Margate: Oh dearie, dearie me...

[SteveC]

Well, I haven't time to argue, but the Turner was well under way long ago, when Dreamland was still open. It's part of someone's dream, and I think both can work together. I don't have a problem with the idea, just the architecture (which may be better in the reality).

No, I agree with most of what you've said there.

As per my original comments, I was aware Margate had slipped into decline... I just wasn't aware of just how grim it really is, until I popped down the other Saturday and had a proper look at it close up.

This shocked me to the extent that I felt the need to dig a little deeper in the hope of finding out just why it is a town like Margate has ended up in such a sorry state, and the more I've dug, the more I've found contradictions and flawed thinking from those in a position to know / do better, some of which I've posted up the conflicting links to in here for all to see.

So I hope you can appreciate that the abrasive tone of the posts I've made to date with regards to the long running saga of the Turner Centre in relation to the plight of Dreamland and indeed Margate itself aren't designed to create new divisions or widen existing ones.

They're merely here to, (in the face of what would at best appear to be a history of 'smoke and mirrors' and blinkeredness on the part of certain official factions), provoke thought in anyone who happens to be passing by and has an interest in Margate and just why it's in the sorry state it currently finds itself in, why said apparent blinkeredness in certain quarters is perhaps questionable at face value, and why it's about time certain factions started to fully embrace the idea of a rejuvenated Dreamland rather than openly dismissing it out of hand, as would appear to be the case given the recently reported flawed outburst of Councillor Ezekiel.

And yes, all power to those who could make a difference in said official bodies who are obviously striving to do so, at least the ones who understand Margate has a past worth preserving, enhancing and investing in, and that rejuvenation doesn't necessarily mean the place has to ignore said past and completely reinvent itself...

With regards to your comments on compulsory purchase orders etc, I bow to your obvious wider experience in this field.

The link I referred to which set me off on that particular tangent is this one: http://www.go-se.gov.uk/gose/planning/planningCasework/cpo/

"Advantages of CPOs

CPOs can help bring about urban regeneration, the revitalisation of communities and the promotion of business - leading to improvements in quality of life. Examples of this include where:

* a local authority wishes to carry out a comprehensive redevelopment of an area where there are a number of separate landowners

* or where a property has fallen into disrepair and it seems unlikely that the owner intends to refurbish it"

Point two would appear to be a valid one given the park has stood empty and in a state of disrepair for some time now... with the site of the arcade owned by the same person along the seafront having now stood empty for the bulk of the nigh on six years since it burned down... which doesn't bode well for the Dreamland site really, does it.

The site goes on to then say the following:

"Local authorities are therefore encouraged to consider using their compulsory purchase powers wherever appropriate to ensure real gains are brought to residents, and the business community, without delay."

I don't think you need to be a fan of amusement parks to appreciate that Margate was a better place when it had a reasonably well invested in amusement park at its heart?

Your point regarding finances... yet again I refer you back to the Turner Centre scenario.

As I have already pointed out, money has been sourced to finance the centre from unaffiliated bodies such as SEEDA.

Had the council not owned the car park / surrounding land upon which the Turner Centre is being built, do you think that would have stopped that project coming to fruition given the amount of enthusiasm the council has had for it to date?

There is no reason that the council couldn't / wouldn't have purchased the land for that particular project; the land had and still has a market value which the council could have achieved had it decided to sell the land on, ergo the land is still a cost which they have effectively borne.

There is no reason that money to finance the purchase and rejuvenation of the Dreamland site couldn't be sought from sources of the nature of SEEDA as part of any overall scheme proposed for the site.

There is no reason why the land, once secured by the council could not then be leased back to whoever rebuilds Dreamland for the specific purpose of returning it back to its original purpose, as in that of an amusement park, assuming the council needed to balance its books in the longer term, although one would hope the extra revenue generated by visitors to the area drawn in by both the Turner Centre, a rejuvenated Dreamland and in fact a surrounding area brought back up from its knees in part by both projects, would be paying for itself and then some by way of said extra revenue.

