Page 1 of 2

the fence has to comedown !!

PostPosted: 30 May 2006, 16:53
by jmace9
Hi All

Do we have any news on what is happening with regards to the fence. The aplication was submited sometime ago now so hopefuly the fence will come down soon.
:lol: :lol:

John

PostPosted: 30 May 2006, 17:05
by RowBot
Apparently decided

http://www.ukplanning.com/ukp/findCaseF ... =Dreamland

That I see it says it's refused it so onto the next stage I guess

PostPosted: 30 May 2006, 17:21
by jmace9
RowBot wrote:Apparently decided

http://www.ukplanning.com/ukp/findCaseF ... =Dreamland

That I see it says it's refused it so onto the next stage I guess


What great news now we will have to make sure it comes down i wonder if there is a time limit in which they have to take it down? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:


John

PostPosted: 30 May 2006, 17:29
by RowBot
Not to sure I'm guessing they will give them a certain time to take it down and if not they will do it themself (TDC that is).

PostPosted: 30 May 2006, 20:41
by Nick
The Council will be likely to give them some time to remove the fence. If they don't remove it within the time allowed, the Council will not remove the fence themselves. Instead, they will serve an enforcement notice, requiring the fence's removal within a fixed time period. It is a criminal offence to ignore an enforcement notice. But hopefully it won't come to that.

In my opinion, there is justification for a fence to secure Dreamland. Hopefully, the owners will work alongside TDC to agree an appropriate location and design for the fence so that the site can be secured in a way that is not detrimental to the setting of the listed buildings on the site.

PostPosted: 30 May 2006, 21:24
by Chris H
What was wrong with the first fence that they installed in 2005. All they needed to do to secure the park is to link the existing industrial fencing up to the southern side of the park and it would have been fine.
We must not be lead in to believing that the second fence was installed purely for security.
Its intended purpose was simply to shrink the park even further so that fewer rides could be installed.

This would simply deter people away from the park to prove it is not viable.

PostPosted: 30 May 2006, 23:04
by mattchewmann
So when the fence comes down eventually because i cant see them taking it down just yet but will george webb be able to install rides in this part of the park this would be excellent as this would show that dreamland is use able to be an amusement park bigger and better rides could be installed even though i think this years rides are better than last year.

PostPosted: 31 May 2006, 07:01
by lutonlad
mattchewmann wrote:So when the fence comes down eventually because i cant see them taking it down just yet but will george webb be able to install rides in this part of the park this would be excellent as this would show that dreamland is use able to be an amusement park bigger and better rides could be installed even though i think this years rides are better than last year.


I would presume that it would depends on the terms of his lease. Normally he will be paying rent for a set area of land, if further land became avaialable with the removal of the fence, there would be no doubt about it that the webbs would gain a massive rent increase, and depending wether or not they think they could fill the extra space depends on wether it would be viable or not, but if the webbs are struggling to fill the little space they have got, unless they invest in some major rides to fill this area themselves with a permanent roller coaster etc i dont think they will fill it with tenants.

Am going to Portsmouth today will report back on how the seafront ride are is doing later.

Gary

PostPosted: 31 May 2006, 09:24
by RowBot
Not to sure if that's true that they would have to pay more rent because Waterbridge were going to have events etc on the other side of the fence as well. there was meant to be paintballing and other events what needed to have it's own area if I remember rightly :?:

The issue of the fencing was raised, and Hunter advised that its role was to separate off an “events area” where the Margate Town Centre Regeneration Company Ltd (MTCRC) are hoping to install a corporate entertainment facility, such as paintball, quadbikes or a hovercraft. He stressed that the fencing also served a security purpose, as the site had experienced significant problems with vandalism. However, he added: “I entirely accept that the industrial fencing is at odds with the concept of a family day out.”


Ian

PostPosted: 31 May 2006, 11:35
by dave771
Just wanted to comment on lutonlads post regarding a permanent coaster, how can someone spend hundreds of thousands of pounds on a new ride or coaster when they have only a three year lease ? Any rides that are put on the site must be portable for the time being as Webbs are leasing the site they do not own it and we all can work out what the owners plans for the site are !

PostPosted: 01 Jun 2006, 16:52
by lutonlad
dave771 wrote:Just wanted to comment on lutonlads post regarding a permanent coaster, how can someone spend hundreds of thousands of pounds on a new ride or coaster when they have only a three year lease ? Any rides that are put on the site must be portable for the time being as Webbs are leasing the site they do not own it and we all can work out what the owners plans for the site are !


True, but most rollercoasters such as the wild mouse etc can be built in a day and are therfore still semi permanant. The Webbs amusements could add this ride to there fleet so as to not wasting money and still use it at other venues ie steam ralleys etc at other times, so if even after the 3 year lease is up the Webb family will still have a use for the ride, maybee storage could be a problem though.

PostPosted: 01 Jun 2006, 19:22
by dave771
U didnt mention a portable coaster u were talking about a permanent one which are totally different and cost hundreds of thousands of pounds, anyway like I said before they cant just throw millions of pounds worth of rides at a site with no chance of making a decent return on them.

PostPosted: 01 Jun 2006, 21:34
by mattchewmann
well i personally think that a non permanent rollercoaster will be good for dreamland as this would help attract more families with teenagers instead of them going to places like southend even though i feel the crazy mouse or something in them regions are better than the rollercoasters at southend. didnt something happen to someone on the crazy mouse in folkestone when it was there that was.

PostPosted: 01 Jun 2006, 21:42
by RowBot
Yes a rollercoaster would be great but we can think/hope as much as we want but as Dave said its all down to money and income. Plus until this fence gets moved or replaced there wouldn't be enough room to fit a real mouse in the park let alone the Wild Mouse rollercoaster.

Ian

PostPosted: 03 Jun 2006, 21:55
by coasternutter
I think that you will find that even small coasters will cost £10,000's if not £100.000's I think that the cost of a mouse is a couple of hundred thousand pounds it would be nice to see another coaster at Dreamland but I think it is probably not going to happen.