More on KentOnline
More on KentOnline
A port has run up losses of £2.5m this year, taking its total deficit to more than £22 million in nearly a decade.
More than £3.5m was spent on Ramsgate Port in the year to the end of March 2019 but income totalled just over £1m - leading to a loss of £2,511,000, according to newly-published accounts from Thanet District Council, which owns the site.
This was 34% worse than its performance in 2017/18, when it fell £1.9 million into the red.
Its yearly deficits totalling more than £22m since 2010. Last year, losses totalled £1,868,000.
The council slashed £500,000 from what it had earmarked to invest in the port as part of wider cost-cutting measures in its budget, saying it needed to do so to balance the books.
The investment was tied to the controversial proposal to use the port for additional ferry capacity as part of Brexit contingency plans.
Folkestone company Seaborne Freight was awarded a contract to provide additional ferry crossings in the event of a no-deal Brexit.
The government was forced to scrap the £13.8m contract after the company’s key backers withdrew and is now mired in a legal dispute concerning a £33m settlement it agreed with Eurotunnel.
Overall, the council says it spent £6.3m on ports in 2018-19 - covering not just Ramsgate but the Ramsgate Royal Harbour and Broadstairs and Margate harbours.
It received £3.57m income leading to a loss overall of £2.73m.
However, the accounts state: “After removing accounting adjustments for capital purposes and pension accounting the service recorded a loss of approximately £300k from a funding perspective.”
The report says the financial position “includes items that do not impact on the service or council taxpayers.”
Ian Driver, a former councillor who blogs on Thanet, said: “I, and many others, came to the conclusion a long while ago that Ramsgate Port was not economically viable.
"We have been arguing for several years that the port should transformed into a leisure-focused modern marina, but the council hasn’t listened, preferring instead to waste £22 million of public money keeping open what is in effect a ghost port.”
The council has been asked for a comment.
