Thanet council is due to submit a Harbour Revision Order (HRO) to the Marine Management Organisation (MMO to remove the Open Port Duty linked to the ro-ro (roll-on roll-off) berths and associated land at Ramsgate Port.
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.
By ridding itself of the open port duty the council removes the statutory obligation to keep the port open to vessels.
The decision was approved by Thanet council Cabinet members last month.
Port deficit
Part of the aim is to halt the haemorrhaging of cash associated with the port, which needs investment in the region of £17.5m to bring the berths and associated quayside infrastructure back to an operational status. A further £6million is needed for remedial works to make the Royal Harbour Approach tunnel fit for HGV use.
Thanet council papers show the Port – excluding harbour income- made a loss of some £18.7million between 2012 and 2024. This includes losses such as those connected to TransEuropa Ferries which went bankrupt in 2013 and left Thanet council with £3.4 million in unpaid berthing fees.
There were also payments ordered by the High Court to live export traders. In 2012 the then-ruling Labour group at Thanet council banned exports from Ramsgate after 47 sheep died at the port in September of that year but they were forced to make a U-turn by the High Court.
TDC paid more than £5.1 million in compensation to individuals and companies involved in the export of live farm animals from the port of Ramsgate for loss of trade.
The claims followed a High Court ruling in December 2013 that TDC’s ban was unlawful and in breach of EU free trade regulations.
There have also been dredging and maintenance costs.
Port income between 2015 and 2019 included ad-hoc car import fees. The land also houses Brett Aggregates and Vattenfall.
Disposal options
Cabinet members have also agreed to go forward with work to develop leasehold or freehold disposal options for the port. Cabinet members decided the Royal Harbour would not be included in those options.
Thanet council owns around 32 to 34 acres of port land with other parts on a long lease until 2106 from the Crown Estate.
These options are:
Offering a long lease of 99+ years with restrictions that require the site to be used as a Port, transferring statutory harbour authority (SHA) duties for the port to the new leaseholder.
However, the council report says: “The level of investment required in the port is substantial and the restriction on non-port related activity may reduce the interest from potential investors. Consideration would also need to be given to the current lease between the council and The Crown Estate as well as existing port tenants
Offering a long lease with no restrictions in the agreement on future use of the port site. This would allow other maritime uses of the port estate not involving commercial shipping or even alternative uses of the site which are not maritime related at all. The purchaser would not become a SHA.
Dispose of port site freehold without restrictions on future use and full assignment of the council’s lease with The Crown Estate –
This option would provide a new owner with maximum flexibility, the outcome would not involve ro-ro or other port operations being re-established. The purchaser would be able to choose to use the port estate for other maritime uses not involving commercial shipping or even alternative uses of the site which are not maritime related at all.
Dispose of port site freehold with restrictions on future use and full assignment of the council’s lease with The Crown Estate.
This option would result in ro-ro or other commercial port operations being re-established but not via a concession contract. The council could remain the SHA for the Royal Harbour but remaining obligations in respect of the Open Port Duty, maintenance of port infrastructure and dredging in respect of the port would pass to the purchaser.
The HRO process is expected to take around four years to complete.
Short-term income
In the meantime, the council will also explore more short-term income schemes.
This includes monies from the additional 2 acres of land that has been licensed to Brett Aggregates on a temporary basis at the port.
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 has been 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.
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.
Other examples may include short term container storage, freight/haulage related activity, small vessel maintenance/building and building/engineering contractor storage.
The length of time the HRO will take means ultimately the Port issue will become the responsibility of a new unitary council under the local government reorganisation plans when it goes live in April 2028.
Levelling Up
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 last June due to the cost of making the port operational for ro-ro services and failure to secure an operator.
There had been interest from the Port of Dover in taking over operations at the Port of Ramsgate but this did not go forward with a tender because of the short timescales involved and the huge costs of bringing the site up to scratch.
There was also one other potential, unnamed operator in December 2024 but the procurement process was formally abandoned on 28 January last year due to the amount of investment needed.
Council leader Rick Everitt previously 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.”
