What's new
By:
FORUMS - COASTERFORCE

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Thorpe Park | Hyperia | Mack Hyper Coaster | 2024

Sorry to put a downer on this.

This is NOT the Environment Agency. This is Natural England.

Natural England had their own, separate, concerns regarding the Construction Management Plan, as well as some of the archeology of the area. As seen, the park have resolved these concerns (largely by providing more details and making things clearer).

However, the objections from the EA still stand, in particular regarding the flood zone issues and related problems. I believe the current situation has not changed since this was last discussed: the park have submitted an updated flood risk assessment, and we're still awaiting further thoughts from the EA and council as a result.

Natural England's objections were easier to address, since they simply required more information. The EA's concerns are much more complex.

This is still a good thing of course, albeit largely academic, but we're far from being in a position where Exodus being approved is now a foregone conclusion.
 
JoshC. said:
Sorry to put a downer on this.

This is NOT the Environment Agency. This is Natural England.

Natural England had their own, separate, concerns regarding the Construction Management Plan, as well as some of the archeology of the area. As seen, the park have resolved these concerns (largely by providing more details and making things clearer).

However, the objections from the EA still stand, in particular regarding the flood zone issues and related problems. I believe the current situation has not changed since this was last discussed: the park have submitted an updated flood risk assessment, and we're still awaiting further thoughts from the EA and council as a result.

Natural England's objections were easier to address, since they simply required more information. The EA's concerns are much more complex.

This is still a good thing of course, albeit largely academic, but we're far from being in a position where Exodus being approved is now a foregone conclusion.
Click to expand...
It's still one less to think about, anything is better than nothing. I think the decision will likely be made on September 7th when the next planning committee meet takes place.
 
CrashCoaster said:
It's still one less to think about, anything is better than nothing. I think the decision will likely be made on September 7th when the next planning committee meet takes place.
Click to expand...
Yeh and looking through Thorpe's responses to the EA, hopefully we'll get a similar response from them soon. No Obligations with conditions attached. 🤞
 
CrashCoaster said:
It's still one less to think about, anything is better than nothing.
Click to expand...
I guess that's the optimist's viewpoint. The way I see it, one minor issue resolved (especially one which was pretty much just a formality of adding in extra details, rather than any actual 'objection' per se) means little when there's still a rather big, meaty objection which hasn't been resolved. I

CrashCoaster said:
I think the decision will likely be made on September 7th when the next planning committee meet takes place.
Click to expand...
Nicky Borrill said:
Yeh and looking through Thorpe's responses to the EA, hopefully we'll get a similar response from them soon. No Obligations with conditions attached. 🤞
Click to expand...

I stress as ever I don't really know how these things work, but I'd be surprised if the decision is made at the September 7th meeting. It could happen, but I think it's less likely than more likely. Based off my understanding of the documents, I don't see how the EA will be changing their stance, and I don't think the council can easily brush those concerns under the carpet.

Again, that's not to say it won't happen, but right now, I don't see any cause for renewed optimism compared to a month ago, when things were very much up in the air.
 
Slight change of subject but I wonder if Exodus will have the Icon/Helix train lighting package - I think it would look incredible at night if it did. Just a question of whether Merlin could be arsed to pay for it.
 
So do we think this maze returning wasn’t in the original fright night plans but seeing as construction can’t take place until the environmental agency are happy they have decided to bring it back?

Which means they aren’t planning on any kind of construction any time soon.
 
Creek Freak Massacre was always intended to return this year. It was even included in the first construction management plan that the building would be accessed during the Halloween period by guests.

Work anywhere near the building had only ever been scheduled to start after the park closed for the season.
 
JoshC. said:
I stress as ever I don't really know how these things work, but I'd be surprised if the decision is made at the September 7th meeting. It could happen, but I think it's less likely than more likely. Based off my understanding of the documents, I don't see how the EA will be changing their stance, and I don't think the council can easily brush those concerns under the carpet.

Again, that's not to say it won't happen, but right now, I don't see any cause for renewed optimism compared to a month ago, when things were very much up in the air.
Click to expand...
Not even on the agenda... https://democracy.runnymede.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=153&MId=796&Ver=4

I suppose, the way things currently stand, this is a positive, as it gives Thorpe and the EA more time to work things out.
 
