Thorpe Park | Hyperia | Mack Hyper Coaster | 2024
- Thread starter Matt N
- Start date
-
- Tags
- 2024 new coaster thorpe park
Crazycoaster
Giga Poster
Aww, maybe they’ll have to redesign it somewhere it can be longer and better 
Nicky Borrill
Strata Poster
I cannot find any details on exactly which supports sit within 3b. Sure the info is there somewhere amongst the crazy amount of documents, but I can't find it. I did see a map that outlines the entire zone 3, but it doesn't break down which parts are 3a and 3b. Thorpe do clearly state that it is only supports that lie within 3b though.
CrashCoaster
CF Legend
That's what I just asked lol.
Hopefully it won't be too difficult to rectify then.
Dar
Hyper Poster
It's the local authority that splits zone 3 down into 3a and 3b, you can find the maps here: http://maps.runnymede.gov.uk/website/maps/index.html#
(A fact that took me far too long to figure out and even longer to find the maps
)Seems odd that the council has the authority to classify the zones but not to approve plans against its own policy. Their 'Strategic flood assessment' from 2018 says this about zone 3b: [emphasis added]
The use of 'or' seems to imply the supports should be fine because they're water compatible regardless of development type?
It's pretty much the whole lake
spicy
Giga Poster
So seeing as it’s pretty much the whole lake surely the current Loggers Leap supports are also within this same area?
Yet those supports are fine?
Beginning to think this coaster is going the same way as the Alton cross valley woodie tbh but will be no where as near disappointed if it’s cancelled.
Yet those supports are fine?
Beginning to think this coaster is going the same way as the Alton cross valley woodie tbh but will be no where as near disappointed if it’s cancelled.
JoshC.
Strata Poster
Tbf Loggers was built 30+ years ago, so it's not too much of a stretch to suggest that what is and isn't fine has changed. And I guess the EA (or any other authority) cannot retrospectively demand these things to be removed when these things change.
The Environmental Agency have now posted an artist’s rendition of what they expect to happen to Chertsey if they were to abandon their objection:
When asked for comment on the basis that the EA is supposed to have discretion over objections based on overall impact, the EA responded (several hours later) with “computer says no.”
When asked for comment on the basis that the EA is supposed to have discretion over objections based on overall impact, the EA responded (several hours later) with “computer says no.”
Last edited:
Nicky Borrill
Strata Poster
There is also a letter from 2010 in the planning documents from the council that states that if the area is already a developed area, such as Thorpe is, then development should not be impeded by flood zone 3b up to a point of saturation, which has not been reached yet. I’ll find it later (on my phone now) but if you want to look, it’s part of one of the responses to the EA.It's the local authority that splits zone 3 down into 3a and 3b, you can find the maps here: http://maps.runnymede.gov.uk/website/maps/index.html#
(A fact that took me far too long to figure out and even longer to find the maps
Seems odd that the council has the authority to classify the zones but not to approve plans against its own policy. Their 'Strategic flood assessment' from 2018 says this about zone 3b: [emphasis added]
The use of 'or' seems to imply the supports should be fine because they're water compatible regardless of development type?
It's pretty much the whole lake
View attachment 20033
Niles
Giga Poster
Thorpe have responded to the EA again, in short in regards to objection 1 they say they have given their response and will not add anything more in regards to it.
For Objection 2 they have given more information to get the EA to change their minds, but i doubt they will.
The EA will probably be objecting but i hope Thope can convince the council that the project can go ahead, its only them saying no at this point.
If you want to have a read all documents they are here
For Objection 2 they have given more information to get the EA to change their minds, but i doubt they will.
The EA will probably be objecting but i hope Thope can convince the council that the project can go ahead, its only them saying no at this point.
If you want to have a read all documents they are here
JoshC.
Strata Poster
There is also now a new document from the council towards the EA:
In short, it appears that the council are confused by the EA's position (specifically about "Objection 2" I believe), and are seeking further clarifications.
As has been discussed in the past, whilst bodies like the EA can object to a development, the ultimate decision lies with the council. They can take these objections on board, but still decide to give approval, provided they give their reasoning. Seemingly, as things stand, the council side with Thorpe on Objection 2.
And with Objection 1, it seems that Thorpe have nothing more to say. But, the park do have history with construction in these 'bad' flood zones (Swarm being the key example, which the park have leaned on). Optimistically, one could suggest that the council would be more inclined to again side with Thorpe over the EA in this case too, given the history there.
