Who would you prefer to see in ownership of Dreamland?

[DaveD]

If recent events are confirmed to be true and from what we know about the new owners and their plans for the Lido etc, are Paigle Properties a better or worse proposition than the smoke and mirrors show that was Waterbridge?

Dave D

[EAS]

Well, there is a Planning Brief now being consulted on for the site, so maybe hands are tied...

[Sarah]

Ooh, Batman, there's an idea. I think we have an affinity, both being cave dwellers.

Sarah

[Vince, Charlie and Sam]

Paigle are a local firm who have done a beautiful and sympathetic job on the Sea Bathing Hospital and a stated aim of acting positively in Margate's favour and I think we should at least hear them out.

[EAS]

I would like to se the Sea Bathing Hospital before I comment.

I agree it was at risk, but I wonder how much of its history has gone?

A pretty facade may be all that's left.

Don't sleep too soundly, folks. Dreamland is causing national interest, and it's very different kettle of fish.

[Vince, Charlie and Sam]

For many years it was a derelict eyesore.

This is it a few months ago. Obviously the building looks raw and the flora needs time to mature but it is nearly finished.








No doubt some would have been keener for it to remain what it was- a working hospital built for Victorians suffering from diptheria and consumption. And they could have carried on campaigning for that until the day it fell down.

I personally think that the involvement of Paigle is very good news, but will not draw a definite conclusion until they announce their intentions.

Although I do not wish to appear sheep-like, I suspect I will agree with Nick Laister's opinion.


There is no point in trying to imagine that it is still 1952.

(Edit, to re-size image)

[EAS]

Well, there is good conservation and bad. I know what the facade looks like.

Until I have seen more than the pic I cannot comment.

But the Dreamland site is rather a different matter.

It also has two listed buildings/structures which are not in bad condition, and need sensitive thought.

There are national conservation groups to consider too - this site isn't a local matter.

[Vince, Charlie and Sam]

Well, as I said, I think we should be willing to listen to Paigle's proposal and give them our input.

Certainly the complete removal of Jimmy Godden from the equation is, in my opinion, to be welcomed.

[EAS]

I think it wouldn't make a great deal of difference who owned the site.

They need to ensure it makes a profit.

There's also the planning brief and a whole heap of planning law and guidance, also statutory consultees, and in the end a call in and a public inquiry to consider if things aren't right. National bodies will be interested in the bigger conservation picture.

It's a very complex site, and I wish 'em well!

[Vince, Charlie and Sam]

I have always been a staunch supporter of the Campaign, and as Dave 771 will confirm, there are very few people who have ridden the Scenic Railway as much as myself, Charlie and Sam.

But I have also defended Bob against the calls for his banishment. What he says is largely true. Times have changed. Fifty years ago, no Londoner would ever have heard of Benidom, Marbella or Gran Canaria, or would have ever been on an aeroplane. The old days are never coming back.

My personal opinion is that Dreamland is viable, as a smaller but more compact site which will attract the heritage tourist, but with other attractions which will attract a more contemporary public.

If this means there is no space for the elderly pervert who used to grope people and then make a superficial attempt to guess their weight and his ilk then so be it.


Paigle seem to me to be a local builder with a love for the area, combined with a need to make their business pay. I think we should at least listen to their proposals.

But as I have said before, my own contribution to the Campaign is nothing compared to that of Nick, Sarah and Dave and I think we should all support them in their opinions as to the way forward once they have discussed the matter with Paigle.

YMMV!

[EAS]

I think you misunderstand though - it's not up to the campaign, it's not up to the developer, it's not even totally up to the local authority what happens to the site.

There are far more people/organisations which will be (and are) involved than that, and it all has to be a balancing act with national guidance and listed building stuff, national conservation principles, EH's guidance re enabling development... and in the end it may be down to the Secretary of State, if a call-in happens.

See porf's post re EH and the 'Beach Boys' - seasides are now big news on the conservation front.

Let's also remember Phillip Miller was convinced the whole site could make money as an amusement park.

I suspect he still does.

[dave771]

Can I just say that the article in todays Gazette states that Waterbridge are in talks with Paigle and nothing more ! Paigle do not own the site as far as I am aware so the current owners are still Waterbridge.

[EAS]

Thanks - no matter who owns the site, it's not a blank canvas to do as they wish.

All I said above applies regardless.

[Vince, Charlie and Sam]

Can I just say that the article in todays Gazette states that Waterbridge are in talks with Paigle and nothing more ! Paigle do not own the site as far as I am aware so the current owners are still Waterbridge.

Congratulations to Margate couple Neil and Kate Chester, shown on the front page of today's Thanet Gazette after winning £8.5 million on the National Lottery.

If I'd won it, I know what i would be doing with it!

[Jim Douglas Jr.]

Prince Charles.
He seems to care about history and interesting things.

The Pet Shop Boys. They could film weird videos there.

Petula Clark. She's cool and never sleeps in the subway, only downtown.