That is truly fantastic news,so well done to all concerned,just one question.............wheres Bob?
Dave.
Inspectors Report - Read it here first!
Moderators: dave771, porf, Sarah
51 posts
• Page 2 of 4 • 1, 2, 3, 4
by Nick » 17 Nov 2005, 21:42
Today’s verdict is fantastic news, and shows that the position we took against the Council was a robust one. The independent Inspector has accepted every single one of the points we made at the Public Inquiry and has rejected virtually every point made by the Council and the site’s owner. The Council had maintained that Dreamland was no longer viable and were happy to allow the site to be redeveloped for other uses. The Inspector found the evidence of the Save Dreamland Campaign to be compelling and has asked the Council to change the Local Plan to ensure the protection of the amusement park.
I am also delighted that the Inspector asked for the Scenic Railway to be retained. He described the Scenic Railway as an “extraordinary building” and was satisfied that it would be viable, even as a stand-alone attraction. Importantly, however, he stated that the setting of the Scenic Railway must also be conserved. He said that this will prevent the site from being used for anything other than an amusement park.
One thing to point out, however, is that this Inspector’s Report has been written under the old regulations, meaning that it is not binding. (Future inspectors’ reports will be binding, under the 2004 Act). We will therefore be watching the Council very closely now, to ensure that it makes the appropriate modifications to the Local Plan.
Some highlights from the Report (with page numbers in brackets):
• As stated above, the Inspector described the Scenic railway as “an extraordinary building”. He was satisfied that it is viable, even as a stand-alone attraction (72). He accepted our view that the Scenic could not be dismantled and re-erected elsewhere without entailing demolition (73).
• He stated that the setting of the Scenic Railway must also be conserved. Importantly, “this restriction would seriously prejudice any proposal to use the site for anything other than an amusement park”. He considers this to be “overriding” (73).
• The Inspector saw through the owner’s running down of the park, stating (politely) that “Dreamland could be managed more intensively” (77). He said that the “run down ambience…is partly a matter of management” (99). Why the Council has not been able to see this beggars belief!
• He accepted our point that the site would be worth more for commercial redevelopment than amusement park (despite the fact that the Council argued to the contrary at the Inquiry), and that this is not in the public interest, given the site’s importance to Margate (76/77).
• He stated (correctly) that the original policy – which protected Dreamland - was “virtually unopposed”, noting the large amount of objections to the Council’s revised policy.
• The Inspector was “convinced” by the evidence that we presented that when Dreamland was closed for part of the 2004 season, it reduced the number of visitors to Margate, reduced the length of the season and reduced the spin-off for other holiday activities and the tourist economy in Thanet (83).
• He thought the park was “flourishing” on his site visit in 2004.
• He stated that the site is not suitable for retail development, although he did state that souvenir shops and craft shops could “continue to flourish on a minor scale”, which is a sound conclusion.
• He criticised the Council’s reworded policy, stating that it would not prevent major retail development.
• He also criticised the Council’s policy for not including any proposals and for allowing piecemeal development.
• He further criticised the Council, stating that their policy “maximises speculative interest in the site and encourages hope values beyond any ordinary expectation” (93). Interestingly, he stated that their policy would hinder any prospect of a compulsory purchase of the site, as the values would be too high.
• His criticism of the Council continued. He drew attention to Paragraph 8.49 of the Plan, which correctly states that there is “a real concern that there may be pressure for redevelopment in the future for an alternative use, thus losing a significant attraction”. In the Inspector’s words, this “paragraph confirms that such pressure would be harmful”. The Inspector, astutely, goes on to say that Policy T11 (Dreamland), as drafted by the Council, “would generate the very harmful pressure which the Development Plan seeks to avert”! (96)
• He also made reference to the interest in the site shown by Philip Miller of Southend’s Adventure Island and other amusement park operators, stating that “convincing expert evidence was brought to the Inquiry to show that other prospective leisure operators consider an up-to-date amusement park at Dreamland is an attractive venture”, noting that all the operators propose to retain the Scenic Railway in “an appropriate setting” (100). The Inspector thought that the Save Dreamland Campaign’s preferred policy wording would have much less chance of the site falling derelict than the Council’s.
He therefore concluded that the site should remain designated as an amusement park. He asked for the original policy to be reinstated (as we had requested), but he also asked for it to be strengthened further by various changes. Most importantly for us, because the Inspector’s view is that policy in PPG15 (listed buildings) is a major constraint, he has asked for the Scenic Railway to be specifically mentioned in the supporting text, stating that it should be retained. As we had requested, the policy allows a limited part of the site to be redeveloped, but only if the proceeds go into investment in the amusement park to secure its future – this would be secured by a legal agreement.