Remember... approx two million visitors drawn in to the area in part by Dreamland in times gone by... some of them actually spent money on more than candy floss and donkey rides.

There is therefore, no reason why money to complete the compulsory purchase of Dreamland couldn't be factored into any plans to rejuvenate the site by way of its rightful purpose in life should it prove necessary, and a Dreamland supported by a fully engaged and interested council which just happened to also own the site upon which it sits would be a far more secure one than has been proven to be the case in the last decade.

[EAS]

Dreamland has not stood empty or derelict for years, it was operating in some form until a few summers' ago, and the cinema closed (off the top of my head) end of 2007? All the while the owners were putting forward plans for the site, consulting the public etc. It's hardly the stuff of a CPO.

At one stage thay appeared to have come to an agreement to sell the site to another developer but that fell through.

http://www.bdonline.co.uk/story.asp?sec ... de=3096192


But I have, over a considerable period of time, gone through all this on this site. Thanet council cannot be blamed for all the ills of Margate. It does not have the vast powers (or indeed the cash) some seem to think it has.

No idea why Coun Ezekiel made his outburst, that's for him to explain, but the council is working as a partner with the idea of the Dreamland Heritage Park, as indeed is the regeneration agency. But nothing can happen overnight.

Thanet has an agreed Development Brief for the site, adopted after wide public consulatation. It says there has to be an amusement park on at least half the site.

The law on CPO's changed relatively recently, but I still cannot see on what grounds Thanet would really have been able to justify a CPO. And believe me, it's not a simple matter, and a lost public inquiry or legal challenge could also cost the council vast sums too.

Even following the Scenic fire, a CPO is a long way from being simple as the plans to repair are apparently going ahead. Only if it all goes pear shaped would they have any reason to to CPO the Scenic. I can point you to legal cases wher a council has lost under similar circumstances.

Godden's Gap is another matter, which you may be better advised asking Thanet Council. However, the building is gone, and as long as the site isn't a danger, there's often not a lot the council can do, people are entitled to 'peaceful enjoyment' of their own property, (Human Rights Act).

We may consider that an amusement park is what Margate needs, but of course others may have thought that the 'mixed use development' originally proposed for the site, and which is the sort of thing happening in other places, was a better bet.

Funding is currently being sought for Dreamland. It has already received thirty grand in a government Sea Change grant for plans, feasibility studies etc. the major funding applications are about to happen very soon. You can't apply for public funds until you have plans, a sound business plan, etc. A private owner can't apply for public funding either.

Nothing is ever quick and as simple as you seem to think. Councils can only act within the law and within agreed policies, which have been drawn up and put out for public consulatation.

On the morning of Thursday 5 March, Nick Laister attended the Urban Panel's site visit to Dreamland. Nick presented the Trust's vision for the site and answered questions from Panel members. He then joined Susan Marsh and Sarah Vickery for a Meeting of the Trustees of the Dreamland Trust at the Walpole Bay Hotel in Cliftonville.

At midday, the Dreamland Client Group (The Dreamland Trust, Margate Town Centre Regeneration Company, Margate Renewal Partnership) and their advisers (The Prince's Regeneration Trust, Levitt Bernstein Architects, Locum Consulting) presented their proposals for a Heritage Amusement Park at Dreamland to the Board of the Margate Renewal Partnership (MRP) at the Margate Media Centre.


The support of the Board is essential if the project is to be delivered, as it requires 'buy-in' from the key stakeholders in the town and south east region. Roland Jeffery of the Prince's Regeneration Trust opened the presentation and he was followed by Nick Laister, who set out the Dreamland Trust's vision for a "thrilling theme park from the past", with a slideshow showing why the proposal will be a unique visitor attraction of international importance. Nick was followed by short presentations on the business plan from David Geddes of Locum Consulting and the masterplan/architectural designs by Mark Lewis of Levitt Bernstein Architects. The MRP Board is chaired by Pam Alexander (Chief Executive of SEEDA). Other Board members present included Victoria Pomery (Project Director, Turner Contemporary); Dr Andrew Brown (Planning & Development Director for South East, English Heritage) and Richard Samuel (Chief Executive, Thanet District Council).

