Campaigners and opposition councillors have slated the leader of a council as “autocratic” – as a major development faces yet more stumbling blocks.

Spending on the controversial Princes Parade development in Hythe was suspended on November 1 after inflation and “a number of additional unforeseen costs in the order of some £0.9-£1.4m” cast doubt over the project’s viability.

Now, Folkestone & Hythe District Council (FHDC) will consider holding an investigation into how costs to the council rose to £4-5 million from the £2.56 million which had been spent on the project by January 2022.

In June 2019 a motion was passed by the full council calling for planning permission for the project to be withdrawn, but cabinet didn’t cancel the scheme, in what one councillor called a “flagrant misuse of council powers”.

At a full council meeting on November 30 the council heard a petition signed by 311 people calling for the development of Princes Parade to be completely abandoned.

Chris Farrell, who has campaigned against the development consistently, presented the petition.

“In what other business or profession would it be conceivable to recklessly waste five million pounds and not be held responsible,” she said.

“We’re not talking about Monopoly money here, we already have the highest council tax in Kent.

“And while many are struggling to feed their family and pay their bills, [FHDC leader] Cllr David Monk is willing to saddle us with even more debt to finance his own recklessness.”

She described the white hoarding which stands around the proposed site of the development as “a monument to one man’s arrogance” and “David Monk’s legacy to the people of Hythe”.

However, cabinet members took issue with Ms Farrell’s attacks on the council leader.

Cabinet member Cllr David Godfrey (Con) said: “We’ve heard personal attacks on the leader, but he does not make these decisions on his own.

"I find it offensive that these personal attacks have been made when it was a collective decision, not agreed to by everybody, but that’s the way democracy works.”

The council’s Green group put forward a motion calling for the overview and scrutiny committee to consider having an investigation into how spending on the Princes Parade development was allowed to increase so significantly.

Green councillor Jim Martin spoke in support of the motion, detailing how he had lobbied against the project for years.

Cllr Martin, who is a chartered surveyor, described Princes Parade as “one of the most difficult and complex sites I’ve ever looked at” and “beyond the development capabilities of the council.”

He continued: “Long before I was elected as a councillor I sent detailed financial viability studies to all councillors, which showed exactly how much the council were going to lose if they tried to develop Prince’s Parade.”

'I find it offensive that these personal attacks have been made...'

“I remember one council consultant saying my work was alarmist.

“Bearing in mind that I am better qualified and experienced than any of the multitude of consultants employed on the scheme, the word ‘alarmist’ has a certain ironic meaning now the scheme has lost so much money without a single hole being dug.”

Cabinet member Cllr Jenny Hollingsbee (Con), however, criticised the “doom and gloom” of other councillors.

“We don’t know, with a bit of fortune, this project will continue,” she added.

“If Cllr Martin thinks he’s better than every consultant that we’ve had over the time, that’s fine, that’s his view.”

She argued that there should be an investigation into the costs, but only after the council has considered options for the future of the development project.

Cllr Jackie Meade (Lab) retorted in defence of Cllr Martin: “What I can say about consultants having been one myself, is that he who pays the piper calls the tune.

“You tell the consultant what you’re trying to actually achieve, and they will do everything in their power to help you achieve that, but they won’t always show you where you’re going wrong,” she continued.

The council voted to approve the motion by 18 votes in favour, eight against, and two abstentions.

This means that the topic of holding an investigation will go before the council’s overview and scrutiny committee for debate in future.