Going to throw in some extra discussion related to the planning application. Very nitty gritty boring stuff mind. It's also briefly talked about in Jack's second video.
Lots of documents have been uploaded to the
original application, featuring feedback and responses from the groups that have been consulted about the plans. In the past with Thorpe applications, this is just a formality, and there's never normally any objections.
However, a slightly curveball has been thrown: the Environment Agency (EA) aren't totally happy. I won't lie and say I fully understand it, but I'll give my interpretation:
In short, part of the coaster is being built in a high risk flood zone area. In fact, the only pieces of concern are supports. Across the country, developments in such areas are usually only approved if they are deemed suitably appropriate, and a roller coaster isn't usually deemed as such. So, the EA would have to "object in principle".
A response from the planning team is also on the application. Effectively, when the park submitted their most recent Mid Term Development Plan (MTDP), there was a level of agreement with the council that the park can build (minimally) with these particular flood zone areas, as it would fail to take into account all the mitigations the park make. It was in fact said to be "non sensical" to outright refuse applications on these grounds. This circles back to what I've said plenty of times with regards to Thorpe and the local council having a good working relationship and solid communication about developments.
This agreement has been adhered to in the past, for example with Swarm's application, and noted in one form or another for pretty much every investment since. The trouble is, this agreement was made back in 2009. Rules have changed, people involved have moved on and these things can be opened up to interpretation. The park have relied heavily on this agreement, and not really expanded upon it much, hence the EA's objection in principle.
Furthermore, in the response from the planning team, they outline that the EA do not have the power to actually "object" to the application, but rather advise the local council that they are not satisfied with what has been said. But ultimately, it would be up to the council to decide whether to formally object or not based on that advice. Oooh, burn.
The EA also have a second concern. Some of the building associated with the development (namely: the ride exit photo booth, ride exit shop and ride queue line shop) are below the design flood level, meaning they're at greater risk of being impacted by flood. Again, this would mean that the EA could object on technical grounds. This has also been addressed. The park will be saving one of the existing buildings in the Old Town area: the building opposite Rocky Express / adjacent to the old Loggers Leap station (it used to be an F&B place; a noodle bar being the most memorable incarnation). This will be transformed into the ride's exit shop. As such, the park want to keep the shop and photo booth on the same level (for accessibility purposes). Equally, the queue line shop will be level with the queue line. It's said that because the park have been able to run to area with no impact from floods like this, they can run the new area similarly.
This is all very technical, very fernickty stuff. And again, I don't claim to know all this, so I could be mis-interpreting. However, from speaking to others who do know a bit more about this, it seems to be a case that the plans might have over-simplified some of their plans and justifications about the placements in the flood zones. Maybe they've also been a bit hopeful on leaning on a 13 year old agreement saving them too.
I also note they've also had to make some additional clarifications about the noise impact (or rather, lack of) from the coaster too.
So it's clear that this is being well scrutinized by a lot of parties.
At the same time, it does seem like the park have all bases covered.
As I say, this is the first time I can think of that I've seen any form of 'objection' in relation to a Thorpe Park planning application (that wasn't from a local resident).
You have to go back to 2006 for the last time I can think of a fuss being kicked up over anything - the park tried adding lights to their coaster track above the car park entrance, when the application specifically said it wouldn't have lights. Park were clearly in the wrong there.
You have to go all the way back to 2005 to find the last time a planning application related to the park was refused (it was to illuminate the bus stop outside the park).
So this is a rare thing, and the fact the EA are opening up for rebuttal is a healthy sign I suppose (and probably the standard thing in these cases?).
I don't think this will cause the application to be rejected, or stop the ride being built or anything like that. Could it cause some delay? Possibly. But equally, it could all be pretty straightforward. But, again, I don't know my stuff here, so my opinion means very little.
tl;dr
1. The Environment Agency have two concerns about the application, which they say could cause them to object to Project Exodus' planning application
2. Responses have been issued over these two concerns, both of which seem pretty solid.
3. This probably will end up being ultimately inconsequential and we'll still get a new coaster.
