Napier Barracks: 38 Affordable Homes Vanish as Taylor Wimpey’s Figures Don’t Add Up
Eleven years after ShepwayVox first investigated Shorncliffe Garrison, Taylor Wimpey wants to remove every affordable home from the latest phase of Napier Barracks. Our investigation reveals conflicting financial calculations, millions in outstanding infrastructure costs and unresolved drainage questions. Meanwhile, official figures show that not one newly built affordable home was recorded across Folkestone and Hythe in 2024/25, while 1,348 households are now on the council’s housing waiting list.
Taylor Wimpey has submitted revised plans for 121 homes at Napier Barracks, Folkestone. Not one would be affordable. The 38 affordable properties included in the previously approved scheme have disappeared, with the housebuilder citing rising construction costs, changing regulations and difficult market conditions.
But there’s considerably more to this story than 38 missing homes.
We’ve examined the original Shorncliffe Garrison application, subsequent permissions, legal agreements, financial viability assessments and the latest submission, 26/1635/FH. What emerges is an eleven-year history of shrinking affordable-housing commitments, conflicting financial assumptions and infrastructure questions that haven’t entirely disappeared.
Where it all began
On 24 March 2015, ShepwayVox published its very first article. The subject was Taylor Wimpey’s proposed redevelopment of Shorncliffe Garrison, a former military site earmarked for up to 1,200 homes.
The scheme received formal planning permission on 17 December 2015, following negotiations over affordable housing and other obligations.
Under the policy expectation applying at the time, 30% affordable housing would have meant 360 homes. Following viability negotiations, the agreed provision was reduced to 18%, equivalent to a maximum of 216 homes across 1,200 dwellings.
That’s 144 fewer affordable homes than the original policy expectation.
In September 2016, we investigated that reduction, examining the original financial assessment prepared by GVA.
Its policy-compliant appraisal calculated approximately £24.3 million in developer profit, compared with £40.9 million under an alternative containing substantially fewer affordable properties. Those were projected returns, not realised earnings, and the alternative wasn’t identical to the eventual agreement. Nevertheless, the calculations demonstrated how dramatically the housing mix could affect the financial outcome.
Eleven years later, Taylor Wimpey is seeking another reduction.
From 182 homes to 155 — and none affordable in the revised phase
Napier’s earlier reserved matters approval, granted in September 2020, provided for 182 properties. The redesigned development contains 155: 34 already under construction and 121 proposed in the latest application.
Gone are the apartment blocks. Taylor Wimpey now proposes 33 two-bedroom, 64 three-bedroom and 24 four-bedroom houses.
There are no one-bedroom properties and no affordable homes in the revised phase. The developer argues that houses are more economical to construct and better reflect market demand. But removing smaller accommodation changes who can realistically afford to live there.
The consequences extend beyond Napier.
Taylor Wimpey’s September 2026 Planning Statement acknowledges that removing the affordable properties would reduce provision across the wider Shorncliffe Garrison development to approximately 15.5%.
The developer points to 21 additional affordable properties at Somerset Barracks, which it says were delivered beyond its original legal obligation. Counting those would raise the proportion to approximately 17.2%.
But additional homes delivered elsewhere don’t automatically extinguish an existing Section 106 obligation. That depends on the legal agreement and any effective variations.
FHDC paid Taylor Wimpey £5.6 million for 44 affordable homes
Here’s another intriguing development.
In October 2024, FHDC’s Cabinet approved the purchase of 44 affordable homes at Risborough Barracks from Taylor Wimpey.
Crucially, the Cabinet report confirmed that these properties were already part of the original 2015 Section 106 agreement.
The council wasn’t purchasing 44 additional homes outside the developer’s existing commitment. It was acquiring properties that formed part of that obligation, using its Housing Revenue Account.
The publicly released purchase figures were redacted. However, Taylor Wimpey’s latest viability consultant, Turner Morum, states that the council purchased the properties for £5.6 million, approximately £127,273 per home.
There are further discrepancies.
