Much false and erronous information is flying about on this form. Quite a lot from people who should know better.
Option C - What does it Mean ?
It means every effort will be made to redevelop Dreamland as a modern amusement facility. Some redundent buildings will need to be demolished and a new access road will be built. A small amount of the site will be used for appropriate retail facilities. This does not include a Supermarket, DIY store or anything like that. It will include a resturant/take away. Souvenir/Gift shop. Confectionary shop. Occasional Market. These will all be small units.
One can see from this that it would appear the the "Save Dreamlnd Campaign Leaders" now seem to be mores interested in obstructing the redevelopment and reopening of Dreamland. These delays are likely to reduce the viability of the current business plans. The effect of this would be the need to increase the amount of space given over to other use in order to keep the overall economic viability of the plan within acceptable limits. The council already has serious concerns as to the finiancial viabilty of the site following professional advice they have obtained. They are concerned that the site should not become a financial drain on the local council tax payers. They are also concerened about the site falling into disrepair. The need is therefore for the redevelopment to proceed quickly to minimise any risk.
Option C and Dreamland the Real Facts
Moderators: dave771, porf, Sarah
18 posts
• Page 1 of 2 • 1, 2
Option C and Dreamland the Real Facts
by Bob » 22 Jan 2006, 09:14
- Bob
- Posts: 509
- Joined: 30 Nov 2003, 21:21
by taffy » 22 Jan 2006, 10:49
"MUCH FALSE AND ERRONOUS [SIC] INFORMATION IS FLYING ABOUT ON THIS FORUM"
That's the best quote from Bob I've heard in ages!!!!!!!!!!! Most of it out of your orifices. You're spelling has improved though on the whole. Your last epistle had a certain eloquence - almost like someone else wrote it for you. The progress being threatened is the current owner's, in that this campign want's to stop their attempts to prove, using loaded dice and an uneven playing field, that an amusement park on the dreamland site is not viable.
Do you get it now? Full long term planning is what we want to ensure its success. Your comments on seaside amusement parks are quite frankly ludicrous. We don't want uncertainty and a skewed attempt to show that the site won't work for amusement park purposes.
People don't go to places where there is nothing to do Robert. Create a reason for tourists to come - then they will just like they do around the rest of the country. What has recently been done is to make the place such a disaster area that you can then say nobody is coming. Well I wonder why??????? How strange.
That's the best quote from Bob I've heard in ages!!!!!!!!!!! Most of it out of your orifices. You're spelling has improved though on the whole. Your last epistle had a certain eloquence - almost like someone else wrote it for you. The progress being threatened is the current owner's, in that this campign want's to stop their attempts to prove, using loaded dice and an uneven playing field, that an amusement park on the dreamland site is not viable.
Do you get it now? Full long term planning is what we want to ensure its success. Your comments on seaside amusement parks are quite frankly ludicrous. We don't want uncertainty and a skewed attempt to show that the site won't work for amusement park purposes.
People don't go to places where there is nothing to do Robert. Create a reason for tourists to come - then they will just like they do around the rest of the country. What has recently been done is to make the place such a disaster area that you can then say nobody is coming. Well I wonder why??????? How strange.
- taffy
- Posts: 48
- Joined: 07 Jan 2006, 22:38
- Location: bicester
by vince69619 » 22 Jan 2006, 10:58
Hi Taffy,
Couldn't have put it better myself, but if you want to give 'bob' his proper name, we have shown it's not Robert, but Barry Moss General Manager of Dreamland.
Vince.
Couldn't have put it better myself, but if you want to give 'bob' his proper name, we have shown it's not Robert, but Barry Moss General Manager of Dreamland.
Vince.
-
vince69619 - Posts: 457
- Joined: 06 Aug 2004, 11:42
- Location: Reading
by porf » 22 Jan 2006, 11:15
"Bob" - As much as you'd like everyone on here to trust you I personally find it a bit tricky when for all we know you're a 4 feet tall transvestite using an internet cafe in downtown Hong Kong who's only glimpsed Margate on a postcard.
If you do not speak on behalf of the developers then stop.
If you do speak on behalf of the developers then tell us in what capacity.
We remain free to discuss what may/may not be possible under Option "C", until such a time as the developers publish plans for the site.
