Folkestone Library: The Rise, Decline and Fight to Save Grace Hill’s Grade II Listed Landmark

Grace Hill is not just a building with books. It is a piece of Folkestone’s civic identity: a red-brick landmark, Grade II listed, built in the late Victorian period (Historic England dates it to 1886–1888) and commonly described as first opening in 1888.

And yet, today, it stands shut — the town centre library service displaced, the historic building caught between decay, public anger, and the cold arithmetic of property budgets. Kent County Council (KCC) now says reopening Grace Hill would require capital works of about c£2.9m, and that it cannot justify that spend.

At KCC’s Growth, Environment and Transport committee this week, the message from the top table was simultaneously blunt and oddly hopeful: the council is moving ahead with disposal plans — but the paper itself also states KCC “remains open to viable and deliverable alternatives”.

That tension — between “we’re selling” and “we’re still open” — is now the whole story.

A Victorian library with modern problems

The building’s historic importance isn’t romantic nostalgia; it is an operating constraint. Because Grace Hill is Grade II listed, repairs are not like-for-like with a standard modern unit: you do not simply “do the roof” and get on with it. KCC’s own closure FAQ explains that listed status pushes up cost and complexity (specialist access, like-for-like works in places, restoring damaged features).

That, however, cuts both ways. A listed civic building is exactly the sort of asset a council is meant to steward carefully — and that is where the anger begins.

Campaigners and former staff have told locals for years that the conditions were deteriorating well before the doors finally shut. Those accounts are hard to document from public records alone — but by December 2018 the problem was publicly visible.

In a widely shared piece that month, The Shepway Vox Team reported that the library had deteriorated so badly that buckets were being used due to roof leaks, with damp getting into the building — while, politically, Conservatives were pressing ahead with library savings.

The crucial point is what happened next: patching.

Folkestone Library was not “fixed” in the sense residents meant. It was kept going — and, as later events suggest, the underlying water-ingress problem never truly went away.

2022: closure, mould — and the moment Folkestone lost its town-centre library

KCC’s own documents say Grace Hill was temporarily closed in December 2022, after conditions inside the building (especially damp and mould from water leaks) became a staff health and safety issue, with concerns about electrics and wider safety.

At that point, KCC publicly put a repair estimate on the table: around £1.8m (at the time), with a long list of works: roof drainage, windows, internal mould treatment, replastering, restoration of ornate features, and more.

Then the number got worse.

KCC’s more recent decision paper states the costs were later established at c£2.9m, and are still considered realistic — explicitly linking the figure to the level of capital required to reopen and the fact the building continues to deteriorate while shut.

This escalation matters because it reframes the argument. It is no longer “repair versus neglect”. It is “repair costs rise while we argue”.

2023: petition, committee debate

By spring and early summer 2023, residents were no longer waiting politely.

A public petition lead by the public face of The Shepway Vox Team called on KCC to “fix Folkestone library and re-open it”. It ran from 28 March to 29 June 2023. In KCC’s own reporting, it attracted 3,647 signatures, triggering a petition debate at the Growth, Environment & Transport committee on 26 September 2023 (Agenda Item 156).

The ACV listing — what it does, and what it doesn’t

By July 2023, Folkestone & Hythe District Council listed Grace Hill as an Asset of Community Value (ACV).

For residents, an ACV can sound like a protective shield. In reality it is a pause button, not a guarantee.

KCC’s own committee papers set out the key effect in plain language: once a notice of intention to dispose is issued, there is an initial six-week moratorium, and (if a community group registers interest) a six-month moratorium during which disposal is restricted — but KCC is not obliged to accept a community bid at the end.

So yes: the ACV process gives breathing space. But it does not compel salvation.

The September 2023 petition debate

Campaigners presented their case to KCC’s committee in September 2023. KCC’s directorate response acknowledged the building’s condition problems, the temporary closure, and the strength of feeling locally.

Crucially, the response also recorded KCC’s position in a sentence campaigners have clung to ever since: “all options remain open, including the possibility of reopening Grace Hill Library if suitable external funding is secured.” 

And here is the important correction to the public narrative:

Although Creative Folkestone later became central to the rescue conversation, it was not part of the September 2023 petition presentation. At that stage, the committee debate was driven by the lead petitioner and the Save Our Library campaign — with Creative Folkestone’s formal involvement coming later.

That distinction matters, because it changes how the story is judged: this was not a ready-made institutional rescue put to KCC in 2023 and casually waved away. The “big proposal” took time to develop — and by the time it did, KCC’s policy direction had hardened.

The law KCC cannot shrug off: the 1964 Act, and the “Section 10” backstop

Libraries are not a discretionary “nice to have”. They are a statutory local authority service.

Under the Public Libraries and Museums Act 1964, councils must provide a “comprehensive and efficient” library service for everyone wishing to use it.

And then comes the part many residents don’t know exists — the one you asked to be made clear:

Section 10: the Secretary of State’s “superintendence”

Section 10 of the 1964 Act gives the Secretary of State a supervisory role over local library provision. In broad terms, it allows intervention where there is a complaint that a library authority is failing in its duties — including the power to order an inquiry and then direct the authority. (Perhaps Tony Vaughan MP might have a word with the SoS)

This isn’t a magic wand. But it is not nothing either. In plain English: if a council’s decisions are alleged to hollow out library provision to the point it is no longer “comprehensive and efficient”, there is a statutory escalation route beyond local politics.

