Home   Thanet   News   Article

East Kent-based developers Cardy Construction set to take over Ramsgate's Pleasurama seafront site

The derelict Pleasurama site on Ramsgate seafront
The derelict Pleasurama site on Ramsgate seafront

Councillors have voted for the development of the former Pleasurama site on Ramsgate seafront to be taken over by East Kent-based Cardy Construction.

Thanet District Council’s cabinet voted in favour of the move at a meeting last night.

The council served a breach notice on current developers SFP Ventures (UK) Limited earlier this year as the necessary first step towards terminating the existing agreement, which envisages construction of a hotel, residential and commercial units.

This triggered a mediation process, as part of which SFP’s owners indicated their willingness in principle to enter into an agreement for Cardy to acquire the company and with it the existing contract with the council.

Officers will now negotiate a new agreement with Cardy to allow the development to proceed on new terms that will provide for the council to recover the site if the scheme is not delivered to an agreed timetable.

The scheme would be built in accordance with the existing planning consent and the new deal would also entail the council receiving payments due under the current agreement, which dates back to 2006, with variations passed by full council in 2009.

The key regeneration project is expected to employ up to 200 people while under development. Once completed it will provide further jobs in the hotel trade, commercial units and in the servicing of the residential common parts.

Cllr Rick Everitt , cabinet member for financial services and estates, said: “The offer appears to provide a way to resolve the current impasse, against the alternative of a lengthy and messy legal dispute that could leave the site in its current state for a number more years.

“Some residents believe the council should simply seize the site because of the lack of progress. However, there is no lawful basis for the council to do so now and we have been advised that the only feasible route to regaining it eventually is likely to be lengthy, risky and expensive for residents, at the end of which it is probable another scheme of similar nature would be brought forward.”

Close This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies.Learn More