Once plans are out we can view and then react to them, your "help" is not needed.
p.s. You've still not answered my earlier question as to what sort of "Leisure Use" will bring in high enough yields to satisfy investors.
If you do not speak on behalf of the developers then stop.
If you do speak on behalf of the developers then tell us in what capacity.
We remain free to discuss what may/may not be possible under Option "C", until such a time as the developers publish plans for the site.
Once plans are out we can view and then react to them, your "help" is not needed.
p.s. You've still not answered my earlier question as to what sort of "Leisure Use" will bring in high enough yields to satisfy investors.
Paul Freeman
-
porf - Site Admin
- Posts: 504
- Joined: 04 Jun 2003, 20:35
- Location: London
by Lou » 22 Jan 2006, 11:20
The council already has serious concerns as to the finiancial viabilty of the site following professional advice they have obtained. They are concerned that the site should not become a financial drain on the local council tax payers. They are also concerened about the site falling into disrepair. The need is therefore for the redevelopment to proceed quickly to minimise any risk.
This is the first time I have responded to any of 'Bob's remarks, but feel that I need too comment this time.
Perhaps the council does have serious concerns to the financial viability of the site, but I have serious concerns about the 'professionalism' of this advice, and how they base their research and conclusions.
There is absolutly no reason why Dreamland should be a drain on the local council taxpayer, in fact the opposite would be true, as Dreamland would bring in tourists and therefore money to local business.
Why are the council so bothered about the site 'falling into disrepair' have any of them been down there lately? Should have worried about that years ago and stopped the decay then.
Redevelopment should not proceed quickly........this is far to important, In my eyes, Dreamland to be 100 per cent viable needs 100 per cent of the site, or why will people choose to travel down???
- Lou
- Posts: 219
- Joined: 31 Jan 2004, 14:32
by Bob » 22 Jan 2006, 13:03
Lou wrote:The council already has serious concerns as to the finiancial viabilty of the site following professional advice they have obtained. They are concerned that the site should not become a financial drain on the local council tax payers. They are also concerened about the site falling into disrepair. The need is therefore for the redevelopment to proceed quickly to minimise any risk.
This is the first time I have responded to any of 'Bob's remarks, but feel that I need too comment this time.
Perhaps the council does have serious concerns to the financial viability of the site, but I have serious concerns about the 'professionalism' of this advice, and how they base their research and conclusions.
There is absolutly no reason why Dreamland should be a drain on the local council taxpayer, in fact the opposite would be true, as Dreamland would bring in tourists and therefore money to local business.
Why are the council so bothered about the site 'falling into disrepair' have any of them been down there lately? Should have worried about that years ago and stopped the decay then.
Redevelopment should not proceed quickly........this is far to important, In my eyes, Dreamland to be 100 per cent viable needs 100 per cent of the site, or why will people choose to travel down???
The detailed plans when they have been submitted will be available for you to see and comment on at the Council offices. At the moment you are objecting to somthing that you have not a clue about so how can you really object.
- Bob
- Posts: 509
- Joined: 30 Nov 2003, 21:21
by Susan » 22 Jan 2006, 15:35
Bob in order for us to evaluate the quality of you information it needs to be evidence based. In your description of Option C you talk about every effort being made to redevelop Dreamland as an amusement facility; I am unclear precisely what you mean as an amusement facility and realise you might be playing with words. If we take this at the most generous interpretation and presume it means an amusement park how do you define every effort.
For our evidence base of the lack of previous effort I draw your attention to 2005 when you were extrememly late in making arrangements for a travelling fair, even later in opening. Your choice of provider then failed to open advertised hours declined some very good offers for publicity, including turning away FREE TV coverage which many in the trade pay dearly for. We are now given to understand you are advertising for similar provision with a maximum of three years on an agreement that includes a possible one month's notice. Hardly likely to attract a quality provision.
I would also remind you that an offer, from a successful and leading Amusement Park owner has been refused by the owners of Dreamland.
