Joyland Books

Re: Latest news story. I can't see that anyone in the Save Dreamland Campaign is against Toby Hunter and MTCRC.
Personally, I am against any residential building on the Dreamland site, as I feel this would be detrimental to the overall possibilites that Dreamland has. The site is small anyway. This is my personal opinion.
I think the owners should think more of the overall effect, and think of who would want to live in such close proximity, if the park is going to be open in the evenings (as it should).
Dreamland has to have sufficient car parking, a big problem in the Margate area. Or perhaps they could negotiate with whoever owns thecarparking at Arlington flats, thats where the coaches always used to park.

I fully agree with those comments. As Nick said, most of our frustration has been with the Council for not listening to the views of either the Inspector or local opinion, after all, the Councillors are there to represent the local residents.

I personally don't think residential development is the way forward for the site, in any scale. The site is not THAT big, and any residential use would severely restrict the potential for a full amusement park on the site in the future.

Obviously we will have to wait to see what the company's plans are for the site.

David.

Housing is the end.
Once they're built and people move in, there's nothing more to be gained except something for most people to drive right past..

OK, I went back and read the stuff on the news page.
All I can think of is that Mr. Hunter has been getting false communications from someone besides us. Someone perhaps in the Bob/James genre...(?)

I've heard nothing but praise for getting the park open here, except from Bob and James, who've both since been banned for their lack of positive participation.
This is whay they should have been tossed a long time ago. Someone could have glanced at one of their foul posts and assumed we all thought that way.

Maybe we could show our support by saying what a great attraction the Big Wheel is and petitioning for it to become a permanent attraction.

I was born in Margate but left as a young kid to live in N.Ireland.I have fond memories of coming home every year on summer holidays and being taken to Dreamland.To me Margate just wouldn't be the same if there were no Dreamland,and it's somewhere i've always wanted to take my kids when they were old enough.Keep the campaign going and i hope it goes well.xoxoxoxoxo

We hear this story often.
Thanks for posting your support. It's well appreciated.
Hopefully, Dreamland will have a bright future.

I was also dissappointed as many members had explicitly expressed pleasure at the Big Wheel so maybe his sources are a little inaccurate. Personally I won't allow this to change my campaigning methods, whether or not he likes it. As Nick says so far it hasn't been personal (although a couple of comments in his statement came close to it), but this sort of comment in the papers is likely to make it personal.

His arguement that we should look to the future is also far from helpful. Is he suggesting that the Scenic's history is a small detail? Is he suggesting that the 'I Dream of Dreamland' vision is not looking ahead to a modern use?

I am also dissappointed about Nick's comments about accepting housing, although I realise he knows what he's doing. At the end of the day it's important to make sure we don't start to slide into appeasement (I know Nick is not so daft as to allow this, but talk of allowing some housing could be interpretted by other differently).

I also feel that competition from parks like Thorpe and Chessington is fierce and if Dreamland is to ever attract visitors from London again it really needs the whole site. My other worry is that as far as I'm aware they have not yet proven that the park is unviable. Again I don't want to seem too negative, but it's worth being careful with this (although that's stating the obvious).

If I was a cynic I would say that TRoby Hunter's comment was designed to:
1) Cause a back lash of public opinion against the campaign
2) To try and make campaigners feel guilty and start to be more compliant with the developers.

In regards to this last point it has the opposite effect.

Neil wrote:I am also dissappointed about Nick's comments about accepting housing, although I realise he knows what he's doing. At the end of the day it's important to make sure we don't start to slide into appeasement (I know Nick is not so daft as to allow this, but talk of allowing some housing could be interpretted by other differently).

If you read my response to Toby, I make it clear that allowing a small amount of residential development would not resolve our objection. This was a clarification of our formal objections, which can be downloaded from here:

http://www.joylandbooks.com/scenicrailw ... hanet6.pdf

However, to put this into context, the emerging Local Plan as originally drafted did allow for some limited redevelopment. The Inspector's report also recommends allowing for some limited redevelopment in exceptional circumstances. When we first started this campaign, way back in January 2003, we believed that the only way of genuinely saving Dreamland was to accept this 'limited redevelopment' point. That was also supported by a number of operators we spoke to at the time, who thought that a limited amount of redevelopment may be necessary to secure the long-term future of the park (for a variety of reasons).

