How Folkestone Library Could Stay at Grace Hill: Three Realistic Plans to Keep the Historic Site Open Without Raising Council Tax Above 3.99%

Works have started on Kent County Council’s new “town-centre hub” at 14 Sandgate Road — the former Woolworths — combining adult education and Folkestone Library, with KCC saying it will open in spring 2026.

At the same time, the future of the Grade II listed Grace Hill library building — closed since late 2022 — is hardening from “temporary closure” into something far closer to permanent departure. And the argument, at heart, is not really about books. It is about arithmetic, liability, and whether anyone — council or community — is prepared to publish a sustainable, years-long plan that makes those numbers add up.

What KCC says is driving the move

KCC’s position, set out in its own committee papers, is blunt:

• The Grace Hill building was closed because of water ingress and mould, and then mothballed.

• The capital cost to repair and reopen has been estimated at around £2.9m, which KCC says was more than a third of its annual property maintenance budget at the time, making it “not considered financially justifiable”.

• Keeping the building empty still costs money — KCC puts “holding” costs at about £100,000 a year.

• KCC’s internal option appraisal says other locations are cheaper than Grace Hill, and that Sandgate Road is the least expensive among the main town-centre options it assessed.

• KCC also states the Sandgate Road hub will operate “within existing revenue budgets” for adult education and libraries — i.e., it is presented as affordable within existing spending limits.

This matters because KCC is statutorily required to provide a library service (it references the Public Libraries and Museums Act 1964), but not to provide it in any particular historic building.

What the public said — and why the anger hasn’t died down

KCC’s own consultation summary indicates significant opposition to permanently leaving Grace Hill: 55% disagreed with that proposal (with 38% agreeing).

That public response helps explain why the dispute has become a symbol: campaigners see a civic landmark being sold off; the council sees a deteriorating, expensive liability and a chance to put the service on a more affordable footing. Local coverage frames this as a “betrayal” of a historic community asset and argues the council should show clearer, side-by-side cost comparisons.

The missing piece: a bankable alternative that survives contact with reality

This is where the debate becomes uncomfortable for everyone.

Creative Folkestone has publicly described a vision: restore Grace Hill as a mixed-use community and cultural hub, with KCC operating a public library alongside education/creative/community uses, and seek central government funding to do it. Save Our Library campaign materials likewise point to an “alternative vision” and a partnership proposal presented to KCC.

But KCC’s own report says the only proposal it received through its process (Creative Folkestone’s) was discounted because it did not provide the commercial and legal detail KCC says it needs — including how KCC would relinquish ownership/maintenance liabilities, clarity on terms/rent, and credible occupancy assumptions. KCC also notes the proposal implied a long period (around 18 months) to secure funding, leaving the council carrying holding costs and risk in the meantime.

So, at present, the public has visions — but not a fully costed, legally implementable plan that can be stress-tested year after year.

And if the criticism is that a Reform UK–controlled county council is being too ready to sell a heritage building, the counter-criticism is just as fair: if campaigners believe the numbers work, put them in the public domain so residents can judge whether the alternative is real and sustainable.

Does the 2026/27 budget make keeping Grace Hill possible without breaching the 3.99% council tax cap?

KCC’s draft 2026/27 budget proposes a 3.99% council tax increase (Band D KCC element £1,715.23) and a net revenue budget of about £1,647.8m.

But the same budget papers also show how tight the overall position is: KCC is balancing the budget through a mix of savings and income, plus one-off measures (including £9m from capital receipts and £16m from releasing earmarked reserves).

In plain English: KCC is already relying on temporary fixes, and any extra ongoing cost needs a permanent offset.

That said, the budget also contains clues about how an “keep Grace Hill” plan could be structured without raising council tax above 3.99%:

1. Revenue (day-to-day running costs):
   The budget includes planned savings/income within Libraries, Registration & Archives (LRA), such as:

   • £250k saving in 2026/27 from reviewing the library estate to match service requirements;

   • £200k additional income generation in 2026/27, plus £50k inflation uplift of income.