Now I come to your assertion about professional advice to the Council. Perhaps you could elaborate as there has been no evidence from TDC that they have a planner with specific experience and expertise, that can be quantified and qualified, in tourism / leisure etc. I would not expect them to have it would not usual to find this in local government. They have not mentioned it in their reports nor proffered an externally provided report. If you are suggesting the information given by yourself, those who engage you, those that have ownership etc. should be considered then I have to remind you that all would have a pecuniary interest and I would suggest it would border on impropriety for the local authority to use them, or even consider them, as their professional
advisers.
To conclude I will address the information coming to the Campaign. Like the Council we presented our case to an independent inspector, we called our witnesses and only had the opportunities the local authority did. The independent Inspector listened, asked questions, spent time considering and even researching before he gave a judgement. He concluded the evidence given by the campaign to have merit and agreed with our case.
However, I have to remind you that the Campaign does have within it a highly qualified professional in this field of expertise, whose standing is nationally recognised. Yes he has an interest but that is borne through belief not pecuniary interests. It also has amongst it's membership the business and tourist trade communities of Margate.
Many times you have been challenged to answer questions or debate this in a proper manner and have failed to do so. Your current policy of character assassination is not making you any friends.
For our evidence base of the lack of previous effort I draw your attention to 2005 when you were extrememly late in making arrangements for a travelling fair, even later in opening. Your choice of provider then failed to open advertised hours declined some very good offers for publicity, including turning away FREE TV coverage which many in the trade pay dearly for. We are now given to understand you are advertising for similar provision with a maximum of three years on an agreement that includes a possible one month's notice. Hardly likely to attract a quality provision.
I would also remind you that an offer, from a successful and leading Amusement Park owner has been refused by the owners of Dreamland.
Now I come to your assertion about professional advice to the Council. Perhaps you could elaborate as there has been no evidence from TDC that they have a planner with specific experience and expertise, that can be quantified and qualified, in tourism / leisure etc. I would not expect them to have it would not usual to find this in local government. They have not mentioned it in their reports nor proffered an externally provided report. If you are suggesting the information given by yourself, those who engage you, those that have ownership etc. should be considered then I have to remind you that all would have a pecuniary interest and I would suggest it would border on impropriety for the local authority to use them, or even consider them, as their professional
advisers.
To conclude I will address the information coming to the Campaign. Like the Council we presented our case to an independent inspector, we called our witnesses and only had the opportunities the local authority did. The independent Inspector listened, asked questions, spent time considering and even researching before he gave a judgement. He concluded the evidence given by the campaign to have merit and agreed with our case.
However, I have to remind you that the Campaign does have within it a highly qualified professional in this field of expertise, whose standing is nationally recognised. Yes he has an interest but that is borne through belief not pecuniary interests. It also has amongst it's membership the business and tourist trade communities of Margate.
Many times you have been challenged to answer questions or debate this in a proper manner and have failed to do so. Your current policy of character assassination is not making you any friends.
- Susan
- Posts: 118
- Joined: 07 Jul 2004, 21:20
- Location: Manchester
by Bob » 22 Jan 2006, 17:21
Susan wrote:Bob in order for us to evaluate the quality of you information it needs to be evidence based. In your description of Option C you talk about every effort being made to redevelop Dreamland as an amusement facility; I am unclear precisely what you mean as an amusement facility and realise you might be playing with words. If we take this at the most generous interpretation and presume it means an amusement park how do you define every effort.
For our evidence base of the lack of previous effort I draw your attention to 2005 when you were extrememly late in making arrangements for a travelling fair, even later in opening. Your choice of provider then failed to open advertised hours declined some very good offers for publicity, including turning away FREE TV coverage which many in the trade pay dearly for. We are now given to understand you are advertising for similar provision with a maximum of three years on an agreement that includes a possible one month's notice. Hardly likely to attract a quality provision.
I would also remind you that an offer, from a successful and leading Amusement Park owner has been refused by the owners of Dreamland.
Now I come to your assertion about professional advice to the Council. Perhaps you could elaborate as there has been no evidence from TDC that they have a planner with specific experience and expertise, that can be quantified and qualified, in tourism / leisure etc. I would not expect them to have it would not usual to find this in local government. They have not mentioned it in their reports nor proffered an externally provided report. If you are suggesting the information given by yourself, those who engage you, those that have ownership etc. should be considered then I have to remind you that all would have a pecuniary interest and I would suggest it would border on impropriety for the local authority to use them, or even consider them, as their professional
advisers.
