sign be taken down

[Neil]

Surely they ought to have decided whether or not they were getting a new sign before they took the old one down. That way they could have the new one made ready to be put up within days of the old one being removed. It is a real concern, and perhaps this illustrates why the campaign is beginning to get personal.

[RowBot]

well i'm sure there isn't to much they can do before they took it down i'm afraid to say. Since one of the biggest problems seem to be the rotten bulb holders, so even that I don't agree with some stuff they do I surpose they couldn't get around this one.

[vince69619]

Surely they ought to have decided whether or not they were getting a new sign before they took the old one down. That way they could have the new one made ready to be put up within days of the old one being removed. It is a real concern, and perhaps this illustrates why the campaign is beginning to get personal.

Sorry Neil, but I can't agree with you on any of those points.

They probably took the sign down in a bid to get it working (isn't this the lighting that we were saying was part of the listed building and should be reinstated), and it is very likely that serious rot would only be discovered once the signs were down. This would be a completely normal sequence and as dissapointing as it is, nothing here could be considered personal. (Like for instance are you saing that one of the Waterbridge staff tipped water down the sign a year ago to make the sign rot, just to get back at you? - No, so it's not personal!)

Vince.

[Nick]

They will, however, have to think of a solution quickly as the sign forms part of the building's listing. They are allowed to take the sign down for a reasonable period of time for maintenance, but if they are going to keep the signs down and/or replace them with a sign that has a different appearance, that would need consent.

Ironically, if they decide to replace the sign with one like the original 1930s sign (which would be fantastic), that would also need listed building consent!

[RowBot]

So they will need planning permission (since it sinage, like all shops have too)? If so doubt neone would object lol

[Neil]

(Like for instance are you saing that one of the Waterbridge staff tipped water down the sign a year ago to make the sign rot, just to get back at you? - No, so it's not personal!)

Perhaps not, but I'm reluctant to take their word for it, I'd be happier if someone more independant was overseeing it. Firstly clearly if this was happening at a successful amusement park it's have been done in the closed season. Secondly if an amusement park with a committed owner emcountered the same problem they would pop the letters back up again until the new sign was made. Afterall if they were taken down in a few hours then it wouldn't take that long to put them up again. Over the past 3 years I've gradually become more cynical.
Perhaps the fires were all genuine accidents and nothing to do with the owner.
Perhaps there was a genuine mistake and Waterbridge didn't know that the large pallisade fence needed planning permission.
Perhaps when Mr Hunter made his statement about Dreamland and said thyat they had made no planning applications he really wasn't aware about an attempt to build a fence along the North of the park
Perhaps Mr Hunter really did misunderstand Nick and think he was saying that the Big Wheel is a bad thing.
Perhaps there was a genuine reason why the sign couldn't be soughted in the closed season, that they actually thought they could get it fixed, that now they kknow they can't they won't put the old sign back up. After all most parks have a full time maintanence person who's responsible for this sought of thing. According to someone who works for Flamingoland a lot of people did over time to get the area around the new coaster Kumali in a respectable state in time. They seems to have full time maintance people and presumably would not have made such a cock up of the sign.
In terms on the owners Jimmy Godden still owns a large atake in the park. Perhaps if he had done something about the sign sooner the rotting could have been prevented.
There are also other promises which have been broken and perhaps more promises that will be broken.
Perhaps the reason that over the past few years TV companies such as news teams have not been allowed to film on the site is to protect shy visitors whoi don't want to be on TV. Perhaps...

I guess at the end of the day none of us can know the real reason and perhaps I should be more willing to give the benefit of the doubt. I am though, worried that in a recent letter I recieved from Roger Gale he mentioned that visitor numbers have been falling and as such he implies this is a good enough reason to removed Dreamland. I can't help wondering whether there is a connection here.

No I don't believe that the sign was delibertaely ruined, but I don't feel the situation is being handled that well.

They probably took the sign down in a bid to get it working (isn't this the lighting that we were saying was part of the listed building and should be reinstated), and it is very likely that serious rot would only be discovered once the signs were down.

Which is precisely why this shouldn't happen in the park season. Also if all the letters are rotten they could have taken one down, and then found out what the state was and when they found out it was rotten put it back up until new letters could be produced. I realise that this takes more effort, but none of the successful theme parks got where they are by taking the easiest route.

Again I suppose something, like this is a matter of opinion and maybe I should be less hard on Waterbridge. Hey they may get this new sign made sooner than I think. Nevertheless judging by how long it took to get the fence application in I'm pessimistic. Maybe the word personal was the wrong one to use, as I suppose you can't get personal with an entire company, however I do feel that to degrees some aspects of this are calculated.

[vince69619]

By all means I agree that things look badly handled, but I suspect there could be a health and safety issue with the old signage.

It was your use of the word 'personal' that I wanted to get you to justify more than anything else. This is a business issue, it's not personal.

As Nick said, the listed status of the building will leave them in peril if they don't get the sign replaced in a realistic timeframe.

Vince.

[Neil]

Perhaps there's a health and saftey issue, but if there is it would be helpful if the owners could say.

I agree that it is a business issue, but surely to a certain extent these overlap. On one hand the developers are using whatever tactics they need to to get Dreamland redeveloped and you could argue that this business sense. However on the other hand there is a fine line between being a good businessman and being greedy. Surely if for your own personal gain you are prepared to be manipulative and do something in the knowledge that it goes against the greater good then I have the right to personally resent this.

For example for a food company to create a really good product and market it very well is buiness sense even if it has a negative effect on rivals. If that product is milk and someone at the company decides to spread rumours in the third world that breast milk is bad for babies (there have been allegations that Nestle did this, although I'm not in a position to veryify these claims) so that mothers will rush out and buy the milk then this would go beyond a business issue.

Clearly there is only so far you can take such analogies, but my point is this. I believe that certain individuals in the Margate Regernation Company know that they are working against the greater good for their own personal motives. They have enough money to do what they want and lead a good lifestyle and I personally don't apprechiate some of the things they are prepared to do to get more money.

[stuart]

From IOT Gazette 5/5/06

DREAMLAND bosses will have to apply for planning permission for a new sign at the fun park.
The iconic sign which ran down the side of the "fin" above the cinema was taken down for repairs but now will not be going back up.
A spokesman for Waterbridge, which owns the site, said it had proved beyond salvage but a "better" sign would replace it.
The Company will need to apply for permission for a new sign because the building is listed.
A Thanet council spokesman said it's planning department was not aware that the original sign would not be going back up and that no application for a new sign had been received.
The Isle of Thanet Gazette attempted to contact Waterbridge but they had not responded as we went to press.


(info for not Thanet readers really, nothing we didn't already know)

[stuart]

no sign of a new improved dreamland sign but the building has some temporary additions:

[Sarah]

This is part of an art installation called Towards a Promised Land. More information here:

http://www.artangel.org.uk/pages/future.htm

Sarah

[ArtyBlartFast]

There are a couple of pictures of the lights during their removal on the "Arts & Elbows" blog, linked to below :
http://artsandelbows.blogspot.com/2006/04/lights-out-over-margate.html
I'd say they look to have been pretty well handled during their removal, a good indicator that they will be returning. A comment on that blog also implies they may well now be with a sign company.

I've a fair few other pictures of this happening, if someone from the Save Dreamland Campaign would like copies then just ask me via
inputemail-spamblock@yahoo.co.uk
The fabric of the signs was pretty solid but the wiring and fittings were a mess.
The signs were taken to the yard of a Herne Bay sign company, the lads taking them down didn't know any more than that.