One of
Ramsgate seafronts most iconic buildings the Victoria Pavilion is about to go
under the auctioneers hammer, if Thanet Council's Cabinet has it way. The century
old listed building has been leased from Thanet Council by the Rank
Organisation since 1969 for the princely sum of £6,000 per year! In that time
the building has been a nightclub and a casino and sadly been subject to
extensive internal vandalism by Rank
without Thanet Council lifting a finger to force its tenant to repair the
damage (estimated to be £millions). For the past 5 years this forlorn and sad building has been
boarded up and has haunted our seafront with memories of the splendid past and fear
for a squandered future.
Meeting on 20th
June Thanet Council’s Cabinet is likely to
agree to extend the remaining lease term (31 years) to over 100 years in order
to make it easier/ more attractive for the Rank Organisation or the Council to
sell on the lease to another commercial concern.
But hang on a
minute. Why should the Cabinet be giving
Rank a get-out-of-jail-free-card by ignoring its past dirty deeds and helping it to divest itself of a lease it no longer
wants without having to pay a penny for trashing the insides of one of the most
important community assets in Ramsgate? This
reminds me of the approach the Cabinet and Council
Officers have been taking towards failing Pleasurama developer SFP
Ventures - instead of taking a tough stance against them for blighting our
seafront for a decade they are indulging them to the point of sycophancy.
One other
little detail which seems to have escaped
the attention of Cabinet members and council officers, is the opinion of the local Ramsgate community. Before this lovely
and important publically owned building is pimped out to
the highest bidder and taken out of public control for 100 years or longer, surely these
must be some sort of public consultation and discussion about what local people
think the building should be used for and perhaps insisting that the new tenants make available some community space in this large building.
Also I
suspect that the Cabinet and council officers have conveniently overlooked the Localism Act 2011 which requires “local
authorities to maintain a list of assets of community value which have been
nominated by the local community. When listed assets come up for sale or change
of ownership, the Act then gives community groups the time to develop a bid and
raise the money to bid to buy the asset when it comes on the open market. This
will help local communities keep much-loved sites in public use and part of
local life”.
Personally, I
think that the Victoria Pavilion is one of the most important community assets
in Thanet and rather than plan for its immediate disposal to goodness knows who, the Cabinet should
actually be engaging with the local community, as per the Localism Act, to explore ideas for its future use and to identify
funding sources (Coastal Communities Grant, Heritage Lottery Fund) to pay for the development of these ideas.
Like the Pleasurama site the Pavilion is an important
community asset. Let’s act to keep it that way and take control over its future
development rather than sell it to the highest bidder.
The Cabinet
meets to discuss this plan on 20 June 7pm Cecil Square offices
Margate. Please come along to that meeting to lobby Cabinet members and
persuade them not to agree the proposal and have a community consultation instead.
I have copied the proposal below.
In the
meantime please e-mail Thanet Cabinet members and ask them to defer their
decision to dispose of the Victoria Pavilion and instead begin a
public consultation on its use and ownership by the community. We need
to act now before it’s too late.
Here are the
Cabinet member e-mails. 4 of the Cabinet members are also Ramsgate Councillors. I hope that they might be persuaded
to do the right thing
cllr-clive.hart@thanet.gov.uk
cllr-iris.johnston@thanet.gov.uk
cllr-michelle.fenner@thanet.gov.uk
Proposal for Cabinet 20th
June
interest of the Royal Victoria
Pavilion, Ramsgate (site plan in Annex 2) in order to
facilitate private sector capital
investment. There are currently 31 years unexpired onthe original lease agreement granted by the Authority in 1969 for use of the property.
Expressions of interest have been received for the site from third parties, both directly and via the tenant, but the unexpired period of the current lease is too short to
support the level of investment required to bring the building back into effective
commercial use. The freehold of the property will be retained by the council, but
Cabinet is asked to consider
authorising officers to expand the marketing process of
the lease, in conjunction with
the existing tenant, for the site, in an open andtransparent method, whilst ensuring best value and probity for the Authority. This
assistance would be by being able to offer an extended lease of over 100 years, if
necessary to the party taking over the building on the basis of a guaranteed
investment from them. The value of this extension would be to support the investment and not to increase the value of the lease to the current lessees. At this stage it is not proposed that the council places any specific restriction on the commercial transfer of the lease as landlord, but clearly any changes to the building and its use would be subject to planning and listed building applications. In considering potential tenants under a longer lease term the Authority will be in a position to consider financial issues against social benefits achievable.
same thing with Freshwater at Arlington, let the place run down and do nothing to upkeep the area contrary to a clause in the lease agreement, do TDC really give a toss?
ReplyDeletewell all I can say is Thanet District Council really needs to look at what it is losing, These buildings need revamping and using, INDOOR SKATING RINK that's a start
ReplyDeletePavilion has one 'l'
ReplyDeletesorry anon spellin not my strong point but pimp does have 2 ps
DeleteAs John Hamilton said to me: "There's only one 'f' in Driver." I always thought he was an illiterate tw*t.
Deletewetherspoons asap
ReplyDeleteMaybe Weatherspoons has role in the Pavs future. Maybe not. But instead of all this undignified haste to get rid of her, there should be a debate - commercial use, community use, a bit of both. The fact that this is not being discussed at all it a worry to me. I will of course be letting the cabinet know my views on 20th
DeleteThe Pavilion has been on the market for a considerable period of time at a very low price. I did consider buying it myself but a few calculations on the back of an envelope quickly put paid to that. Anybody who had an economically viable idea for using it could have taken their business plan to the bank and sought to borrow money for the venture. However, it's far easier to come up with crackpot ideas on a blog and then blame others for not pursuing them. I'd like to see something done with the Pavilion but it's up to brave souls to come forward with their plans and for the council to be as sympathetic as they can whilst protecting the heritage of the area. It would be a good idea for the council to publish their thoughts on the matter e.g. We would be minded to accept a pub/restaurant/nightclub/arcade/ beachside gym. We would not be minded to accept a pole-dancing club, retirement home for council officers or nuclear waste facility. Then we'd all know whether our ideas were worth a punt.
Deletecrackpot scheme like Pleasurama perhaps?
DeleteAnon 21.23 It might make marketing the lease a lot easier if the building was in a fair condition instead of the interior having been destroyed and fire damaged. What happened to the insurance money?
ReplyDeletePleasurama was great. My kids used to love it. The problems all started when it fell victim to flames of Godden. The council should have insisted that the site was redeveloped for leisure and entertainment. The mistake was to assume that you had to allow a shark in a sharp suit to make vast sums of money to get anything done. You would have to be very stupid to assume that a property developer who is only interested in the bottom line would do anything for your community unless you built it into the contract in black and white. The fault lies with the council for failing to negotiate from the residents' perspective.
ReplyDeleteCouncil should serve another notice a seek possession, not bribe the lessees who are putting their fingers up.
ReplyDelete