To conclude I will address the information coming to the Campaign. Like the Council we presented our case to an independent inspector, we called our witnesses and only had the opportunities the local authority did. The independent Inspector listened, asked questions, spent time considering and even researching before he gave a judgement. He concluded the evidence given by the campaign to have merit and agreed with our case.
However, I have to remind you that the Campaign does have within it a highly qualified professional in this field of expertise, whose standing is nationally recognised. Yes he has an interest but that is borne through belief not pecuniary interests. It also has amongst it's membership the business and tourist trade communities of Margate.
Many times you have been challenged to answer questions or debate this in a proper manner and have failed to do so. Your current policy of character assassination is not making you any friends.
No offer from any company for Dreamland has been refused as no such offer has ever been received so you are incorrect on that.
I am not going in for character assassination just questioning why they should wish to Object to Option C which is basically what the Campaign wanted. It provides for Dreamland to remain predominantly an Amusement Park in line with the inspectors report. The only provisor being that a company can be found to operate it. Any offer for it would have course have to be on a commercial basis.
To ensure viability some small retail outlets and a Market are being proposed. This is a direction many Amusement parks are going into including Southend. A good example being Fantasy Island
"On your journey of discovery around The Magical Fantasy Island you will find Europe's largest indoor market adjoining the theme park. An attraction in draws customers from all round the county and holiday makers mingling with the locals who know just where the best bargains.
As well as the fantastic array of stalls, shops and fully themed catering establishments, this market is full of colour and atmosphere with traditional auctioneers, craft workers demonstrating their skills and live fashion shows.
http://www.fantasyisland.co.uk/market.html
According to Blue Anchor's Market Manager, shops and letting executive Jimmy Hayes, the two attractions work closely in hand and compliment each other in providing visitors with an ideal family day out.
- Bob
- Posts: 509
- Joined: 30 Nov 2003, 21:21
by David Ellis » 22 Jan 2006, 18:27
Personally I feel the market at Fantasy Island is an eyesore. Many of the stalls peddle dodgy DVDs and PC games, and give the place a somewhat seedy feel.
It hasn't created a positive image of the park in my eyes, and I know a lot of people who share that opinion. I would hate to see the same thing happen at Dreamland.
We have talked around offers for the park before...you will need to take into account that "on a commercial basis" must mean "at a value commensurate with being run as an amusement park" - not at development prices!
Please tell us about this professional advice the Council has received that has thrown doubt over the park's viability...who provided this advice, who paid for it, and how independant were they from the company that currently own the land?
David.
It hasn't created a positive image of the park in my eyes, and I know a lot of people who share that opinion. I would hate to see the same thing happen at Dreamland.
We have talked around offers for the park before...you will need to take into account that "on a commercial basis" must mean "at a value commensurate with being run as an amusement park" - not at development prices!
Please tell us about this professional advice the Council has received that has thrown doubt over the park's viability...who provided this advice, who paid for it, and how independant were they from the company that currently own the land?
David.
- David Ellis
- Posts: 191
- Joined: 06 Jun 2003, 23:40
- Location: Lowestoft, Suffolk
by jmace9 » 22 Jan 2006, 18:43
[/quote]To ensure viability some small retail outlets and a Market are being proposed. This is a direction many Amusement parks are going into including Southend. A good example being Fantasy Island
http://www.fantasyisland.co.uk/market.html
ut.[/quote]
Hello Bob
I don't know what planet you are on but i can asure you southend adventure island has no market or any plans to have one as they have no room and i can also asure you they have no park called fantasy island you will find this in skegness.
Ps: For someone who claims to have such great knowledge of teme parks you make alot of mistakes. Just like you and your friends do when you run them !
http://www.fantasyisland.co.uk/market.html
ut.[/quote]
Hello Bob
I don't know what planet you are on but i can asure you southend adventure island has no market or any plans to have one as they have no room and i can also asure you they have no park called fantasy island you will find this in skegness.
Ps: For someone who claims to have such great knowledge of teme parks you make alot of mistakes. Just like you and your friends do when you run them !
Last edited by jmace9 on 22 Jan 2006, 18:45, edited 1 time in total.