KCC will argue it is still providing a service — through temporary provision and nearby branches. Its latest decision paper lists interim measures such as “Heritage and Digital Access” at 5 Grace Hill, extended hours at Wood Avenue and Hythe, additional public computers, and alternative ways to access services.

The legal argument therefore becomes a practical one: is what Folkestone has had since 2022 genuinely “comprehensive and efficient” for a town centre — or is it a prolonged holding pattern?

2024–2026: consultation, “discounted” options, and the path to disposal

KCC ran an eight-week public consultation in 2024 on Folkestone Library’s future.

In January 2025, KCC’s key decision discounted options where it would keep responsibility for maintaining and repairing Grace Hill — explicitly acknowledging this “will very likely require” disposal to a third party.

From there, the council narrowed to two broad tracks:

1. Exit Grace Hill and secure an alternative town-centre location for a full library and registration service; and/or

2. Dispose/lease the building in a way that could, potentially, still allow space for library services — but without KCC carrying the long-term repair liability.

And then came the “open marketing” process.

KCC says it deliberately went beyond the strict minimum required by ACV law by running an open marketing process “in the interests of ensuring parity.” That marketing ran for over seven months and closed on 31 October 2025.

Only one proposal was received.

Creative Folkestone’s proposal — and why KCC says it failed

KCC’s paper records the essentials of Creative Folkestone’s proposal:

• a partnership vision integrating the building into the “Creative Campus” and restoring it as a multi-use cultural hub;

• an indicated intention to raise c£6.5m in external grant funding (as part of a wider £10m package);

• a request for 18 months to raise funds;

• library service on the ground floor, with creative/community uses elsewhere.

KCC’s critique, however, is very specific — and it goes to the heart of why councils default to “no” when proposals are inspirational but incomplete.

The paper says the proposal did not set out key legal/contractual and financial details (ownership structure, terms, rent or capital payment), leaving KCC unable to assess compliance with its duties on disposing of land and obtaining best consideration.

KCC also notes the building’s “hold costs” at c£100k per year, and says granting a further 18-month period would leave the council exposed to those costs while deterioration continues.

The conclusion in the paper is blunt: the proposal “does not align” with KCC’s January 2025 decision, especially on relinquishing maintenance liabilities, and does not provide sufficient confidence for the council to accept the risk.

So what happens now?

KCC’s preferred option is to confirm the library and registration service will operate from 14 Sandgate Road “for the foreseeable future”, and to proceed to open market disposal in Q4 2025/26 (Feb 2026) to secure a capital receipt and minimise ongoing hold costs.

That is the cliff edge locals fear: a landmark sold, then left empty because restoring a Grade II listed building requires deep pockets and the patience of a saint.

The missing “one page” the public deserves

KCC has produced a lot of paper. But there is still a very simple comparison residents rarely see set out cleanly:

• the real, full cost of 14 Sandgate Road (lease, fit-out, operating costs, long-term liabilities), side-by-side with

• a phased approach to Grace Hill (what it would take to make it safe and watertight first, then improve over time), with clear service impacts and timescales.

KCC’s documents justify why Grace Hill is financially difficult, and why the council thinks the £2.9m cannot be justified.
But if KCC wants Folkestone to accept a decision of this cultural magnitude, it needs to make the arithmetic feel transparent — not just technically available.

Otherwise, distrust fills the gaps.

So, is the door closed?

Not officially. Not even in KCC’s own words.

At today’s Growth, Environment & Transport Committee, Cabinet Member for Finance Cllr Brian Collins made it unmistakably clear that the door is not yet closed. During the one hour and forty-minute debate, he reiterated three separate times that “the door is open” and “there is still time for people to come forward” before the proposed disposal — likely by auction in February 2026. His repeated emphasis suggests that, despite the trajectory towards sale, there remains a narrow but genuine window for a credible community or partnership proposal to alter the course of events.

The current decision paper explicitly leaves space for a future rethink — including the possibility that a future purchaser could make provision for library service space later, and stating that KCC “remains open to viable and deliverable alternatives” as part of ongoing asset management.

That is not the same as a promise. But it is an admission that this story is not over — and that Folkestone still has leverage, if it can convert outrage into a deliverable plan.

 I believe in miracles — and hope is not dead (but time is short)

It should not take a miracle to keep a Victorian library alive in a modern seaside town. It should take maintenance done early enough that “buckets on the floor” never becomes normal, and leadership honest enough to say: we let it slide, now it costs a fortune.

Folkestone is now staring at the hardest version of the decision: do we lose the building to the market, on the chance that a buyer will love it enough to revive it — or do we force a different outcome while the council still has agency?

KCC should have a serious rethink — not a sentimental one, but a practical one. If the door is “not closed”, then prove it. Publish the side-by-side costs in plain English. Spell out what would make a proposal “sufficiently certain”. Give the town a genuine route to meet the council’s tests — rather than a test the town only discovers it has failed after the fact.

Because once Grace Hill is sold, the public argument doesn’t end — it just becomes a much lonelier conversation, held through locked doors, about a building that used to belong to everyone.

The Shepway Vox Team

The Velvet Voices of Voxatiousness