I can only hope, therefore, that the Council amends the Plan in line with the Inspector’s recommendations, and all the uncertainty and blight that (in my view) the Council has directly created for the Dreamland site and Margate as a whole can be removed. We will be monitoring the situation closely to ensure that the necessary changes are made to the Plan.
If you would like to read the Inspector’s Report on Dreamland for yourself (and it does make very good reading, really!), it can be downloaded from here: http://www.thanet.gov.uk/assets/pdfs/Lo ... ersion.pdf
(The Inspector’s conclusions on Dreamland are in paragraphs 59 to 107).
Can I take this opportunity to thank Susan Marsh, who acted as the Campaign’s advocate (travelling all the way from Manchester to be there on the day), and Dave Collard, who gave evidence at the Inquiry on the viability of the Scenic Railway. Can I also thank Sarah Vickery for all her hard work behind the scenes and Martin Porter, who also gave up a day to give evidence at the Inquiry. And special thanks to all the Campaign members who took the time to get involved in objecting to the Local Plan – I think that today’s report is proof that we made a difference.
Today is a very big, extremely positive landmark for the Campaign. But we will go on fighting. Our next task being to ensure that the Council listens to the strong words of the Inspector and modifies the Local Plan accordingly. We have various plans up our sleeve to ensure that this happens (but hopefully these won’t be necessary).
Nick
I am also delighted that the Inspector asked for the Scenic Railway to be retained. He described the Scenic Railway as an “extraordinary building” and was satisfied that it would be viable, even as a stand-alone attraction. Importantly, however, he stated that the setting of the Scenic Railway must also be conserved. He said that this will prevent the site from being used for anything other than an amusement park.
One thing to point out, however, is that this Inspector’s Report has been written under the old regulations, meaning that it is not binding. (Future inspectors’ reports will be binding, under the 2004 Act). We will therefore be watching the Council very closely now, to ensure that it makes the appropriate modifications to the Local Plan.
Some highlights from the Report (with page numbers in brackets):
• As stated above, the Inspector described the Scenic railway as “an extraordinary building”. He was satisfied that it is viable, even as a stand-alone attraction (72). He accepted our view that the Scenic could not be dismantled and re-erected elsewhere without entailing demolition (73).
• He stated that the setting of the Scenic Railway must also be conserved. Importantly, “this restriction would seriously prejudice any proposal to use the site for anything other than an amusement park”. He considers this to be “overriding” (73).
• The Inspector saw through the owner’s running down of the park, stating (politely) that “Dreamland could be managed more intensively” (77). He said that the “run down ambience…is partly a matter of management” (99). Why the Council has not been able to see this beggars belief!
• He accepted our point that the site would be worth more for commercial redevelopment than amusement park (despite the fact that the Council argued to the contrary at the Inquiry), and that this is not in the public interest, given the site’s importance to Margate (76/77).
• He stated (correctly) that the original policy – which protected Dreamland - was “virtually unopposed”, noting the large amount of objections to the Council’s revised policy.
• The Inspector was “convinced” by the evidence that we presented that when Dreamland was closed for part of the 2004 season, it reduced the number of visitors to Margate, reduced the length of the season and reduced the spin-off for other holiday activities and the tourist economy in Thanet (83).
• He thought the park was “flourishing” on his site visit in 2004.
• He stated that the site is not suitable for retail development, although he did state that souvenir shops and craft shops could “continue to flourish on a minor scale”, which is a sound conclusion.
• He criticised the Council’s reworded policy, stating that it would not prevent major retail development.
• He also criticised the Council’s policy for not including any proposals and for allowing piecemeal development.
• He further criticised the Council, stating that their policy “maximises speculative interest in the site and encourages hope values beyond any ordinary expectation” (93). Interestingly, he stated that their policy would hinder any prospect of a compulsory purchase of the site, as the values would be too high.
• His criticism of the Council continued. He drew attention to Paragraph 8.49 of the Plan, which correctly states that there is “a real concern that there may be pressure for redevelopment in the future for an alternative use, thus losing a significant attraction”. In the Inspector’s words, this “paragraph confirms that such pressure would be harmful”. The Inspector, astutely, goes on to say that Policy T11 (Dreamland), as drafted by the Council, “would generate the very harmful pressure which the Development Plan seeks to avert”! (96)
• He also made reference to the interest in the site shown by Philip Miller of Southend’s Adventure Island and other amusement park operators, stating that “convincing expert evidence was brought to the Inquiry to show that other prospective leisure operators consider an up-to-date amusement park at Dreamland is an attractive venture”, noting that all the operators propose to retain the Scenic Railway in “an appropriate setting” (100). The Inspector thought that the Save Dreamland Campaign’s preferred policy wording would have much less chance of the site falling derelict than the Council’s.
