Sunday, April 29, 2007

Dreamland Margate exhibition
A word of caution

Despite the fact that, the Margate Town Centre Regeneration company, have laid on an exhibition, with their outline plans, for the Dreamland site, it was not clearly signposted, where about on the massive site, so if you're going in the next day or two and you have until 7th May, you'll find it in the left-hand corner, at the back as you come into the car-park.

As you know, I have suggested that these people, running the Margate Town Centre Regeneration company, are not stupid. It's been well publicised the they have spent or are going to spend £250,000, on consultation, now this isn't just to benefit, the local newspapers, ostensibly it's to consult us the public, great you might think their listening to us. You would be wrong however I think, because the way they are phrasing questions, seems to be a very cynical, method itself appears to be manipulating public interest in this project.

Manipulating the public? Those people I spoke to yesterday, who had eventually found the exhibition, seemed to be very strongly in favour of retention of Dreamland theme park, which as many of us realise his famous the world over. But when you look at the public exhibition feedback form, you are asked to make judgments based on two choices, minimal amusement facilities and lots of housing or no amusement facilities and even more houses. The one option you cannot take is to express your wish that in line with the government planning inspector, you wish to see this area retained as a theme park.

Here is my advice when and if you go to the exhibition, you will be handed a feedback form, on the reverse of which are a series of questions and you are asked to give a response, indicating one to five your strength of 'response' whatever that means, since this doesn't give you the opportunity to clearly and unequivocally express, your objections to both plans and preserve the area for its traditional use, I suggest you ignore the reverse side, instead make some comment, to the effect that you object to the change of use on the site.

I don't doubt that the developers will use, their feedback form, as some sort of justification for their plans, despite the fact it ignores the one option everyone would love, the restoration of the park.

Some people might even, have sympathy with the developers, since clearly their spending a lot of money, but just remember that, their in this to make money, and what's at stake here is the very character of Margate.

Here is the question that Waterbridge wont ask, do you want Margate to be a vibrant place with the Turner centre and Dreamland theme-park or would you prefer Waterbridges dull grey housing estate. PHOTO'S OF PLANS & MODELS CLICK HERE


  1. Looks from the plans as if 'Godden's Gap' is to be some sort of access road after all. Oh well, Margate wouldn't be Margate without one of it's front teeth missing.

    All in all, though, the plans do look very dull from what you've put up here. The Save Dreamland people got a theme park designer to draw up full plans of how the place might be restored as a viable amusement park. I note that's not a choice the people of Margate are being offered.

  2. The developers know that the Thanet people are apathetic and will not protest unduly.
    Of course they haven't given a plan that we would like and will treat this exercise as a pushover.
    The only way to make them realise is to do something massive. A proest march might disturb but can you see that happening. Regrettably not. I am old now and not in good health but it makes me boil the way the Thanetians are being so thoughtlessly heeded.

  3. Sadly this seems to be the way of consultations... the goveremnts pathfinder (demolition of terrace houses) schemes in the north of England (Liverpool, manchester etc) employed the same technique. a questionaire asked of us about how we felt about the plans to demolish our street was presented as 'you agree or disagree that the houses should be demolished/renovated?'

    not suprisingly the answers where presented as the majority being in favour of demolision.