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!

Walibi Holland | YoY | RMC Raptor | 2025

Well, there could be some truth to it, but things are very unclear at the moment on this topic. I work in this field, but I never thought on this topic in relation to themeparks.
Efteling for sure is affected by this ruling in the (near) future, and with their projects of the last 5 years. They were already in trouble regarding nitrogen deposition rulings. I don't know about Walibi. The impact of this ruling is extremely unclear at this time. Keep that in mind.

With the recent ruling, a lot of (construction) projects of the last 5 years are now deemed illegal. They have to legalize their projects before 2030, which might be almost impossible. This could affect YoY. I can imagine that Yoy is now technically illegal, strange as it souds...

It has to do with the nitrogen crisis in the Netherlands, which started in 2019 and has not been resolved since. This crisis is about the poor state of our EU protected natural areas, called Natura 2000-areas. There is an excess of nitrogen deposition and currently no way of solving this problem. Politics on the topic are completely stuck on this topic. This has a huge impact on our (construction) permit system. There is an English wikipedia article about it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nitrogen_crisis_in_the_Netherlands

This recent ruling is on a method to show that you do not damage the Natura 2000-areas, called 'intern salderen' with nitrogen emissions. Therefore, you do not need a specific permit dealing with the protection of Natura 2000-areas, a 'nature permit'. The court ruled that you cannot use this method to show that you do not cause damage. They ruled that this method can only be used to get a nature permit.
With the ruling, all projects that used this method to avoid getting a nature permit, are now illegal and need to get a nature permit before 2030. Getting a nature permit for nitrogen related issues is next to impossible at the moment. Our Natura 2000-areas are in very bad shape and there is no political will to change anything... In theory, if they cannot legalize the already build project, it could be demolished. That would be very harsh and also very unlikely, but crazy things have happened with regards to nitrogen...

EDIT: I found some source in English on the ruling. On first glance, it seems correct. It is all very technical, so feel free to DM me. https://www.houthoff.com/insights/n...deren-met-stikstof-niet-langer-vergunningvrij
EDIT2: Rewritten to make it easier to understand for non-Dutch readers
 
Last edited:
what-a-load-of-bollocks-nonsense.gif
 
CloudRuben said:
Well, there could be some truth to it, but things are very unclear at the moment on this topic. I never thought about it on the topic of themeparks, but I sort of work in this field.
Efteling for sure is affected by this ruling in the (near) future, and with their projects of the last 5 years. I don't know about Walibi. This are extremely unclear on this topic. Keep that in mind.

The ruling talks about so called 'nature permits'. It has to do with the nitrogen crisis in the country, which started in 2019 and has not been resolved since (so much for the 'crisis' part). The highest court (Raad van State) ruled that we do not properly protect our Natura 2000-areas against an overload of nitrogen deposition. If your project can significantly affect these Natura 2000-areas, you need a permit to make sure nature is not damaged; a natuurvergunning or 'nature permit'.

The recent ruling from December last year is on a procedure to circumvent the need for such a permit. It is called 'intern salderen' and has to do with the nitrogen emissions of a project. The court has now ruled that this procedure can no longer be used to circumvent the need of a nature permit, but made it part of getting this permit.
This will affect parks for future projects, as these types of permits are very difficult, if not impossible, to get. Every project who used this procedure in the last 5 years now has to get a nature permit within the next 5 years. It is unclear if this will be possible. That will very much depend on the project and the affected Natura 2000-areas.

In theory, if they cannot legalize the already build project, it could be demolished. That would be very harsh and also very unlikely, but crazy things have happened with regards to nitrogen...

EDIT: I could try to add some (Dutch) references to the ruling, but it is very technical. There is a wikipedia article in english, but the latest ruling is not on there: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nitrogen_crisis_in_the_Netherlands. Feel free to DM me.
EDIT2: I found some source in English on the ruling. On first glance, it seems correct. https://www.houthoff.com/insights/n...deren-met-stikstof-niet-langer-vergunningvrij
Click to expand...
My reading of this is that it is to do with nitrogen deposition, rather than emission. In other words, giving enough opportunity for nitrogen to be reabsorbed by 'nature'. My interpretation is that the old permit system was only required if you were going to offset a loss of nitrogen deposition outside some local proximity to the new construction (e.g. similar to the idea of remote carbon offsetting - planting trees in Norway to offset your building in London), and if you did it locally (e.g. planting new trees/grass around your brownfield site) then you didn't need a permit. It sounds like the new permit system will require an assessment of all projects (presumably over some nominal value/scale/etc - possibly planning permission related), regardless of where the offsetting would take place.

