Dreamland Trust Objection to Tesco/Arlington Hse Development

[porterm]

I just thought I'd pick up on the story posted on the "Latest News" page on this website, and also the previous item posted on 10 September 2011 which invited objections/comments to the above Tesco development plans.

I think it would be good for as many people here to voice their personal concerns with the proposals on the Arlington House site. I recently did so and have received an acknowledgement from Thanet District Council last week (they always seem good at doing this; I must praise them for that, despite me not being a real "local" person).

With the fairly recent Scenic Railway listing upgrade to Grade II* status I reckon this Tesco redevelopment proposal should be put under careful review. I stated that I did not consider a bland Tesco superstore to be a fitting backdrop to such an important listed building. Aside from the other factors, such as increased store delivery trucks and their associated enhanced noise effects, I still feel that there would be far better locations for such a development elsewhere in Margate.

Martin

[EAS]

Couldn't agree more, but objections / comments should be based on planning issues or they will be discounted.

The comments you have made are certainly ones which are relevant, and possibly the Dreamland Trust could give some pointers re the grounds on which it is objecting.

I also have been given to understand that the traffic report for the development is based on figures for Margate in October, hardly at its busiest?

As well as Dreamland Trust I gather there is wider opposition growing within Margate and also SAVE Britains Heritage www.savebritainsheritage.org is submitting an objection.

You don't have to be local to comment on planning issues.

Don't as yet know what Twentieth Century Society has to say, nor English Heritage, though I know a site visit has been made by EH. EH objection would add considerable weight, but Tesco is mighty, has vast amounts of cash to spend on appeals and inquiries.

It would be interesting to know who made the decision to employ Chris Miele of Montagu Evans to write a so-called independent report for Thanet and what his brief was. Ten grand to argue Tesco won't affect the setting of Dreamland's listed buidings?

He has been known to be wrong before, following public inquiries... Smithfield, Lancaster and the Young's Brewery Site, he's far from infallible, and I gather there are a number of inaccuracies in his report re Dreamland. Is there any record of him making a site visit before writing his report?

Also there is a listing application pending for Arlington House, but listing of post war buildings is very difficult to achieve, although I think Arlington House (and its wider surroundings, though I appreciate the very run down nature at the moment) is a good example from the period.

[EAS]

From Dreamland Trust website, I hope no-one objects to the cut n paste from there :


ARLINGTON SUPERSTORE IMPACT ON DREAMLAND

Posted on October 6, 2011 by dreamlandmargate

The Dreamland Trust will be objecting to the proposed plans to build a 7,565 square metre superstore on top of the existing multi-storey Arlington car park on the grounds of the impact the development will have on the setting of Dreamland site’s heritage assets; the Grade II* Cinema building, Grade II listed menagerie cages and the Grade II* listed Scenic Railway.

The application is being reconsidered by Thanet District Council following the decision by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport to upgrade the listing of the Scenic Railway from Grade II to Grade II*.

The Dreamland Trust will state that the proposed superstore is too big for the site. The metal-clad back wall of the superstore will dwarf Dreamland’s heritage assets, providing an overbearing and inappropriate backdrop to the group of listed structures and the amusement park that is being built around them.

In addition the 18TH century Gothick wall supporting the menagerie cages and cottage abutting the Arlington car park are fragile structures and building works may jeopardise their integrity.

The Princes Regeneration Trust’s assessment describes the wall as being in a very precarious condition; the cages in an unstable state and currently substantially held up by temporary propping. The lintels appear to have failed completely in the smaller cages with the triple arch head to the largest cage being dependent on propping.

Urgent works notices have been issued to prevent further deterioration to the listed structures until restoration work can begin. The Dreamland Trust submitted its £3m Stage 2 application to the Heritage Lottery Fund in July to restore the listed structures and to create a new visitor attraction for Margate – the world’s first amusement park of historic rides set in landscaped gardens with picnic areas, cafes, restaurants, retail, special events and festivals.

The Dreamland Trust points out that in addition to the proposed superstore development putting Sanger’s wall, menagerie cages and cottage at physical risk it will have a detrimental effect on the future amusement park’s visitor experience and the park’s commercial operation.

The Trust will also review and provide comments on the report on the impact of the superstore proposals on Dreamland’s listed buildings, produced by Chris Miele of Montagu Evans and funded by the developer.

