• ℹ️ Heads up...

    This is a popular topic that is fast moving Guest - before posting, please ensure that you check out the first post in the topic for a quick reminder of guidelines, and importantly a summary of the known facts and information so far. Thanks.

2018: Wicker Man - General Discussion - SPOILERS! - Part One

Status
This topic has been locked. No further replies can be posted.
Yeah you don't want to cut down the really tall trees otherwise some nimby will find some bylaw not used since the 1800's to make them tear down any ride that exceeds the new tree height.
 
ihaveaspergers said:
Loads of the trees are protected, it's not quite that easy, without being sued that is

Sent from my Swift 2 X using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's why you do it completely by accident. Maybe some rogue kids hid out in the gardens overnight and had a campfire which got out of control, if you get my drift ;)
 
I know a lot of the comments here are tongue-in-cheek, but I like the planning restrictions at AT.

It's what's made the place so unique and driven some creative solutions around the planning laws!

Let's face it, the other parks in the UK don't have the same restrictions yet somehow haven't come up with anything near AT quality over the past 20 years.

To make it vaguely on topic... Seeing the big Wickerman from the other side of the park Inn forbidden valley would ruin the impact of the ride.
 
adsyrah said:
I know a lot of the comments here are tongue-in-cheek, but I like the planning restrictions at AT.

It's what's made the place so unique and driven some creative solutions around the planning laws!

Let's face it, the other parks in the UK don't have the same restrictions yet somehow haven't come up with anything near AT quality over the past 20 years.

To make it vaguely on topic... Seeing the big Wickerman from the other side of the park Inn forbidden valley would ruin the impact of the ride.
Click to expand...
Like Wardley said about nemesis; "if Towers hadn't had such tight planning restrictions they could have built Nemesis twice as big, but it wouldn't have necessarily been twice as good".
 
Last edited:
There are pros (Nemesis) and cons (Th13teen) to the planning restrictions at Towers. While it had lead to some creative rides it has caused some unimaginative ones too.

I would say Wicker Man sits more on the cons side. The saving grace of this ride is that it will be the most 'complete' SW project since Nemesis and Oblivion... this will be one Merlin can be proud of, despite the not-so-exciting layout.

Sent from my LG-H870 using Tapatalk
 
adsyrah said:
Let's face it, the other parks in the UK don't have the same restrictions yet somehow haven't come up with anything near AT quality over the past 20 years.
Click to expand...

Thorpe Park applies to this because they are less limited and still dont have the kind of rides Alton has, but I mean Chessington was effectively banned from building anything big after The Vampire because of the restrictions.

Which is incidentally why they purchased Towers, but meant Chessington fell into big decline in the 2000s and is now a horribly cramped tourist trap feeding off the broken remains of anything good from its old days - despite owning loads of surrounding land, which they can never build rides on. So the restrictions works both ways. Alton is quite a special case because they have enough grounds & wooded areas to conceal big rides in.

I'm glad there's care in how land is developed in the UK, but when it comes to theme parks, I think on the whole the UK industry would have taken off a while lot better if the restrictions hadn't been so very heavy.

And arbitrary at times. It used to be in the 80s that nothing at Thorpe Park was granted unless they could prove the rides were "educational" - ha!
 
I appreciate the planning constraints are tight and why but can some explain why they can’t use all of flumes site? Surely removing a ride and replacing it with another isn’t an issue?
 
JB1985 said:
I appreciate the planning constraints are tight and why but can some explain why they can’t use all of flumes site? Surely removing a ride and replacing it with another isn’t an issue?
Click to expand...
I think part of the area was protected after the Flume was installed, so no new installations permitted. Also they'd struggle to fit woodie supports in without cutting any trees down.
 
I wouldn't say there is always care how land is developed in the UK, I'd say it's more about who you know and how much you're prepared to pay to get a deal done, there's several examples in my town alone where decades old planning restrictions were overturned and greenbelt reclassified as brown belt in order to get houses built. Rollercoasters don't solve housing issues but I bet if Merlin went to the wall and someone proposed 1500 houses on Alton the SoS would approval it immediately, regardless of local opposition (it's what happened here, 100% opposition including local authority, Secretary of State over-ruled and granted permission, fortunately the developer saw sense just before construction was supposed to start and scrapped the project after the site spend 3 months under 2 meters of water).

The restrictions at Alton had led to some unique rides though yes, it's a shame there isn't one or two more areas they can expand into without having to jump through several hoops of fire.
 
The planning restrictions at AT are out of hand. They really are. I’m sorry but the people of Alton have a theme park nearby which is appreciated by people nationwide, I think they can live with seeing a wooden rollercoaster poke above the trees.
But I suppose this is how things are. For their limited options, I think MMM have done a great job on the Wickerman.
 
JL6k said:
The planning restrictions at AT are out of hand. They really are. I’m sorry but the people of Alton have a theme park nearby which is appreciated by people nationwide, I think they can live with seeing a wooden rollercoaster poke above the trees.
But I suppose this is how things are. For their limited options, I think MMM have done a great job on the Wickerman.
Click to expand...
You would think that but then the ropers

Sent from my Swift 2 X using Tapatalk
 
And it ain't easy just ripping down the rides and shoving some houses in...Camelot comes to mind...years down the line...nothing built...no planning permission.
If an area is defined as for leisure, it isn't straightforward to change to residential.
 
I always thought the bottom of a disused quarry was a perfect place for a theme park.

Regarding planning, it's hard to argue that building roller coasters is as important as desperately needed homes. The housing crisis is far worse than is being portrayed in the media, the shortage of affordable homes in this country is chronic.

Even with housing though, there's a simple formula to how planning permission gets granted in this country. Where poor people live = developments that are labelled as "progress" and "economically vital". Where rich people live = planning permission generally denied.

This coaster looks like it played it a little too safe. A wooden coaster doesn't have to be fast to be thrilling, just really well laid out. So I don't think they can use height as an excuse if it does turn out to be lame as they haven't gone for using much land mass either.
 
Status
This topic has been locked. No further replies can be posted.
Top