Leaderboard

Just spent 2 days at a Flood event. The Environment Agency bods showing some interest in flooding was surprising given they spent most of it tooting the horns of people for reasons that weren't disclosed. #FloodFamily

eAStER egG, a NoD tO tHE biG ToP. One thing that you can't fault Thorpe on is their commitment to making the most out of any set pieces or props they have bought....

So, there's a new document on the planning application, from the Environment Agency. Basically outlines their current objections to the Project Exodus planning application. I'm no expert on these things. However, there's a nice summary on CoasterForce from member Hixee (also not an expert, but helped put it in plain and simple terms). I'm going to copy it here as it's a good read: I'm also going to copy over my additions to this post, from my understandings of things going on. As I understand it, this was bought up previously as a concern. The response from the park (or, more specifically, planning representatives of the park...but just saying "the park" is easier) was that they had a pre-existing agreement that Thorpe can build in these "wrong type" of flood zones, as long as it's done sparingly. The trouble is, this is an opinion from 11 years, and not a hard and fast agreement. To my knowledge, the coaster does - minimally - go into the 'wrong type' of flood zone. However, I have not got access to the detailed maps, this is again just from my understanding of the documents. It could be that the park believe they aren't in the wrong type at all. It is stated that the only way this objection can be resolved is showing the development is not in this wrong type of flood zone. If the park can't do that, then there is grounds is reject the application. HOWEVER, it is down to the council to decide if they uphold that objection and reject it. It is not a guarantee it will be rejected. And if it is not rejected, that is a matter for the council and EA to discuss and deal with, not the park themselves. Equally, as I've said, I believe the coaster does minimally go into this wrong type of flood zone. As such, it could be possible that minor alterations can be made so it doesn't go into this flood zone (be that changes to the support structure, or to the layout itself). This is something I'll touch on a bit more later. I believe the idea here is that the park are leaning on their most recent Mid Term Development Plan (MTDP), which was submitted in 2010, and gave an outline for the park's development strategy between 2010-2016. In (over)-simple terms, they're trying to say "All of the parameters are the same now as they were then, so we have everything submitted, look there". But that might not be enough. This might also relate in part to something discussed previously, about there being concerns about the buildings associated with the development being below the design flood level. The reason for the design being like this is because they are keeping one building, and making all other buildings the same level as that one. As they have not had issues with flooding in that area before, they don't see any resulting issues happening here. This one seems to have come out of the blue (in that this hadn't been bought up before as far as I know). However, I see this objection has concerns about the infilling process. Thorpe did a LOT of infilling in the 00s/early 10s, and that took a lot of work and discussion to get approved, and included a lot of back-and-forth (more than we're seeing now). This development would be the first time they've done it since then, and I expect that the process has changed, etc. This might not be something the park are fully prepared for. I think it's fair to say the original application didn't include enough information, regardless of anything. It's also fair to say that this should be expected, given the required infilling. And I believe the park did plan for this - hence the early submission, and the plan for construction to start this autumn, So I don't think the situation of this back-and-forth is unexpected by the park, or a surprise to them. A rethink of the plans could be on the cards. Maybe a redesign of the support structure, or a slight tweak of the layout. Whilst those things take time and money (and by no means are easy!), they could keep the core of Exodus the same. But then again, a major rethink could still be possible. I don't know how long this process could take. If they do have to rethink / redesign the ride, I guess it means a whole new application has to be submitted. Whilst it would be a formality for many of the parties who have already stated they have no objections, this still takes a lot of time and effort. And at that point, you then have to wonder when the ride could be ready. Exodus might not end up cancelled, but could it end up opening later in 2024? Or in 2025? And how much of a knock on effect would that have to the rest of the park's mid-to-long-term planning, and perhaps even Merlin as a whole?