Tuesday, 11 June 2013

Proposals for council owned sites in Thanet

Cabinet members are to consider proposals for a number of council owned sites across the district at a meeting on Thursday 20 June.
Members will review whether to approve the sale of four new sites, which been identified by the council’s Capital and Asset Management Group as suitable for disposal. The sites are:
  • Land to the rear of Courtstairs Manor, Pegwell Road
  • Part of former railway line, College Road/Tivoli Road
  • Land adjoining the Viaduct, Margate Road,
  • Land at Westgate Bay Avenue
If approved, ward consultation will be carried out in line with the council’s Interim Property Disposal Process for 21 days.
Council owned assets are reviewed regularly to see how cost effective, well maintained, well used and beneficial to the community they are.
As part of this process, assets which are considered to be surplus are presented to Cabinet for potential disposal. The money raised from the sale of these sites is then used to help pay for priority capital projects such as the construction of the new Ramsgate Swimming Pool.
Cabinet will also consider a proposal to extend the term of the lease of the Royal Victoria Pavilion in Ramsgate in order to generate the level of investment needed to get the building back into use.
The property, which has been empty since 2008, is a substantial Grade II listed building within an important conservation area and will require extensive investment to bring the property back into appropriate use.
There are currently 31 years unexpired on the original lease agreement, which was agreed by the council in 1969.
Officers are requesting to open up the marketing of the site in order to offer an extended lease of over 100 years to a new potential leaseholder, with the council retaining the freehold of the property.
They believe that offering a term of this length would be likely to help support the significant level of investment which would be needed to ensure the long-term viability of the building.
Cabinet were also set to review a possible extension to the area originally agreed for sale at the current Ramsgate Swimming Pool site on Newington Road. This site was originally agreed for disposal by Cabinet in 2012.
The request to extend the area however has been withdrawn since the Cabinet papers were published.


  1. TDC is corrupt and incompetent and has no legitimacy to take any view on these sites.

    1. TDC as the democratically elected local government of Thanet has every right to take any action it considers appropriate, after due consultation, regardless of your view of them, 19:24. As ever with you just another meaningless rant that will make SFA difference to anything.

    2. As opposed to your profound insight. You sound like a councillor. TDC's legitimacy is non-existent given low turnouts, incompetence and corruption.

    3. Me, a councillor, well that will be the day. No, I am like you, one of those that has the odd whinge about those that do whilst I sit around and do nothing. Mind you, at least I recognise that in the absence of me doing anything our elected representatives have every right to govern as they see fit.

      Like I said, your comment will make SFA difference to anything as will mine so live with it.

    4. I'm nothing like you. You're a say-nothing do-nothing sheep that trots along behind whatever rubbish the councillors feed you. Even when you know them to be corrupt and incompetent.

    5. Anonymous 09:46,

      They are all out to get you, aren't they.

    6. Looks like Zip is another one happy to moan about corruption and pollution and do nothing but blog whine. Maybe he's not funding TDC.

    7. The temperature is rising in Bristol over the Mayor’s controversial plans to impose Residents’ Parking Zones (RPZ) across the city. Traders in Gloucester Road are banding together and threatening to withhold their Business Rates unless Mayor George Ferguson acts on their concerns.

      Local butcher Tom Murray is furious at the proposed RPZ, which will add overhead costs of £240 per year for each business permit and £500 for each customer permit. ‘We’ve had a hit where the banks didn’t support local businesses for many years,’ he says, ‘and then we get conditions of RPZ that’s going to seriously effect small businesses.’

      He fears the high cost of permits will force customers away and he is more than prepared to withhold paying his Business Rates and pay them into an independent bank account until the issue is resolved. ‘If it was legally feasible to,’ he says, ‘myself and others that are talking about it at the moment are quite prepared to do it. If the council won’t listen to us, maybe someone from the Government will listen to us

    8. All very relevant in Thanet I think not. Does not say much for the system of executive mayors though which some hereabouts think might be better than TDC. Like anything, it depends who you get and with the voter apathy in Thanet it would probably just be someone from the present failed crop. How about Bob or Clive for mayor with full powers to cock it all up still more.

    9. Relevant in terms of a tax strike though. Reassuring to see residents of other towns don't put up with duff councils. Agree that the particular system of executive mayors is irrelevant as you say it's less the system and more the people in it. And we have duffers who are corrupt and incompetent.