[SteveC]

Dreamland has not stood empty or derelict for years

The park officially closed in 2003... and has sporadically had little use since.

Coming up for six years since the rot first set in then, in other words.

That is, if you discount the way in which the park appeared to be systematically eroded in terms of the quantity and quality of the rides it had on offer over a period of years before then, of course.

it was operating in some form until a few summers' ago, and the cinema closed (off the top of my head) end of 2007?

The cinema did indeed close after the rest of the park... which had stood essentially empty bar the Scenic Railway for 'some time' at this point, by which point the rot had more than settled in with regards to the rest of the park.

All the while the owners were putting forward plans for the site, consulting the public etc.

Like the plan detailed in this link covering the sale of the site in 2005, you mean?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/kent/4340993.stm

If the article is accurate, it was made clear at the time of the sale, (a sale by the owner to a company of which it would appear said original owner is a major shareholder - hardly a 'new broom sweeping through', in other words), of the site some four years ago that the intention was to redevelop it with housing, hotels and restaurants.

More to the point, if you read the comments offered up therein by the Chairman of the MTCRC, you can see that the Scenic Railway was already being considered as something of a possible inconvenience in the grand scheme of redevelopment things...

It's hardly the stuff of a CPO.

I'll quote the relevant GO-SE statements again...

"or where a property has fallen into disrepair and it seems unlikely that the owner intends to refurbish it

Local authorities are therefore encouraged to consider using their compulsory purchase powers wherever appropriate to ensure real gains are brought to residents, and the business community, without delay."

It has been obvious for 'some time' that the site has been falling into a state of disrepair overall.

The cinema may well have been open, but the building could have perhaps benefitted from being better maintained in recent years.

The rest of the site has been left to rack and ruin for a lot longer and besides, the Scenic Railway is listed in its own right and any action needed in relation to this was not and is not dependent on whether or not the the cinema is still operating and / or in a good state of repair.

The point is, despite your assertion that various plans and consultations have taken place over the last few years with regards to the site, nothing solid has actually happened, with the momentum now gathering thankfully to reverse this and much to the apparent disgust of Councillor Ezekiel.

I'll therefore offer up the theory that more could have been done on the part of the council to at least limit the damage that has been done to the town by way of the systematic erosion and destruction of an asset such as Dreamland, that is if the council had not been so distracted and apparently fixated with the Turner Centre project amongst other things.

At one stage thay appeared to have come to an agreement to sell the site to another developer but that fell through.

http://www.bdonline.co.uk/story.asp?sec ... de=3096192.

A developer commissioning architects to produce proposed plans for a site means nothing until they actually own the site, have full planning permission for what it is they'd like to develop the site into, and actually start work on the site.

But I have, over a considerable period of time, gone through all this on this site. Thanet council cannot be blamed for all the ills of Margate.

Of course it can't be blamed for all of Margates ills.

But it could have done more to date to sort out the mess with regards to Dreamland.

It does not have the vast powers (or indeed the cash) some seem to think it has.

Yes... I mean obtaining funding for such projects is way beyond it, and the Turner Centre has therefore been funded completely in its entirety by Thanet Council who perhaps become just a little fixated with it 'beyond and above all others' and haven't then worked with other agencies to secure funding from said agencies and other official bodies beyond to make it happen... hasn't it?

I'm questioning, as I've clearly pointed out elsewhere in this thread, why it is it's apparently taken Thanet Council to get its act together with regards to Dreamland.

No idea why Coun Ezekiel made his outburst, that's for him to explain, but the council is working as a partner with the idea of the Dreamland Heritage Park, as indeed is the regeneration agency. But nothing can happen overnight.

