Council owned Grade II Ramsgate home to be sold at auction with request for delay rejected

18 Albert Street Image google maps

A Grade II listed council property in Ramsgate will be disposed of at auction despite a request by ward councillors that a decision be delayed to look at the possibility of restoring the site for community and cultural use.

Since the 1980s 18 Albert Street was a shared ownership property, one of Thanet District’s Council’s first. The property is within a conservation area.

In 2020 the leaseholder passed away and Thanet District Council bought the leaseholders’ shares. A report to Cabinet members says the property is in a poor state of repair as the previous owner did not have the financial capacity to carry out any works.

Thanet District Council is now the sole owner of the vacant, three bedroom, three storey townhouse. The report says essential roof repairs will cost between £19k to £32k.

An independent valuation of the property has been carried out and in its current condition it is valued at £115,000. If the essential roofing repairs were carried out, the value at sale would increase to £140,000 and if the property was completely refurbished, the value would increase to £260,000.

An option to keep and refurbish the property was laid out in the report but officers recommended a preferred option was to dispose of it at auction as it is and reinvest the proceeds of sale into the council’s housing programme.

Green councillor Tricia Austin said a stay of six, or even three, months was being requested to look at options of retaining and refurbishing the site because of its listed status and close proximity to Addington Street, an area she described as ‘becoming Ramsgate’s Old Town” with potential for cultural facilities.

She added: “We (ward councillors) think something could be made of the building as a community and cultural asset.”

Cllr Austin suggested the property, if refurbished, could be a tourist attraction and generate income.

She also raised concerns that it could be landbanked.

However, the delay was not granted with Cabinet member for housing Jill Bayford suggesting it could be brought back into use if purchased at auction for market value by a local business or local people.

Cabinet members agreed for the Albert Street property to be disposed of at auction.


  1. What do you expect from this new cabinet? They don’t give a damn about Ramsgate! I Still would like to know which Cabinet member(s) had input into the decision to set up the traveller site at Ramsgate Port?

  2. Typical TDC another sale of Ramsgate property to increase the funds for use in the Margate area. Part of the systematic disposal of Ramsgate sites in order to build up the Margate brand and lower the value of what they consider is their poor neighbour.

  3. “She added: “We (ward councillors) think something could be made of the building as a community and cultural asset.”
    Cllr Austin suggested the property, if refurbished, could be a tourist attraction and generate income.”

    A “Cultural asset” ? A “tourist attraction” ! ?? Who in Gods name elects people who can think like this? A “Tourist attraction” !!!?? Who is that easily pleased they would “tour” to see that or what you put in it? Where the hell does Cllr Austin go for her holidays? The Isle of Grain LNG Plant? What utter stupidity.

    • David, have you no interest in finding buildings that can be used by the community and by the emerging creative industries in that part of Ramsgate? Would you prefer it if councillors sold all the family silver and turned every available asset of community value into private dwellings?

    • You put it perfectly Mr Gorton!!

      It’s an old house that needs a Fortune spending on it by professional developers, not a council trying to keep a small band of locals who have a nonsensical obsession with not letting go of the past.

  4. See the usual people want to do the wrong thing and spend others money in the process.

    Just sell (whats left of) the property to the highest bidder and keep us informed, not us having to ask.

  5. The councillor should perhaps have taken the more sensible approach of supporting the proposal. Whilst i’m not generally in support of selling off district assets, this property has been allowed to fall into disrepair, (that the council as a part owner allowed this to happen is another matter, just because the other party was short of cash is no excuse).
    Hopefully the council will take a lenient view of any proposals to repurpose the building once its sold.

  6. People don’t understand the “workings” (loosely framed term) of the TDC.
    More-or-less, if you say you want something – you don’t get it. If you say you don’t want something – you get it.
    It’s the way they work, study Sir Isaac Newton… to every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.
    You did it the wrong way love, but to be honest – they need the money.

  7. The valuation seems a bit low to me, but if sold at auction it will be interesting to see who buys it?

    • Not really, if the roof works are indicative of the state of the place, then with its listed status if the council want it put right properly , you could throw 200k into it without even trying. Not the best of positions , hopefully someone will see it as their dream project and have deep pockets.

  8. As far as TDC is concerned if its Ramsgate either sell it or move your problem there. Out of sight out of mind. Perhaps in a years time the cash will dissappear without trace, Like the Duke Street grant. Could Ramsgate become part of the planned West Thanet District, then we could stop being the fall guy for TDC.

Comments are closed.