Pleasureland summer 2007

Joyland Books is the home of themagiceye, the world's best loved amusement park history website. Discuss amusement parks past and present in themagiceye's very own forum.

Moderator: dave771

Pleasureland summer 2007

Postby kevin » 13 Apr 2007, 12:45

Worlds Fair 13/4:-

GROUND TO LET AT MAJOR UK RESORT

Sefton council would like to receive proposals to operate adult and childrens attractions in the classic seaside resort of Southport.

The council is looking for reputable operators for the following areas of the 'Pleasureland' site:

-The main Pleasureland Coach and Car Park

-Pleasureland Triangle Car Park

-Marine Drive Go Karts

-Casablanca FEC(?)/bar/restaurant

-Other areas may be available subject to site visit

Single or multi partner options considered.

Site available from spring bank holiday through summer holiday period.

Please contact:

Tony Corfield on 0151 934 2316

or at Sefton Tourism Department,
10 Portland Street,
Southport,
kevin
 
Posts: 135
Joined: 16 Mar 2006, 17:55
Location: essex

Postby troy » 13 Apr 2007, 22:23

It would be a considerably better proposition had BPL not razed the Cyclone ! Sefton owned it and let it be demolished !!!!
troy
 
Posts: 64
Joined: 01 Jun 2006, 19:20

Postby troy » 17 Aug 2007, 11:22

It seems that Sefton are now considering legal action against Pleasurebeach due to the condition they left Pleasureland in when they left..........

http://www.champnews.com:80/html/newsstory.asp?id=5964
troy
 
Posts: 64
Joined: 01 Jun 2006, 19:20

Postby EAS » 17 Aug 2007, 12:03

Oh I do hope so...
User avatar
EAS
 
Posts: 1886
Joined: 18 Sep 2006, 09:09
Location: North

Postby troy » 17 Aug 2007, 12:20

Take then to the cleaners and re-instate Cyclone would be a good start !

Without knowing the precise details of the lease I still cannot fathom how they had any authority to demolish Cyclone because as far as I was aware it was still owned by Sefton ? Or did Pleasurebeach have carte blanche to do what they wanted with it ? If that's the case I still hold Sefton responsible for granting such a lease where it wasn't necessary. One small clause in it would have been all that was needed to protect the rides on site.

Which brings me to another question. Who gave the old KSMines and Caterpillar to Dreamland, Sefton or Pleasurebeach ? I'm guessing Sefton as surely Pleasurebeach didn't own these rides to give away ? I stand to be corrected however as nothing would surprise me in these murky dealings.

regards
troy
troy
 
Posts: 64
Joined: 01 Jun 2006, 19:20

Postby EAS » 17 Aug 2007, 12:44

I think in the end Sefton.

I also understand PBB had a pretty free hand regarding what it did on site. It did nothing illegal of course, in the destruction of Cyclone. While it leased the site I think it 'owned' whatever was on it.

PBB has absolute authority to do as it wishes at Blackpool also, apart from with the listed Casino building.

Ancient agreements still in force.
User avatar
EAS
 
Posts: 1886
Joined: 18 Sep 2006, 09:09
Location: North

Postby furie » 21 Aug 2007, 13:18

The land was leased, but not the 'property' on it. Cyclone had been owned by PBB Ltd. since it was built, so it was theirs to do what they liked with it.

However, I think that there's a difference between just "ground", and ground which is fit for purpose. I don't know the exact ins and outs, but I assume that the standing structures were all Blackpool's, but the infrastructure (water, electrics, drainage), pathways, etc all belong to the lease itself.

So it's on that basis the suit can go ahead. If it doesn't, I think it's safe to assume that the lease isn't clear on what is "lease property" and what belonged to the owners of the lease.

It is safe to say that structures on site belonged to the owners, though anything left on site after the lease expired was deemed to belong to the new leaseholders (Sefton).
Furie and the lop-eared lagomorphs of Lucifer
Image
Failed to Save the Cyclone :(
furie
 
Posts: 174
Joined: 12 Jun 2006, 14:03

Postby EAS » 21 Aug 2007, 17:49

You sure about Cyclone?

I think when built it was the council in charge of the site still, pre-war.
User avatar
EAS
 
Posts: 1886
Joined: 18 Sep 2006, 09:09
Location: North

Postby furie » 22 Aug 2007, 10:43

I was under the impression it was built by PBB though, so they still owned the ride. In the same way the Mountain Caterpillar and Scenic weren't owned by the council.

The way I understood it was that the council allowed showmen to use the land for their rides. As long as the rides fitted in with the council's view of the site, then they could build and remove what they liked.

If the council had paid for the construction of the ride, I could understand them owning it, but as it was paid out of Blackpool's pocket, then you can understand them being the owners.

I may be wrong though...
Furie and the lop-eared lagomorphs of Lucifer
Image
Failed to Save the Cyclone :(
furie
 
Posts: 174
Joined: 12 Jun 2006, 14:03

Postby EAS » 22 Aug 2007, 22:50

I think the person with the answer may be the one who wrote Pleasureland Memories...
User avatar
EAS
 
Posts: 1886
Joined: 18 Sep 2006, 09:09
Location: North

Postby Bob » 05 Sep 2007, 17:44

troy wrote:Take then to the cleaners and re-instate Cyclone would be a good start !

Without knowing the precise details of the lease I still cannot fathom how they had any authority to demolish Cyclone because as far as I was aware it was still owned by Sefton ? Or did Pleasurebeach have carte blanche to do what they wanted with it ? If that's the case I still hold Sefton responsible for granting such a lease where it wasn't necessary. One small clause in it would have been all that was needed to protect the rides on site.

Which brings me to another question. Who gave the old KSMines and Caterpillar to Dreamland, Sefton or Pleasurebeach ? I'm guessing Sefton as surely Pleasurebeach didn't own these rides to give away ? I stand to be corrected however as nothing would surprise me in these murky dealings.

regards
troy


The land was owned by the council. Everything else was owned by Pleasurebeach. I would think the council would have little to no grounds to take action against the company. I doubt the company in anuy case exists anymore. I am not certain but I think Pleasure Beach was a wholly owned subsiderry company which has now been wound up so there is probably no one to sue in any case.
Bob
 
Posts: 509
Joined: 30 Nov 2003, 21:21

Postby EAS » 05 Sep 2007, 21:31

Please support what you say with something other than speculation, Bob.

I don't think you are entirely correct.
User avatar
EAS
 
Posts: 1886
Joined: 18 Sep 2006, 09:09
Location: North

Postby coxy » 13 Sep 2007, 22:22

it a big waste
coxy
 
Posts: 5
Joined: 13 Sep 2007, 22:00


Return to themagiceye: Amusement Parks Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 23 guests

cron