Serious concerns over fire safety and structural failures at Margate’s Arlington House are back in the spotlight with Thanet councillors on the scrutiny panel due to receive an update on action being taken, including Kent Fire and Rescue Service issuing a notice of deficiency and the Building Safety Regulator considering its next steps.
Last year leaseholder Metropolitan Property Realization Limited (MRPL) was quizzed by councillors over concerns including the deterioration of the main concrete structure and the cladding panels “to such an extent that they both present a risk to the health and safety of residents and members of the public.”
Other issues included inadequate fire safety measures, concern relating to one flat on each floor not being fitted with smoke detection or sounders; smoke control as many windows in the escape staircases cannot be opened due to disrepair and service ducts which are not fully protected and could allow the spread of fire and smoke.
A waking watch of four fire marshals to patrol the building 24/7 at a fee of £48,000 a month was in place last year but this was officially stood down early this year after alarm upgrades and a shift back to a simultaneous evacuation strategy.
A compliance notice was issued after the Building Safety Regulator refused to issue a safety certificate for the 18-storey high-rise tower block and ordered Metropolitan Property Realizations Ltd (MPRL) to undertake a full structural survey and a full fire safety compartmentation survey.
Thanet council also issued a Hazard Awareness Notice.
Fire service notice
In an update to councillors it has emerged that KFRS audited the premises under the Fire Safety Order on 28 April and served a Notice of Deficiencies on 6 May.
The notice requires action to be taken due to:
- Inadequate compartmentation,
- Structural concerns,
- Use of service risers for services with combustible materials,
- The need to update the fire risk assessment,
- PEEPs and provision of accurate information in the Secure Information Box,
- Inadequate detection in bin chutes,
- Fire door issues
- Inadequate arrangements to manage the simultaneous evacuation procedure.
The council report says that while some minor works have been completed, further significant remedial work is needed once a fire safety solution has been determined by MPRL.
The report adds that the integrity of the structure, owing to the concrete defects, has been raised as an issue, should a fire occur. Owing to a lack of understanding of the condition of the structure, it is not known how the building would react in the event of a serious fire.
Although MPRL has installed a whole building fire alarm system a draft fire risk assessment for the building in June highlights a number of fire safety deficiencies and includes a recommendation for the reintroduction of a waking watch or the provision of dynamic fire exit signage.
MPRL, in discussion with KFRS, is also considering a building-wide tannoy system and a 24-hour concierge/manager to assist with evacuation in the event of a fire alarm.
The report to councillors says it remains unclear which fire safety solution MPRL will pursue.
In 2019 MPRL was issued with an enforcement notice for 15 fire safety failures following an inspection by a fire safety officer.
Leanne McMahon, Director for Protection, Prevention and Engagement at Kent Fire and Rescue Service (KFRS), said: “Following an inspection of Arlington House in April 2026, KFRS issued a letter to notify the responsible person of the remaining deficiencies under Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005.
“The safety of the public remains our priority, and we will continue to advise and support the Building Safety Regulator, which is the lead enforcing authority for this premises, while necessary fire safety works are completed.”
Building Safety Regulator next steps
The Building Safety Regulator is also considering further action according to the council report.
In May 2025 BSR took enforcement action, requiring MPRL to undertake surveys due to serious threats involving both structural failures and the potential for fire and smoke spread.
According to the council agenda following a request for an extension of time by MPRL, the BSR withdrew the first notice regarding the structural survey, and served the notice again requiring submission by 15 September 2025.
While MPRL has made various submissions to the BSR, the report says the company has not fully complied with the requirements. While further opportunities for compliance had been given by the BSR, MPRL’s most recent request for an extension of time was refused by the BSR.
The BSR confirmed at the last multi-agency meeting held on 6 August that they are considering their next steps.
Further security following arson at Arlington Arcade
The report to councillors also reveals that a fire deliberately started in the empty Arlington Arcade area in April happened after contractors opened up the old shop units and intruders gained access due to the perimeter not being properly secured. They then set light to timber, including the removed boarding, in one of the units.
Seven fire engines were sent to deal with the blaze and spent one hour bringing it under control.
The report to councillors says: “An urgent meeting was held on the day after the fire, with officers from the council, the BSR and KFRS in attendance, together with a representative of MPRL.
“Officers from the council’s Private Sector Housing and Building Control teams visited the building and surrounds to further investigate the causes of the fire and what actions MPRL had subsequently taken.
“The arson occurred shortly after MPRL’s contractors started on site. In order to prepare for the scaffolding, the vacant ground floor commercial units were opened up (they were previously boarded up).
“On the bank holiday, intruders accessed the site and set light to various timber materials, including the removed boarding, in one of the units. The smoke migrated into the upper common parts of the Arlington House, through the service risers and external windows.
“KFRS attended, and while no-one was harmed, the presence of smoke within the residential parts of the building was clearly distressing for residents, especially in the knowledge of the ongoing fire safety concerns.
