What's new

Thorpe Park | Project Exodus | Mack Hyper Coaster | 2024

CineramaMax

Mega Poster
Time to crack open the champagne.. (or some budget beer cans from Lidl, cause you know, cost of living crisis).

God, this an exciting moment. The second hyper coaster in the UK is happening!
 

jasone

Roller Poster
Great news! I was getting a little worried it might not happen to be honest! Definitely my most anticipated UK coaster in quite a long time, particularly after RTH made my top spot early this year...! Also very intrigued to see how Mack pull off some of these elements, its definitely one of, if not their most, unique layouts to date.
 

Nicky Borrill

Strata Poster
Spoke too soon! :p

This seems like an efficient way to clearly get to the right answer.
This is one occasion where I am over the moon to be wrong!!! Very impressive that they got the decision made!

Time to celebrate 🎉🎉🎉

New ambition to pass the time next year, finally get out to the one in Turkey… Only thing that’s stopped us up to now is because it’s so damn expensive compared to the other incredible water park hotels we’ve stayed at in Turkey. :/
 

Tonkso

Mega Poster
It's happening, finally it's happening. I'm genuinely over the moon about this. It's not the coaster I wanted (I was in the airtime filled B&M hyper camp) but I'm not gonna sniff at a new hyper.
 

Nicky Borrill

Strata Poster
Damn there's a lot of conditions that need to be met before any real work can begin... A lot of things the council still need to approve.


Runnymede Borough Council in pursuance of their powers under the above mentioned Act and Order GRANT permission for the above development in accordance with the details given on the application form and approved plans. Permission is given subject to the following CONDITIONS:



Full application (standard time limit)



The development for which permission is hereby granted must be commenced not later than the expiration of three years beginning with the date of this permission.



Reason: To comply with Section 51 of Part 4 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.



List of approved plans



The development hereby permitted shall not be carried out except in complete accordance with the approved the drawings as set out in the submitted "Cover Letter Appendix 1: application drawings" dated 07.03.2022 and received by the Local Planning Authority on 09.03.2022.



Reason: To ensure high quality design and to comply with Policy EE1 of the Runnymede 2030 Local

Plan and guidance in the NPPF



Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP)



The development hereby approved (including demolition) shall be undertaken in accordance with the Construction Environmental Management Plan for the Project Exodus Coaster prepared by Paul Crosbie dated 1st July 2022 or such other document submitted and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.



The development shall be undertaken in accordance with the approved details for construction of the development.



Reason: To achieve sustainable development and protect the environment in the vicinity of the site and to comply with Policy EE2 of the Runnymede 2030 Draft Local Plan and guidance within the NPPF.

Tree protection



The development hereby approved (including demolition) shall be undertaken in accordance with the Tree Survey and Impact Assessment (including Tree Constraints Plan and Tree Protection Plan) dated October 2022 and prepared by Keen Consultants.



The development shall be undertaken in accordance with the approved details for construction of the development.



Reason: To ensure the retention of trees in the interests of the visual amenities of the area and to accord with Policy EE11 of the Local Plan.



Scheme of implementation



Notwithstanding the approved plans or any indication given otherwise, prior to commencement of any development (including demolition) an implementation programme schedule and plan shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. This programme shall set out in full the works to be undertaken and the timings, including (but not exhaustive of) when part of the Abbey Lake inlet will be temporarily infilled, when it will then be excavated, the lake edge reinstated, the reed beds installed and the proposed new woodland planted.



Reason: to ensure that the development is undertaken and completed in a satisfactory manner in terms of both flood risk and biodiversity.



Site Waste Management Plan



Prior to commencement of development, including demolition a Site Waste Management Plan shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority this should be based on the information contained in the approved Construction Environmental Management Plan.



Reason: To achieve sustainable development and to comply with Policies SD7 and EE2 of the Runnymede 2030 Local Plan and guidance in the NPPF.



Surface water control



Prior to commencement of any development (excluding demolition, site clearance and enabling works to ground level) details of the design of a surface water drainage scheme shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The design must satisfy the SuDS Hierarchy and be compliant with the national Non-Statutory Technical Standards for SuDS, NPPF and Ministerial Statement on SuDS. The required drainage details shall include:



-The results of infiltration testing completed in accordance with BRE Digest: 365 and confirmation of groundwater levels.



