• 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

AT86 said:
How do these restorations linked to new attractions usually work?

Do the park tend to offer to fund them voluntarily up front - or is it standard for them to wait until later in the planning process to offer as part of ‘negotiating’ with the planners?
Click to expand...
I would say the latter because if no mention of restoration is made during negotiations by the council, then Merlin will not have to pay towards anything, so saving money.

Bit of a cheek how SMDC can complain about no restoration mentioned when they must've approved all the mobile phone masts on it. How they can indirectly complain about a near-totally camouflaged building yet approve masts on the Tower itself is beyond me. Would the mobile companies have been asked to help restore it at the time? Or are those masts purely for Tower's use?
 
AT86 said:
I wonder if cash for the Flag Tower and the promise of pulling down Spinball could help tip the balance?
Click to expand...
I was going to suggest this idea but you took the words out of my mouth. If this coaster is, supposedly a Mack Spinner which would have a far better capacity than what Spinball ever could do, then I could see the park getting rid of Spinball to avoid duplication with coasters though the park has done this in the past with Black Hole and Beast.

No secret that Merlin ever since the LTDP have wanted to get rid of Spinball for a while so this might be the golden chance to get rid of it for good though it all hinges on how much plans can change here.
 
pluk said:
Is it not covered in phone masts? Cany really restore it to its original aesthetic if that's the case.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I was under the impression that this was the case. Towers staff aren't allowed anywhere near it for that reason.
 
Yep. They act like they don't know that the Flag Tower is already riddled with telecommunications equipment. What would they want it restored to anyway? The rooms inside wouldn't have been as opulant as the main house anyway, and I doubt that they have any records of original decoration etc. I don't really buy the argument about the Flag Tower.

On the other hand, if this building genuinely could be clearly seen from outside the park then I have some sympathy with that particular argument.
 
Matt N said:
Where else could they really put the ride, though? Coaster Corner is a large, flat area perfect for this type of attraction, and I can’t think of anywhere else in the park that would be quite so fitting.
Click to expand...

Only other place, without removals is airs car park. Aside from that maybe the car park around KC, but a building that size would look awful there. It’s CC or not at all as far as I can see

Maybe better building colours, money for heritage (something still substantially lacking) and tree relocation for better screening and it might squeak through.
 
Last edited:
Just thinking semi out loud here. If the budget for this project is £12 million. Surely this is in the rollercoaster budget?

The Smiler was around £18million, Wickerman £16 million and out of that budget was a lot of groundwork and concrete costs. According to the planning there is no groundwork’s to the same level and WM and the Smiler, This is a shed on a flat surface so what would say £10 million of coaster hardware look like?
 
As has been discussed quite a bit, you can't always read too much into claimed budgets. However £10 with a sensible manufacturer/design choice (i.e., not an overpriced/overdesigned B&M) could get you quite a lot even if the £12 million is accurate.

Any number of cheapish conventional coaster designs within a building, and with the right theming and effects could be great when enclosed. Expect Horizon to have more in the way of innovation/gimmickry, though.
 
There is also a chance that £12m may only be the construction budget, which would make the proportion of the available budget allocated towards the actual ride higher.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tom
Well now we’ve learned from the Nemesis track colour fiasco, in which the statement of “No aesthetic changes” turned out to not be the case, that it turns out Merlin planning documents aren’t 100% infallible in their wording and an isolated mention of a specific piece of information can be erroneous.

They could be building anything in this shed (if it gets approved)
 
tayspru said:
Well now we’ve learned from the Nemesis track colour fiasco, in which the statement of “No aesthetic changes” turned out to not be the case, that it turns out Merlin planning documents aren’t 100% infallible in their wording and an isolated mention of a specific piece of information can be erroneous.

They could be building anything in this shed (if it gets approved)
Click to expand...
While I don’t disagree with the sentiment that a roller coaster in this building is not necessarily a given, I think the Nemesis planning application was likely referring to something different rather than being erroneous. I wouldn’t be surprised if it was referring to the layout or external sight lines rather than the colour scheme.

Ultimately, I doubt the planners overly care about Nemesis’ colour scheme. As long as the ride doesn’t make too much noise and can’t be seen above the trees, the new Nemesis could be bright pink and the planners probably wouldn’t bat an eyelid.
 
tayspru said:
Well now we’ve learned from the Nemesis track colour fiasco, in which the statement of “No aesthetic changes” turned out to not be the case, that it turns out Merlin planning documents aren’t 100% infallible in their wording and an isolated mention of a specific piece of information can be erroneous.

They could be building anything in this shed (if it gets approved)
Click to expand...
You're confusing a planning application for a new structure (which this is) with a certificate of lawfulness (which is what Nemesis's "planning application" was). A full application will likely have conditions attached requesting samples of colours/materials to be used. If they're deviated from, then it becomes a real issue. For a Certificate of Lawfulness where the colours are darker and the structure the same, not so much.

Edit: Also just to add - It's also worth mentioning that the planning system is being navigated by professional companies acting on behalf of Merlin. They are well aware of what information is and isn't required for planning rules to be adhered to. It's not erroneous, the documents include only the factual information necessary for planning rules to be adhered to. They're not intended for us enthusiasts to use as factual information for how a final attraction will turn out, as much as some would maybe like them to be.
 
Last edited:
Craig said:
You're confusing a planning application for a new structure (which this is) with a certificate of lawfulness (which is what Nemesis's "planning application" was). A full application will likely have conditions attached requesting samples of colours/materials to be used. If they're deviated from, then it becomes a real issue. For a Certificate of Lawfulness where the colours are darker and the structure the same, not so much.

Edit: Also just to add - It's also worth mentioning that the planning system is being navigated by professional companies acting on behalf of Merlin. They are well aware of what information is and isn't required for planning rules to be adhered to. It's not erroneous, the documents include only the factual information necessary for planning rules to be adhered to. They're not intended for us enthusiasts to use as factual information for how a final attraction will turn out, as much as some would maybe like them to be.
Click to expand...
By the same merit the contents of the shed isn’t what the application here is actually for, just the exterior. I just think for everyone being so certain that one sentence of a document couldn’t ever be misconstrued or written in error, it’s something to bare in mind. There’s no real evidence for anything we’re getting besides the building itself at this point. (Well and the three doorways thing which is still puzzling)
 
tayspru said:
By the same merit the contents of the shed isn’t what the application here is actually for, just the exterior. I just think for everyone being so certain that one sentence of a document couldn’t ever be misconstrued or written in error, it’s something to bare in mind. There’s no real evidence for anything we’re getting besides the building itself at this point. (Well and the three doorways thing which is still puzzling)
Click to expand...
*bangs head against brick wall* Except there is real evidence for a rollercoaster because it's referred to as such in the planning document. Until there is evidence suggesting otherwise by way of an amended document - which hasn't been forthcoming, I see no reason to speculate that it could be anything else at present. I've already pointed out how the Nemesis track colour likely isn't an error in the Nemesis topic yesterday, so why are you using that to suggest that it's evidence as to why this application could be wrong?

Regardless of the planning application being for the building, they still need to (and have) made reference as to what it's going to be used for. You can't say you're knocking up a building for storage then go running twenty jackhammers in it 24 hours a day - that's why the reference to a coaster has been made.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top