- jmace9
- Posts: 120
- Joined: 02 May 2005, 17:25
- Location: essex
by Alan » 22 Jan 2006, 18:45
Yes Bob Fantasy Island works because its a lot biger then Dreamland we do not have the room at Dreamland to put the rides and the market.
If Dreamland was three time the size yes it would work, but it is not.
Alan
If Dreamland was three time the size yes it would work, but it is not.
Alan
-
Alan - Posts: 241
- Joined: 08 Feb 2003, 17:09
- Location: Medway Kent
by Chris H » 22 Jan 2006, 19:18
Bob
You mentioned that you where going to put, gift/souvenir shops, a
confectionery shop and a restaurant/take away.
Gift/ souvenir shop: Their are 2 of those in the immediate vicinity (space city gifts and the margate rock shop on the corner)
Confectionery shop: Again thier are at least 2 in the immediate vicinity(Clock tower news and the other opposite the Sheldon's pub at the top of the High street)
Restaurant/take away: Oriental buffet, promenade, Beano cafe, and many more.
Bob yet againanother of your intelligent ideas
You also mentioned a new road/ entrance. This wouldntgo through the
ste of the "ACCIDENTAL" fire would it
One thing i do admire about you and you clan is how you are able to
convince people into believing you are doing the right thing for Margate.
You mentioned that you where going to put, gift/souvenir shops, a
confectionery shop and a restaurant/take away.
Gift/ souvenir shop: Their are 2 of those in the immediate vicinity (space city gifts and the margate rock shop on the corner)
Confectionery shop: Again thier are at least 2 in the immediate vicinity(Clock tower news and the other opposite the Sheldon's pub at the top of the High street)
Restaurant/take away: Oriental buffet, promenade, Beano cafe, and many more.
Bob yet againanother of your intelligent ideas
You also mentioned a new road/ entrance. This wouldntgo through the
ste of the "ACCIDENTAL" fire would it
One thing i do admire about you and you clan is how you are able to
convince people into believing you are doing the right thing for Margate.
- Chris H
- Posts: 127
- Joined: 29 Nov 2005, 20:24
- Location: Cliftonville
Re: Option C and Dreamland the Real Facts
by Vince, Charlie and Sam » 22 Jan 2006, 19:50
Bob wrote:
Option C - What does it Mean ?
It means every effort will be made to redevelop Dreamland as a modern amusement facility. Some redundent buildings will need to be demolished and a new access road will be built. A small amount of the site will be used for appropriate retail facilities. This does not include a Supermarket, DIY store or anything like that. It will include a resturant/take away. Souvenir/Gift shop. Confectionary shop. Occasional Market. These will all be small units.
If this statement could be taken at face value, then I personally would not have a problem with it. In fact, I would support it- although I must make it clear that I am not *formally* involved with the Campaign and these views are my personal views and not those of the Campaign.
The problem is that I have seen no detailed long-term plans submitted by the developers to support the proposition which Barry Moss has put forward. This leads me to believe that the long term plan remains "supermarketification by stealth".
But, in fairness, Barry does seem to be elaborating on the developers' plans, and I think we should give him a fair hearing.
Barry, you will have seen the "I dream of Dreamland" concept plan- could your company present something along these lines which we could examine?
-
Vince, Charlie and Sam - Posts: 922
- Joined: 25 Aug 2003, 12:56
- Location: Ramsgate.
by taffy » 22 Jan 2006, 20:23
Hi Vince,
Thanks for the info. on Bob/Barry. I find it amazing that Dreamland has a manager of any description. It's hard to work out what he does apart from stopping advertisement or promotion of the park, making it as unpleasant as possible for anyone who does manage to turn up when it is/was actually ever open. A pleasant and enjoyable family environment was systematically 'trashed' over the recent tenure and deliberately turned into a wasteland.
Job satisfaction must be high.
Taffy.
Thanks for the info. on Bob/Barry. I find it amazing that Dreamland has a manager of any description. It's hard to work out what he does apart from stopping advertisement or promotion of the park, making it as unpleasant as possible for anyone who does manage to turn up when it is/was actually ever open. A pleasant and enjoyable family environment was systematically 'trashed' over the recent tenure and deliberately turned into a wasteland.
Job satisfaction must be high.
Taffy.