Evidence that the proposed final solution will effectively manage the 1 in 30 & 1 in 100 (+40% allowance for climate change) storm events, during all stages of the development. The final solution should follow the principles set out in the approved drainage strategy. If infiltration is deemed unfeasible, associated discharge rates and storage volumes shall be provided using a staged discharge rate of 1yr 1.2l/s, 30yr 3.27l/s, 100yr + CC 4.53l/s.



Detailed drainage design drawings and calculations to include: a finalised drainage layout that follows the principles set out in the approved drainage strategy detailing the location of drainage elements, pipe diameters, levels, and long and cross sections of each element including details of any flow restrictions and maintenance/risk reducing features (silt traps, inspection chambers etc.).

A plan showing exceedance flows (i.e. during rainfall greater than design events or during blockage) and how property on and off site will be protected from increased flood risk

Details of drainage management responsibilities and maintenance regimes for the drainage system. - Details of how the drainage system will be protected during construction and how runoff (including any pollutants) from the development site will be managed before the drainage system is operational.



The development shall be undertaken in accordance with the approved details.



Reason: To prevent the increased risk of flooding and to improve water quality and to comply with Policy EE13 of the Runnymede 2030 Local Plan and guidance within the NPPF.



8. Contaminated Land



Prior to commencement of any development (other than demolition and site clearance to ground level, enabling works and that required to be carried out as part of an approved scheme of remediation) the following shall take place:



(i) Site Characterisation

No development must take place until an assessment of the nature and extent of contamination on the site has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The investigation and risk assessment must be undertaken by competent persons and shall assess any contamination on the site whether or not it originates on the site. The report of the findings must include:

(a) a survey of the extent, scale and nature of contamination; (b) an assessment of the potential risks to:

human health

property (existing or proposed) including buildings, crops, livestock, pets, woodland and service lines and pipes - adjoining land

ground waters and surface waters

ecological systems

archaeological sites and ancient monuments



Submission of Remediation Scheme

If found to be required no development shall take place until a detailed remediation scheme to bring the site to a condition suitable for the intended use by removing unacceptable risks to human health, buildings and other property and the natural and historical environment has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The scheme must include all works to be undertaken, proposed remediation objectives and remediation criteria, an appraisal and remedial options, proposal of the preferred option(s), a timetable of works and site management procedures. The scheme must ensure that the site will not qualify as contaminated land under Part 2A of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 in relation to the intended use of the land after remediation.



Implementation of Approved Remediation Scheme

If found to be required, the remediation scheme shall be implemented in accordance with the approved timetable of works.

Upon completion of measures identified in the approved remediation scheme, a verification report (validation report) that demonstrates the effectiveness of the remediation carried out must be submitted to the local planning authority.



Reporting of Unexpected Contamination

In the event that contamination is found at any time when carrying out the approved development that was not previously identified, it must be reported in writing immediately to the local planning authority and once the Local Planning Authority has identified the part of the site affected by the unexpected contamination, development must be halted on that part of the site. An assessment must be undertaken in accordance with the requirements of Condition (i) or otherwise agreed and where remediation is necessary, a remediation scheme, together with a timetable for its implementation must be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority in accordance with the requirements of Condition (ii) in the form of a Remediation Strategy which follows the .gov.uk LCRM approach. The measures in the approved remediation scheme must then be implemented in accordance with the approved timetable.

Following completion of measures identified in the approved remediation scheme, a validation

(verification) plan and report must be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning

Authority in accordance with Condition (iii)



The development shall be undertaken in accordance with the above. If unexpected contamination is found after development has begun, development must be halted on that part of the site affected by the unexpected contamination to the extent specified by the Local Planning Authority in writing until Condition (iv) has been complied with in relation to that contamination.



Reason: To ensure that risks from land contamination to the future users of the land and neighbouring land are minimised, together



9. Landscaping



Notwithstanding the approved plans or any indication given otherwise, prior to commencement of any development (excluding demolition, site clearance and enabling works) full details of hard and soft landscaping scheme (including any boundary treatments which where necessary should provide details to prevent any disruption to fluvial floodplain flow routes) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.



This shall include a 'schedule of undertaking' the proposed works and samples of all hard surfacing.



All approved landscaping details shall be undertaken and completed in accordance with the approved 'schedule of undertaking.'



All approved landscaping works shall be retained in accordance with the approved details. If within a period of five years from the date of planting of any tree or shrub shown on the approved landscaping plan, that tree or shrub, or any tree or shrub planted in replacement for it, is removed, uprooted or destroyed or dies, or becomes seriously damaged or defective, another tree or shrub of the same species and size as that originally planted shall be planted in the immediate vicinity, unless the Local Planning Authority gives its prior written permission to any variation.



