The Fence

[Jim Douglas Jr.]

That sounds logical. Well stated.

I wish I could get a better look at the site in person.

[Chris H]

I have a website that will show you an aerial view of the dreamland site last summer this might well be of use to you

Please follow instructions:

www.Thanetlife.com
scroll down the page and on the right hand side of the page their is a link called thanet aerial photo library.
Click on this link
Once on this page scroll down to the bottom and click on the link called All His Sets
Once on this page scroll down and click on Dreamland Margate 2005

[Jim Douglas Jr.]

There it is.
Many thanks. Here's the direct link:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/drmoores/sets/386707/

Now I'm going to just say
JESUS H. is that all there is?!... and your national government hasn't stepped in to declare the whole thing a nationally protected place? Good freaking God.

I'm not freaking kidding. Start making a stink. Call Petula Clark. Call the Pet Shop Boys.

Here we have what's called eminent domain. The government can and will basicly force purchase of certain properties for desperately needed projects or to save historical and pre-historical sites (paying fair market value). Now I know you have a millenium longer history as a natoin than we do, but isn't Dreamland historicly significant? I should think so.
It could be county/district owned, fixed up properly, then leased to operators for a nominal fee.
This becomes a win/win situation and everyone benefits.

THIS, MY FRIENDS, IS YOUR NEW DIRECTION.

[Neil]

The scary thing is that I don't think anyone here knows what the purpose of the fencing is/was.
Does anyone know.

Well the fence was originally put up when they were applying for planning permission to knock down those 5 buildings. If the words of Bob are correct then Waterbridge were so confident they would get approval they erected the fence so the amusement park could 'safely' operate one site while demolishion happened to other. Ofcourse this kind of fits, but it it is genuinely true it beggars the question why couldn't they make do with something more temporary? There seems to be more than meets the eye to this, but it now looks fairly likely that it will have been dismantled by the summer which is positive. I suppose the important thing is to keep our ears open for an application and object like hell if one is submitted.

[Jim Douglas Jr.]

It's like Waterbridge is pushing to see what they can get away with.

[Nick]

I have posted an update on the fence situation on the News page, along with a photograph from Paul Freeman showing how harmful it is to the Scenic Railway:

http://www.joylandbooks.com/scenicrailway/news.htm

Nick

[Sarah]

Having seen that photo of the Scenic Railway behind bars maybe should be booking a recording studio, banding together and issuing our own version of Free Nelson Mandela.

God, it looks so sad. And judging by the positioning it's very thin people only this year on the Scenic (which cuts out the head honchos at Dreamland, so every cloud...)

Sarah

[porf]

It surprised me quite how bad it looked; that's pretty much why I took the photo as I hadn't imagined it looking that bad.

[lutonlad]

With the fence so close to the scenic railway it looks very hard for a que to form for the ride, or are they working on the pretense that there will be no ques for the ride as not many visitors will be attending this season.

Another idea is the fence anything to do with this years tenants, as the news pages state that work has already started to prepare the area for staged events etc, perhaps this is where it will take place?

Just an idea,

Gary

[Jim Douglas Jr.]

No no no. I think you're all jumping to conclusions.
You're assuming the Scenic would be operated this way.

These look like temporary protection. Perhaps there's some work that needs doing on the property and the fences are there to keep workers out or others if the site's going to have other points of access during the work.

No way to know until Waterbridge or the council (if they know) says something.

[porf]

Jim,

The Scenic is pretty much in the middle of the park, and I can't think of any work they would be doing that close to it.

The fences only went up just over a month ago.

The park should be opening in around 3 weeks.

The fences are properly concreted in.

I really don't think people are jumping to conclusions - from looking at the site I can't imagine the site owners removing the fences within the next 3 weeks unless forced to due to the lack of a planning application.

I'd love to be proved wrong however.

[Jim Douglas Jr.]

Thanks for the update on the permenance of the fence.
Looks like if they have to open it, they don't want to include the Scenic, which would really be a black mark on the park and a total downer for visitors.
This is another attempt to make the viability of the park look bad, by closing down the star attraction.


This copied from the main page so as not to have to go look at it. Comment follows.

The latest news from the Save Dreamland Campaign:

Monday, 20 March 2006
The Save Dreamland Campaign has received a response from Thanet District Council on the current status of the industrial-style fencing, erected across the front of the Scenic Railway and elsewhere on site without planning permission. The Campaign was informed in February that the Council had written to the owners, giving them 28 days in which to submit a retrospective planning application. The response from the Council states:

"A reminder letter has been sent to Dreamland advising they have a final 14 days within which to submit a planning application. Failure to comply with this instruction will result in the matter being referred to the Planning Committee for the Members to decide to take whatever action they deem necessary."

Wouldn't it ROCK if Waterbridge didn't comply and the council landed a HUGE fine on them or forced a sale to the district or city? We could only be so lucky.
No matter. They are thumbing their noses at the council by doing work there without the proper permits. The council SHOULD BE TAKING OFFENSE TO THIS AND TAKING IT SERIOUSLY.
The council should now have every reason to sway rezoning back in favor of Dreamland.
Unless someone local wants to do this, (Nick, Sarah?) I'll draft a letter to the council tonight. It might be good if several of us, including some locals, did this, just to let them know that we feel some kind of serious action should be taken and thattaking strong action would be a good way for the council to send a message to the people that the council really IS working for them.
Let me know what you think before I send anything. I can/will post it here before I send it.

[porterm]

I think this fence looks absolutely hideous and cannot see how on earth it can be conjucive to the "safe" operation of the Scenic Railway, as was previously inferred by the park owners, I believe.

The attraction has operated perfectly satisfactorary for the previous 85 years without such "protection" so I fail to understand why it has been erected for this purpose.

I really feel that some local media attention here would be very helpful for informing the general public to the current stance taken by the park for this upcoming season. (I have contacted the local TV news media but without much success to date). I will keep trying if it's deemed a useful exercise. Meanwhile, I'm sure we all eagerly await the Council's final verdict on this unplanned eyesore.

Martin

[Jim Douglas Jr.]

Dude, don't be fooled. The Scenic can't be operated this way. It's been fenced off on purpose. This is a clear message.

This permenant fence installation THIS CLOSE to a listed building without prior consent must certainly be a violation. They need to be confronted immediately.

That is one BIG, SOLID LOOKING FENCE. It's obviously there to keep an operator and the public out.

It's not an eyesore, it's an ABOMINATION.

I'd be on the phone to the local radio and TV stations and ring their lines until somebody listened to me and made a news story out of it.
I can't do it from over here, people.

[Nick]

The erection of the permanent fences without planning permission is not illegal. The owners have been given another 14 days to submit a planning application. If they fail to do so then the council is likely to take enforcement action. This will give them a set amount of time to remove the fence. If they fail to remove the fence within the time period set out in the enforcement notice, then it is a violation and the company is likely to be fined. There is a right of appeal if an enforcement notice is served, but if the appeal is dismissed, the fences will still have to be removed.

If they do submit an application within the 14 days, the application is likely to be refused. They would then need to remove the fences or an enforcement notice would follow.

I have no idea why the fences were erected, nor do I understand why they did not apply for planning permission, especially as they applied for another fence on the northern boundary of the site (which was refused). The fences do not prevent the Scenic Railway from operating, but they do seriously harm its setting, and should (in my view) be removed as soon as possible.

I suggest that we leave the officers to follow the necessary procedures at the moment, which they appear to be doing. But if/when it gets referred to councillors, we should make our views known at that time. We all therefore need to keep our eye on that, in particular committee agendas, so that we can ensure that any efforts we do make are appropriately timed.