Inspector's Recommendations to be Rejected?

[Nick]

I have added an item on the News page about this:

http://www.joylandbooks.com/scenicrailway/news.htm

In summary, the Council will be deciding whether to accept or reject the Inspector's recommendations on Dreamland at a special council meeting on 19th January. The Planning Policy Manager's report to this meeting recommends that the Council rejects the Inspector's recommendations.

If you are unhappy about this, tell your councillor. Information about how you can make your views known can be found on the News page, linked above.

Nick

[Vince, Charlie and Sam]

I have already written to my local Councillor requesting that the accepts the Inspectors report, and will just repeat Nick's request for as many other forum members to do the same as is possible.

[Bob]

I have already written to my local Councillor requesting that the accepts the Inspectors report, and will just repeat Nick's request for as many other forum members to do the same as is possible.

The Planning Mangers Report does not substantially change the Inspectors Report it is therefore unclear as to why the Save Dreamland Campaign would object unless the aim is to ensure Dreamland stays close.

There is nothing in the Planner Managers report that does not accord to broadly what the Campaign wants. I am afraid you are going to have to accept that it is not viable to have the entire site as an Amusement Park. It far better to have a comprimise then nothing at all and that the only other option. From the report you will see the Council has very serious concerns as to the financial viability of Dreamland and the impact of what would happen if it failed.

[Stephen]

Bob you have to accept that it is only your opinion the site is not viable as an amusement park.

You failed to answer a question I have previously asked, by sidestepping, ignoring or continuing to perpetuate your rather blinkered arguement.

Viability depends entirely on the costs and the income, you very well know that there are people quite prepared to purchase this site at amusement park values, invest in it, and run it as an amusement park. They consider it viable, they are prepared to put their money where their mouth is.

Now I will ask the question again; would consideration be given to an offer to purchase the site at amusement park value, as valued by a professional valuer of such land?

To save you spending a lot of time composing a long response please just answer YES or NO

[Nick]

I have already written to my local Councillor requesting that the accepts the Inspectors report, and will just repeat Nick's request for as many other forum members to do the same as is possible.

The Planning Mangers Report does not substantially change the Inspectors Report it is therefore unclear as to why the Save Dreamland Campaign would object unless the aim is to ensure Dreamland stays close.

I don't understand that comment, Bob. The Council's preferred choice is little different from their previous attempt at a policy. It is a fudge and still allows the site to be redeveloped.

The Planning Manager clearly does not understand because he makes a number of extremely naive statements. My favourite is the one where he says that the Inspector's preferred approach won't work because the council has raised the hopes of the developers. Yet he suggests that the Council's preferred approach will allow there to be an amusement park at Dreamland, even though there is the promise of redevelopment!

You know as well as I do that if the Council's approach is adopted, there will be a travelling fairground operator in the park for a year or two then that will be it.

Can you explain to me how that policy will encourage an amusement park operator to invest the millions that are needed to upgrade the site? I can only see travelling rides being wheeled on. There is a big difference, isn't there?

Nick

[ricardobugsy]

It would be interesting to know exactly what TDC have based their decision, that Dreamland is not viable as an amusement park, on.
Are they experts in the tourism field?

They really need to know what exactly constitutes a major tourist attraction and what kind of attraction will maximise the number of tourists that it will bring to Margate. They seem to be too ready to reject the Inspectors proposals and yet there are no alternatives put in place.

It is interesting to see that the Turner Centre with its millions of pounds of lottery grant looks set to run millions of pounds over budget. A bill which undoubtedly will be made up from local council tax rises and yet there is no questions being asked about whether it will prove finacially viable.

Most major UK attractions fall into one of the 4 following categories;

1 Country parks, farms, gardens
2 Leisure & theme parks (most popular being amusement / theme parks)
3 Historic buildings
4 Museums / galleries (the most popular seem to all be in London and free admission)

Nothing else seems to command much popularity compared to the above.

The link below is to a document I found on the Visit Britain website showing statistics for a wide selection of UK visitor attractions for 2004.

www.tourismtrade.org.uk/Images/2004%20V ... -16751.pdf

Leisure/theme parks fair very well. All that is needed is for an operator with a successful track record is brought in to run Dreamland as an amusement park.

[Bob]

I have already written to my local Councillor requesting that the accepts the Inspectors report, and will just repeat Nick's request for as many other forum members to do the same as is possible.

The Planning Mangers Report does not substantially change the Inspectors Report it is therefore unclear as to why the Save Dreamland Campaign would object unless the aim is to ensure Dreamland stays close.

I don't understand that comment, Bob. The Council's preferred choice is little different from their previous attempt at a policy. It is a fudge and still allows the site to be redeveloped.


The Planning Manager clearly does not understand because he makes a number of extremely naive statements. My favourite is the one where he says that the Inspector's preferred approach won't work because the council has raised the hopes of the developers. Yet he suggests that the Council's preferred approach will allow there to be an amusement park at Dreamland, even though there is the promise of redevelopment!

You know as well as I do that if the Council's approach is adopted, there will be a travelling fairground operator in the park for a year or two then that will be it.

Can you explain to me how that policy will encourage an amusement park operator to invest the millions that are needed to upgrade the site? I can only see travelling rides being wheeled on. There is a big difference, isn't there?

