What's new

Thorpe Park | Project Exodus | Mack Hyper Coaster | 2024

CrashCoaster

CF Legend
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.
 

Nitefly

Hyper Poster
Bah, I have nothing pleasant to say about the situation. Flood risk because of supports encroach on an area… it’s not exactly a 200 home housing development is it?

Very tedious.
 

Nicky Borrill

Strata Poster
What part of the ride actually falls within Flood Zone 3B? Is it a substantial percentage of it, or just a small part of it?
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
What part of the ride actually falls within Flood Zone 3B? Is it a substantial percentage of it, or just a small part of it?
That's what I just asked lol.

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.
Hopefully it won't be too difficult to rectify then.
 

Dar

Hyper 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.
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 :p )

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]
Where Water Compatible or Essential Infrastructure cannot be located elsewhere, it must:
• Remain operational and safe for users in times of flood;
• Result in no net loss of flood storage;
• Not impede water flows; and
• Not increase flood risk elsewhere.
The use of 'or' seems to imply the supports should be fine because they're water compatible regardless of development type?

What part of the ride actually falls within Flood Zone 3B? Is it a substantial percentage of it, or just a small part of it?
It's pretty much the whole lake :(
1662076471436.png
 

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.
 

JoshC.

Strata 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?
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.
 

Nitefly

Hyper Poster
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:

YvpZyZn.jpg


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
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 :p )

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
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.
 

Niles

Hyper 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.
IMG_20220912_185341.jpg

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:
1663095412087.png

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
There is also now a new document from the council towards the EA:
View attachment 20302

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?
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.
 

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...
 
Top