There are lots of planning related subjects like this (in the UK) - %-green space, SUDS, carbon, renewables, right-to-light, acoustics, air quality, and probably more - it's usually a case of showing the before/after and how you're not making the situation worse than it already is.

Applying this retrospectively, and cancelling (/demolishing!) already completed projects, would be very difficult to uphold I would imagine. In the UK at least, I'd be highly surprised if a piece of legislation like this could be enforced to that degree retrospectively. More likely that any future projects may have harsher measures enforced (e.g. must improve the nitrogen deposition by 5% overall, rather than 2% overall (made-up numbers)) in an attempt to retrospectively claw back some of the impact on nature.

No professional consultancy body nor court (I would wager), would provide the advise that demolishing your newly constructed thing (in other words, wasting all of that time/energy/carbon/etc) was the right answer to a piece of legislation like this.

So yeah - I think this is a bit of a scaremongering nothing-story, really.
 
Hixee said:
My reading of this is that it is to do with nitrogen deposition, rather than emission. In other words, giving enough opportunity for nitrogen to be reabsorbed by 'nature'. My interpretation is that the old permit system was only required if you were going to offset a loss of nitrogen deposition outside some local proximity to the new construction (e.g. similar to the idea of remote carbon offsetting - planting trees in Norway to offset your building in London), and if you did it locally (e.g. planting new trees/grass around your brownfield site) then you didn't need a permit. It sounds like the new permit system will require an assessment of all projects (presumably over some nominal value/scale/etc - possibly planning permission related), regardless of where the offsetting would take place.

There are lots of planning related subjects like this (in the UK) - %-green space, SUDS, carbon, renewables, right-to-light, acoustics, air quality, and probably more - it's usually a case of showing the before/after and how you're not making the situation worse than it already is.

Applying this retrospectively, and cancelling (/demolishing!) already completed projects, would be very difficult to uphold I would imagine. In the UK at least, I'd be highly surprised if a piece of legislation like this could be enforced to that degree retrospectively. More likely that any future projects may have harsher measures enforced (e.g. must improve the nitrogen deposition by 5% overall, rather than 2% overall (made-up numbers)) in an attempt to retrospectively claw back some of the impact on nature.

No professional consultancy body nor court (I would wager), would provide the advise that demolishing your newly constructed thing (in other words, wasting all of that time/energy/carbon/etc) was the right answer to a piece of legislation like this.

So yeah - I think this is a bit of a scaremongering nothing-story, really.
Click to expand...
The original post is scaremongering. Things will be fine until 2030, since they have time to legalize the coaster. However, that might not be possible, given the poor state of our Natura 2000-areas. This will for sure halt many expansion plans from now on.

After 2030 I think it is possible they are not allowed to operate YoY any longer for example. We see court rulings getting more strict every year, as things just do not improve. There are tens of thousands of companies operating illegally right now. Like I said, things are very uncertain at the moment.
 
What's the old Russian proverb, "trust, but verify"?

So I dug to find actual reporting on the court ruling: https://www.msn.com/en-us/politics/...-slash-nitrogen-emissions-by-2030/ar-AA1xFssW

A Dutch court ordered the government on Wednesday to drastically cut nitrogen emissions in the Netherlands by 2030, in a ruling that could hurt construction and will pressure farmers to reduce livestock.

The case was brought by Greenpeace, which said the government was not doing enough to lower illegally high levels of nitrogen oxide emissions caused by intensive farming and heavy use of fertilizers, as well as traffic and construction in the densely-populated Netherlands.
Click to expand...
In earnest, the regulations and lawsuit target farming practices, particularly pig and cattle farming, which are notorious for high nitrogen and methane emissions. To @Hixee and @CloudRuben’s point, it seems a new permitting system is required for compliance. While there would technically be risks to projects using the previous permitting system, the existing legal framework for zoning and coding in the West generally grandfathered in existing structures to new permitting or regulation reform, or at the very least provided special consideration for how to comply with a new regulation compared to new construction.

Considering that roller coaster construction is essentially a large steel-works effort, similar to building a large multi-use condo or building, nitrogen emissions are relatively low compared to other emissions. Nitrogen emissions primarily originate from business or activities that use organic material or processes (livestock is a great example of the Nitrogen Cycle). CO2 or other criteria emissions from steel fabrication, cement off-gassing for footer placement, or on-site diesel generators are certainly present. However, nitrogen emissions would be relatively low (even then, as nitrous oxide, such as from an internal combustion engine on-site).