- taffy
- Posts: 48
- Joined: 07 Jan 2006, 22:38
- Location: bicester
by Nick » 22 Jan 2006, 21:02
In response to some of Bob's comments:
1. Bob, you say that you are looking to retain some amusements, but do not say what this will be. There is a big difference in a travelling fair pulling onto the site and the millions of pounds of investment required to create a permanent amusement park. The Conservative councillors of Thanet District Council do not know the difference between the two, that is clear from the events of Thursday evening. I know the difference. Most members of this campaign know the difference, and I am sure that most of Margate's visitors will know the difference. I assume it is the former you are proposing, not the latter, because the latter would need a long-term commitment.
2. Fantasy Island is nothing like Dreamland. It is in the middle of the biggest collection of caravans in Europe and is not in an urban area. It is an amusement park adjacent to a market. Both operate side by side, although the market often sprawls into the amusement park. Personally, I don't like the market, and I don't like to see certain products being sold where there are families and children.
3. Philip Miller has no plans for a market or supermarket in Adventure Island. He is 100% committed to the amusement park, he is 100% committed to the amusement park industry (and he has some exciting new rides opening this year).
4. I can confirm 100% that an offer was made by Stockvale Ltd (the company that owns Adventure Island and Sea Life Adventure) to acquire Dreamland. It was made at independently assessed market value for the site as an amusement park. The offer was made in 2003.
Finally, Bob. You say that this Campaign is now causing more harm that good. Susan has already reminded you above that the independent inspector was convinced by our position, not the Council's. He was concerned that wherever there was the possibility of valuable redevelopment, there was no hope of the park continuing. So, Bob, can you please tell me and our members what incentive there is for Margate Town Centre Regeneration Company/Waterbridge to invest £10m or more in permanent amusement rides and attractions? Not in supporting retail, or other forms of development, but in the actual amusement park itself? If you can confirm that is going to happen, perhaps you can also tell us what permanent rides you propose to install?
If you cannot answer those two questions adequately, then please accept that we will continue fighting your plans all the way. We don't want second best for Dreamland, we have been campaigning far too long for that.
Nick
1. Bob, you say that you are looking to retain some amusements, but do not say what this will be. There is a big difference in a travelling fair pulling onto the site and the millions of pounds of investment required to create a permanent amusement park. The Conservative councillors of Thanet District Council do not know the difference between the two, that is clear from the events of Thursday evening. I know the difference. Most members of this campaign know the difference, and I am sure that most of Margate's visitors will know the difference. I assume it is the former you are proposing, not the latter, because the latter would need a long-term commitment.
2. Fantasy Island is nothing like Dreamland. It is in the middle of the biggest collection of caravans in Europe and is not in an urban area. It is an amusement park adjacent to a market. Both operate side by side, although the market often sprawls into the amusement park. Personally, I don't like the market, and I don't like to see certain products being sold where there are families and children.
3. Philip Miller has no plans for a market or supermarket in Adventure Island. He is 100% committed to the amusement park, he is 100% committed to the amusement park industry (and he has some exciting new rides opening this year).
4. I can confirm 100% that an offer was made by Stockvale Ltd (the company that owns Adventure Island and Sea Life Adventure) to acquire Dreamland. It was made at independently assessed market value for the site as an amusement park. The offer was made in 2003.
Finally, Bob. You say that this Campaign is now causing more harm that good. Susan has already reminded you above that the independent inspector was convinced by our position, not the Council's. He was concerned that wherever there was the possibility of valuable redevelopment, there was no hope of the park continuing. So, Bob, can you please tell me and our members what incentive there is for Margate Town Centre Regeneration Company/Waterbridge to invest £10m or more in permanent amusement rides and attractions? Not in supporting retail, or other forms of development, but in the actual amusement park itself? If you can confirm that is going to happen, perhaps you can also tell us what permanent rides you propose to install?
If you cannot answer those two questions adequately, then please accept that we will continue fighting your plans all the way. We don't want second best for Dreamland, we have been campaigning far too long for that.
Nick
-
Nick - Site Admin
- Posts: 791
- Joined: 25 Jan 2003, 20:13
- Location: Oxfordshire
18 posts
• Page 1 of 2 • 1, 2
Return to Save Dreamland Campaign Forum
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 53 guests