The interesting subplot about this now that hasn't been mentioned really is timing. In the original, full, application, the park said they'd look to start construction in November. Obviously preliminary work would take place before then (and did earlier in the year). There's two things I wonder now:
1. Did the park stop doing preliminary work because of some uncertainty during all this? If so, has that delayed them? If not, why was construction going to start in November, when they anticipated a summer approval originally?
2. The absolute earliest this could be approved now is October, but even then, there's no guarantee it will be considered then. Could this be dragged out long enough that, if approved, construction starts later than planned? Will the park literally be having to play catch up from the word go?
In short, it appears that the council are confused by the EA's position (specifically about "Objection 2" I believe), and are seeking further clarifications.
As has been discussed in the past, whilst bodies like the EA can object to a development, the ultimate decision lies with the council. They can take these objections on board, but still decide to give approval, provided they give their reasoning. Seemingly, as things stand, the council side with Thorpe on Objection 2.
And with Objection 1, it seems that Thorpe have nothing more to say. But, the park do have history with construction in these 'bad' flood zones (Swarm being the key example, which the park have leaned on). Optimistically, one could suggest that the council would be more inclined to again side with Thorpe over the EA in this case too, given the history there.
The interesting subplot about this now that hasn't been mentioned really is timing. In the original, full, application, the park said they'd look to start construction in November. Obviously preliminary work would take place before then (and did earlier in the year). There's two things I wonder now:
1. Did the park stop doing preliminary work because of some uncertainty during all this? If so, has that delayed them? If not, why was construction going to start in November, when they anticipated a summer approval originally?
2. The absolute earliest this could be approved now is October, but even then, there's no guarantee it will be considered then. Could this be dragged out long enough that, if approved, construction starts later than planned? Will the park literally be having to play catch up from the word go?
Nicky Borrill
Strata Poster
Looks like Thorpe have taken this show of support from the LPA and ran with it, uploading a shed load of new supporting documents.
I don't pretend to understand them all, but they seem to be both a compilation of the previous applications that the LPA mentioned in their response, to which the EA did not object, as well as evidence of how the compensation scheme has worked.
will6789
Roller Poster
It appears Project Exodus is now on the Planning Committee agenda for the 5th of October and the recommendation is for the committee to grant permission!
Here's a link to the agenda item PDF: https://democracy.runnymede.gov.uk/documents/s4601/RU.22_0374 Thorpe.pdf
Here's a link to the agenda item PDF: https://democracy.runnymede.gov.uk/documents/s4601/RU.22_0374 Thorpe.pdf
Coloratura
Roller Poster
We have a date for planning committe
CrashCoaster
CF Legend
Finally!
JoshC.
Strata Poster
Another new document appeared on the planning portal too, an 'Officer Report'. I'm going to be a bit cheeky and post the TPM article here I've written which goes into things in a bit more detail.
In short:
1. The Officer Report says that the council have been recommended to grant the application.
2. HOWEVER, as there are objections from the EA still in place, if it is granted, the application has to go to the Secretary of State for review. This could result in the council's decision ultimately being over-ruled.
The Officer Report basically supports Thorpe with regards to the EA's objections. It's also noted how frustrating dealing with the EA has been, with them taking 8-12 weeks to respond and log their issues, when the park have been very prompt with giving extra details. Indeed, the original expectation was that a decision would be reached 13 weeks after the application was submitted (back in MARCH), and the EA is effectively the sole reason this has not happened. Thorpe are aware of the potential issues that could come about with the application going to the Secretary of State for review.
I don't know what would happen during a review by the SoS, how long it could take or any potential issues / delays it could have. But presumably the park and their planning consultations are confident the application won't be rejected in any case, and are just so fed up with the EA at this point that they're pressing forward. This will hopefully mean they won't lose too much ground in terms of construction and still be able to open it in 2024.
So exciting times, but still with an asterisk next to it for now...
In short:
1. The Officer Report says that the council have been recommended to grant the application.
2. HOWEVER, as there are objections from the EA still in place, if it is granted, the application has to go to the Secretary of State for review. This could result in the council's decision ultimately being over-ruled.
The Officer Report basically supports Thorpe with regards to the EA's objections. It's also noted how frustrating dealing with the EA has been, with them taking 8-12 weeks to respond and log their issues, when the park have been very prompt with giving extra details. Indeed, the original expectation was that a decision would be reached 13 weeks after the application was submitted (back in MARCH), and the EA is effectively the sole reason this has not happened. Thorpe are aware of the potential issues that could come about with the application going to the Secretary of State for review.
I don't know what would happen during a review by the SoS, how long it could take or any potential issues / delays it could have. But presumably the park and their planning consultations are confident the application won't be rejected in any case, and are just so fed up with the EA at this point that they're pressing forward. This will hopefully mean they won't lose too much ground in terms of construction and still be able to open it in 2024.