The 2024 Cabinet report identified 26 affordable rented homes and 18 shared-ownership properties. Turner Morum’s September 2026 report describes 34 rented and ten shared-ownership homes. Yet on 23 February 2026, FHDC announced that all 44 would be available for affordable rent.
Those arrangements may have been properly changed, but the supporting legal and transaction records need to explain the different figures.
More importantly, the £5.6 million purchase is used in Taylor Wimpey’s latest financial assessment to estimate what affordable properties at Napier might be worth.
The council’s own transaction has therefore become financial evidence in the developer’s argument for removing affordable housing elsewhere.
The £4.45 million deficit that isn’t necessarily a loss
Taylor Wimpey’s September 2026 viability assessment examines four scenarios: 30%, 20%, 10% and zero affordable housing – quelle suprise.
The consultant concludes that every scenario is technically unviable.
Even with no affordable homes, the main report calculates a deficit of £4,447,492.
That sounds alarming. But it requires explaining.
The appraisal deducts construction and other development costs, together with target developer profit, before calculating the residual land value. For market housing, Taylor Wimpey assumes a target profit of 20% of gross development value.
Under the all-market scenario, the model includes approximately £9.79 million in target developer profit.
The consultant then explains, at paragraph 10.2, that Taylor Wimpey is prepared to proceed despite the £4.45 million viability deficit, effectively accepting a reduced return.
If the entire shortfall were absorbed through reduced profit, with every other assumption unchanged, the illustrative remaining return would be approximately £5.34 million.
That isn’t a forecast of actual earnings. It demonstrates something fundamental: a development falling short of its target profit isn’t necessarily one that would make a cash loss.
Unfortunately, the figures don’t agree
Our examination of Turner Morum’s assessment uncovered something rather more straightforward than a disagreement over financial methodology.
The document contradicts itself.
Its principal assessment calculates a £4,447,492 deficit with zero affordable housing. Its non-technical summary calculates £4,925,382 for the same scenario.
That’s an unexplained difference of £477,890.
At 30% affordable housing, the discrepancy increases to £510,541.
Then there’s the Future Homes Standard allowance.
The narrative says £6,000 per property, while the detailed appraisal uses £8,000. Across 155 homes, that’s an unexplained £310,000 difference in the underlying cost allowance.
Another paragraph claims that combining affordable rented and shared-ownership valuations of 45% and 65% of market value respectively, using a 74:26 split, produces a blended figure of 55%.
It doesn’t. The weighted calculation produces 50.2%.
That particular error concerns a supporting comparison rather than the principal appraisal calculation. But it’s still basic arithmetic.
And although the current application concerns 121 dwellings, the financial assessment models all 155 Napier properties, including the earlier 34-home phase. It doesn’t expressly model retaining the original 38 affordable homes within the redesigned scheme.
These aren’t allegations of deliberate misrepresentation. They’re documented inconsistencies requiring correction and independent scrutiny before substantial planning obligations are relaxed.
Millions in infrastructure costs — and the Horn Street Stench
Construction inflation is real.
The BCIS General Building Cost Index figures included in Taylor Wimpey’s assessment increased from 320.1 in October 2015 to 507.2 in July 2026 — approximately 58.5%.
But that doesn’t establish that every claimed expenditure is necessary, correctly valued or properly allocated.
The appraisal includes approximately £4.12 million in abnormal and infrastructure costs, alongside £1.498 million in outstanding Section 106 contributions.
One entry alone allocates £1,148,963 to a surface-water main described as serving Burgoyne, Napier and Nursery.
How much properly belongs to the remaining Napier development? Which liabilities arose from earlier phases? And what happens if the drainage arrangements change?
Those questions matter because of what happened elsewhere at Shorncliffe.
In October and November 2018, ShepwayVox published The Horn Street Stench and Part Two.
Residents endured sewage problems, unpleasant odours and tanker operations while drainage difficulties were investigated. Southern Water had warned in June 2014 that the local foul-sewer network lacked sufficient capacity for the proposed development. Subsequent correspondence disclosed problems with drainage plans and the need for remedial works.