No, but more could have been done in the six years since the park first officially closed to ensure both it and the area surrounding its progress down the slippy slope of dilapidation was slowed, if not completely halted.

Thanet has an agreed Development Brief for the site, adopted after wide public consulatation..

This is the development plan that Thanet Council agreed some five years after the park first officially closed its doors, two years after the 'new' owner of the site unveiled proposals to redevelop the site with housing, hotels, shops and restaurants, yes?

The same plan which we're now fast approaching the second anniversary of its publication, and which the leader of the council concerned has within the last month uttered comments which directly conflict with those which they uttered in relation at the time of the publication of said development plan, and not in a positive way with regards to Dreamland, yes?

Yes... I can see how it is that the council has moved with reasonable speed on this one.

Oh, and the more I read up on articles relating to the site over the past few years, the more I find myself laughing out loud at some of the comments made by the Chairman of MTCRC - the man should consider a career in politics given some of the gems he's offered up at various times as reasoning for the redevelopment of the park into something that isn't in keeping with its past.

[EAS]

The point is - this is a very long running saga, with many twists and turns, and we are hopefully coming to the point where all are now working together for a successful outcome for Dreamland.

The site was very recently to be sold to Paigle Properties, but the company did not buy and, indeed, like so many others in recent times, went bust.

There's a great deal which could be said to fill in more of the background, but I haven't the time or the inclination.

The Scenic (listed because of the efforts of Nick Laister) was running also until recent times, and as I stated repeatedly here, I would not have considered that it was in such a state of dereliction that any CPO could be considered on that either, until the fire. But then I have had many years' of involvement with historic buildings and a deep knowledge of the problems with regard to repair orders, back to back agreements, etc. Possibly you are new to all of this? What sounds fine in theory after a bit of googling, isn't always as simple to those who have been in the thick of things for a long time.

The legal situation, especially with CPO's, isn't always as simple as you seem to think, not all is black and white, as anyone ever involved with other campaigns (and indeed listed buildings law) and national policy can testify. The law on CPO's changed recently, and it also differs where listed structures are concerned. A long knowledge of case law and public inquiry, legal challenge etc outcomes would suggest that given the wider circumstances (and the Human Rights Act) a CPO would have been a very dodgy thing to embark on for Dreamland (pre-fire) even if the council considered it desirable. I point out that the site owners are possibly not naive where the law is concerned, either.

A developer commissioning architects to produce proposed plans for a site means nothing until they actually own the site, have full planning permission for what it is they'd like to develop the site into, and actually start work on the site.

But the developer at that time did own the site, and still now does. And actually yes, in planning terms, actively drawing up plans for a future use would be counted if any consideration of a CPO was in the offing! The site wasn't simply abandoned.

Local authorities do not have the over-arching powers you seem to think, nor the cash either.

However, as clearly you don't believe me, I suggest that you now take matters up with Thanet Council. I have no doubt it will be pleased to answer all your quieries, including its financial and other involvement with the Turner Centre. I don't think that the Turner had any difficulties with a resistant site owner, who had other ideas about what he wished to do with his own property.

Coun Ezekiel is not Thanet Council, and any utterances made by him as an individual possibly do not reflect the views, policies and aspirations of the council as a body.

Compulsory Purchase is only one of the tools available to local authorities to assist in supporting required interventions, it is usually done as part of a wider initiative and will only be used when all other negotiations have been exhausted.

Compensation for those affected
Anyone whose land is acquired by Compulsory Purchase will be compensated for the loss of their property.

The rules of compensation are complex, but as a general principle, no owner should be worse off as a result of compulsory purchase.

I sent this thread to a friend who is also very much involved at national level with legal issues, listed buildings, and has appeared at many an inquiry (esp where CPO's are concerned) and he agrees with me - no real grounds for a CPO at all, not in the past for the site, and not at the moment, when plans are moving on for the repair of the Scenic, a future for the presumably 'wind and watertight' cinema, etc, and unless they do not come to fruition, then still no grounds at this present time.

