Joyland Books

by **Bob** » 31 Mar 2006, 06:09

TDC have now recieved several complaints about the big Wheel being errected on the Dreamland site complaining that Planning permission has not been obtained and its visual impact on the Scenic Railway & Seafront.

by **jmace9** » 31 Mar 2006, 06:46

welcome back bob we have missed you :lol:

by **Sarah** » 31 Mar 2006, 08:03

Well, the Campaign certainly hasn't lodged a complaint. This is the kind of thing we want to see happening. And it would be great if a Big Wheel could be a permanent fixture on that site, rather than a temporary one.

Sarah

by **Zoidstar** » 31 Mar 2006, 11:38

Would it need planning permision as

1. Its a tempary Structure

2 Its a wheeld vichile

by **Neil** » 31 Mar 2006, 12:37

Yes, welcome back Bob. We haven't heard from you for a while, although I suppose James has tried to entertain us in your absence. As I understand it a temporary structure doesn't need permission. As such when you have those lorries parked along the side of motorways with adverts on they don't need permission.

In terms of it interfering with the setting of the Scenic I assume you can't be supporting these complaints, as it would look a bit hypocritical to say that you think the fence is a good idea and then complain about a structure that is much further away.

You sound pretty confident about your claim, I don't suppose you would care to tell us who told you this.

by **jmace9** » 31 Mar 2006, 14:34

Have you noticed when Bod comes back to the forum it comes alive. I feel his impact can only help us win the battle and save dremland in it's entirety. :lol:

by **Bob** » 31 Mar 2006, 16:21

Neil wrote:Yes, welcome back Bob. We haven't heard from you for a while, although I suppose James has tried to entertain us in your absence. As I understand it a temporary structure doesn't need permission. As such when you have those lorries parked along the side of motorways with adverts on they don't need permission.

In terms of it interfering with the setting of the Scenic I assume you can't be supporting these complaints, as it would look a bit hypocritical to say that you think the fence is a good idea and then complain about a structure that is much further away.

You sound pretty confident about your claim, I don't suppose you would care to tell us who told you this.

Not correct Motoway adverts do need planning permission.

The big wheel needs ground anchours as such that makes it a perminant structure as it cannot just be picked up and moved so it may have to come down with 28 days

by **Killa** » 31 Mar 2006, 16:28

so this big wheel as we know is scottish showmen matty and douglas taylor's right, well then, answer me this, when it builds up at nottingham goose fair, newcastle town moor, etc etc, planning permission does not have to be granted, its a travelling ride. so what you are saying is that a travelling fair must apply for planning permission to build up a giant wheel now?

by **dave771** » 31 Mar 2006, 16:38

Planning permission does have to be given for a stucture of this size wherever it goes, difference with the other grounds are that they are events that are planned well in advance and the local authorities deal with these issues before the rides arrive on site.

by **lutonlad** » 31 Mar 2006, 16:49

Bob wrote:TDC have now recieved several complaints about the big Wheel being errected on the Dreamland site complaining that Planning permission has not been obtained and its visual impact on the Scenic Railway & Seafront.

Got to hand it to you mate! you sit back and say nothing untill the first bit of goods news comes around and up you pop trying to disrupt the forum. You haven't defended any of the recent posts about you recently, and as i am aware with the advertisments in the media etc about the hopes of a big wheel returning to Margate etc I don't think the council will opose it.

Lets face it Bob this is another good thing for dreamland and all of us supporters and another stab in your back at hopes for a new house and casino. YOU WILL NOT WIN SO GIVE UP!!!!!!!!!

Gary

by **Neil** » 31 Mar 2006, 17:16

Bob wrote:Not correct Motoway adverts do need planning permission.

I'm not 100% certain, but as I said I believe they do. You may remember telling us that the pallisade fence didn't need planning permission so it is clear you don't know what you are talking about. If someone who does corrects me I'll take their word for it, but I'm not prepared to listen to someone who has been wrong so many times and provides no proof.

by **Nick** » 31 Mar 2006, 20:05

Firstly, some clarification: Amusement park rides within an established amusement park do not need planning permission under Part 28 of the General Permitted Development Order 1995 (as long as they are less than 25m high, and as long as permitted development rights have not been removed by the Council). Unfortunately, the Big Wheel is probably over 25 metres and does not sit inside the amusement park.

However, I doubt you will find any complaints from members of this campaign as this is exactly the sort of thing we want to see. Siting it in the new entrance, right on the seafront, is quite an inspired idea.

Of course, like the fences, the Council may well ask you to apply for planning permission retrospectively. However, unlike the fences, I would expect permission to be granted as a structure like this is entirely appropriate on this sea front location.

I hope this clears things up.

Nick

by **porterm** » 31 Mar 2006, 20:26

We seem to be going full circle on this one (excuse the pun but I seem to be in quite a silly mood tonight).

Also, it seems a bit unfair that Moto signs have to get planning permission on the motorway (well I believe that was what Bob was talking about anyway) unlike their rivals, eg Welcome Break etc. Discuss please. No, maybe on second thoughts don't bother.

I think Nick has answered this debate very well in his last post by the way. I think it has to be said that you can't stop the progress of the wheel.

(The above is not to be taken too seriously by the way; I just thought I'd inject a bit of humour in the proceedings after my slightly harder than expected Council objection drafting that I did in the early hours today).

Martin

PS Looking forward to a possible park meet-up in the not too distant future

by **Jim Douglas Jr.** » 01 Apr 2006, 00:54

Fair is far. If the land belongs to Waterbridge and the Big Wheel needs a permit, it should be secured.
We can't cheer for one thing done illegally (wheel) and jeer another (fence).

Still, it's nice to see the site coming back for the season.

I've hoped aginst hope that the fencing erected is indeed to wall off part of the park, WHILE IT'S BEING RESTORED.
That would be too good to be true.

Bob, charmed to see you. I was feeling a bit constipated and you cleared me right out.
Thanks ever-so-much.

by **Vince, Charlie and Sam** » 01 Apr 2006, 09:11

Bob wrote:TDC have now recieved several complaints about the big Wheel being errected on the Dreamland site .

How would you know?

Joyland Books

Planning Permission Complaint

Planning Permission Complaint

Re: Planning Permission Complaint

Re: Planning Permission Complaint

Who is online