Reason: To ensure the development is adequately landscaped and to comply with Policy EE1, EE3, EE4 and EE14 of the Runnymede 2030 Local Plan and guidance within the NPPF.



Landscape and Ecological Management Plan



Prior to commencement of any development (excluding demolition, site clearance and enabling works), a Landscape and Ecological Management Plan (LEMP) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The final LEMP should be based on the draft LEMP prepared by Baker Consultants dated 22 June 2022.



The development shall be undertaken in accordance with the approved details.



Reason: In the interest of protecting potential ecological value and species in the site as required by policy EE9 of the Local Plan











Programme of archaeological work



No development other than demolition, site clearance and enabling works above ground level, shall take place until the applicant has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological work in accordance with a Written Scheme of Investigation which has been submitted by the applicant and approved by the Planning Authority



Reason: To allow archaeological information to be recorded and to comply with Policy EE7 of the Runnymede 2030 Local Plan and guidance within the NPPF.



External materials (details required)



Prior to commencement, excluding site clearance and demolition detailed schedule and specification of the materials, colours and finishes to be used (on a phased basis or otherwise) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.



Sample boards constructed on site showing the above as relevant shall be provided at the same time as an application is made.



The development shall be carried out and retained in accordance with the approved details.



Reason: To enable the Local Planning Authority to control the development in detail in the interests of amenity of the area and to comply with Policy EE1, EE3 and EE4 of the Runnymede 2030 Local Plan and guidance within the NPPF.



SuDS (verification)



Prior to the first being brough into use, a verification report carried out by a qualified drainage engineer must be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. This must demonstrate that the surface water drainage system has been constructed as per the agreed scheme (or detail any minor variations), provide the details of any management company and state the national grid reference of any key drainage elements (surface water attenuation devices/areas, flow restriction devices and outfalls), and confirm any defects have been rectified.



Reason: To ensure the Drainage System is constructed to the National Non-Statutory Technical

Standards for SuDS



Flood compensation



Notwithstanding the approved flood compensation table (ref. 472-9-27AE_1/Thorpe Park Compensation Land Programme rev AE 14.09.2022), Prior to any part of the development being first brought into use an updated compensation table reflecting as built cut and fill shall be submitted and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.



Reason: To ensure the long term level for level compensation is accounted for within the approved compensation table and prevent the increased flooding from reduced flood storage capacity.

Anybody know if any of these studies and plans, that need to be approved by the council still, have the potential to obstruct or delay construction significantly if something bad shows up? Or are they all just crossing the t's and dotting the i's? I've never been involved with a planning application that has so many conditions.

Our last planning application was for a new extraction fan for the kitchen and was granted with 4 conditions if I remember correctly, the 2 worst ones being that we needed to submit details of noise assessment after installation and that we could only operate it between specific hours... (which is a nightmare having to close the kitchen at 5pm on our busiest day, Sunday, when all other days are 10pm :mad: but that's another story.) This list of conditions looks absolutely terrifying compared to that!!! 🙈😂😂😂

Edit: I know there's a LOT of knowledgeable people here on CF, if anybody with real experience wants to break down these conditions 1 by 1, particularly the ones that involve submitting something to the LPA for approval, give us a plain english description of what they mean, and rate them on their risk to the project, I for one would be very grateful, and I'm sure others are interested too... 😘
 
Last edited:

Nicky Borrill

Strata Poster
Planning conditions are really common, I wouldn't worry about them.
I know from experience that conditions are always attached... I have also seen many of these conditions before, on coaster projects at other parks like towers, but not all of them...

And I'm not 'worried.' But having never undertaken a major infrastructure project myself, I was more interested in these specific conditions, what they entail and whether they have the 'potential' to derail or delay the project beyond 2024.

Saying 'I wouldn't worry about them.' is akin to saying 'don't worry your pretty little head about it darling.' It adds nothing to the conversation, and is a little patronising to be honest...
 

Hixee

Flojector
Staff member
Administrator
Moderator
Social Media Team
Alright, I'll give it a go. I'm no planner or civil engineer, but sit through lots of meetings about things like this.

Full application (standard time limit) – This one is fairly self-explanatory. Puts an end date to the planning permission if no progress has been made. This is a coverall clause you see nationally preventing spurious planning applications.

List of approved plans – Again, fairly obvious. Loosely, you’ve got to build what you said you would.

Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) – This is basically requiring that the development will be constructed in line with the environmental impact management plan that has been drawn up. In my experience these documents are submitted during planning, and then amended/revised/etc as the development goes on providing more granular detail for each of the respective elements.

Tree protection – Sort of the same as the CEMP, above. But for trees.

Scheme of implementation – This requirement is to ensure the development programme is communicated to the council. It will mean the planners and contractors will have to submit details of project phasing, timelines, milestones, etc – and it sounds like they’re particularly interested in the flood risk/biodiversity stuff (which is understandable as this was one of the main sticking points for the project – on others I’ve done it’s noise/light pollution, piling works, etc). This document likely doesn’t exist in any meaningful form at the moment, but as the engineering design is developed and the contractors are engaged, this will be drawn up and shared/commented. It’s unlikely there would be anything in this document that would delay the project inherently, it’s more likely to just have some questions or adjustments as time goes on. Again, in my experience, this sort of document(s) tend to be constantly evolved along the way, and are only shared with the council at key project milestones, but that’s not to say it might not be slightly different for this council – never done a project in this area.

Site Waste Management Plan – Again this is bread and butter for a contractor. Will set out how waste will be managed from the site.

Surface water control – SuDS (Sustainable Drainage Systems) relate to providing surface water drainage designs that don’t rely on just connecting up to the nearest storm water drain. Think attenuation ponds or soakaways (to my not-civil-engineer brain), or even things like rainwater harvesting systems. I don’t know all the nitty gritty, but the crux is that there are ways to calculate what can and can’t be discharge into the storm drains (this is usually a peak daily flowrate). They’re going to have to update their SuDS strategy document based on ground testing, further design, etc. I expect this is just part of the engineer’s/contractor’s design development as they work out all the details.

Contaminated Land – In short: Assess the land, assess the extent of contamination, plan the remediation, execute the remediation, report it all. I bet there’s more to it than that, but I’m a mechanical engineer so it’s all just mud to me.

Landscaping – Landscaping design needs to be submitted. This is generally wrapped up with a lot of the drainage and SuDS stuff, but is usually just part of the standard design development.

Landscape and Ecological Management Plan – Basically, see CEMP, above.

Programme of archaeological work – They want a plan for this. In itself it’s not a major topic, but if they were to find something it can be a maaaajor headache. Impossible to tell with this one (especially as I don’t have a clue about the history of local area, and therefore the likelihood).

External materials (details required) – They just want to see details. This stuff will be developed during the design, and I doubt would be an issue.

SuDS (verification) – See the Surface Water bit above.

Flood compensation – Kiiiinda the same as the SuDS stuff. Just needs the design documentation submitting.

So, there’s nothing here that isn’t already probably on the designers’ radars. None are likely to cause any major issues, but it’s hard to say without knowing what they’ll find in the ground or what they might run up against as part of the design process. In general, I don't think any of these things will be insurmountable, but don't hold me to that. ;)[/B][/U]
 

HandsUpPantsDown

Roller Poster
Alright, I'll give it a go. I'm no planner or civil engineer, but sit through lots of meetings about things like this.

Full application (standard time limit) – This one is fairly self-explanatory. Puts an end date to the planning permission if no progress has been made. This is a coverall clause you see nationally preventing spurious planning applications.

List of approved plans – Again, fairly obvious. Loosely, you’ve got to build what you said you would.

Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) – This is basically requiring that the development will be constructed in line with the environmental impact management plan that has been drawn up. In my experience these documents are submitted during planning, and then amended/revised/etc as the development goes on providing more granular detail for each of the respective elements.

Tree protection – Sort of the same as the CEMP, above. But for trees.

Scheme of implementation – This requirement is to ensure the development programme is communicated to the council. It will mean the planners and contractors will have to submit details of project phasing, timelines, milestones, etc – and it sounds like they’re particularly interested in the flood risk/biodiversity stuff (which is understandable as this was one of the main sticking points for the project – on others I’ve done it’s noise/light pollution, piling works, etc). This document likely doesn’t exist in any meaningful form at the moment, but as the engineering design is developed and the contractors are engaged, this will be drawn up and shared/commented. It’s unlikely there would be anything in this document that would delay the project inherently, it’s more likely to just have some questions or adjustments as time goes on. Again, in my experience, this sort of document(s) tend to be constantly evolved along the way, and are only shared with the council at key project milestones, but that’s not to say it might not be slightly different for this council – never done a project in this area.