   If keeping Grace Hill costs more than the Sandgate Road option (KCC says it does), the only way to stay under the tax cap is to fund that difference from within LRA/corporate landlord savings and income — or make equal savings elsewhere. The budget already assumes LRA will find material savings/income; the political choice is where those savings land.

2. Capital (one-off repair/refurbishment costs):
   The big Grace Hill hurdle is capital: KCC’s historic estimate is about £2.9m to repair and reopen.

   In the draft capital programme, KCC has estate-related capital lines that — in theory — could be reprioritised, such as Modernisation of Assets (MOA) – Corporate Estate (£5.0m in 2026/27) and other corporate property delivery budgets.

3. That does not mean there is “spare” money lying around — it means councillors would have to choose to divert capital away from other estate priorities. And KCC also flags “no new borrowing” in its capital planning, so lost capital receipts (from not selling Grace Hill) would need replacing elsewhere.

So: is it literally possible? Yes — but only if KCC is willing to reprioritise capital estate spending and the revenue cost difference is neutralised through real savings/income, not hope.

Three serious, realistic routes to keeping the library at Grace Hill

1) The “council pays, council keeps” route (politically simple, financially hardest)

KCC could decide Grace Hill is worth the upfront £2.9m and fund it by reprioritising estate capital budgets — but it must then accept the ongoing maintenance liability it is explicitly trying to escape.

If this is the chosen route, KCC would need to publish:

• a phased works plan (what is essential to reopen, what can wait);

• a long-term maintenance plan and sinking fund (so it doesn’t fall back into crisis);

• an “apples-to-apples” cost comparison over the same time horizon as the Sandgate Road lease (including lifecycle costs).

This addresses a key public complaint: without a clear like-for-like comparison, people will assume the conclusion was baked in.

2) The “community owns the building, KCC delivers the library service” route (financially most plausible)

This is the model KCC’s own critique implicitly points toward: it is not rejecting community passion — it is rejecting undefined liability.

A workable version looks like this:

• A properly constituted charity/trust takes a long lease or ownership of the building.

• The trust is responsible for repairs and long-term maintenance (with a credible sinking fund).

• KCC becomes an anchor tenant/service partner for a defined library footprint, on defined terms.

• Commercial/community uses elsewhere in the building cross-subsidise maintenance.

This model can also unlock non-council funding routes that councils often struggle to access on the same terms — but only if the proposal includes hard numbers: rent assumptions, occupancy, insurance, listed-building constraints, governance, and a plan for what happens if grant funding fails.

KCC says the current proposal did not get to that level of bankable detail.

3) The “Sandgate Road as interim, Grace Hill as endgame” route (uses the 5-year break clause)

KCC’s Sandgate Road plan includes a 15-year lease with a 5-year break clause.

A politically and financially realistic compromise would be:

• Open the Sandgate Road library as planned to restore a full service quickly;

• Pause the sale of Grace Hill and set a fixed, public deadline (e.g., 24 months) for a fully costed rescue plan to reach “financial close”;

• If the plan succeeds, refurbish Grace Hill and exercise the lease break at the earliest sensible point.

This doesn’t satisfy those who want no move at all — but it does keep Grace Hill alive as a genuine destination, rather than a fading campaign slogan.

The challenge to both sides

KCC must stop hiding behind generalities and publish a clear year-by-year comparison that residents can follow: repair costs, reopening timeline, ongoing property costs, lease costs, fit-out, and end-of-lease liabilities — same time horizon, same assumptions.

And campaigners — SOL and Creative Folkestone included — need to publish a plan that is more than a vision: a full, transparent model showing who takes the legal liability, where the capital comes from, how ongoing maintenance is funded, and how the building is kept viable five, ten, fifteen years out. KCC’s own papers say that level of detail has not yet been provided in an acceptable form.

If the claim is that a Reform-led KCC can keep the library at Grace Hill without busting the council tax cap, then the public deserves to see the working — not just the rhetoric.

The Shepway Vox Team

Not Owned By Hedgefunds or Barons