Cabinet members at Thanet District Council are considering ‘immediate actions’ for the future of Ramsgate Port which include selling the land.
Plans for a £7.6m project aimed at bringing ferry operations back to Ramsgate Port as part of the town’s £19.8m Levelling Up programme were ditched in June due to the cost of making the port operational for ro-ro services and failure to secure an operator.
Officers were then asked to explore alternative options. The report being considered next week sets out the findings of that work to date.
The recommendations to be discussed by Cabinet members on December 18 focus on; mitigating financial risk, securing short-term income and developing long-term asset disposal options.
The aim is to end the Port’s revenue debt position and to deliver a long-term sustainable solution. The ultimate aim is to reduce financial and regulatory risk to the council. Delivering an end result that does not require local financial contributions is also key.
The report states that investment in the region of £17.5m would be needed to bring the berths and associated quayside infrastructure at the Port back to an operational status. However this investment is well beyond the council’s financial capacity.
A number of immediate actions are being proposed:
- Initial steps to remove the council’s ‘Open Port Duty’
- Considering options to sell the land
- Identifying short-term income opportunities
The report recommends the submission of a Harbour Revision Order (HRO) to the Marine Management Organisation (MMO) early in 2026. This is to remove the Open Port Duty linked to the ro-ro (roll-on roll-off) berths and associated land.
Open Port Duty is a legal obligation for ports to remain accessible to the public for shipping, unshipping goods, and landing or embarking passengers, upon payment of applicable rates and fees.
This step is considered necessary because the insufficient income and resulting underinvestment, pose a legal and financial risk to the council as the Statutory Harbour Authority (SHA). The action will help to mitigate these risks. The HRO process is estimated to take approximately four years to complete and could be aborted prior to completion if circumstances were to change.
Approval is also being sought to further develop four remaining asset disposal options for the Port which involve leasehold or freehold disposal. Thanet council owns around 32 to 34 acres of port land with other parts on a long lease until 2106 from the Crown Estate. This would be brought back to a future meeting of Cabinet for a final decision.
The report also recommends that six other high-level options be removed from further development at this time. These include a proposals for a second concession tender attempt, a new funding bid, and a council-led masterplan.
Cabinet members are also asked to approve plans to immediately pursue and secure short-term income opportunities from the Port of Ramsgate’s currently under used land.
Members will be asked to consider whether to include the Royal Harbour in future disposal options. The Harbour is fundamental to the rich maritime heritage of Ramsgate and is a key asset of the town and district. Currently, the Port and Royal Harbour are operated as a single Statutory Harbour Authority. As part of the options under review a position on the future of the whole site therefore needs to be established.
Council leader Cllr Rick Everitt said: “We understand the deep maritime history tied to Ramsgate, and different party administrations have shared an ambition to pursue options to re-open channel crossings. But the scale of the financial commitment required to return the ro-ro berths to operational status is simply well beyond the capacity of a district council.
“The recommendations proposed allow us to take a crucial step to protect the council and, by extension, our residents, from significant financial and legal risk. By starting the process to remove the outdated ‘Open Port Duty’ and exploring sustainable long-term disposal options, we could end the revenue deficit and secure a more viable future.
“The need to identify challenges that could arise from splitting control of the port and harbour is understood by Cabinet, but this does not mean we would support selling or leasing the harbour, as we recognise how integral it is to Ramsgate as a community asset. It is, however, our responsibility as the political leadership to give officers a clear steer on such an issue, which is why this is included in the report.”
An update on Brett Aggregates’ use of the land at the Port is also included within the report. This follows a temporary licence, for an additional two acres of land, granted in July 2025.
The purpose of the temporary licence is to allow Brett Aggregates to handle a greater volume of aggregate in the short term. That licence was due to expire at the end of December 2025. It will be extended for a further six months to the end of June 2026, while negotiations on a longer term lease for the additional land take place. If negotiations reach a point where heads of terms for a new lease are provisionally agreed, the lease will go to Cabinet for formal approval.
Separately, Brett Aggregates has approached the council for a permit to process aggregate at the Port. Brett has been processing aggregates at the site since summer 2025, and voluntary mitigations have been agreed while a permit is considered. The application process will be informed by dust assessment work which started at the beginning of November. Noise levels at the site are being assessed separately.
it seems strange that you can see europe from the cliff top at ramsgate but they are determined that a ferry service will never happen , it would be a great asset to the town , which should be grateful for anything as its got nothing else , it seems to me that all they have ever wanted is to smother it in houses , as they are with the rest of thanet , the people that will make millions from probably dont even live anywhere near ramsgate. the last tory mp from broadstairs wanted houses , just like chatham dock yard strangely enough , where he came from ?
The viability of the Port was kicked into the long grass with the opening of the Channel Tunnel. Ferry from Ramsgate to Europe: 4½ hours. Eurostar from Folkestone to France: 20 minutes.
Come up with a viable alternative use then.
since 2013 and the loss of £3.5M of berthing receipts from transeuropa the council have known ferry services are nonexistent. now 12 years later they admit defeat.
We could have had leisure facilities to rival Sovereign Harbour or Brighton Marina up and running by now
Now THAT’S a positive suggestion.
The same thing happened with the cross channel ferries at Folkestone harbour Andrew! They had been operating for years, but couldn’t compete with the tunnel/trains, especially during bad weather! I remember being stuck on a ferry for over 12 hours in the 80’s waiting for the weather to let up, so we could get into Folkestone harbour!
Sell the Port of Ramsgate to the Port of Dover for £1.00, They have the finance, resource’s and experience of running a successful Ro-Ro ferry service.