Nick

That is clearly not what the Council are saying. They are broadly going along with the Inspectors report. They are stating pretty much what was in the Inspectors report but are perhaps putting a bit more stress on the need for Retail Develepment which as in the inspectors report will be of a sort to compliment the amusement Park. A few other small changes are required for the Town Centre Redevelopment. The biggest concern is as to the viability of Dreamland. It has become clear to the Council that the site was too big. Remember this site was built back in the days when each week Hundreds of thosands of Holiday maker would arrive in Margate ech weekend with perhaps another 50,000 day trippers mainly at week ends. Those visitors have gone and those numbers will never return.

A careful mix of appropriate Retail will compliment the viabilty the reduction in size of it will also help. Remember Dreamland has only been using a part of the site in any case for several years.

When the detailed Plans are published I think most people will be reasonably pleased but don't expect an Alton Towers.

[porterm]

Bob said:

A careful mix of appropriate Retail will compliment the viabilty the reduction in size of it will also help. Remember Dreamland has only been using a part of the site in any case for several years.

When the detailed Plans are published I think most people will be reasonably pleased but don't expect an Alton Towers.[/quote]

Hmmmm...... I'm sure there aren't exactly too many people here who can't fathom out why Dreamland has only operated in a reduced acreage capacity since the successful Bembom era (ie from the 1996 season).

Martin

[Neil]

Firstly Bob turning half the Dreamland site into retail development does not qualify as a minor change. If you read the excellent book Dreamland Remembered you will see that the site has always been a tourist attraction (as in long before you were born) and hence a change of use of that nature is very significant indeed. Moreover they do not compliment each other. On one hand few people will be doing their weekly shop only to get to the cheese counter, look at their shopping list and say "item 24 have a ride on the Scenic Railway". Alternatively if you spend £15 on a wristband (the price is ofcourse just notional) than you won't want to spend half the day in Sainsbury's. Retail and tourism are different things.
Mum: Do you want a nice day out at the seaside
Child: Yes
Mum We can go to Dreamland
Child: But I want to go to Marks and Spencers

Also other examples where retail (excluding the odd gift shop) and theme parks have been mixed have not worked out. Light Water Valley learnt this the hard way.

[Bob]

Firstly Bob turning half the Dreamland site into retail development does not qualify as a minor change. If you read the excellent book Dreamland Remembered you will see that the site has always been a tourist attraction (as in long before you were born) and hence a change of use of that nature is very significant indeed. Moreover they do not compliment each other. On one hand few people will be doing their weekly shop only to get to the cheese counter, look at their shopping list and say "item 24 have a ride on the Scenic Railway". Alternatively if you spend £15 on a wristband (the price is ofcourse just notional) than you won't want to spend half the day in Sainsbury's. Retail and tourism are different things.
Mum: Do you want a nice day out at the seaside
Child: Yes
Mum We can go to Dreamland
Child: But I want to go to Marks and Spencers

Also other examples where retail (excluding the odd gift shop) and theme parks have been mixed have not worked out. Light Water Valley learnt this the hard way.

You are very incorrect on that. Theme Parks will appropriate retail shops have been highly successfull and are some of the most profitable ones about. I would point out as well that Adventure Island in Southend which is often mentioned has a number of retail outles and is currently expanding the retail outlests on its site.

[taffy]

What is a retail 'outle'?

[taffy]

Questions

What is a retail 'outlest'?

Is there a Tesco in the middle of Adventure Island that I've missed?


I think he's finally lost it.

[Lou]

WHOLE DREAMLAND SITE=DREAMLAND=TOURISTS
HIGH STREET=SHOPS=SHOPPING
SEAFRONT/BEACH=TOURISTS
THEREFORE DREAMLAND+SEAFRONT/BEACH+HIGH STREET SHOPPING=TOURISTS AND SHOPPERS

ALTERNATIVE=REDUCED DREAMLAND=FEW TOURISTS (NO REASON TO RETURN)
HIGH STREET=EMPTY/RUN DOWN SHOPS=FEW SHOPPERS (NO REASON TO RETURN)
DERELICT SEAFRONT=NO TOURISTS(NO REASON TO STOP!!!!)

SORRY,DONE IN HASTE,BUT HOPE ITS PRETTY CLEAR.

[Stephen]

You may have done this in haste but it sums the situation up very well.

I hope that the Councillors are looking in as they are about to make an important decision. They have the opportunity for Dreamland to be operated by an enthusistic owner, prepared to invest large sums and make Dreamland an attraction that will encourage a substantial increase in tourism. This operator exists and has made clear his position.

Should the Councillors not want to allow this opportunity for an economic upturn for the area I trust the electorate will note that. They have an opportunity to put right some unfortunate, previous, decisions the result of which is perfectly obvious.

[Cheryl]

Naive? I think this is what the TDC planning inspector most definitely is. His idea that some shops, a grassy area, a road and housing are going to bring in tourists is at best naive at worst destructive to Margate's tourism.
Missed opportunity, is not allowing Phillip Miller to invest many millions and show you how a tourist attraction is run!

Why has Jimmy Godden got such a hold over certain people in TDC, they seem to believe what he says as gospel! One would almost believe that incentives are being offered, how naive of me.

Written without prejudice of course.