He therefore concluded that the site should remain designated as an amusement park. He asked for the original policy to be reinstated (as we had requested), but he also asked for it to be strengthened further by various changes. Most importantly for us, because the Inspector’s view is that policy in PPG15 (listed buildings) is a major constraint, he has asked for the Scenic Railway to be specifically mentioned in the supporting text, stating that it should be retained. As we had requested, the policy allows a limited part of the site to be redeveloped, but only if the proceeds go into investment in the amusement park to secure its future – this would be secured by a legal agreement.
I can only hope, therefore, that the Council amends the Plan in line with the Inspector’s recommendations, and all the uncertainty and blight that (in my view) the Council has directly created for the Dreamland site and Margate as a whole can be removed. We will be monitoring the situation closely to ensure that the necessary changes are made to the Plan.
If you would like to read the Inspector’s Report on Dreamland for yourself (and it does make very good reading, really!), it can be downloaded from here: http://www.thanet.gov.uk/assets/pdfs/Lo ... ersion.pdf
(The Inspector’s conclusions on Dreamland are in paragraphs 59 to 107).
Can I take this opportunity to thank Susan Marsh, who acted as the Campaign’s advocate (travelling all the way from Manchester to be there on the day), and Dave Collard, who gave evidence at the Inquiry on the viability of the Scenic Railway. Can I also thank Sarah Vickery for all her hard work behind the scenes and Martin Porter, who also gave up a day to give evidence at the Inquiry. And special thanks to all the Campaign members who took the time to get involved in objecting to the Local Plan – I think that today’s report is proof that we made a difference.
Today is a very big, extremely positive landmark for the Campaign. But we will go on fighting. Our next task being to ensure that the Council listens to the strong words of the Inspector and modifies the Local Plan accordingly. We have various plans up our sleeve to ensure that this happens (but hopefully these won’t be necessary).
Nick
-
Nick - Site Admin
- Posts: 791
- Joined: 25 Jan 2003, 20:13
- Location: Oxfordshire
by DN » 17 Nov 2005, 21:47
I just read the report and it makes for intersting reading. I like the way the points were put across and facts like Dreamlands attendance by the owners differed from the figures from tourism boards.
I think this is a great positive step, and now we have to see what the future holds. fingers crossed everyone.
I think this is a great positive step, and now we have to see what the future holds. fingers crossed everyone.
- DN
- Posts: 68
- Joined: 03 Jul 2004, 11:49
by Zoidstar » 17 Nov 2005, 23:12
vince69619 wrote:Zoidstar wrote:All thats needed now is an investor
Let me make it easy for you... How many Phillip Millers do you know?
Vince.
how much is whats his name asking for the site, as Mr Miller has just signed a 99year lease on Adventure Isalnd, has expantion plas for Sea Life Adventure and the old Never Never Land site in Southend.
Anyone know how much bigger the Dreamland site is over Advanture Island I was told its about five time the size.
Zoid on!
- Zoidstar
- Posts: 296
- Joined: 01 Jul 2003, 12:12
by David Ellis » 17 Nov 2005, 23:15
That is superb news. Well done to everyone involved...that includes almost all of us on this forum, who believed that what we were doing was right!
David.
David.
- David Ellis
- Posts: 191
- Joined: 06 Jun 2003, 23:40
- Location: Lowestoft, Suffolk
by RowBot » 17 Nov 2005, 23:33
I am over the moon about this and it will keep me happy for a long time to come. But lets not forget that it's not over since we need to give our full support to the runner of the park and help them with anything possible (that's of course when somebody buys it).
-
RowBot - Posts: 336
- Joined: 12 Mar 2005, 00:19
- Location: Ramsgate, Kent
by uvegotmale2000 » 18 Nov 2005, 10:32
well this is fantastic new.i have 1 thing to say.
well done nick on all your hard work,
nick for prime minister
well done nick on all your hard work,
nick for prime minister
- uvegotmale2000
- Posts: 182
- Joined: 12 Mar 2005, 16:05
by porf » 18 Nov 2005, 17:01
News of the Inspector's report has made it up onto the BBC news website along with comments from Nick.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/kent/4448270.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/kent/4448270.stm
Paul Freeman
-
porf - Site Admin
- Posts: 504
- Joined: 04 Jun 2003, 20:35
- Location: London
by ricardobugsy » 18 Nov 2005, 18:51
This is brilliant news!