[dave771]

Can I just step in here and point out that the forum is not here for you to argue about who knows best regarding CPO's. You say in your post EAS that you haven't the time or the inclination to go into further detail so if that is the case can you just leave it as it is. If the council decide at any time that CPO on the Dreamland site is an option then that will be their decision. Could we possibly use all this energy to discuss positvie things such as the Plans that were revealed on Sunday and the fantastic turn out and level of support there has been. There has been major news coverage of the event which should be on the news page over the weekend.

Dave

[EAS]

Em - maybe Dave the forum is the place to discuss issues raised and try to put them in context? Is that not the case? Otherwise what is the forum for? I think this is a serious point which requires some answer, and I don't see anyone else providing one?

Which is what I have tried to do, and have consulted others with expertise, not say 'who knows best',although at the moment I have little time, simply to point out that some of us actually do have considerable experience, and pointing fingers of blame at Thanet is possibly unfair. The legal ins and outs of a CPO are not straightforward. I have no idea what wider experience Steve has of these.

As I said, the the future is now what is important.

[dave771]

I really cannot be bothered to argue, im just asking that one topic does not get used as somewhere for you and another member to go over the same thing constantly. There is a private messaging option that maybe you could use if you want to continue this further if it is a topic you want to discuss with another member.

[EAS]

I think Dave this campaign is going to lose one very committed member if you carry on harping on site at me like this.

I think this is serious and interesting issue which others may be interested in, if you don't think so, so be it.

No reason why censorship should prevail, I don't think the thread or the posts in it fail the forum rules, not as far as I can see. There is nothing either to prevent anyone else adding their opinion or expertise.

The person quoted in my post above is a campaign member also, but hasn't time to devote adding to the post. He has given his professional opinion to share here.

[Nick]

My view is that EAS and SteveC should continue to debate CPOs if they wish to do so. This is a subject that may interest some members and, as long as nothing too personal is posted about any specific person, or anything abusive or offensive, it should be allowed to continue.

[EAS]

I'm still wondering what a forum is for if not discussions...

[Vince, Charlie and Sam]

I really cannot be bothered to argue, im just asking that one topic does not get used as somewhere for you and another member to go over the same thing constantly. There is a private messaging option that maybe you could use if you want to continue this further if it is a topic you want to discuss with another member.

I agree with this although I will not be critical of the OP as Dave771 has had to moderate me before

[erclairedoc]

I think this topic is living up to its name very well , oh dearie, dearie me.

There is a difference between a good forum discussion and what seems to be in this case, flooding. I find it hard work trawling through posts full of quotes and then responses. Don't get me wrong, I like peoples opinions and if CPOs are included, please make it light so that all can understand. Not all of us are 'in the know' about council procedures etc. CPOs may be worthy of debating but we are not at that stage with the Dreamland site. Let's respond to the 'Margate oh dearie me' attitude by talking about all the new plans. They are real and Margate can look forward to what lies ahead.

[EAS]

You know, you don't have to read it... it's not obligatory... and if some of us do want to debate the issues and have some insight, why not?

One of the points made by the OP was that Thanet should have CPO'd the whole site long ago. The point I was making was that it really isn't so simple...

Sorry, but there is no way to make a complex situation simple. And planning law and policy is complex.

[erclairedoc]

You have expressed your opinions EAS and I wanted to express mine so I have.

[EAS]

So - do we only have 'candy floss' discussions on this site?

Or are those of us who wish to debate serious issues no longer allowed to do so? Or only do so in private in order not to upset others?



Much of what is happening re Dreamland (and indeed its place in the wider regeneration of Margate) is serious stuff. It can't be trivialised, and nor do I see why it should be.

If you want people to take the campaign seriously, the serious issues need to be tackled.