Dreamland Trust Chairman Nick Laister states: “We have reviewed the expert report and this seems to largely rely on the fact that the setting of the Scenic Railway is already degraded. It fails to recognise that the park is to be rebuilt and that English Heritage has been closely involved in this project so was fully aware of it when advising that the listing of the Scenic Railway should be upgraded. We believe that this work needs to be reviewed in the knowledge that the setting of the Scenic Railway is not lost and is likely to be seriously undermined by this development.”

[EAS]

A full version is here:


(Worth reading the links on that post too)


http://arlingtonhousemargate.wordpress.com/

I hope no-one objects to me reproducing that blogpost in full:

Dreamland Trust have commented in response to the ‘independent’ TDC commissioned report written by Chris Miele. This Dreamland document will not be presented to the Planning Committee on Weds October 19th. Dr Miele’s report, however, will. This Dreamland Trust document has not been published by TDC along with other relevant documents, such as Miele’s report, for information on UK Planning.

We are informed by TDC that Dr Miele’s report is only an Agenda item and as such, public speaking or comment is not, according to the Council’s constitution, allowed.

Is the public and the Planning Committee to be denied access to the opinion of the expertise of the Dreamland Trust? Given the importance Dreamland is to Margate and it’s future?

Here is the response from Dreamland Trust to Dr Miele’s report sent to TDC 12th October 2011.


Planning Committee
Thanet District Council
Cecil Square
Margate
Kent
CT9 1XZ12 October 2011Dear Members


PLANNING APPLICATION REFERENCE NUMBER F/TH/10/1061 (ARLINGTON HOUSE & 1-50 ARLINGTON SQUARE, MARGATE CT9 1XP)

We understand that members are being updated on the application to build a 7,565 square metre superstore on top of the existing multi-storey Arlington car park in light of the recent upgrading of the listing status of the Scenic Railway. We are writing to formally object to the proposed plans on the grounds of the impact the development will have on the setting of Dreamland site’s suite of heritage assets: the recently upgraded Grade II* listed Scenic Railway, the Grade II* Cinema building, and the Grade II listed menagerie cages and we are also concerned about the potential harm to the fabric of the menagerie cages.

The proposed superstore is too big for the site. The metal-clad back wall of the superstore will dwarf Dreamland’s heritage assets, providing an overbearing and inappropriate backdrop to the group of listed structures and the landscaped amusement park that is being rebuilt around them.

We also question Dr Chris Miele’s report, Expert opinion on the proposed redevelopment of Arlington House and the effect on Heritage Assets, commissioned by Thanet District Council and (we understand) funded by the developers.

We consider Dr Miele’s report to be biased and factually inaccurate, and we question why the Council described the report in a recent press release as “independent”. For this report to be truly independent there needs to be evidence that there are no conflicts of interest.

Evidence that the report is not being written objectively can be found even in the introductory paragraphs, where he states at paragraph 1.12:

“The application site is in the setting of the following listed buildings which I have considered: the Grade II* Dreamland Cinema, Grade II animal cages and menagerie and the Scenic Railway already mentioned, now graded II*. The application site has been excluded from the Margate Conservation Area. Their exclusion from it is noteworthy and reflects, I assume, the degraded immediate setting of the listed structure and the menagerie/cages.”

His reference to “the application site” here should be to the Arlington site, but the following sentence states “their exclusion from it”, which suggests he is actually referring to the listed structures. If that is the case (and really he needs to explain which he is referring to), there can be no justification for stating that it is “noteworthy” that the structures are outside the conservation area and that the “degraded” setting may have contributed to it, unless he is laying the foundations for a report that is going to be diminishing their importance. In addition, he should have been aware that the conservation area was defined in 1997 when Dreamland was operating.

He also has not considered the potential for damage to the animal enclosures anywhere in his report. At first glance, he may have excluded this thinking that it had no relationship to the upgrading of the Scenic Railway. But damage to the enclosures, that could result in their partial or complete loss or damage, would undermine the Scenic Railway due to its strong connection to the enclosures (see 3.30 for his understanding of these functional and historic relationships).

