# 7 Marine Parade, Folkestone

- **Decision:** dismissed, 17 September 2026
- **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: L Gardner
- **Authority:** Folkestone and Hythe (South East)
- **Appeal reference:** 6009917
- **Application reference:** 25/2193/FH
- **Procedure:** written-representations
- **Development:** Change of use of former hotel (Grade II listed terrace) to a dwelling house
- **Homes:** 1
- **Site context:** inside-settlement, conservation-area, listed-building-setting
- **Green Belt:** no
- **Housing land supply (years):** 3.1
- **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF
- **Determinative policies:** S4(2)(a)(i), S4, HO7
- **Development plan policies:** Folkestone and Hythe Places and Policies Local Plan 2020 E4
- **Main issues:** loss of visitor accommodation and tourism
- **Tags:** s4-within-settlement, s4-substantially-outweighed, s4-2-a-safeguarding, hotel-loss, housing-shortfall, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework, small-scheme

## Summary
Change of use of a vacant former hotel on Folkestone's seafront to a single house was dismissed. Supply was 3.1 years, and the housing benefit was given substantial weight. But Local Plan Policy E4 safeguards visitor accommodation, and the appellant had not shown safeguarding was no longer appropriate. That was a substantial adverse impact on safeguarding under S4(2)(a)(i). This is one of the first decisions to apply that limb.

## Issues and findings
- **Loss of hotel (LP E4): FAIL.** There was "very little substantive evidence to the likely costs associated with such a renovation, such as a viability assessment or a schedule outlining costs against revenue" (DL ¶9). Occupancy data from a larger nearby hotel got limited weight (DL ¶10). Marketing was for 12 months, but its reasonableness was unproven (DL ¶14-15).
- **HO7: substantial weight.** "The appellant contends that the latest evidence suggest that the Council's housing supply is currently 3.1 years, a figure which the Council has not disputed" (DL ¶25). "I attach substantial positive weight to the benefits, primarily associated with additional housing delivery" (DL ¶27).
- **S4(2)(a)(i).** "the circumstances in which the benefits … are likely to be substantially outweighed … include … a substantial adverse impact in relation to the safeguarding of land or buildings for particular uses in the development plan. … I am not satisfied that the safeguarding of the appeal site as visitor accommodation is no longer appropriate. I therefore find Policy S4(2)a.i. to be of direct relevance" (DL ¶29).

## Planning balance
S4. On one side, substantial weight for housing (3.1 years) and limited weight for heritage preservation. On the other, "the substantial adverse impact in relation to the impact on the provision of visitor accommodation in an established tourist location, would substantially outweigh the benefits" (DL ¶30).

## What made the difference
The development-plan safeguarding policy, given force by S4(2)(a)(i). The escape route in (a)(i), "evidence that the safeguarding is no longer appropriate", required a viability assessment and credible marketing, and neither was provided.

## Transferable points
- A local plan policy protecting a use (here hotels, LP E4) counts as "safeguarding of land or buildings for particular uses" in S4(2)(a)(i) (DL ¶29).
- To escape (a)(i), the appellant must evidence that safeguarding is "no longer appropriate", for example through viability and properly priced marketing (DL ¶9-15, 29).
- A single-home loss of a hotel can be a "substantial adverse impact" in an established tourist location (DL ¶30).
- Substantial HO7 weight with a 3.1-year supply still lost to an S4(2)(a)(i) impact (DL ¶25-30).

## Policy findings
- **S4(2)(a)(i): fail.** LP E4 safeguards visitor accommodation; not shown that safeguarding is no longer appropriate (no viability, weak marketing) - substantial adverse impact (DL 6-16, 29-30)
- **HO7: benefit (substantial weight).** 3.1-year supply uncontested; one dwelling reusing a vacant listed building - substantial weight (DL 25-27)
- **HE6: neutral.** no physical works - no harm to listed building or CA; preservation benefit limited as residential not the only viable use (DL 17-20, 26)

## Key facts
- Hotel use ceased 2008; building needs utilities and renovation but no viability assessment or cost schedule
- Marketed since March 2025 on residential and commercial listings, but price reasonableness and conditional sale unclear
- Supply 3.1 years (appellant's figure, not disputed)

## Sources
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6009917
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/701b7738-71ac-4726-8b5d-1589592348c6

---

Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6009917.html

A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. Source and data: https://github.com/planningdistilled/research.