MTCRC seeks leasehold operators for Dreamland site.

[kevinashe]

when it says leasehold nobody knows how long it could be for although i think it would have to be 25 years plus.The positive side of this is that an operator could come in to run the site and as has been discussed on this forum before its likely they will be interested parties.I also think it will be a struggle to get a full site park up and running but even if there are the scenic,southports rides and the whip on part of the site and travelling rides on another part.short term it would mean that the site is bringing in money which is more than its doing now,who knows even norman wallis may be interested !!!!!!

[dreamland]

we need a proper amusement park , not one with stuiped travelling fair rides that end up in dreamland one season then gone the next , or rides that all go at the end of the season with only the scenic remaining , it has to be proper like other uk theme parks so you know what to expect in later seasons

[Jim Douglas Jr.]

Exactly. However, the prior my be the means to the end.
The whole idea as stated is part of the much bigger picture of restored grounds, etc.

[smilerbaker]

its also worth remembering that you now have to pay business rates on empty business properties, so JG will be having to fork out for the cinema etc which I imagine will be quite a large sum of money.

The devils in the detail, if they intened to lease the whole site I can't see anyone taking it on. To me the ad reads like the leaser will be responsible for getting the scienic and cinema back up and running.

[EAS]

I presume that the whole site must be costing a great deal of cash in rates. The Scenic and the cinema are standing deteriorating and the council is making moves and not simply ignoring the fact. The fence was charged to the site owners which I am sure they won't have liked.

Listed building consent will have to be sought for works to the Scenic and cinema. Any repair will have to be sensitive to the listed status, and the cinema is II* and English Heritage will have to be involved in any repair plans. That won't be rapid. Any leaseholder will presumably have to be paying the rates until things are sorted.

So some plans to look as though something is being done will, I suspect, be to delay further action by the council...

Naturally, anyone taking on the site won't have the benefit of being able to build the 'enabling development' to offset the other costs.

Cynical? Moi?

Can of worms, anyone?

[EAS]

What 'we' need are folks with knowledge. It's all very well being 'positive' but there are harsh realities which stem from the real world in which we live, and of which many of us have a great deal of experience, which have to be faced.

This isn't going to be a magic wand waved and all Dreamland's problems will be solved.

[smilerbaker]

Its not being negative just realistic, its looking at the ad from a business point of view. leasing the site as is, as a whole, makes no business sense. A travelling fair type arrangement isn't going to want to pay business rates on a cinema and various empty arcades, cafes etc.

IMHO the ad is a stalling tactic, unless some euro millionare winner wants to blow there winnings in 1 easy step.

[EAS]

However - I suspect in that case the owner would be obliged to repair it.

II* listed etc.

I agree re the stalling tactic, if there was a genuine desire to work with the campaign, council etc then why place an ad?

A long term strategy is what is needed. It's not going to come from the MTCRC, IMHO.

[kevinashe]

i take it a trust status is out of the question and they want people with a previous track record for the site.Also i wasnt meaning a travelling fair but to build up a fairground takes years,remember blackpool pleasure beach had a lot of concession rides in the eighties and it would be near impossible to build a new dreamland over the full site from scratch.Seasonal rides would give an income to any site leaseholder and as long as it was only part of the site and allow them to build more permanent rides,also parkware and the likes lease rides so that would allow something like an enterprise or other rides for the park.

[dave771]

Evening all, have this evening deleted and edited all posts that keep mentioning fires ! If any of you have any information or evidence about who is responsible for any fires please contact Margate police.

Dave

[Nick Evans]

Need to watch this one carefully. Better informed persons than me are suggesting this is all a ruse by MTCRC to show they have looked for someone to take on the park, knowing and hoping there won't be, so they can still say Dreamland is not viable. Would be good if someone can prove them wrong!

[EAS]

Which is, I think, what I suggested earlier...

Posted: Sat Oct 04, 2008 11:35 am Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And of course it could be another ruse to allow someone some limited scope (at their own expense) to try to run a park, then those responsible for the longer term use of the site to be able to 'demonstrate' that an amusement park on the site isn't viable...

However, with the current economic climate and the situation with the council etc, times are hardly normal, and the planning situation is as it is.

They could have tried putting it up for sale at a realistic price, which might have been a little more convincing.

[vince69619]

If they don't get a tenant for the land from this advert, it does not show that an amusement park is not viable, it shows it it not viable as rental real estate.

The one does not preclude the other.

It is not possible to state that it is not viable as an amusement park until an amusement park has been put on the land and run for some time period.

In my opinion, since Bemboms left the owners have not tried to run an amusement park on the property.

Vince.

[barcrest]

I think EAS has a good grasp of the situation.

The lease could be offered on semi attractive terms so someone takes it on because it does mention part or all of the park so maybe the scenic and or the cinema could be excluded from the lease leaving the rates and restoration costs out of the equation. However then you are only really left with a temporary/travelling fair on a concrete slab type affiar.

Once somebody has that all in place the lease might say that rents etc are subject to review every 12 months, maybe even 6 months. This means once something is set up they can then force up the running costs to make whatever is there no longer viable. They then say to the council, we tried and it didn't work.

Now ok we all know that they would not be offering a true picture of how viable the site would be if it was done properly but their aim is to prove it is not viable and they will be doing there best to prove that is the case. Anyway they go about that doesn't matter they will just be trying to bring evidence to the table to force a decision from the council in thier favour. What real hard eveidence can any of us provide that a full Pleasure Beach style park would actually be viable? I mean real paper evidence with facts and figures specific to this site? They will have real paper facts and figure if they follow the route i belive they are going and that is not something the council can ignore no matter what.

[Cheryl]

If we can all see this - why can't the Council?

TDC need to make it clear that they will not be duped with such underhand and obvious tactics.