The 18TH-century Gothick wall supporting the menagerie cages and cottage abutting the Arlington car park are fragile structures and building works may jeopardise their integrity. The Prince’s Regeneration Trust’s Conservation Management Plan (2010) describes the wall as being in a very precarious condition; the cages in an unstable state and currently substantially held up by temporary propping. The lintels appear to have failed completely in the smaller cages with the triple arch head to the largest cage being dependent on propping.

In 3.31 Dr Miele incorrectly suggests that English Heritage did not give great weight to the setting of the Scenic Railway because it is degraded and no longer functional (in fact, he states its setting is “lost”). He is obviously not aware of the fact that the park is to be rebuilt and that English Heritage has been involved in this project so is fully aware of it. This point significantly undermines his report and we would ask that he review his statement in the knowledge that the functional/historic setting of the Scenic Railway is not lost. This theme runs all the way through the report and we believe materially affects his overall conclusions.

He also mixes up his ‘wests’ and his ‘easts’, suggesting a lack of understanding of the site’s context (e.g. 4.18, 4.21).

His conclusions on rarity in 4.29 are completely wrong, again demonstrating that he was not properly briefed on our plans and seemingly unaware that English Heritage has been closely involved.

4.21 is wrong. The land to the east of the Scenic was always part and parcel of the Dreamland land holding and these views should be treated with equal importance (albeit part of it was leased to Margate FC for a few years at the time that the Scenic Railway was erected).

His second point in 4.22 is technically correct, but again does not take account of the development that will reinstate the Scenic’s original setting. Regarding his third point, the Scenic’s setting will be mediated by landscape in the future, but that landscape would not disguise the overbearing appearance of the rear of the shed. In 4.23 he admits he has not seen our landscape proposals, but he could have seen them on the Dreamland Margate website (www.dreamlandmargate.com) and in the Sea Change documentation. The Council should also have made him aware of this when he was briefed.

4.31 to 4.33 is very weak and almost doesn’t consider the effects of the new building at all, other than saying it is not actually on the site. It is in this section of his analysis that we would have expected to see some acknowledgement of impact.

Throughout the next few paragraphs he again relies continuously on the fact that the setting has been compromised (4.38 is yet another example of this).

In 5.2, we are not sure how his report allows him to conclude that the new building will not intrude on the aesthetic appreciation of the structure. Dr Miele appears to completely misunderstand the aesthetics of the Scenic Railway.

He refers to the technical and engineering aesthetic of the Scenic Railway as seen from an observer’s perspective. He does not discuss the aesthetics of riding the Scenic Railway from a passenger’s perspective and that is the point – the roller coaster is called the Scenic Railway because of the vista from the train, which is the unique selling point of the ride.

The scenery around the Scenic Railway is a fundamental part of the ride. Our Stage 2 application to the Heritage Lottery Fund describes the full restoration the Scenic Railway to its former working glory. If we are going to invite visitors to pay to ride the fully restored Scenic Railway to its former glory then we will be peddling a lie. Additionally, Thanet District Council’s application to the DCMS Sea Change fund for the reinstatement of Dreamland was granted with the condition that landscape architects led the project. Landscape is at the heart of the Dreamland project.

It is abundantly clear that the proposed large-scale superstore will have an adverse impact on the overall aesthetic of the park, its landscaped gardens and picnic areas. It puts at risk the Grade II listed menagerie cages, gothick wall and cottage and compromises the setting of the Grade II* Scenic Railway. This development will ultimately degrade the visitor experience.

We would also like to point out that it is the local authority’s stated aim to improve the setting of Dreamland’s listed structures and allowing this structure on the boundary of the site is directly contradictory to that aim.

Yours faithfully

Nick Laister
Chairman
For and on behalf of The Dreamland Trust

Cc Alan Byrne, Historic Buildings and Planning Advisor, English Heritage
Tom Foxall, Historic Buildings Inspector, English Heritage
Cherry Aplin, Assistant Planning Manager, TDC

[EAS]

http://www.thisiskent.co.uk/D-Day-Dream ... story.html

An interesting comment under that.

by MathewFermor

Friday, October 14 2011, 10:02AM
.
“"At the time we went to press, neither Thanet council nor Montagu Evans were able to say when Dr Miele visited the site. Dr Miele has not responded to the Gazette's questions".