Niles said:
The Environment Agency have got back to Thorpe and its not great news. While objection 3 has been resolved sadly 1 & 2 remain.

View attachment 20032

Source
Click to expand...
Well the only way objections one and two could be resolved is by building the coaster elsewhere which obviously won't happen, especially given most of the park is in flood zone 3b. Now it's just a case of waiting for the council's decision.
 
CrashCoaster said:
Well the only way objections one and two could be resolved is by building the coaster elsewhere which obviously won't happen, especially given most of the park is in flood zone 3b. Now it's just a case of waiting for the council's decision.
Click to expand...

I could be mistaken, but it's always been my understand that only small pockets of the park are classed as flood zone 3b. The majority of the park is in a flood zone, but not this 'inconvenient' flood zone category. For example, Swarm has a couple of supports in an area that is classed as flood zone 3b, but the majority of the ride is not.

That is where Thorpe's argument is standing at the moment, of course. They have form and a handshake agreement of sorts that suggested it would be okay to place supports in this area, but the EA disagree.



I'm not surprised at this response, but I genuinely don't know what the next step will be. Will Thorpe try and respond and strengthen their case further in an attempt to get the EA to change their minds? Have they started talking with Mack to see if the support structure could be reworked? Will they just take their chances and hope the council overrule the objections of the EA? Who knows. But it's certainly an interesting situation, and one that Thorpe have never really faced before.
 
JoshC. said:
Will Thorpe try and respond and strengthen their case further in an attempt to get the EA to change their minds? Have they started talking with Mack to see if the support structure could be reworked?
Click to expand...
These would, rationally, be the first two steps and could be taken in parallel. It wouldn't surprise me at all to hear they're pursuing both avenues. Maybe a compromise of both would be the solution.

The 'suck it and see' approach is usually the last choice, as it's the most risky.
 
JoshC. said:
I could be mistaken, but it's always been my understand that only small pockets of the park are classed as flood zone 3b. The majority of the park is in a flood zone, but not this 'inconvenient' flood zone category. For example, Swarm has a couple of supports in an area that is classed as flood zone 3b, but the majority of the ride is not.
Click to expand...
I think @CrashCoaster was mixing up zone 3 in general with zone 3b... Most of the coasters do in fact lie within zone 3, including all of Swarm island, but not within zone 3b.

This is really really sticky. It seems there is a precedent for allowing the construction of support columns within zone 3b, and Thorpe / Mack have designed the coaster on this basis.

To quote a response from Thorpe to the EA

The support columns of the rollercoaster (which separately can be considered water compatible) are the only element of the scheme located within Flood Zone 3b.
Click to expand...

So clearly Thorpe believe that they are allowed to build (water compatible) supports within 3b, but the EA have not (as far as I can see) addressed this belief at all in any of their correspondence since*. This is either an oversight, or indicates that the EA has a completely different understanding.

So with the fact that Thorpe acknowledges that parts of the development fall within 3b and the EA holding strong that the only way to overcome their objection is to "demonstrate that the development is not within Flood Zone 3b - Functional Floodplain. " I do wonder if the only solution is to move those supports.

Hoping the council will approve it anyway is absolutely not an option. As the EA has requested that they are contacted should they be minded to approve it anyway, and have basically said that they will make representations for the application to be 'called in.' So if the council were to just ignore the EA, and approve it, then it would not be lawful.

Advice to LPA – Call-in If you are minded to approve this application for major development contrary to our flood risk objection, we request that you contact us to allow further discussion and/or representations from us in line with the Town and Country Planning (Consultation) (England) Direction 2021. This statutory instrument prevents you from issuing planning permission without first referring the application to the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (via the National Planning Casework Unit) to give them the opportunity to call-in the application for their own determination. This process must be followed unless we are able to withdraw our objection to you in writing. A failure to follow this statutory process could render any decision unlawful, and the resultant permission vulnerable to legal challenge.
Click to expand...

EDIT: *Just read the EA's latest response, they have now addressed it, it's basically a "FU, you can't build anything there, not even 'water compatible' supports... Build it somewhere else you numpties!"
 
Last edited:
God this really has become a ****ing nightmare. How much of the ride is specifically located in fz3b? Cause that will determine how much of the ride may have to be altered.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top