  2. Perhaps Cllr Poole could explain why he has allowed the lessees of the Royal Victoria Pavilion to remain seriously in breach of their lease since 2008 and after the Council served two official notices requiring them to repair the property. This is yet another public asset in a prime position which Cllr Poole has allowed to deteriorate for the past eighteen months. How many more are going to come to light?

  3. Think you'll find the structure was repaired in line with the lease, thus I suspect you'll find, in the real world, that there is no breach of the lease.

    1. John some of the external works were completed, the the notices required the interior to repaired and put back as it was. This never done. Michael has extensive photographs of the interior which has been totally trashed. It is not surprising no-one wants to take on the Lease.

    2. Don't think you'll find they do Anon 13:04, as only the exterior structure is listed. A lease that required the building to be returned in the same interior state as was leased in, 100 years after the inception of the lease would be un enforceable, as it would be deemed an un reasonable contract.

      The only time that that kind of contract would be enforceable would be if the interior was listed. As it wasn't clearly the internal decoration is clearly of no consequence. This of course, and the state of the internal decoration (there is no structural damage to the building in any of Michaels pictures that I've seen) is all superfluous as any new owner will doubtless be restructuring the whole internal space to suit their needs.

      Nobody will take on a 30 year commercial lease, given that they will have to convert the building to suit their purpose. The investment required would simply not stack up on a short lease. When the lease is renewed, the building will be bought and re-purposed, although doubtless that re-purposing will be obstrubted at every turn by the unique brand of Thanet Nimby, that is sadly a certainty.

  4. Wouldn't it be sweet if, instead of all the usual avalanches of meaningless words which, I suspect are designed as arse-covering against subsequent litigation, we had something simple and straightforward.
    Something like a single page on the web and in the local press and council offices. It would list ALL council owned properties, with pictures and state a guide price for each ... just as estate agents do for private houses.
    TDC could even appoint a private sector agent to handle all enquiries and be funded by commission on sales in the usual way.
    Then we would ALL know what is on offer, where and how much for. Of course it won't happen, for the reasons outlined by various anonymous contributors above.

    1. Amen to this Dexter.
      We'll be told that it isn't that easy but, if I had the time and funds I would do it myself to show how easy it can be.
      Sure there will be finer details that need to be covered, but only AFTER any serious expressions of interest following the adverts which should be issued and updated monthly.
      But, as you imply, simple leads to clarity and clarity to transparency and then ... without secret deals behind closed doors, what would our elected representatives do with their time? Just count their expenses I suppose. Do they REALLY get over £8 a year fro being a councillor and a few grand more for being committee members? Move over folks, let's get another snout in the trough ...

    2. I TOTALLY support your suggestion Dexter!

      Sadly the nimbys and serial protesters will whinge and whine about such a simple sales concept! Surely every council structure should be a gallery/community centre/kids playground/skate park/heritage centre/mueseum etc etc etc all funded by the magical council tax money tree that grows in Cecil Square which means that anything can be funded, all while council tax is reduced!

      I 100% agree with you Dexter. I tried to help a relative buy some council owned land some years back, nothing major, just some land behind their garden to extend their garden by a few feet. After a YEAR of messing about jumping through hoops, we gave up.

  5. How exactly do Thanet Council make these decissions.

    The council was asked about the possibility of building a community centre on council owned land.
    8-9 months later, there has been no answer.

    It's pointless asking our 2 councilors for Garlinge to help, as both of them can't be bothered to have anything to do with the ward they were elected for. Obviously one is to busy socialising and getting arrested for drink driving, and the other continues leaving hate messages around Thanet (Latest victim seems to be a PCSO).

    It's quite clear, that both of them are no better then Sandy Ezekiel. They are only councilors for what they can scam out of their positions that they hold. Both should be kicked out and replaced by people who care about their wards.

    So pissed off with these two scummy councillors

  6. See the debate too with Cllr Epps on this blog on the 0% corruption for how most councillors not only do nothing but actively try to do nothing.How do we ensure minimum work standards from them? It seems to be pensioner's topups and then stay silent or defraud the public purse.


Please note comments that may be libellous, comments that may be construed as offensive and anonymous derogatory comments about real people will be deleted. Also note the facility to leave anonymous comment will be turned of during periods when I am unable to monitor comment, this will not affect people commenting who are signed on to their blogger accounts.

Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.