Now, in October 2026, Kent County Council’s Lead Local Flood Authority has identified an apparent conflict between Napier’s proposed layout and the surface-water drainage scheme already approved by FHDC under application 26/0582/FH/CON.
These aren’t identical problems. The earlier incidents principally involved foul sewerage, while KCC’s present concern relates to surface-water drainage. There’s no evidence that Napier will experience the same failure.
Nevertheless, after Horn Street, residents are entitled to expect engineering arrangements that have been properly checked.
Even the gardens don’t all meet FHDC’s standards
The revised development proposes 274 parking spaces, 161 new trees and a pocket park near the Grade II-listed Tower Theatre. Those are potential benefits.
However, Taylor Wimpey acknowledges that eight gardens measure approximately 8.935 metres deep, below the ten-metre requirement in Policy HB3 of FHDC’s Places and Policies Local Plan.
That policy was examined in Folkestone and Hythe District Council v Secretary of State [2025] EWHC 1397 (Admin). The High Court confirmed that HB3’s criteria are cumulative and that the ten-metre garden requirement applies to houses, not flats. The judgment doesn’t make every departure automatically unlawful, but the council must apply its policy correctly.
The new National Planning Policy Framework, published in August 2026, gives weight to relevant local design standards. Its Policy DM5 also requires viability evidence to justify assumptions and explain relevant differences from the financial evidence underpinning adopted planning policies.
FHDC’s 2022 Core Strategy identifies a 22% affordable-housing expectation for Shorncliffe, subject to viability. That doesn’t retrospectively rewrite the 2015 agreement, but it remains relevant to assessing current proposals within the legal limits of a reserved matters application.
There’s another significant change. Since 31 October 2026, new national delegation rules mean the Napier application can be decided by planning officers. Referral to committee remains possible under the statutory gateway arrangements, but isn’t automatic. Any separate modification of the Section 106 obligation must follow the appropriate legal process.
The affordable housing FHDC has actually delivered
Now consider what has happened across Folkestone and Hythe over the eleven financial years since the original Shorncliffe committee decision.
FHDC’s published annual delivery figures show a fluctuating and often disappointing record. These figures include council-and-partner delivery and, in some years, acquisitions of existing homes. They aren’t consistently a measure of newly constructed affordable housing.
The distinction becomes particularly important when examining homes actually built.
The verified new-build figures used in our accompanying chart show just 22 affordable properties constructed in 2017/18, 27 in 2018/19, eleven in 2019/20 and 13 in 2020/21.
There were 23 in 2021/22, 31 in 2022/23 and 41 in 2023/24.
These figures relate specifically to new affordable homes, rather than every property recorded under the council’s wider delivery indicators.
Then came 2024/25.
According to Kent County Council’s January 2026 Affordable Housing bulletin, based on government statistics, Folkestone and Hythe recorded just nine additional affordable homes.
Nine.
Out of 326 net additional dwellings across the district, only 2.8% were affordable. That was the lowest number and proportion among Kent’s twelve districts.
Canterbury recorded 496 additional affordable homes. Swale recorded 236. Tonbridge and Malling recorded 271.
But the most extraordinary detail is buried in Table 4 of that bulletin.
Not one of Folkestone and Hythe’s nine additional affordable homes was newly built. All nine came through acquisition or rehabilitation of existing properties.
Across Kent as a whole, 1,682 newly built affordable homes were recorded that year.
In Folkestone and Hythe, the figure was zero.
FHDC’s own performance indicator records 23 affordable homes delivered by the council and its partners in 2024/25. That’s a differently defined measure from the government’s nine additional affordable dwellings, and the two shouldn’t be confused.
And 2025/26?
FHDC’s year-end performance report recorded 41 affordable homes delivered by the council and its partners against an annual target of 80.
Barely half the target.
Councillors raised concerns about the shortfall at the Finance and Performance Scrutiny Sub-Committee on 30 June 2026. Officers acknowledged the position and pointed to developments expected to complete later in the year.
Leave a Reply