Site Waste Management Plan – Again this is bread and butter for a contractor. Will set out how waste will be managed from the site.

Surface water control – SuDS (Sustainable Drainage Systems) relate to providing surface water drainage designs that don’t rely on just connecting up to the nearest storm water drain. Think attenuation ponds or soakaways (to my not-civil-engineer brain), or even things like rainwater harvesting systems. I don’t know all the nitty gritty, but the crux is that there are ways to calculate what can and can’t be discharge into the storm drains (this is usually a peak daily flowrate). They’re going to have to update their SuDS strategy document based on ground testing, further design, etc. I expect this is just part of the engineer’s/contractor’s design development as they work out all the details.

Contaminated Land – In short: Assess the land, assess the extent of contamination, plan the remediation, execute the remediation, report it all. I bet there’s more to it than that, but I’m a mechanical engineer so it’s all just mud to me.

Landscaping – Landscaping design needs to be submitted. This is generally wrapped up with a lot of the drainage and SuDS stuff, but is usually just part of the standard design development.

Landscape and Ecological Management Plan – Basically, see CEMP, above.

Programme of archaeological work – They want a plan for this. In itself it’s not a major topic, but if they were to find something it can be a maaaajor headache. Impossible to tell with this one (especially as I don’t have a clue about the history of local area, and therefore the likelihood).

External materials (details required) – They just want to see details. This stuff will be developed during the design, and I doubt would be an issue.

SuDS (verification) – See the Surface Water bit above.

Flood compensation – Kiiiinda the same as the SuDS stuff. Just needs the design documentation submitting.

So, there’s nothing here that isn’t already probably on the designers’ radars. None are likely to cause any major issues, but it’s hard to say without knowing what they’ll find in the ground or what they might run up against as part of the design process. In general, I don't think any of these things will be insurmountable, but don't hold me to that. ;)[/B][/U]

Yeah all standard stuff, most of this will simply be outsourced to 3rd party consultants who deal with such projects daily and like you say, I imagine they predicted the majority and already have most of it on stand-by. No major barriers.

Excited to finally have a large coaster come to the UK after a long wait
 

Nicky Borrill

Strata Poster
Alright, I'll give it a go. I'm no planner or civil engineer, but sit through lots of meetings about things like this.

Full application (standard time limit) – This one is fairly self-explanatory. Puts an end date to the planning permission if no progress has been made. This is a coverall clause you see nationally preventing spurious planning applications.

List of approved plans – Again, fairly obvious. Loosely, you’ve got to build what you said you would.

Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) – This is basically requiring that the development will be constructed in line with the environmental impact management plan that has been drawn up. In my experience these documents are submitted during planning, and then amended/revised/etc as the development goes on providing more granular detail for each of the respective elements.

Tree protection – Sort of the same as the CEMP, above. But for trees.

Scheme of implementation – This requirement is to ensure the development programme is communicated to the council. It will mean the planners and contractors will have to submit details of project phasing, timelines, milestones, etc – and it sounds like they’re particularly interested in the flood risk/biodiversity stuff (which is understandable as this was one of the main sticking points for the project – on others I’ve done it’s noise/light pollution, piling works, etc). This document likely doesn’t exist in any meaningful form at the moment, but as the engineering design is developed and the contractors are engaged, this will be drawn up and shared/commented. It’s unlikely there would be anything in this document that would delay the project inherently, it’s more likely to just have some questions or adjustments as time goes on. Again, in my experience, this sort of document(s) tend to be constantly evolved along the way, and are only shared with the council at key project milestones, but that’s not to say it might not be slightly different for this council – never done a project in this area.

Site Waste Management Plan – Again this is bread and butter for a contractor. Will set out how waste will be managed from the site.

Surface water control – SuDS (Sustainable Drainage Systems) relate to providing surface water drainage designs that don’t rely on just connecting up to the nearest storm water drain. Think attenuation ponds or soakaways (to my not-civil-engineer brain), or even things like rainwater harvesting systems. I don’t know all the nitty gritty, but the crux is that there are ways to calculate what can and can’t be discharge into the storm drains (this is usually a peak daily flowrate). They’re going to have to update their SuDS strategy document based on ground testing, further design, etc. I expect this is just part of the engineer’s/contractor’s design development as they work out all the details.

Contaminated Land – In short: Assess the land, assess the extent of contamination, plan the remediation, execute the remediation, report it all. I bet there’s more to it than that, but I’m a mechanical engineer so it’s all just mud to me.

