Exhibition of Dreamland Proposals

[kevinashe]

i was comparing plan b to m&ds at strathclyde park in scotland well actually the size of their site is 20 acres which actually feels quite small when your in the park and it only has a quick build water chute(wild water) and standard kit rollercoasters so i can imagine how small 7 acres would be but well have to wait and see only time will tell

[Scotchie]

I like the idea of this as a last resort, but it does look a very small area from the aerial photo

http://maps.live.com/default.aspx?v=2&cp=sjxrhch3f85d&style=o&lvl=1&tilt=-90&dir=0&alt=-1000&scene=7604844&encType=1

Are there any plans for the old carpark, as from this picture it looks extremely underused and a waste of useful space ?

[Jim Douglas Jr.]

I think that's where they want to build houses/flats. Not 100% sure, but last I heard, neither of the Waterbridge proposals even left any parking.
It would hardly be necessary if the park was reduced to just that tiny plot where the spinny- rides are shown and the Scenic R'.

[RowBot]

The parking for 2 plans was apparently meant to be underground

[andy]

hello all. first post on here but i have been lurking in the background and supporting the campaign for a while now. as someone who spent their childhood holidays in margate and has always been fond of the place, i managed to get let out for the day by the wife so i could see the dreamland plans for myself on thursday.
spent a hour or so discussing with the people in the tent why i thought the whole site should be an amusement park and they spent an hour trying to persuade me why it cant be.
sorry for repeating what has been said on here already but i didnt like the way you were being forced to choose one of the two proposals so the comments i left reflected that.
spent the rest of the day wandering round margate reliving old memories and popped into the shell grotto to say hello.
must stop waffling now, keep it up with the campaign everyone.

[porf]

This weeks Kent on Sunday has the following on the Heritage Park proposal :

[Bob]

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.

Whether you like it or not in the end any redevelopment plan has to be commercially viable. Redeveloping Dreamland as an Amusement Park is not viable and would loose massive amounts of money. No company or local council would back such a plan.

Unless you care to run it or kind find real backers with very deep pockets any alternative plan does not stand a hope in hell of succeeding.

[Bob]

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

I am glad to see your are now being much more realitic about what is practicable for the site.

I suspect you are being over optimistic with regard to grant funding. At best you would get about 50% of the capital costs and would be expected to match that with 50%.

The park though would expected to cover its operating cost. That could be very difficult to achieve

[EAS]

Oh Bob - wondered where you are!

Of course as ever you are talking out of your rear end about grants and things. Of course there are a variety of pots of funding to be tapped - but I doubt you have ever been involved with anything like that have you?

And nothing is decided as yet about what is to be tried for.

And with regard the comments to me - again, so much waffle and you don't know what you are talking about so really it's not worth doing more than having a chuckle at the idea of all that 'loose' money.

We still wait so many answers to so many questions too in previous posts! Assertions without any backup facts and figures are meaningless.

[Jim Douglas Jr.]

Blah blah blah...

[Jim Douglas Jr.]

All one needs to do is look at Kennywood to see that a vintage themed park has plenty of potential.
http://www.kennywood.com/

[Bob]

Oh Bob - wondered where you are!

Of course as ever you are talking out of your rear end about grants and things. Of course there are a variety of pots of funding to be tapped - but I doubt you have ever been involved with anything like that have you?

And nothing is decided as yet about what is to be tried for.

And with regard the comments to me - again, so much waffle and you don't know what you are talking about so really it's not worth doing more than having a chuckle at the idea of all that 'loose' money.

We still wait so many answers to so many questions too in previous posts! Assertions without any backup facts and figures are meaningless.

Yes there are a variaty of souces of potential funding. There are also lots of people competing for the same funds and currently a very substantial amount of funding is being diverted to the London Olympics. The funding you would need for Dreamland would be a very substantial amounts of money. You would have to justify the requirement for the funding with a detailed proposal on how it would be spent and what the benefit of the facility would be. You would also in general need to match the funding given. You will have great difficulty getting that level of funding in the current economic climate. You would also have difficulty try to match the funding unless you can do that your chances of receiving any grant is low.
They don't just hand out money because someone thinks its a good idea.
It will be very difficult indeed to raise funding for what is being proposed and I find it difficult to see what the benefit is?

[EAS]

I am obviously rather more clued up then about the sources and details of funding than you are, the Olympics isn't removing all sources of funding (not all funding is lottery based) and the benefits are fairly obvious - including heritage, culture, a museum, education, tourism...

Match funding can also include voluntary help.

Bob, why assume simply because people are interested in Dreamland and the Scenic Railway they have no wider contacts, expertise and experience which can be brought into play?

[Bob]

I am obviously rather more clued up then about the sources and details of funding than you are, the Olympics isn't removing all sources of funding (not all funding is lottery based) and the benefits are fairly obvious - including heritage, culture, a museum, education, tourism...

Match funding can also include voluntary help.

Bob, why assume simply because people are interested in Dreamland and the Scenic Railway they have no wider contacts, expertise and experience which can be brought into play?

I was not suggesting that all funding has dried up but competition for what grants there are is always strong and you will have to have a very convincing business case particulary as to how you will make the business cover its operating costs. Just mentioning the words Heritage, Culture & Museum, education & tourism does not get you funding. The Scenic Railway is already there so that covers the heritage aspect. Culture would be a difficult one I doubt you coul make a convincing case on that. Margate already has a Museum. The educational aspects of it are also difficult to see. as a torist atraction perhaps but they would want to see he projected number of vistors and ho that figure was arrived at and how it had been bench marked

[EAS]

Bob - you clearly have not a clue about much of this. This is all waffle. You are relentlessly negative in the most vague of terms. Have you ever beeen involved with anything like this on a personal basis?

I wonder if you have any idea of the work which has been put into all this? Have you even read properly what Nick has said?

Would you please now detail grant aiding bodies with which you have ever had any personal contact, or arts or national heritage organisations with which you have contacts?

You don't think that a museum and a heritage park is culture then? What's your version of 'culture'?

I think I could make a case, I think a project officer with experience of grant aid could make a case, and the Regeneration Partnership could make a very strong case indeed.