“There were two issues that contributed to the arson. Firstly, the lack of effective site perimeter fencing, and secondly the insecure commercial units. It was clear that the whole site needed improved security following the fire.”
Additional site fencing has since been installed and the empty commercial units were cleared and re-secured.
During working hours contractors are on site and, following the fire, a security contractor has been put in place to provide regular patrols and monitoring during non-working hours.
Planned works
MPRL has started scaffolding and has an initial programme of works, which include:
● Renewal of roof coverings at main roof level and entrance canopy/common parts;
● Cleansing of the concrete façade and frame and application of concrete protection treatment;
● Undertaking of patch repairs to defective/spalled areas of concrete frame and façade;
● Cleansing and overhauling of the aluminium windows serving the flats, including replacing any broken glass where necessary;
● Repair, overhaul and redecoration of Crittall communal windows
● Concrete repair to structural column near Flat 12H.
The report will be discussed by the scrutiny panel on August 18.
If its structurally unsafe, then it should be demolished, just like the buildings on the other side of Dreamland.
Totally agree ,knock it and the unused shops and build something decent there
Completely agree. Stop throwing good money after bad!
“…should be demolished…”
Rolling off the tongue with such consummate ease, matched only by the limitless depth of the MPRL’s perceived pocket and foreboding eviction dread of the affected homeowners, yes?
That being said, it is a grotesque blot on the Thanet landscape for nigh on 63 years. Sadly, it will only come down when deemed a risk to life by the BSR, it seems, though I think the recalcitrant MPRL will fight tooth and nail to overturn it. The only outcome would be voluntary bankruptcy. Who will rehouse the tenants then?
There’s plenty of other, presumably safe, unsold new builds in East Kent.
Thank you Kathy, for a most comprehensive update, I have been eagerly awaiting it. I look forward to reading an article after the meeting on the 18th August, with an news updates from any of the parties. I am truly concerned with the safety condition of this building. The head leaseholder, appears to be avoiding sharing safety related information with the other stakeholders. Separately, Peter is correct, Tesco have not purchased the leasehold or freehold of any part of Arlington House or the vacant shopping arcade.
Hope the nesting Peregrine Falcons won’t be disturbed; they may have already relocated or be on vacation. There may be other birds nesting outdoors, but that’s usual for the area.
Marvelous video on YouTube, Margate Peregrine’s. Arlington House. By Get Wild. Hopefully the sub-leaseholders don’t get their pockets picked.
That block does not look well.
I have seen serious “Spalling” of concrete framed buildings close to the sea before now. In some cases there was insufficient concrete “Cover” and sea water attacked the steel reinforcing, that rusted and expanded. The best remedy is to hope and pray we don’t have another earthquake, like the one in 2008, I think it was!
Not only surprised that 4 Fire Marshalls were paid £48,000 per Month (£12000 a Month each?). This building devaluates Margate from each and every angle, and needs to Demolished if it is crumbling, as stated by Fire Service report… and that, as soon as possible! It has always been an awful eyesore in the town. Sorry, my thoughts only (?)
Not just your thoughts.
Four marshalls on site in shifts covering 24/7. The cost soon mounts up. Nearly half a million pounds billed to lessees. Additional bill of £5,000 each received recently.
Your call for demolition is not thought through. Where do you propose the current residents are rehoused. Who is going to bear the cost of purchasing 106 properties for current lessees and the cost of demolishing and clearing the site ?
If its condemned, they’ll have no choice.
Remember that Tesco is behind all of this, they brought most of the site and will sit back do nothing untill it has to come down. Then a massive Tesco will take it’s place. But TDC is primally to blame for the poor condition from the start
Tesco did not buy the site.
Tesco tried to buy the site but were chased off by the art obsessed locals who weren’t impressed with their vision of what that site would be.
The result ? Years of rot and decay whilst the art luvvies then turned their attention to other projects to put scorn on.
Would the Tesco project have been perfect ? No. But it would have been a million times better than the boarded up s-hole that area has become.
They claimed that they wanted to support small local shops instead… and then things like greengrocers and butchers all closed down due to lack of support! Hilariously, chief campaigner Louise Oldfield was caught by the local press shopping in Cliftonville Tesco at the height of the campaign.
I must be the only one who thinks this is a wonderful building and worth saving. Yes it needs a lot of refurbishment and Frankly the overall leaseholder Freshwater aren’t fit for purpose but it’s definitely worth saving and an iconic part of the Margate landscape.
I really wish that something would be done with the arcade underneath though, part of the lease was a condition that they keep the arcade functional and open, that’s clearly not happened and TDC seem to be a toothless tiger in holding them to their responsibilities.
The arcade below was NEVER fully occupied, even in the ’60s & ’70s. So very few businesses would use it now… and who would want to sit outside a cafe below a crumbling tower block when they’re just around the corner of one of Kent’s must stunning stretches on beach?
For a welcome (or at least highly advisable) bit of shade maybe?
Sitting outside a cafe on the seafront would be largely in the shade on North-facing Margate’s seafront (and they get a sea view!).