Residents and politicians in Folkestone, Kent, have criticised Folkestone & Hythe District Council for expressing interest in a government pilot scheme to use newly built or refurbished social housing to accommodate asylum seekers. The backlash peaked on 6–7 February 2026 after social media posts and local reporting raised concerns that the move could affect people on the council’s waiting list.
Folkestone & Hythe District Council (F&HDC) has been reported as having expressed interest in a Home Office pilot that would provide central funding to buy or refurbish properties to house asylum seekers initially, with the properties potentially reverting to the council’s general housing stock later. Critics, including Henry Bolton OBE — the SDP’s spokesman for foreign affairs, security and defence — said the council was putting the needs of non-locals ahead of long‑waiting local families.
Local resident Colin Bushell told community forums that many households have been waiting years for permanent housing — in some cases more than five years for certain property types. The council is projecting roughly a £1.2 million pressure on its temporary accommodation budget for 2025/26 and has said it is seeking ways to reduce expenditure on expensive hotel placements; council leaders view the Home Office funding as one potential route to secure long‑term housing assets.
The debate comes as Napier Barracks — the controversial former military site used for asylum accommodation — was due to be decanted by the Home Office by the end of December 2025, with the site handed back to the Ministry of Defence in January 2026 and planned redevelopment into about 182 homes by a developer. For many residents, the council’s interest in the pilot has raised fears that locally needed social housing could be temporarily used for asylum accommodation, and people are calling for clearer information on how the council would prioritise local residents when properties transfer into the council’s stock.
F&HDC has said it remains open to funding that increases its long‑term social housing stock while meeting its statutory duties; opponents say the interim use of any acquired homes for asylum accommodation is politically controversial and must be clearly explained to the community.
About this article: This story was put together with the help of AI tools and checked by a real person on our team. We're a small crew trying to cover as much of the UK as we can on a limited budget. We're getting better every day - but we're not perfect yet. If something looks off, let us know. You're part of the process.
