• 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.

[202X] Project Horizon (SW9?): Planning Approved

Dave said:
I’m absolutely 110% certain it’s a coaster, why? Because it says so in the planning application! but it’s nice to return to 5 weeks ago in the discussion……
Click to expand...
I may have said this at the time, so I apologise if I’m repeating myself, but surely if the park wanted people to know it was a roller coaster, they would have just said “indoor roller coaster” on absolutely every planning document? Surely if the park were keen to let the locals know it was a roller coaster, they wouldn’t have hidden the sole mentions of the term within multi-page documents that most locals are unlikely to read?

If I’m remembering correctly, the bulk of the documents said “indoor attraction”, and it was only one or two mentions out of hundreds and hundreds of potential mentions that said “roller coaster”, which definitely seems like it could have been a mistake rather than an intentional expression of the ride type. They didn’t even mention “roller coaster” or allude to a coaster within documents where the specific ride type might be relevant, such as the noise assessment…

I’m not saying that it 100% was a mistake, but it seems odd to me that the park would intentionally reveal the ride type on only two occasions out of hundreds of mentions of the attraction type throughout the application. And in documents where the ride type isn’t even especially relevant and most locals are unlikely to read them no less… in most of their upfront communications regarding Project Horizon, and even other points within the same documents where “roller coaster” was mentioned, the park has referred to the ride as an “indoor attraction” and seemed keen to conceal the finer details about the attraction inside.

That’s not to say that I think this isn’t a coaster (I agree that most of the evidence certainly points towards one), but I’m reluctant to have cast-iron certainty on the fact until we receive something more concrete or upfront, such as the presence of coaster track on site or a more upfront mention of “roller coaster” by the park.

Also, isn’t the planning application technically for the building rather than the attraction within?
 
Last edited:
Matt N said:
Also, isn’t the planning application technically for the building rather than the attraction within?
Click to expand...
It's for the entire development. It's just that it doesn't matter what you put inside a building so long as its use is specified (an attraction) and has the usual assessments for things like noise, visibility, increased traffic to local area, etc
 
Matt N said:
I’m not saying that it 100% was a mistake, but it seems odd to me that the park would intentionally reveal the ride type on only two occasions out of hundreds of mentions of the attraction type throughout the application. And in documents where the ride type isn’t even especially relevant and most locals are unlikely to read them no less… in most of their upfront communications regarding Project Horizon, and even other points within the same documents where “roller coaster” was mentioned, the park has referred to the ride as an “indoor attraction” and seemed keen to conceal the finer details about the attraction inside.
Click to expand...
I think the main point is that the companies working on the application are unlikely to accidentally insert or leave in the word coaster if it wasn't a coaster.

If the resort are going down the route of part dark ride/part coaster as has been suggested in this topic, then my guess would be they didn't want to term it outright as a coaster to avoid some of the negative connotations that come with that. If it's going to operate with stop/start sections rather than clattering round a track a la Wickerman, Rita or Nemesis, then perhaps they felt it more sensible to term it as an attraction instead. I think that's the more likely scenario over mentioning it's a coaster but it not turning out to be one.
 
“We have to write another traffic report? We *just* wrote one of those for Thorpe. Ah well… just copy and paste it, hardly anyone will read it anyway”

“Should we proofread it?”

“Nah”
 
Have I missed something or does it not matter one bit for the curtain twitchers whether this is an Indoor coaster, a flying theatre or a row of glory holes?

For all they know, it could be a fountain show, a bloke coming out from behind a curtain guggling axes or a cat that looks like it's smiling. We care because we want to know what it is, but as long as they're not telling lies about the traffic and noise generation in a planning application, why would any of them care what goes on inside that building?
 
Matt.GC said:
Have I missed something or does it not matter one bit for the curtain twitchers whether this is an Indoor coaster, a flying theatre or a row of glory holes?

For all they know, it could be a fountain show, a bloke coming out from behind a curtain guggling axes or a cat that looks like it's smiling. We care because we want to know what it is, but as long as they're not telling lies about the traffic and noise generation in a planning application, why would any of them care what goes on inside that building?
Click to expand...
I think you’re pretty bang on. My hunch is that the building itself is likely to be of greater concern to the locals than the attraction concealed within.

I don’t think any of the local objections so far have mentioned noise, as far as I’m aware.
 
Matt.GC said:
Have I missed something or does it not matter one bit for the curtain twitchers whether this is an Indoor coaster, a flying theatre or a row of glory holes?

For all they know, it could be a fountain show, a bloke coming out from behind a curtain guggling axes or a cat that looks like it's smiling. We care because we want to know what it is, but as long as they're not telling lies about the traffic and noise generation in a planning application, why would any of them care what goes on inside that building?
Click to expand...
Whilst my reply does nothing to move this conversation on, I would like to thank you for making me laugh out loud sir.
 
No legal obligation to declare what is inside.

Highly likely the couple of references to a rollercoaster are accurate as per Dave's commentary. They are either there because they were accidentally left in, or a couple of references have been put in and semi-buried away from the main titles to demonstrate good faith to the planning process.
 
Matt.GC said:
Have I missed something or does it not matter one bit for the curtain twitchers whether this is an Indoor coaster, a flying theatre or a row of glory holes?

For all they know, it could be a fountain show, a bloke coming out from behind a curtain guggling axes or a cat that looks like it's smiling. We care because we want to know what it is, but as long as they're not telling lies about the traffic and noise generation in a planning application, why would any of them care what goes on inside that building?
Click to expand...
To some it will. If it says "it's a coaster", for some people nearby that's a red rag to kick off about it, as the comparison is made to the existing larger and louder outdoor coasters on park - which over the years have had complaints. Call it an attraction, and they'd perhaps be less inclined to kick up a fuss.

Of course it matters little in the grand scheme of the planning application being approved, providing the noise assessments etc are as accurate as possible. But if wording can reduce the number of negative comments, that smooths to path for things to progress as quickly as possible.
 
Craig said:
To some it will. If it says "it's a coaster", for some people nearby that's a red rag to kick off about it, as the comparison is made to the existing larger and louder outdoor coasters on park - which over the years have had complaints. Call it an attraction, and they'd perhaps be less inclined to kick up a fuss.

Of course it matters little in the grand scheme of the planning application being approved, providing the noise assessments etc are as accurate as possible. But if wording can reduce the number of negative comments, that smooths to path for things to progress as quickly as possible.
Click to expand...
Not that it matters, but do you not think that the primary motive for saying 'attraction' is one of marketing secrecy as per usual? Don't dispute the potential planning benefits you mention, though.
 
I agree. Which is exactly why, if I were Merlin, I wouldn't go shouting about it.

For all intents and purposes, as long as the noise level projections are accurate and the building is built as is detailed in the planning documents it's none of their business what kind of attraction is built. Who is Ken from the local Neighborhood Watch to decide what goes on inside there? If Merlin are telling lies about the noise (which, as far as I'm aware, no one has any objections to) then they should have their feet held to the fire.

But if just calling it a coaster raises Ken and Karen's blood pressure so much then they should put down their Daily Mail and go and see a doctor, as getting so emotional about what type of attraction could be built inside a soundproofed building inside a theme park either means they've wasted their engineering talents during their working lives or they need some blood thinners.
 
Tom said:
Not that it matters, but do you not think that the primary motive for saying 'attraction' is one of marketing secrecy as per usual? Don't dispute the potential planning benefits you mention, though.
Click to expand...
Oh absolutely, that one's a given. My original main point was that the word coaster wouldn't be in there accidentally if it wasn't going to be a coaster. I just offered another reason as to why it might be the case.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top