• 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.

[2024] Thorpe Park: Hyperia - Mack Hypercoaster

I'm sure they will find a way around this but wouldn't be surprised if its delayed a year or so.

Would've thought Merlin would've considered flooding issues when submitting the planning application given that Thorpe is literally an island.
 
RicketyCricket said:
I'm sure they will find a way around this but wouldn't be surprised if its delayed a year or so.

Would've thought Merlin would've considered flooding issues when submitting the planning application given that Thorpe is literally an island.
Click to expand...
And the fact that it used to be a quarry, so the landscape won't be as strong as natural rock formations.
 
siralgenon said:
Hopefully they revert to plan B and build the B&M instead. 😂
Click to expand...
It says the only way to overcome this is for Thorpe to demonstrate that the development isn't in Flood zone 3b, but the planning application says that it would be in there. So it could well be that they do have to revert to that, assuming that the B&M doesn't go into that flood zone.
 
I don't really understand why the environment agency would care if Thorpe chose to put their own asset in a flood zone? We are not talking about houses which would be sold on to the public to have to insure, this is just supports for a ride which would be unaffected by the occasional submersion on only be a problem for Thorpe themselves if it did flood.
 
It's not really about what is being built, it's about what is going on at foundation level. The plans involve reducing the capacity of the lake, which increases the risk if flooding elsewhere.

So the environment agency is probably not hugely bothered about this coaster specifically flooding (or Thorpe Park in general), but the impact on local homes.

That said, it sounds like part of the objection is due to them not including an existing document in their application showing they have already mitigated the flooding risk.
 
The risk itself might be easy enough to mitigate by removing a bit of land elsewhere be it island or land side. They'll know the mass of what's going in so they have to remove elsewhere
 
Poisson said:
The risk itself might be easy enough to mitigate by removing a bit of land elsewhere be it island or land side. They'll know the mass of what's going in so they have to remove elsewhere
Click to expand...
That’s something they’ve allowed previously, but I’m sure I read somewhere that they were questioning whether that was being done correctly in the past. There’s also limits as to how much that can be done when you’re effectively pushing the lake further and further out by doing so.

In any case, the massive flooding in 2014 in that area has made people and no doubt the environment agency VERY wary about new developments in the area. Ultimately the environment agency have the responsibility to ask legitimate questions over the applications. If they didn’t and something detrimental happened to surrounding proprieties, they’ll be the ones getting it in the neck.
 
Has there been any update on the planning application for this? I can't remember the exact time-line the park mentioned at the announcement of the project but I thought they wanted the application to be finished not long from now. Although we do know there has been problems with flood warnings for government agencies.
 
JAperson said:
Has there been any update on the planning application for this? I can't remember the exact time-line the park mentioned at the announcement of the project but I thought they wanted the application to be finished not long from now. Although we do know there has been problems with flood warnings for government agencies.
Click to expand...
The application was submitted a while back, they are just waiting for the planning office's decision.
 
JAperson said:
Has there been any update on the planning application for this? I can't remember the exact time-line the park mentioned at the announcement of the project but I thought they wanted the application to be finished not long from now. Although we do know there has been problems with flood warnings for government agencies.
Click to expand...

It is still rumbling on through the planning process. The park submitted revised plans I believe that proposed retaining more of the lake to address the fears of the Environment Agency, but there is no news that I can see as to when a decision might be made.
 
AT86 said:
It is still rumbling on through the planning process. The park submitted revised plans I believe that proposed retaining more of the lake to address the fears of the Environment Agency, but there is no news that I can see as to when a decision might be made.
Click to expand...
Natural England have withdrawn their objection, so hopefully that could mean the application will be approved soon.
 
Just the minor issue of the Environmental Agency's "prove to us it's not going to be built where your plans say it is" bombshell to circumnavigate now. 2024 seems to be massively under threat at this stage.
 
Tom said:
Just the minor issue of the Environmental Agency's "prove to us it's not going to be built where your plans say it is" bombshell to circumnavigate now. 2024 seems to be massively under threat at this stage.
Click to expand...
Hardly a bombshell, and hardly under threat in the slightest. It's literally as if you've read a different statement to the one above? :p
 
Islander said:
Hardly a bombshell, and hardly under threat in the slightest. It's literally as if you've read a different statement to the one above? :p
Click to expand...

The Environment Agency have separate and far more significant objections than Natural England (which are addressed in the recent postings, not the EA's).
 
Tom said:
The Environment Agency have separate and far more significant objections than Natural England (which are addressed in the recent postings, not the EA's).
Click to expand...
Which the council can always ignore since they've always had a deal with Thorpe allowing them to build in flood zones.
 
Tom said:
The Environment Agency have separate and far more significant objections than Natural England (which are addressed in the recent postings, not the EA's).
Click to expand...
Ahhh, my apologies - I completely switched Natural England and Environment Agency in my head, my mistake.

Still, Nosferatu has a valid point.
 
Nosferatu said:
Which the council can always ignore since they've always had a deal with Thorpe allowing them to build in flood zones.
Click to expand...
Not sure that's the EA's view on this occasion. Perhaps they haven't objected previously as the sites were the lowest reasonable risk (despite being in a flood zone)?

They were pretty clear on the options for remedy in their view, quoting some regulation or something and it was either prove the ride is not in the zone marked, or apply directly to central government for permission.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top