Did he actually visit the site ? Or just churn out another of his pro-Tesco, anti-heritage reports. If he didn't visit the site (and having heard some of the shenanigans that have already gone on with TDC/Tesco/Montagu Evans/Freshwater, I wouldn't be surprised) then surely the last vestige of his report's credibility has disappeared without trace.

The plot thickens.”

Wonder why Chris Miele is being shy about talking to the press?

And why is EH not objecting strongly?

[EAS]

http://arlingtonhousemargate.wordpress. ... -drawings/

Looks like a huge mistake could have been made here... but hey,it's only four metres... sigh.

Just what every Scenic Railway needs, a view of a Tesco shed...

[EAS]

http://arlingtonhousemargate.wordpress. ... residents/


And oh look the threat of a legal challenge to the council... from Richard Buxton, who has a great deal of expertise in planning challenges...

[EAS]

That link also has letters to the council from Twentieth Century Society and Dreamland Trust...

[EAS]

@ArlingtonHsMarg

Dramatic scenes at Planning Committee. Cllr Everett called fr motion to refer Arlington app to Full Council. Motion carried! Public Interest

Twitter at around 8.10

[EAS]

And a little today earlier on Twitter:

@ArlingtonHsMarg Arlington House
Just had in an email from @englishheritage they seem to think superstore same height as existing carpark! Unbelievable.

@ArlingtonHsMarg Arlington House
So who wrote the press release for this? TDC, Freshwater or Tesco? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-15366188 pathetic


@ArlingtonHsMarg Arlington House
We've been told all along not seafront site that's why not worthy of Environmental Impact Assessment. Grr!


@ArlingtonHsMarg Arlington House
What a shoddy article from BBC News http://bbc.in/pdEVRR Not only about carpark! And what's this about revamped seafront?

[EAS]

@adwoodmanAndrew Woodman

RT by @ArlingtonHsMarg



Protestors against Margate Tesco Development stage silent protest at Thanet District Council - LIVE at http://bambuser.com/v/2059094

[EAS]

The setting of Heritage Assets, new advice from English Heritage

http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/publ ... ge-assets/

[EAS]

http://www.thisiskent.co.uk/Seafront-st ... story.html

Looks as though this could go to public inquiry...

[Jim Douglas Jr.]

Is Freshwater just a reconstituted Waterbridge?

Funny how they think the store will be the same height as the current structure, considering it's to be put on TOP of it.

Someone needs to make the Prince Charles Foundation people aware of this. They secured funding for Dreamland, right? They'd be most interested in knowing about this.

[EAS]

Well it's actually the Princes Regeneration Trust and they are very aware of this.

No, they didn't really secure the funding, though they were involved in plans.


There's an article in today's Building Design


http://www.bdonline.co.uk/news/eh-consi ... 19.article

Free to read on registration.


Not totally accurate. EH does not list buildings.

English Heritage is considering plans to list Margate’s Arlington House – a Russell Diplock-designed 18-storey brutalist apartment block in the town centre.

The building, which opened in 1964 as the first “park and buy” shopping and residential centre in the UK, has retained many of its distinguishing features including a Carrara marble lobby. Up to 30 of the 142 apartments still have their original 1960s interiors.

A decision by EH to recommend listed status could scupper plans by Arlington’s tenant Freshwater for a Tesco superstore on the site.

Architect 3DReid has drawn up plans for a superstore on the site of the building’s 4m-high car park, which if built would raise the roofline to 12m. But if the listing is granted it is unlikely these plans would go ahead as any development would have to maintain the original 1960s character.

Christina Malathouni, senior case worker at the Twentieth Century Society, criticised Tesco’s plans.

“We feel that what has been proposed does not reflect Arlington’s character,” she said. “The project was built to be architecturally significant, in particular the elevations are significant from the sea to Arlington House itself.”

And local conservation groups have also supported proposals to list the building, which they said was “an amazingly heroic way to enter the town”.

Louise Oldfield, chair of Margate Conservation Area Advisory Group, said: “The debate over Arlington House has galvanised the local population. People are now much more appreciative of the building and what it means to Margate than they were.”

“Arlington could be a beacon for a second wave of regeneration in Margate but there has never been any money spent on it,” Oldfield adds. “Perhaps it is time for a proper consultation or an architectural competition for an alternative vision for Arlington.”

Thanet Council planning committee members deferred the application until a full council meeting on December 8.