During the Cabinet meeting Thanet Conservative Party leader John Davis said: “Finally people are accepting the parrot is dead. Maybe we are at a turning point where we can stop squandering money on fantasy ferries and look for better uses, and the best possible use, for that land.”
He added there was “a duty to get a maximum yield’ and backed a look at mixed use proposals.
He was also critical of the deal with Brett Aggregates saying EIA regulations had been broken and previous conditions breached.
He said agreement for expansion “flies in the face of everything the community has been concerned with over the years.”
Cllr Everitt countered that ferries were not ‘a fantasy’ and the issue is the state of the infrastructure and the lack of funds to invest in it.
Director of Environment Mike Humber said Brett Aggregates had followed ‘correct procedure’ and did not need an EIA as one was carried out when berth 4/5 was replaced in 2022.
He added that the firm has a concrete batching permit and is applying for a processing permit which will include a dust assessment.
Thanet Green leader Tricia Austin said members welcomed the proposals, saying TDC had ‘got to the end of a line’ with previous plans and the party was also pleased the harbour would be protected. She added that it was important that Brett’s “do things properly” and “pay properly” for the land it occupies.
Plans for a £8.5m Green Campus on port land will continue to go ahead.
why dont they just admit it , they want appartments built on that land , and all the rake off,s that come with it
Let’s not forget that Everitt’s dogmatic pursuit of the “fantasy ferries” concept has actually cost the Thanet Council taxpayer £690,000 in wasted fees and surveys that they cannot recoup from external grants and now have to find the money themselves.
This £690,000 could have been used to improve the district in so many different ways.
Please don’t believe this Labour lot when they tell you they haven’t got any money to spend locally when they’re wasting cash like this. It’s shameful.
There’s plenty of people want to see the ferries come back, just like others want the fantasy airport. TDC did the right thing in pursuing the ferry option and would have been praised if it had been successful. In the meantime we’ve got all that land just sitting there at Manston while we are having to build on prime agricultural farmland. Fantasy land.
Disagree with you. They certainly didn’t do the right thing in gambling £690,000 of taxpayers money to try and attract an operator when it was patently obvious it wouldn’t happen. It shows a naivety and recklessness with public money which could have been used to hire extra street cleaners, keep public toilets open for longer or anything else that they are currently lacking .
It is time, TDC, to go cap in hand to the owners of the Port of Dover, who were interested in acquiring the Port of Ramsgate, but TDC in its wisdom demanded too much money that the Port of Dover owners walked away from any potential deal, which would have led to Ramsgate becoming a feeder port and offering well paid jobs.
Operation Brock would have become a thing of the past had TDC not been so greedy, and now are left with more costs and a empty port they cannot afford to run.
I’ve said it on here before. Remember that Port of Dover do not own any ships. They aren’t a ferry company. All they can do is provide facilities to ferry companies who may want to use them for a rental charge. Port of Dover can buy Ramsgate Port all they want but they will then have to convince the ferry operators to work from there. Given the restrictions on the access road and the berth design it won’t happen. Who will want to relocate their ferry operation to a place which has worse transport links, a longer journey time and size restrictions on which ships can use it. None of the ships which currently operate out of Dover would fit into Ramsgate Port. The Labour lot knew all this when they decided to spaff £690,000 of our taxpayers money on the project but ploughed ahead anyway.
I think you are right, they’d have to deep dredge the port approach channel and turning circle due to the draft of the larger ferries , the ostende lines princ Pilip large ferry regularly berthed ok , Irish ferries ships are a bit smaller so shouldn’t have a problem and the port could work in hand with the airport when it opens . It’s just a shame we have these two assets within a short distance of each other and they’re not being used !
All over the Dover ferries are too big for Ramsgate with a longer more costly crossings, smaller ships would need to be found and thus reduce the viability !
perhaps not in the next year or two , but appartments are the ultimate end game , think back to craig mckinlay ( remember him ? ) they are still trying to do the same thing at the dockyard in his hometown of chatham
What about RSP and their hydrogen barges, where are they going to operate from?!
Surely they can easily pay for the upkeep of the port from the £800million, or is it over a £billion now? It’s lose change to them and something to do whilst they supposedly sort airspace for Manston !