Friday December 21st Thanet Gazette

[Lou]

Here some of what was written - (wish i had a scanner!)
Page 3
Funpark backed by majority

The brief proposes a mixed scheme with the majority of the site kept as part of an amusement park, along with homes.

Strong support for keeping the Scenic - 92% of people strongly agreeing or agreeing
97% either strongly agree or agree with the idea of keeping more than half the park as an amusement park

82% want Dreamland Cinema kept for leisure activities
3/4 favour the provision of a 250 space carpark

Less support for homes and apartments - 55% disagreed or stongly disagreed with this idea

Cllr. Robert Latchford - We have listened to peoples views and understand their concerns about the idea of enabling development on the site.
We also hear what people are saying about wanting to keep the majority of the site as an amusement park, but unfortunately one is unlikely to happen without the other. The simple truth is that some level of residential development would fund the future running of an amusement park and we have to be realistic about this.........

[porterm]

Hi Lou et al,

Great feedback there from the Gazette report. (Nothing too unexpected I guess really but still really good that Dreamland's revival appears paramount in most locals' eyes). We just need some rather swift action by the authorities now and hopefully work can at long last commence on rebuilding the park and its infractructure.

Yes, I believe miracles can indeed happen Lou, especially when the word "dream" appears in the park's title. (I was interested to note watching the Evel Kneivel meeting with Richard Hammond on last night's Top Gear BBC2 (UK) show that he had "dreams" as his final word as a memorial to him on his tombstone). He certainly had some, and there's a wooden coaster quite ironically in the offing for a Six Flags theme park in St Louis, USA, to launch next season. It will be just that more poignant now owing to the man's recent passing. (It's been designed apparently to emulate some of Evel's stunt moves - just hope they don't leave some gaps in the track around or it surely would be the ultimate thrill ride).

Martin

PS I noticed a few fire engines along the road leading from the Kebab takeaway that caught fire last year up towards the old Dreamland multi-storey car park last night as I was driving back home. There was also another engine en route it seemed as I left the area. I do hope nothing nasty happened around there (I couldn't see any flames anyhow). It always concerns me whenever I see scenes like that in the viciniity.

[EAS]

Strong support for keeping the Scenic - 92% of people strongly agreeing or agreeing

But why were people asked this? Even if everyone said no get rid of it, it's a listed structure and not so easy to get rid of! (Barring accidents...)


Enabling development - there are national guidelines about that too.

[porterm]

Just curious too about how public housing on the site can actually enhance or financially support an amusement park. Maybe I am naive, but I thought that council tax revenues were not channeled in this kind of direction.

Surely an amusement/theme park is a privately run business.

I would be interested to know the consequences of the above.

Martin

[Nick]

"Public" or affordable housing would not fund the amusement park. However, the developer of the private housing can provide funds for the amusement park using a 'Section 106' agreement. This is set out both in the Brief and in the Local Plan, and is therefore perfectly acceptable. It needs to meet a few requirements in a Government Circular (Circular 5/05 for those sad enought to want to find out more!), but none of these would prevent the funding of the rebuild of Dreamland.

[EAS]

Mostly, private housing developments are required to have some element of 'affordable' housing incorporated. That's not really 'public' housing.


Regarding enabling development:


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

Enabling Development
English Heritage’s Policy Statement and Practical Guide to Assessment: Enabling Development and the conservation of heritage assets has provided a standard approach to considering enabling development since its publication in June 2001. We have now decided to update this guidance in light of practical experience, changing legislation, some additional issues that have emerged, and a greater number of relevant reports and decisions by the Planning Inspectorate. The intent of the policy itself remains the same, but some changes of wording are proposed to clarify meaning and bring its presentation into line with the emerging English Heritage Principles, Policies and Guidance for the sustainable management of the historic environment.

More:
http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/serv ... w=nav.8384

In June 1999, English Heritage published a Policy Statement, Enabling development and the conservation of heritage assets, advocating a presumption against enabling development unless it meets specified criteria, the most important of which is that the benefits clearly outweigh the disbenefits. In June 2001, we republished the policy statement, supported by practical guidance to planning authorities on the assessment of applications – and so, of course, to owners and developers on what they should submit by way of justification.

The value of the first edition of this Guide was demonstrated by the speed with which it was taken up and applied by owners, developers, planning authorities, and the Planning Inspectorate. Since that time, our policy and guidance on enabling development has been set within the wider picture provided by our emerging Conservation Principles, Policies and Guidance for the sustainable management of the historic environment.

A key aim of this second edition has been to update references to legislation (particularly the change to Local Development Frameworks) case law and decisions on appeal or call-in. It now concentrates on those areas of practice which are particular to enabling development (and by extension other proposals where financial viability is a key issue), rather than common to most proposals affecting heritage assets. The publication of, particularly, Informed Conservation (2001) has made possible the omission of much general guidance in the previous edition.

We have taken the opportunity to revise or expand guidance on topics particularly associated with enabling development, including historic entities, farm buildings, levels of restoration, and taxation.

I hope that this edition will be even more helpful to practitioners than its predecessor.




Steve Bee
Director of Planning and Development

With regard to the consultation on an update to national policy, here's Heritage Link's response:

http://www.heritagelink.org.uk/docs/EH% ... opment.pdf

This makes interesting reading:
http://www.gardenstrusts.org.uk/COMMITT ... essing.asp


On telly tonight is an update of To the Manor Born. The house which featured as the Manor in the original series, Cricket St Thomas, is now a hotel - set amidst a tarmac car park. and a large extension. Many thought and still think this 'enabling' was a step too far.

[Nick]

Yes, I have been quite looking forward to see how they disguise that. The front of the building has not really chnaged too dramatically, but they are going to have to be careful with their camera angles.

Returning to Dreamland, the Council appear to be willing to waive the need for affordable housing on the site and use the funds that would have gone into that to fund the reconstruction of the amusement park.

Nick

[EAS]

Yes, I presumed that was the case - one lot of planning gain traded off against another. Interesting to see how much it corresponds with national guidance on enabling development though.

No-one has, sadly, been given the chance to take on the entire park as an amusement park, have they? It's been played carefully.