I would like to take this opportunity to thank Nick, Susan, Sarah and Dave (and any others I may have missed out) for their magnificent work.
This is a truly great result and far better than I had anticipated.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank Nick, Susan, Sarah and Dave (and any others I may have missed out) for their magnificent work.
This is a truly great result and far better than I had anticipated.
- ricardobugsy
- Posts: 126
- Joined: 25 Jul 2004, 01:52
- Location: Reading
by Bob » 18 Nov 2005, 18:52
Alan wrote:Hi All,
This is good news but where is Bob now the report is out.
Alan
The Report is pretty much as expected. The Scenic Railway has to remain and the majority of the site has to remain as an Amusement park but the Inspector has stated that some retail would be acceptable. My interpretation on that is the maximum amount of Retail permitted would be no more then 40% he also makes some recomendations on the type of retail outlets he thinks would be suitable ie Food, Craft and Shopping village type outlets.
- Bob
- Posts: 509
- Joined: 30 Nov 2003, 21:21
by Nick » 18 Nov 2005, 19:11
Bob wrote:Alan wrote:Hi All,
This is good news but where is Bob now the report is out.
Alan
The Report is pretty much as expected. The Scenic Railway has to remain and the majority of the site has to remain as an Amusement park but the Inspector has stated that some retail would be acceptable. My interpretation on that is the maximum amount of Retail permitted would be no more then 40% he also makes some recomendations on the type of retail outlets he thinks would be suitable ie Food, Craft and Shopping village type outlets.
Firstly, he did not say that food retailing would be acceptable, and he certainly did not say that a shopping village would be acceptable! His exact words were:
"souvenir shops and craft shops could continue to flourish on a minor scale".
You note the word "continue"? He means the sort of souvenir shops that you already find at Dreamland and other amusement parks. I can't see how that could ever amount to 40%. Are you sure that you read the same report that we all did?
Nick
-
Nick - Site Admin
- Posts: 791
- Joined: 25 Jan 2003, 20:13
- Location: Oxfordshire
by Gary » 18 Nov 2005, 19:18
Nick's dedication and that of those wonderful people who have supported him (seriously) brings a tear to this man's eye. 
Throughout its existence the Save Dreamland Campaign members have remained professional to the core..
I would particularly like to quote Sarah Vickery from 2003 - A Time when The Save Dreamland Campaign was young ...
"We will continue to fight our corner: lobbying the decision makers to ensure that our members’ voices are heard; challenging half-baked plans and misinformation; promoting the Campaign whenever and wherever possible; investigating all possible ways and means to retain Dreamland and the Scenic Railway and secure its future.
If necessary, we will, as someone once said, fight them on the beaches..."
- Sarah Vickery: 2002
To all those involved with the campaign:
http://www.themagiceye.co.uk SALUTES YOU ALL
I have to add that in my opinion Bob is entitled to his opinions (however confused) and we as a tight knit community should encourage views from all walks of life / sides and beliefs..
Besides..That's what makes Joyland Books' Forums great!!
PPS. I have a suspicion that Bob IS JG..but then that is just my paranoid nature..
Regards in Retrospect,
Gary
Throughout its existence the Save Dreamland Campaign members have remained professional to the core..
I would particularly like to quote Sarah Vickery from 2003 - A Time when The Save Dreamland Campaign was young ...
"We will continue to fight our corner: lobbying the decision makers to ensure that our members’ voices are heard; challenging half-baked plans and misinformation; promoting the Campaign whenever and wherever possible; investigating all possible ways and means to retain Dreamland and the Scenic Railway and secure its future.
If necessary, we will, as someone once said, fight them on the beaches..."
- Sarah Vickery: 2002
To all those involved with the campaign:
http://www.themagiceye.co.uk SALUTES YOU ALL
I have to add that in my opinion Bob is entitled to his opinions (however confused) and we as a tight knit community should encourage views from all walks of life / sides and beliefs..
Besides..That's what makes Joyland Books' Forums great!!
PPS. I have a suspicion that Bob IS JG..but then that is just my paranoid nature..
Regards in Retrospect,
Gary
Please pass through the turnstiles if you are riding again.
- Gary
- Posts: 537
- Joined: 26 Jan 2003, 21:45
- Location: St Helens
51 posts
• Page 2 of 4 • 1, 2, 3, 4
Return to Save Dreamland Campaign Forum
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests