Exhibition of Dreamland Proposals

[marky.com]

Without constantly repeating the same answers to the same questions may I suggest that you read the Prsee Release on the latest news page! It does state quite clearly our preffered option is still something along the lines of the 2005 concept plan but without the backing of the local authority after the inspectors recommendations to protect Dreamland as an amusement park we had to come up with a plan B.

I have already read it and it's what lead me here today. I have no doubt that the campaign will continue to push for the original vision, but do feel that the existence of a Plan B could backfire, as it seems to send out a mixed message, that's all. Plus, I feel that Plan B differs more than it needs to from the original vision, in that there has been a side-step not just to a smaller park, but from a traditional family theme/amusement park towards a 'heritage park', which I personally don't feel would be as effective.

[Jim Douglas Jr.]

Sounds more like 2 good plans will trump a couple of unappealing ones.

[Jim Douglas Jr.]

More housing.... B O R I N G ! That can go anywhere.

[EAS]

A heritage park can attract heritage and other lottery cash. Win hearts and minds. It's all rather more subtle I would suggest than it first appears. It's great PR too.

Let's be brutally honest - we can want all we like, the planning system is on the side of a site owner and without reasonable grounds for objection there is little people can do. Human Rights Act and all that.

Sure we want the whole site as a first option.

Plan B has very reasonable grounds to support it - it's about protecting the setting of a listed structure and providing an enhanced setting... it's a material consideration in planning terms. And will win the support of heritage organisations. There's the re-use of a listed cinema involved too. It's all a good one.

Get real people. These are nasty developers, in general that means mean and bad and greedy. They don't care what we want. They aren't interested in Margate. They have legal teams and things. It's war. It's David and Goliath.


But David did win, remember.

[kevinashe]

EAS have you any dimensions on the plan b plan of how much will be housing/fairground if possible in acres as i find it easier to work on that

[EAS]

I know exactly the same as you do.

More info would have to come from those who have worked so hard on behalf of us all to come up with the plans. But remember things may have to remain confidential.

[Nick]

In answer to the various questions, our Concept Plan for the heritage park covers approximately 7 acres. That is an an area of land provided to us by the Margate Renewal Partnership (a public regeneration organisation), but has no status other than that. It can change, get bigger or smaller (although we would stringly advise against the latter if we are to create an attraction of genuinely national/international appeal).

Of course we should continue to fight for the entire site to be retained as an amusement park. There is every reason for us to do that because we were backed by an independent inspector and the Local Plan still requires that as the starting point.

The heritage park concept is different. This is an opportunity to create a really unique attraction, that would put Margate on the map. It has the potential to be much higher profile than a 'standard' amusement park because of its very uniqueness. It would also be an appropriate setting for the Scenic. However, it is also 'time sensitive'.

The reason for promoting the heritage park now is that several amusement parks around Britain have either closed or are closing, including Pleasureland (Southport), Ocean Beach (Rhyl), Barry Island Pleasure Park and The Village Experience (Fleggburgh) - all for the own reasons, but most to do with property values. Within the next 12 months, the only major seaside parks with any heritage left (except Dreamland) will be the Pleasure Beaches at Blackpool and Great Yarmouth. There is now a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to save some of these great vintage rides and move them to Dreamland, which would be a wonderful setting for them. If you look at the Concept Plan, you can see the sort of rides we are talking about.

But - and this is really the main reason for doing this now - if we leave this idea for another year, then there will be no prospect of a heritage park.

My personal view, having done extensive (and, unfortunately for various reasons, confidential) feasibility work, is that this is a concept that we should pursue as a 'Plan B' because it would create a genuinely first class attraction for the town. I know that the others who have worked on this concept - including Sarah, Susan, Dave and Jean-Marc - are equally as excited by this.

So, yes, we should go on fighting for the full Dreamland. But I believe that we also need to explore this concept further because it would give Margate something that nowhere else in Britain has got. And, let's face it, if there is going to be a heritage amusement park in this country, then it should be at Margate.

In answer to some other questions:

- Our model is for the site to be transferred to a trust. This could be the Dreamland Trust, which was set up by the Save Dreamland Campaign. The trust could have access to developer funding via a 'Section 106 agreement' on the partial redevelopment of the site (something that would not be available if the entire park remains an amusement park) and potentially to grant funding. This could cover some or all of the capital costs of building the park. The park would then be run as any other seaside park is run, i.e. free entry with wristbands or ride tickets, maximising footfall and spend within on-park catering and retail. The park could either be run by the trust (which could include use of volunteers) or managed by a commercial operator. We have interest from established operators in managing a heritage park, on the basis that it is owned by a trust. There are several companies out there that operate living museums or heritage attractions.

- I don't see why the park should be less exciting than a modern theme park, but it would be different. The park would be likely to include exciting roller coasters, water rides, ghost train/dark rides, thrilling fairground rides, but in a really unique atmosphere. It would also appeal to families as opposed to teenagers, and that would be good for Margate. It would also attract those with an interest in amusement park history. The museum inside the cinema would also attract those with no interest in going on rides.