Landscaping – Landscaping design needs to be submitted. This is generally wrapped up with a lot of the drainage and SuDS stuff, but is usually just part of the standard design development.

Landscape and Ecological Management Plan – Basically, see CEMP, above.

Programme of archaeological work – They want a plan for this. In itself it’s not a major topic, but if they were to find something it can be a maaaajor headache. Impossible to tell with this one (especially as I don’t have a clue about the history of local area, and therefore the likelihood).

External materials (details required) – They just want to see details. This stuff will be developed during the design, and I doubt would be an issue.

SuDS (verification) – See the Surface Water bit above.

Flood compensation – Kiiiinda the same as the SuDS stuff. Just needs the design documentation submitting.

So, there’s nothing here that isn’t already probably on the designers’ radars. None are likely to cause any major issues, but it’s hard to say without knowing what they’ll find in the ground or what they might run up against as part of the design process. In general, I don't think any of these things will be insurmountable, but don't hold me to that. ;)[/B][/U]

I was quietly (without wanting to put any pressure on you) hoping you'd be the one to reply. :)

And you didn't let us down, exactly what I was looking for, and very informative. Thank you :)

The main 2 I had wondered about were the Surface Water Control and Archaeological parts... So if you're not worried, neither am I

Thanks again. 👍
 

Hixee

Flojector
Staff member
Administrator
Moderator
Social Media Team
The main 2 I had wondered about were the Surface Water Control and Archaeological parts... So if you're not worried, neither am I
Of all of them, the archaeology is the one that could cause the biggest overall delay. The rest you can sort of 'engineer-out', but if they find something archaeological that can (and does) close sites for months on end while a full archaeological survey and dig is done. I don't know anything about Thorpe's history, but wasn't it old quarry pits that were flooded to create the lake or something? Hopefully anything worth digging up is long done with all the quarry activity. :p
 

Nicky Borrill

Strata Poster
Of all of them, the archaeology is the one that could cause the biggest overall delay. The rest you can sort of 'engineer-out', but if they find something archaeological that can (and does) close sites for months on end while a full archaeological survey and dig is done. I don't know anything about Thorpe's history, but wasn't it old quarry pits that were flooded to create the lake or something? Hopefully anything worth digging up is long done with all the quarry activity. :p
I don't know much either, but I did just read from a few sources that it's sited on a former gravel pit operated by ready mixed concrete, who flooded the pits once expended and converted them for leisure use. But, before the pit, it was something called Thorpe Park Estate that existed on the site...

I think it'll be 'rate...
 
Last edited:

Heth

Mega Poster
I know from experience that conditions are always attached... I have also seen many of these conditions before, on coaster projects at other parks like towers, but not all of them...

And I'm not 'worried.' But having never undertaken a major infrastructure project myself, I was more interested in these specific conditions, what they entail and whether they have the 'potential' to derail or delay the project beyond 2024.

Saying 'I wouldn't worry about them.' is akin to saying 'don't worry your pretty little head about it darling.' It adds nothing to the conversation, and is a little patronising to be honest...

I didn't intend it to be patronising, I just meant that I'm not surprised by the amount of conditions attached. Sorry if it came across that way.
 

Nicky Borrill

Strata Poster
I didn't intend it to be patronising, I just meant that I'm not surprised by the amount of conditions attached. Sorry if it came across that way.
No worries, I probably took it way out of context, I'm very sick at the moment and feeling sorry for myself (hence why I've had the time to be so active the last few days.) 🙈

Bloody man-flu... ;)
 

StevenX

Roller Poster
Skimming through very briefly those conditions a seem very standard, and largely "build what you told us you would and don't change it". The other stuff around SuDS, site management plans are very likely already in hand and standard aspects of design and construction. As a structural engineer (working for one of the consultants on this project it appears, although I didn't even know we were involved!) I wouldn't say any of this would be too concerning based on that brief skim.
 

Niles

Hyper Poster
And so, it begins, a bulldozer is on site ready to begin demolition.
byeoldtown-01.jpg
Some final pics of the area before it goes.
byeoldtown-12.jpg
byeoldtown-15.jpg
byeoldtown-13.jpg
byeoldtown-09.jpg
For more pictures see Source

While the train and loggers have been gone for a while knowing this land is no more is sad, in its prime it was my favourite place in the park as a kid. I will miss Rocky to, but hay, i am really really excited for what is on the horizon 😍
 
Top