Plus, as has been mentioned before a tracked dark ride or flying theatre could be built anywhere, so it makes sense to put a coaster in this building as one wouldn't be allowed on its own due to noise. It would be a wasted opportunity of it wasn't a coaster.
I agree. If Alton are ever to build an indoor coaster, I’d say this is their best opportunity to do so by far. Tracked dark rides and flying theatres typically require less ground space, therefore a big area like this would arguably be a bit wasted on a flying theatre in particular.
The planning application literally says rollercoaster Matthew.
People are paid ALOT of money to create and submit ACURATE planning applications, it can be considered a criminal offence to put misleading information on a planning application, in rare cases, even if the information that is not accurate is not directly linked to getting the plans approved.
Given that this ride is being built in one of the most sensitive areas in the park, being so close to the village, it would be extremely important to make sure the information is accurate. If it was not a coaster, they would not leave rollercoaster wording in the planning application, which would be a more difficult sell to get past the planners than a non-coaster attraction. They are not purposely going to make their own application more difficult to be approved if it did not need to be.
I agree that a lot of the evidence points towards a coaster. However, I wouldn’t personally like to be 100% sure of it being a coaster at this stage.
I’m not sure two mentions out of many sentences by a third party is necessarily concrete confirmation, because the same third party mentions “indoor attraction” at the vast majority of the other points. I know that sounds pedantic, but the devil is in the detail with these things; everywhere else, they say “indoor attraction”, which lines up with the park line to hide what’s in the building as much as possible.
Therefore, you’d expect them to want a consistent line of wording throughout the application and maximum secrecy; I’d be surprised if Alton asked for “rollercoaster” to be put in intentionally given their efforts to hide the attraction type in every other document (heck, even most other parts of the same appendices). Given how similar the wording is to the same parts in Exodus’ application, I think there’s every chance that “rollercoaster” could have been left in accidentally. It seems a bit odd that Alton would want it explicitly confirmed it on only those two occasions. Surely they’d either go for “roller coaster” all around or no mention of it at all?
As for legality; the application is for the
building, not the
attraction inside the building, not to mention that rollercoaster is not a legal term with no legal definition; even enthusiasts can’t agree on exactly what constitutes a roller coaster, and non-enthusiasts sometimes have an even more fluid definition of the term. Therefore, it would be very hard for someone to make a case against the park for not building a roller coaster, because it’s not a legal term, and the definition of what even constitutes one in the first place is surprisingly fluid.
If the park themselves confirm it more explicitly in a different planning document, or there’s some jaw-dropping revelation, or they announce something, my mind will be changed and I will believe that it 100% is a coaster. I agree that a lot of the evidence points towards a coaster being most likely. However, I’m hesitant to be so confident that it
will be a coaster at this stage, because the actual known facts are pretty limited.
I should probably stop banging this drum, though, as it’s clear that I’m losing this battle… sorry to waste all of your time.
I honestly can't cope any more with the constant round and round of the same boring argument written about at length every 15 minutes.