So exciting times, but still with an asterisk next to it for now...
Matt N
CF Legend
Sorry to go off on a tangent or possibly ask an annoying question, but if no one minds, could I possibly ask; why is it that the length of Exodus bothers people so much compared to the length of other short rides?
For my money, I don’t see any difference between Exodus and something like Nemesis, or Wodan, or Skyrush, or even the shorter 200ft RMCs. As much as it would not have been my first choice of ride for Thorpe Park, I still think Exodus looks like it could be excellent.
Admittedly, it’s not the longest hyper in the world, but I’d personally say it plays to the strengths of being a shorter ride, and I’d hardly say it’s a short ride like Oblivion or Stealth. You’ll get a decent 5 or 6 elements out of it, and a decent 40 seconds of ride time (similar to Nemesis, which everyone raves about, and also not much shorter than some of the recent 200ft RMCs like Zadra and Iron Gwazi, which are also rides that everyone raves about) and the pacing and design style of it looks to be quite unrelenting and breathtaking. It appears a very unconventional hyper, with a more fast-paced, relentless layout style than something like a B&M Hyper, which I’d argue will play to the strengths of it not being as long as other hyper coasters; if it were a longer ride, you might not get the same type of effect. It appears a bit like Skyrush in that regard; that ride is also (apparently) short, but intense.
Would it have been my choice of ride? No; I was a very keen advocate of a B&M Hyper, as I personally rate a mix of thrill, fun and rerideability over out and out intensity, and I think a B&M Hyper would have filled a more discernible gap within both Thorpe and the wider UK industry. But I can see the rationale behind how Exodus was designed, and I think that Exodus as a layout appears to suit its length perfectly fine rather than appearing like a stunted version of a ride that should be loads longer (like a B&M Hyper of a similar length might possibly have been). I think it could be similar in style to something like Skyrush, or the Wodan of hyper coasters, in that it’s on the shorter side, but takes an unrelenting “bam, bam, bam” approach to its layout design.
Each to their own, of course, and if length is important to you, then fair enough, but I would say that it still looks excellent even if it’s not the longest hyper coaster on earth. If you don’t mind me asking; why is it that Exodus’ length is such a bone of contention for some compared to the length of other short rides, even other short rides of a similar scale in some cases?
I don’t mean to be confrontational, and I apologise if I come across that way. I’m just genuinely interested to know.
For my money, I don’t see any difference between Exodus and something like Nemesis, or Wodan, or Skyrush, or even the shorter 200ft RMCs. As much as it would not have been my first choice of ride for Thorpe Park, I still think Exodus looks like it could be excellent.
Admittedly, it’s not the longest hyper in the world, but I’d personally say it plays to the strengths of being a shorter ride, and I’d hardly say it’s a short ride like Oblivion or Stealth. You’ll get a decent 5 or 6 elements out of it, and a decent 40 seconds of ride time (similar to Nemesis, which everyone raves about, and also not much shorter than some of the recent 200ft RMCs like Zadra and Iron Gwazi, which are also rides that everyone raves about) and the pacing and design style of it looks to be quite unrelenting and breathtaking. It appears a very unconventional hyper, with a more fast-paced, relentless layout style than something like a B&M Hyper, which I’d argue will play to the strengths of it not being as long as other hyper coasters; if it were a longer ride, you might not get the same type of effect. It appears a bit like Skyrush in that regard; that ride is also (apparently) short, but intense.
Would it have been my choice of ride? No; I was a very keen advocate of a B&M Hyper, as I personally rate a mix of thrill, fun and rerideability over out and out intensity, and I think a B&M Hyper would have filled a more discernible gap within both Thorpe and the wider UK industry. But I can see the rationale behind how Exodus was designed, and I think that Exodus as a layout appears to suit its length perfectly fine rather than appearing like a stunted version of a ride that should be loads longer (like a B&M Hyper of a similar length might possibly have been). I think it could be similar in style to something like Skyrush, or the Wodan of hyper coasters, in that it’s on the shorter side, but takes an unrelenting “bam, bam, bam” approach to its layout design.
Each to their own, of course, and if length is important to you, then fair enough, but I would say that it still looks excellent even if it’s not the longest hyper coaster on earth. If you don’t mind me asking; why is it that Exodus’ length is such a bone of contention for some compared to the length of other short rides, even other short rides of a similar scale in some cases?
I don’t mean to be confrontational, and I apologise if I come across that way. I’m just genuinely interested to know.