• 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

George W said:
I think even when it opens with a rollercoaster inside the building people are still going to try and make an argument that it's not a rollercoaster at this point.
Click to expand...

The conversation wasn't really even that, it's more about not drawing massive conclusions from small bits of information. As someone who still has an open mind about what this will be I still absolutely expect it be be a coaster, or at least have coaster elements to it.

The 'what sort of ride will it be' conversation is undoubtedly a teadious one which im not trying to have, I do wonder though if the apparent deliberate lack of the word coaster in pretty much everything we've had from the park so far still might be telling. On the assumption it is a coaster I'm thinking maybe the park will not want the guests to think of the ride in those terms, that they don't want it thought of as a 'coaster in the dark' that The Black Hole was but more as something else, something new. An experience.
 
Are people still confident this is even going get planning permission in its current form? I have my doubts.

The two objections carry quite a bit of weight to be honest. Two heavy hitters if you will.
 
DistortAMG said:
Are people still confident this is even going get planning permission in its current form? I have my doubts.

The two objections carry quite a bit of weight to be honest. Two heavy hitters if you will.
Click to expand...
Heavy hitters, but not unusual objections based on previous planning applications. Gut feeling is there’s nothing that’s unexpected in those objections, maybe a few requirements to commit to more heritage work will be placed in the approval along with maybe further noise monitoring/reduction commitments, but I don’t see the application itself needing to be amended much.
 
It’s worth remembering that there were also two “heavy hitters” who objected to Thorpe Park’s recent Project Exodus planning application in the form of the Environment Agency and Natural England.

Natural England’s objection was resolved by the park, but the Environment Agency’s objection was never resolved.

In spite of this, the project gained planning permission, and still went ahead after being approved by the Secretary of State.
 
I thought due to the pretty strong objections by them to the location of the attraction, which they made pretty clear they are not objecting to the attraction itself, just the location. Could have a profound impact on the application.

I hope it does not, but unlike Thorpe Park, Alton Towers is in a highly sensitive area of "outstanding natural beauty". So any objections of this kind, eg, location, carry far more weight than they usually would. Because of that, you cannot really compare Thorpe Park and Alton Towers objections as a fair comparison.
 
Matt N said:
It’s worth remembering that there were also two “heavy hitters” who objected to Thorpe Park’s recent Project Exodus planning application in the form of the Environment Agency and Natural England.

Natural England’s objection was resolved by the park, but the Environment Agency’s objection was never resolved.

In spite of this, the project gained planning permission, and still went ahead after being approved by the Secretary of State.
Click to expand...
Yup, although I would say that the objections to Alton’s are easily mitigated either via the existing noise assessment or by committing more funds/plans for restoration. The issue with Thorpe is that it was related to flood risk, an ongoing argument with the Environment Agency. That’s become even more apparent after tangible effects were seen with the massive flooding in the area in 2014.
 
I thought some of the objections were based on the visibility of the attraction from the village? Which makes the noise assessment irrelevant in those objections.

They stated in the objections that they could see key points in the village from the site. Which means the site can be seen from said key points in the village. Granted it was in the winter. But surely that will have an impact, no?
 
DistortAMG said:
I thought some of the objections were based on the visibility of the attraction from the village? Which makes the noise assessment irrelevant in those objections.

They stated the objections that they could see key points in the village from the site. Which means the site can be seen from said key points in the village. Granted it was in the winter. But surely that will have an impact, no?
Click to expand...
I guess that would be down to whether the planning committee want to go by the visual assessments or by what the objectors are stating. It’s impossible to say for certain, but I doubt they’d have moved forward with submitting the plans if there wasn’t a relatively high degree of confidence of them being approved.
 
DistortAMG said:
I thought some of the objections were based on the visibility of the attraction from the village? Which makes the noise assessment irrelevant in those objections.

They stated in the objections that they could see key points in the village from the site. Which means the site can be seen from said key points in the village. Granted it was in the winter. But surely that will have an impact, no?
Click to expand...
One evergreen screen of mixed hedging, replacing some of the deciduous trees, would screen the whole shed out in a decade and cost less than ten grand.
 
I'm not too up to date on the whole planning process and stuff (generally, not just for this project), but is there a current date where this will be decided on? Or does something else have to happen first? Apologies if I've missed any of this information!
 
I wonder if the news of DBGT not appearing on the map at TP is cause for concern, Imagine them moving it to AT with some trick rollercoaster included :tearsofjoy:
:tearsofjoy::tearsofjoy:
 
I find it very interesting that John Wardley all but confirmed that Project Horizon is SW9!

Assuming the ride is a coaster (and in fairness, I think it’s extremely likely to be one at this point; all the evidence points towards a coaster, in my view), I wouldn’t be surprised to see a coaster with stronger dark ride elements (think of something along the lines of Harry Potter and the Escape from Gringotts at Universal Orlando, or perhaps Arthur at Europa Park).

This type of ride might lend itself more to the “impressive coaster technology” that John Wardley previously alluded to, as a dark ride-style experience could lend itself to trick tracks and such.

The smaller ground space compared to other indoor coasters could possibly be more fitting of something with a greater dark ride focus. Dark rides typically take up less ground space than coasters, so Project Horizon being a coaster with a heavy dark ride element and the odd high bit of thrilling coaster track would explain the tall building and somewhat smaller ground space compared to other indoor coasters.

Furthermore, it would offer an experience that would perhaps fill more of a hole within Alton Towers’ current lineup than a regular coaster in a shed would. The way I see it is that something like Gringotts or Arthur, which would have a stronger dark ride element with bursts of coaster sprinkled here and there, could feasibly pass as a dark ride as well and offer a similar type of experience to a major dark ride while also having plenty of coaster fun in there too. Whereas a regular coaster that’s enclosed, while it could also fill gaps in terms of being a family thrill coaster to complement RMT (dependent on thrill level pursued) and an enclosed coaster, would perhaps do that less.

If Project Horizon were to be that type of coaster, it could also explain Alton Towers’ general reluctance to refer to the ride as a roller coaster in the planning application.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top