Former Royal School for Deaf Children properties The Allens sell for way above guide price

'The Allens' in Margate

Four detached properties that were formerly part of Margate’s Royal School for Deaf Children  have been sold for £1.5million.

The Allens in Park Crescent Road, Margate, had a freehold guide price of £900,000 at the Clive Emson auction but went under the hammer for substantially more.

Allen Rise, Allen House, Allen Villa and Allen Lodge share a communal driveway and are in need of refurbishment. They were among 140 lots listed for sale by Clive Emson.

Two ‘Allens’ have five bedrooms and two have six; they might be converted into flats or HMOs or there might be the possibility to develop the whole 0.7 acre site if consents are available.

Auctioneer Kevin Gilbert said: “These are substantial properties that could be sold as family homes, but the new owner might choose to divide them up into flats or renting rooms.

“There are no permissions for changes at the moment and any changes would require the necessary consents to be obtainable.

“We had a great deal of interest in this lot and the final price paid was £1,556,000 – well above the £900,000-plus guide price.

“There were developers and investors keen to secure the lot and we will wait and see what the new owner does.”

Margate’s Royal School for Deaf Children shut down suddenly in December 2015 after The John Townsend Trust, which ran it, went into administration.

The distressing closure of the school and Westgate College resulted in some 500 job losses and scores of children left without a specialist school placement.

Last year Kent County Council put forward a potential 200 home development at the site as part of Thanet council’s Local Plan review.

The land had been earmarked for a new secondary school but in 2021 this proposal was ditched for a second time by KCC following discussions with the Department for Education over the forecast of pupil numbers in the district.


  1. It is understood that the Royal School for Deaf in Elm Grove Westgate has also been sold. I suspect with a potential to being converted into flats for DfL’s.

    No mention yet has been made as to if or whom has purchased a lease for the upper business section of St Augustines on the Canterbury Road in Westgate.

    We still wait to see if an application will be made to demolish the former Catholic Church on the Canterbury Road in Westgate on Sea and build retirement flats.

    We wait to see a planning application for the two former nursing homes on Sea Road Westgate on Sea purchased by the same company that converted the former deaf school building in Sea Road Westgate.

    When will all this development cease.

    • When there are enough homes for young people so that they are not at the mercy of unscrupulous landlords who use tenants labour to pay for their assets.

      • And where will people live if there are fewer/ no landlords? What do you feel is a sensible level of rent? What standard/type of accomodation do you feel for example the following should have access to?

        Under 20 single no kids benefit dependant

        Mid 20’s couple no kids working

        Mid 20’s couple 2 kids working part time

        Single pensioner

        Any other example you may wish to add.

        Have you any idea of what’s involved in providing and looking after a rental property , legislative compliance, changing taxation , proposed new legislation? It’s got to the point that the only safe option for a landlord is to charge max rent and get the income they can now rather than have a longterm plan ( as was encouraged under the taper relief capital gains tax rules).
        That we have migration , housing and monetary policies over decades that have bought us to our current situation is apparently to be ignored.
        It’s laughable that there are those that wish to control/ punish the private rented sector because of the actions of a minority of criminal landlords, but would in just about everyother walk of life claim that it is discriminatory to form policy that punishes the majority for the actions of a minority of any given group.

        • They are using other peoples labour, very typically the young, to pay for their assets. The young, who should be building up their own assets. I note you have not even address this fundamental point!

          Of course there is always a need for a certain amount of rental housing but our property market has got out of control in this respect with turning rental into mini “revenue stream” side-gig and airbnb etc!

          There are many many many people renting who would *love* to be buying the traditional “doer upper” properties as FTBs, but are excluded because of policy on lending (rent history not being good enough?!) and outpriced by boomer BTLs.

          When Newham council brought in mandatory landlord registration they found 50% of them weren’t declaring their income!

          So please spare us the woe is me landlord sob story.

          • There was no woe is me, like other landlords i’ll roll with the direction of travel change my business model and watch my tenants struggle ever more as rents have to increase. I was merely pointing out the realities. If 50% of landlords in an area were found not to be declaring their income i can only hope they were prosecuted to the full extent of the law and fined on same basis, but thats what the law is for , it’s not an excuse to penalise those that do it properly.
            Rent like the cost of any of the other goods or services we buy is composed of the capital investment, finance charges, the cost of maintenance and repair , all the other business costs and at the end a profit. The young that earn enough to have an excess to their living expenses build up assets but that is no different to what it ever was.
            Why does housing fall outside these constraints if someone rents? Social housing only falls outside this model because it is subsidised by the tax payer ( at many levels) and pays no tax.

          • “The young that earn enough to have an excess to their living expenses build up assets but that is no different to what it ever was.”

            Wilful ignorance of the state of this country in 2023.

          • No its an acceptance of reality, just because you wish to focus on those that are at the bottom of the pile in terms of income ( for whatever reasons) there are many others that do work , save and progress in life.
            I would proffer that it’s your own blinkered view that is willfully dismissive of the wider picture.

    • At least it’s development of existing property, not green fields, and good that empty buildings are being back to life, surely that can only be good???

    • Many reasons…

      * Being refurbished
      * Owner away long term
      * Up for sale
      * Second home
      * Death/probate
      * Foreign owner
      * Investor owned


      Are you suggesting that it’s practical or reasonable to somehow requisition these 250K homes? I suspect not!

      In which case, like many NIMBYs you are just looking for excuses to stop development whilst seeing young people suffer.

Comments are closed.