir Roger De Haan — FHDC Says No Notes Were Kept

Folkestone & Hythe District Council has confirmed that its Leader, Cllr Jim Martin, attended 18 meetings with Sir Roger De Haan between March 2024 and May 2026.

No great shock there.

Council leaders meet big local players. They meet landowners. They meet developers. They meet people with schemes, money, influence and plans. That’s how local government works.

But this is where it gets interesting.

FHDC says there are “no agendas, minutes or notes to call on for any of these meetings.”

Not one.

The meetings listed by the council took place on 19 March 2024, 9 July 2024, 6 August 2024, 10 September 2024, 8 October 2024, 17 December 2024, 18 February 2025, 17 March 2025, 7 April 2025, 13 May 2025, 25 June 2025 by Teams, 1 October 2025, 25 November 2025, 21 January 2026, 24 February 2026, 24 March 2026, 14 April 2026 and 19 May 20206. That last one is written exactly as it came back from the council. We’re assuming they mean 2026. FHDC.

Now, before anyone starts reaching for the smelling salts, let’s be clear. The FOI response doesn’t prove what was discussed. It doesn’t say the meetings were about the harbour. It doesn’t say they were about planning. It doesn’t say they were about land, assets, regeneration, Otterpool, the seafront, the Creative Quarter, public realm, or anything else.

That’s rather the point.

Because while those meetings were taking place, one of the biggest planning rows in Folkestone was rumbling through the system. Application 25/0158/FH covered Plots F1, F2, G1, G2 and H at the former Rotunda site and the harbour public realm. We’re talking residential blocks, commercial space, parking, landscaping, playspace, public realm, services, plant and the discharge of conditions on public open space, water use, biodiversity, wind flow mitigation and surface water drainage. The applicant was Folkestone Harbour (GP) Limited.

And who’s the person with significant control of Folkestone Harbour (GP) Limited?

Sir Roger De Haan.

Companies House records show him as the one active person with significant control, with ownership of shares of 75% or more. He’s also listed as a director of the company.

The first version of the Plots F/G/H scheme, application 24/0505/FH, went to Planning and Licensing Committee on 21 January 2025 and was refused. The council’s own officer report says councillors rejected it over loss of public parking, housing mix, affordable housing need, harm to the former railway station, heritage impact, design and the wider character of the harbour area.

Then came the quick turnaround.

The refusal notice was issued on 30 January 2025. But before that formal decision notice went out, the applicant had already submitted a revised application on 29 January 2025. The council’s report says that was because the ten-year deadline for submitting reserved matters under the original outline permission expired on 30 January 2025.

That’s cutting it fine.

And the revised scheme wasn’t exactly a clean-sheet rethink. FHDC’s own report says it was initially submitted in “substantially the same form” as the refused scheme, with an amendment to car parking ratios. Further amendments followed in April 2025, and the two reports were to be read together because “significant parts” remained identical.

The public weren’t exactly cheering from the beach.

The first consultation saw 566 neighbours directly consulted, with 507 objections and 35 letters of support. Objections included claims that the scheme didn’t fix the previous reasons for refusal, didn’t provide housing for local people, had too many flats, lacked sufficient affordable housing, was too tall, too prominent, harmful to the skyline, damaging to heritage, bad for traders, bad for tourism and likely to cause wind, flood, traffic and infrastructure problems.

After amendments, FHDC received another 241 letters up to 27 May 2025. Of those, 229 objected and 12 supported. Some said the changes were minor and made little difference to the scheme previously refused. Others raised equality, accessibility, health inequality and infrastructure concerns.

Then the housing land supply problem walked in wearing hobnail boots.

Officers told councillors FHDC couldn’t demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites. The figure was put at 3.1 years. That meant paragraph 11 of the NPPF was engaged, giving the application the benefit of the “presumption in favour of sustainable development” unless harms significantly and demonstrably outweighed the benefits.

On 17 June 2025, the Planning and Licensing Committee approved the reserved matters application by seven votes to two, with two abstentions. The minutes record Cllr Adrian Lockwood made a voluntary declaration because he’d worked for the owner of the site for seven years. Cllr Laura Davison declared her role on Folkestone Town Council’s Planning Committee. Cllr Jackie Meade said she’d previously expressed views and could be considered predetermined, so she stepped down and left the meeting.

There was also a small but telling note at the end. The Chief Planning Officer agreed to explore separately with the applicant how affordable housing secured in the section 106 agreement may be delivered. He confirmed this wasn’t related to the acceptability of the planning decision. Fair enough. But when affordable housing, major seafront development and one of the district’s most powerful landowners are all in the same frame, the paper trail matters.

And that’s what makes the FOI answer so awkward.

Cllr Jim Martin met Sir Roger on 13 May 2025, just over a month before the June planning decision. He met him again on 25 June 2025 by Teams, eight days after the committee approved the scheme. Then there were further meetings in October 2025, November 2025, January 2026, February 2026, March 2026, April 2026 and May 2026. FHDC FOI response, 2 July 2026.

Again, that doesn’t prove what was discussed.

But it does leave a pretty obvious public-interest question.

If the Leader of the council met Sir Roger De Haan 18 times in a little over two years, during a period when major harbour and seafront planning matters were live, why did nobody make even the most basic note?

No agenda.

No minutes.

No file note.

No attendance note.

No aide-memoire.

Nothing.

That might be normal at FHDC. If it is, perhaps that’s the bigger problem.

Because in a town where land, planning, regeneration and public realm are never just dry policy words, meetings like this shouldn’t disappear into the civic ether. The public don’t need gossip. They need a record.

Who was there?

What was discussed?

And why, on the council’s own account, wasn’t any of it written down?

The Shepway Vox Team

Discernibly Different Dissent