This would offer motorist an alternative route during the very busy seasonal time, and act as a reliever port to Dover ending Operation Brock, and the main thing, Local Jobs.
TDC Can get all the business rates from the site, instead of ploughing millions of local tax payers money.
They don’t run ferries. They run a Port where they lease land and berths to ferry companies. Dover is clearly attractive to these companies due to it’s proximity to France and the surrounding road network. They can buy Ramsgate Port all they want but they can’t make any ferry company sail from there.
Good answer
Would make a great Travelers Site.
Really world
Keep living in the past.
Bring back a port that is viable.
Bring back manston airport that isn’t viable.
Thats move into the future
Edit
Should read port that isn’t viable
;)
Very quiet from the Labour Councillors who were so outraged at KCC selling a community asset like the freehold of the theatre in Broadstairs. Now those same Councillors are part of the Cabinet who are floating the idea of selling Ramsgate Harbour. Obviously their faux outrage only extends to ideas that Reform have.
Not Ramsgate harbour but Ramsgate port
They are totally different
Read the article again. One of the future options is to sell both together.
At long last they have realised that the port is a lemon and always has been.Sell it as soon as possible and use part of the money to build a travellers camp at the bottom of Checksfield’s garden, as he seems so keen on them.
The harbour is a different matter, it should belong to the community and not be some bauble flogged off to a third party.
There’s already two travelers sites within easy walking distance from me.
Then a third will be fine and dandy then!
More caravan sites the better. Don’t know why you’re so against having one at the former port.
You do spout a lot of rubbish, you know!
And you never ever come up with a positive suggestion (but feel free to prove me wrong!).
I didn’t know there were two sites in or near Thanet
There are several caravan sites in Thanet (I can think of at least 6).
isn’t the freehold of most of the commercial port owned by the Crown Estates?
If so, how can TDC consider selling it?
They probably do, but the lease was also probably a long one,so will have value.
TDC can sell that,if there is no impediment in the lease document.
What can be done with the land is another matter.
Should be reopened as a ferry service
Ramsgate would finally be back on the map and not the Thug depressing town it has become
Compared to Marseille it’s a paragon of gentility!
Ferry port again definitely, but I do not understand why TDC didn’t take the offer from The port of Dover ! They have the knowhow and expertise to run Port Ramsgate with ferries. There’s obviously potential there otherwise Dover port wouldn’t have been interested!!
They have ferry operators who want to run services from Dover. There are no ferry operators who want to run services from Ramsgate. That’s the difference. It’s a question of geography and road networks.
It doesn’t matter what Dover Port do. They don’t own ships and they don’t run a ferry company. They can buy Ramsgate Port but if the ferry companies don’t want to operate from there then they’re stuffed.
I would like the current administration to apologise for siphoning off millions of the levelling up money towards the last attempt to resurrect the port. Funds given to Ramsgate never intended for the port and that many objected to being redirected. Rick ploughed on regardless. Why? And yet the LUF seems money now glossed over and mainly unspent in favour of a new stash of money and yet another enormous layer of consultatioms. The Future High St fund also mysteriously being deemed a no go after 5 years of inactivity.
And as for Bretts, perhaps TDC could also tell us how this arrangement benefits Ramsgate.
I would like the current Administration to apologise for completely mismanaging all the external grant money received over the last few years. Pipe dream projects, delays, community uproar against what is being proposed.
These are generational amounts of money being given to TDC and they have been woefully handled.
Ferry port is a no go, turn the area into a tourist attraction marina, themed shops , restaurants ( not greasy spoons) plenty of scope for entrepreneurs.
How about getting boats from London down to the coast will bring in visitors and even goods
“visitors and even goods”?
Drag Queens and deckchairs?
It will be sold to developers, who will build a housing estate with NO affordable housing.
Excellent news! Will bring money into the area.
Ramsgate is to be turned into an industrial poophole. TDC doesn’t care about the effect on all who live, work and visit here.
I am amazed that the Royal Harbour businesses, people on the West cliff of Ramsgate in particular, aren’t, when they’ve wiped the cement dust from their eyes and taken off their ear defenders campaigning against the huge infrastructure project, National Grids Converter Station at Minster Marshes. #Save Minster Marshes.
Join the dots people.
And your alternate suggestions are?
For years the port has been allowed to degrade to this point, almost as if it had been the plan in the first place.
Considering how busy Dover is and the cost of crossings from Dover I find it strange that repairing the port structure is not going to be cost effective in the long run. Since Thatcher governments and councils have had this “Sell now lose money later” attitude to everything from council housing to railways, now it’s the ports turn. As a resident of Ramsgate I’d back the council investing money in the port because even I can see any investment now would increase in time, something the council should also be thinking.
Having a port in Ramsgate does not just help the port area it delivers footfall to Ramsgate, helping the high street, the small business owners and all the bed and breakfast, air B&B’s and hotels. Everyone would benefit in the long run, but sadly we all know the council will take money now and waste it on some hair brained scheme that benefits no local at all
Jim
“Having a port in Ramsgate does not just help the port area it delivers footfall to Ramsgate,
How ? You drive of a ferry, though a tunnel then up to the thanet way ?
Dovers footfall is terrible because you drive of the ferry straight onto a duel carriageway and away from Dover.
Passenger ferries are good for towns, vehicle-only are not. I would’ve loved to have used Ramsgate ferry, but as a pedestrian I couldn’t.
Who actually owns Ramsgate Port the council or the tax payers, who ultimately pay the bills ?
Who actually owns Ramsgate port, the council or the tax payers, who funded the building of the area ?
Shocking that RSP and Tony Freudmann not interested, thought they wanted hydrogen-powered barges to deliver the stuff from the planes up to London?