Hythe Imperial’s 291-Home Plan: FHDC Owns the Royal Military Canal — Will It Speak Up?

Folkestone & Hythe District Council owns the historic canal beside the proposed Imperial Gardens development. Its planning and property departments are headed by different directors, and the courts have made clear that councils can have separate interests as landowners. So has the council spoken up for its own historic asset?

The Royal Military Canal was built to keep Napoleon out. Today, up to 291 homes are proposed on the Hythe Imperial golf course, whose openness helps explain the canal’s original purpose.

There’s an intriguing twist: Folkestone & Hythe District Council (FHDC), which must decide the planning application, owns the canal and adjoining land beside the canal. So what, if anything, has its property department said about the proposal?

Land Registry title K640682 identifies Folkestone & Hythe District Council (FHDC) as the freehold owner of the Royal Military Canal and adjoining land in Hythe, extending from the Seabrook Outflow to Scallons Bridge. The register includes older rights, exclusions and obligations, meaning nobody should assume it covers every bridge or strip of land. But the council’s ownership of the neighbouring historic waterway is beyond serious doubt.

The section beside the proposed development forms part of a nationally protected Scheduled Monument. Historic England explains that the canal was a defensive barrier against Napoleon’s expected invasion; the open ground between the waterway and the sea allowed soldiers to see and confront an advancing enemy. That relationship still matters.

Two directors. Two different jobs.

According to FHDC’s own senior leadership page, Ewan Green, Director of Strategy and Resources, oversees Development Management, Legal and Governance. Andy Blaszkowicz, Director of Housing and Operations, oversees Estates and Assets, Engineering and Technical Services, Grounds Maintenance and Strategic Development.

   

That separation isn’t a constitutional separation of powers; they’re still part of the same council. But it provides a sensible separation of functions. Planning officers must assess application 26/1290/FH fairly against the development plan and other material considerations. Estates officers can independently consider what the development might mean for land the authority owns and maintains. One task needn’t compromise the other.

Better still, FHDC has done something similar before.

During its own Princes Parade development, the council published five pages of formal handling arrangements dated 17 November 2021. The document set out different teams for the council as developer and as planning authority, separate files and consultants, and records of meetings. It even required officers to be clear which capacity they were acting in. Interestingly, Andy Blaszkowicz himself was named among the officers on the developer side of those arrangements.

That precedent must be treated accurately. At Princes Parade, FHDC itself was promoting development requiring an Environmental Impact Assessment, so specific statutory rules on separating developer and decision-maker roles applied. The Hythe Imperial housing proposal comes from a private applicant and FHDC’s identified interest is the canal next door. The old arrangements don’t automatically govern this case. They do show FHDC knows how to keep its functions distinct.

The courts have been here too

In Maximus Networks Ltd v Secretary of State [2018] EWHC 1933 (Admin), Mr Justice Dove considered a local authority that was both a planning authority and a landowner affected by proposed works. The judge recognised that a council, acting as landowner, may have “very different interests and concerns” from those of its planning officers. Crucially, it couldn’t safely be assumed that the Planning Department had consulted the officers responsible for protecting council-owned property

A 2026 High Court judgment, Handy Cross Development Co Ltd v Vanni Properties Ltd [2026] EWHC 266 (Ch), revisited that distinction in a boundary dispute. Planning approval wasn’t necessarily evidence that a council, acting separately as property owner, had agreed to a particular use of its land. These aren’t rulings that compel FHDC to object. They are strong reasons not to confuse receiving a planning application with having examined it as an affected landowner.

There’s a wonderfully direct example in the same application.

In its response of 30 September 2026, National Highways expressly stated that its comments concerned planning matters only and didn’t amount to permission for the use of land belonging to it. FHDC should be capable of making exactly the same distinction over its canal.

National Highways also recommended that 26/1290/FH shouldn’t be determined before 2 January 2027 while additional transport information is obtained. It wants clearer evidence about assumed reductions in car journeys and effects on M20 Junctions 11, 11A and 12. That issue is separate from canal ownership. But it underlines why scrutiny, rather than a dash to the finishing line, matters.

The council’s earlier evidence is rather awkward

In its August 2017 Environmental Statement for Princes Parade, FHDC’s predecessor examined the cumulative impact of development beside the canal. Paragraph 13.40 acknowledged that Imperial Green had affected the open outlook, but said the golf course “would retain this outlook”.

Now that same course faces a substantial residential proposal. The 2017 statement isn’t a ban on future building. It records the value placed on that open setting.

And Historic England’s verdict on the present proposals is anything but lukewarm.

In September it concluded that housing would cause a very high level of harm to the significance of the scheduled canal, and recommended removing the residential component. It didn’t deny possible benefits from better hotel and leisure facilities; its particular objection concerned the scale and location of the homes. The planning authority must weigh those matters, but the council’s landowner function has its own legitimate questions to ask.

What about drainage, canal-bank stability, maintenance access, paths, archaeological features and any works requiring access to council property?

Have officers inspected the historic 1933 conveyance obligations, including the covenant protecting one identified parcel as open space? The covenant cannot be assumed to cover the privately owned golf course, but it’s a reminder that the council’s property responsibilities may extend well beyond mowing the grass.

We haven’t established whether the Estates and Assets Department has formally assessed the application, expressed concern, supported it or decided that no comment is required. Silence in the material we’ve examined isn’t proof that no internal work has taken place. That’s why a straightforward answer is needed, not an allegation masquerading as a finding.

Residents should ask and FHDC should say whether Andy Blaszkowicz’s directorate has reviewed 26/1290/FH in its capacity as canal landowner, what effects it identified, whether a formal representation has been made, and how that evidence has been kept separate from the planning decision.

If no assessment was made, why not?

Owning the canal doesn’t mean the council must oppose every neighbouring development. Nor does it entitle the Assets team to instruct the planners. It means FHDC can be an informed, responsible landowner without ceasing to be a fair planning authority.

The council doesn’t have to choose between looking after Hythe’s historic canal and doing its planning job properly. It has the people and the structure to do both. The public deserves to know whether it has.

PS: Local planning authorities may, at their discretion, take into account comments that are made after the closing date (but have no obligation to do so). So do keep sending your comments in given what National Highways has said. “It is recommended that the application should not be determined for a period of three months until 02 January 2027.” 

As of 19 October 2026, planning application 26/1290/FH had attracted 522 recorded submissions, including 476 objections, 36 expressions of support, nine neutral comments and one representation. Objections accounted for 91.2% of all submissions, outnumbering expressions of support by more than 13 to one.

The Shepway Vox Team

The Velvet Voices Of Voxatiousness