- We are in discussions with several parks about taking vintage rides. We are confident that there are good rides available that we could use that would represent important eras in this country's amusement park history. But these rides will not be available in a few months time.

It is also interesting that our proposals are not a million miles way from Waterbridge's Duke of York proposals. There would need to be some fundamental changes to the Waterbridge proposals to make them acceptable (and I will be writing to them shortly to explain what those changes are), but it is possible that agreement could be reached.

On balance, I think we should pursue this option. If we don't pursue it now, then we cannot pursue it at a later date.

I would be interested in the views of visitors to this forum. I will set up a poll.

Nick

[EAS]

I agree absolutely with you. A modern amusement park can be built anywhere - new 'theme' parks are being built too.

This one would attract people of all ages who aren't interested in big new 'thrill' rides - the Wild Mouse at PBB Ltd is about as scary as I like. If I want wild and looping and metal I can go plenty of places. There are some pretty scary bits of 'vintage' kit around though - old doesn't mean boring.

If we don't grasp the nettle now and try to save what's left of our heritage attractions they will be wiped out. EH is only now I think waking up to the the fact things are vanishing, and it moves about as quickly as a tortoise. When it talks of seaside heritage it means piers and buildings not the things we love. (I love piers and seaside buildings too but then I'm not yer average EH Inspector, who might not see the attraction in a ghost train...). I've done a fair bit of jumping up and down about Pleasureland and other things but it all doesn't fit easily into the listing system (and I include Blackpool - crazy I know but it's all very touch and go with 20th c structures). If we wait for changes of heart then things will be wiped out.

The museum idea is great, and could also house amusement arcade machines from a bygone era - I am sure that there are many around waiting for new homes. I can think of some. In the right sort of setting they'd be fun. A museum means education - something which grant aiding bodies require.

Even if we lose some of the things we would love to have there, it may be that there are places abroad which have stuff which could be brought here. Even reconstructions aren't a bad idea if to illustrate things from the past, mixed with the genuine. Also space for travelling rides could mean a few 'guest appearances' occasionally.

A Section 106 is a real possibility to help fund thgis, as part of the planning gain. I have no doubt Nick and the team will have gone into this very thoroughly. I am sure that donors would give cash too and charitable trusts of all sorts if this is run by a trust.

I would love it! Candy floss anyone?

PS - I have posted elswhere about the EH conference. It should be noted one of the speakers is about to publish a short book on Margate this year:

http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/uplo ... eakers.pdf

and I note on pages 6 and 7 that Roger Bowdler at least seems to be getting the message that things are being lost:
http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/uplo ... papers.pdf

Pity this wasn't realised before the Cyclone disaster.

EH has, however, had two recentish reports from me (with the invaluable aid of others) about coasters and the rarity of what is left, and a spot of history of certain other attractions. This was backed by SAVE. Let's hope they are now realising that this is serious stuff, being championed by serious historians, and it's as much worthy of protection as other entertainment buildings and structures such as early cinemas and piers.

[kevinashe]

on a view for a site of 7 acres (approx a sixth of the size of blackpool pleasure beach and more on par with m&ds at strathclyde park)i think this is a little small considering that there is going to be the scenic,water chute,river caves and ksm possibly on site 4 very large rides that will take up a vast amount of space,plus space has to be left for other future preservation of rides as nobody knows when other parks may cast off historic last in the uk or world structures.

[EAS]

Let's be realistic in what can be achieved though.

It's not 'ours' to have really...

[Cheryl]

Personally I am very excited at the heritage plans. I have always wanted my girls to feel the Dreamland experience as I did as a young girl and, this would give them a good idea of what I 'rave' on about. Obviously we all would love to save the entire park and even if we were fortunate enough to do this, I don't think the heritage idea should be shelved, I feel quite strongly that a section should still be kept for this, what an amazing place it would be.

[Lou]

I think the heritage idea is wonderful, i just hope we can have the whole site and do a fantastic job.............I know Waterbridge want to build houses, but maybe someone can convince them that they will be party to a unique and wonderful concept. I'm sure they can find a field somewhere to build houses on.............

[EAS]

No, I think the idea is to build on the piece of land they own, which is Dreamland. Don't confuse these people with anyone who gives a damn.

But if they build on part and the local authority make them sign a Section 106 to part fund the heritage park as a tit for tat arrangement that's planning gain.

[Jim Douglas Jr.]

Just a quick comment.
Remember, it's all about blocking the rezoning. No housing if the council doesn't allow for rezoning. Concentrating efforts on Waterbridge is pointless. Pressure needs to be exerted on local government.

[stuart]

Just a quick comment.
Remember, it's all about blocking the rezoning. No housing if the council doesn't allow for rezoning. Concentrating efforts on Waterbridge is pointless. Pressure needs to be exerted on local government.

funny you should say that 'cos it's local election day here today and i'm just off to the polling station to hopefully 'do my bit' in the fight against the local goverment!