Roller coaster and broader amusement park industry construction isn't the target of the legislation, and wouldn't begin to immediately worry that this means no roller coasters after 2030.
 
Hyde said:
What's the old Russian proverb, "trust, but verify"?

So I dug to find actual reporting on the court ruling: https://www.msn.com/en-us/politics/...-slash-nitrogen-emissions-by-2030/ar-AA1xFssW


In earnest, the regulations and lawsuit target farming practices, particularly pig and cattle farming, which are notorious for high nitrogen and methane emissions. To @Hixee and @CloudRuben’s point, it seems a new permitting system is required for compliance. While there would technically be risks to projects using the previous permitting system, the existing legal framework for zoning and coding in the West generally grandfathered in existing structures to new permitting or regulation reform, or at the very least provided special consideration for how to comply with a new regulation compared to new construction.

Considering that roller coaster construction is essentially a large steel-works effort, similar to building a large multi-use condo or building, nitrogen emissions are relatively low compared to other emissions. Nitrogen emissions primarily originate from business or activities that use organic material or processes (livestock is a great example of the Nitrogen Cycle). CO2 or other criteria emissions from steel fabrication, cement off-gassing for footer placement, or on-site diesel generators are certainly present. However, nitrogen emissions would be relatively low (even then, as nitrous oxide, such as from an internal combustion engine on-site).

Roller coaster and broader amusement park industry construction isn't the target of the legislation, and wouldn't begin to immediately worry that this means no roller coasters after 2030.
Click to expand...
You are referring to a different ruling from a lower court on January 22 of 2025. That suit was started by Greenpeace. That one is more general and aims to force the government to take action. Yes, there are several lawsuits on this topic 😅 It is a mess.

The ruling I was discussing was done by the highest court in the Netherlands on 18 December 2024. That one is much more specific and also affects projects from the last 5 years. It can very much include construction projects, like the construction of YoY. I do not know if YoY is affected by the 2024 ruling. Walibi is for sure affected by this ruling, given the way the permit system works.

There is an intepretation of the 2024 ruling in English: https://www.houthoff.com/insights/n...deren-met-stikstof-niet-langer-vergunningvrij. This is the official link to the Dutch summary of the ruling: https://www.raadvanstate.nl/actueel/nieuws/december/rechtspraak-over-intern-salderen-wijzigt/. It is actually 2 simultaneous rulings.

Short term, both rulings will not immediately affect recent projects, like YoY or Danse Macabre at Efteling. It will affect expansion plans in the next couple of years. What happens after 2030 and if YoY is still allowed to operate by then, nobody knows at the moment...

But we are getting off-topic.
On topic, I very much like the look of these coasters, but I don't think I will rush out to ride them. Something feels lacking
 
Last edited:
CloudRuben said:
You are referring to a different ruling from a lower court on January 22 of 2025. That suit was started by Greenpeace. That one is more general and aims to force the government to take action. Yes, there are several lawsuits on this topic 😅 It is a mess.

The ruling I was discussing was done by the highest court in the Netherlands on 18 December 2024. That one is much more specific and also affects projects from the last 5 years. It can very much include construction projects, like the construction of YoY. I do not know if YoY is affected by the 2024 ruling. Walibi is for sure affected by this ruling, given the way the permit system works.

There is an intepretation of the 2024 ruling in English: https://www.houthoff.com/insights/n...deren-met-stikstof-niet-langer-vergunningvrij. This is the official link to the Dutch summary of the ruling: https://www.raadvanstate.nl/actueel/nieuws/december/rechtspraak-over-intern-salderen-wijzigt/. It is actually 2 simultaneous rulings.

Short term, both rulings will not immediately affect recent projects, like YoY or Danse Macabre at Efteling. It will affect expansion plans in the next couple of years. What happens after 2030 and if YoY is still allowed to operate by then, nobody knows at the moment...

But we are getting off-topic.
On topic, I very much like the look of these coasters, but I don't think I will rush out to ride them. Something feels lacking
Click to expand...
Ahhh got it. Glad to know other countries aside from the U.S. also have confusing court systems and ruling procedures. :P
 
If single rider queue is separate from the start, guess there won't be much chance of choosing which side you get?

Glad to see there is a single rider queue but given the large differences in both sides, it might cause issues for those who want a particular side
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top