However, after submitting our local plan objections (but before submitting our proof of evidence to the inquiry), we were told by Philip Miller that the park's viability will be increased by operating the entire park. This is because it will allow for bigger rides, car parking, etc, plus it would be big enough for a genuine day out (as opposed to a few hours out!) It will allow Dreamland to stand on its own two feet as a regional destination, rather than a small fairground. Our position now, therefore, is to campaign for the entire site to be retained.

However, it would be extremely difficult for us to argue that the Local Plan policy should not allow even limited development in exceptional circumstances. We would have been unlikely to have secured such a policy. So we are in the position of campaigning for the entire site to be retained, whilst accepting in planning terms the possibility - in exceptional circumstances - that some limited redevelopment could be acceptable.

However, despite the fact that there are already residential properties backing onto Dreamland, I did say in my response to Toby that residential development does not go well next to an amusement park. In my view, if there is to be some limited redevelopment, it should be complementary leisure development or (at a push) tourism-related retailing. I don't think residential development of any sort on Dreamland is a good idea.

I hope that clarifies things.

Nick wrote:

Neil wrote:I am also dissappointed about Nick's comments about accepting housing, although I realise he knows what he's doing. At the end of the day it's important to make sure we don't start to slide into appeasement (I know Nick is not so daft as to allow this, but talk of allowing some housing could be interpretted by other differently).

If you read my response to Toby, I make it clear that allowing a small amount of residential development would not resolve our objection. This was a clarification of our formal objections, which can be downloaded from here:

http://www.joylandbooks.com/scenicrailw ... hanet6.pdf

Nick - I think the bit Neil was referring to was this piece in the news item summarising Toby's comments...

"Mr Laister replied, denying any campaign against Mr Hunter, and said the group accepted limited residential development at Dreamland to ensure its "long term survival"

which is quite different to your comment in your response to Toby - although you have explained that this reference was to the original draft 3 years ago, the latest news item does not give this impression, suggesting it is the current view of the Campaign.

David.

David Ellis wrote:Nick - I think the bit Neil was referring to was this piece in the news item summarising Toby's comments...

"Mr Laister replied, denying any campaign against Mr Hunter, and said the group accepted limited residential development at Dreamland to ensure its "long term survival"

which is quite different to your comment in your response to Toby - although you have explained that this reference was to the original draft 3 years ago, the latest news item does not give this impression, suggesting it is the current view of the Campaign.

David.

This reference was not to the original draft three years ago. If you read my email to Toby (which is where the Gazette supposedly got this statement from me), you can see that I never said that at all. The Gazette misinterpreted my email to Toby. That is why, just before including the emails in full on the News page, we included the line:

It was not the intention of the Campaign to publish either Mr Hunter's email or Nick Laister's response, as this was personal correspondence. However, as Mr Hunter has issued the exchange of emails to the Gazette, we now publish both in full. This shows that the Gazette somewhat misrepresented the Campaign's position on residential development.

As you can see from my full email, I certainly never said what the Gazette printed. It is another example of the Gazette getting it wrong. The Campaign has written to the Gazette to point out that they keep giving Waterbridge the opportunity of making statements but never give us the right of reply (we have sent letters rebutting comments and making corrections, but they never print them).

Hi Nick
Thanks for the clarification on this matter, the Gazette has a lot to answer for! The way they report your comments and the comments of Toby Hunter are significant in the future of Dreamland. While I strongly believe that the media has an important part to play in th campaign getting its point across, stories and comments need to be properly reported, errors lead to misunderstanding and therefore bad feeling, which is not what we want.

Too true...it they are reporting inaccuracies, the Campaign should at least have a right of reply!

Thanks for clarifying that Nick.

David.

Thanks for clearing that up, I was worried by what the Gazette had said, and clearly this sort of thing will damage the campaign.

I suppose the question now is what constitutes as 'exceptional circumstances', as it's rather ambiguous and the developers may have a different idea to us.

Up until February I had no personal grudge, but I'm fast beginning to develop one. While we can't blame him for the mix-ups, his statements are hardly helping things.

His assertion the its turining into a personal campaign against him is bizarre as we were campaigning long before we ever heard of him.

David Ellis wrote:Too true...it they are reporting inaccuracies, the Campaign should at least have a right of reply!

Thanks for clarifying that Nick.

David.

Susan Marsh has written to the Gazette to 'set the record straight' on my/our behalf. We have been told by the Gazette that it will be printed in Friday's paper.