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

[Skyscraper]

Sorry I meant temporary as in planning terms, a temporary building would be classed as not requiring planning permission to build, like the MMM Studios using the space currently.

What you're describing is a planning condition for a building that otherwise is a permanent construction and has no fixed end date. The vault has a very deep basement full of plant that would need to be filled in and require a considerable cost to return the area to its original state, but Merlin will be legally required to.

So what I mean is Project Horizon may have a similar situation with heritage planning, but not impossible to pass even for a building of this size (hopefully). It may run into different kinds of planning problems though.

A temporary building would require temporary planning consent though, right? (That's what the Thunder Looper had actually)

 

[ChristmasPud]

A temporary building would require temporary planning consent though, right? (That's what the Thunder Looper had actually)

Yes, which is different and isn't what Hex or any of the permanent buildings in that area have, otherwise they wouldnt have been allowed to stand for 20+ years

 

[Skyscraper]

Yes, which is different and isn't what Hex or any of the permanent buildings in that area have, otherwise they wouldnt have been allowed to stand for 20+ years

Yeah I know Hex has full planning permission, but a condition of that is if the ride hardware is removed then the building must be too.

 

[pluk]

Sorry I meant temporary as in planning terms, a temporary building would be classed as not requiring planning permission to build, like the MMM Studios using the space currently.

What you're describing is a planning condition for a building that otherwise is a permanent construction and has no fixed end date. The vault has a very deep basement full of plant that would need to be filled in and require a considerable cost to return the area to its original state, but Merlin will be legally required to.

So what I mean is Project Horizon may have a similar situation with heritage planning, but not impossible to pass even for a building of this size (hopefully). It may run into different kinds of planning problems though.

Ah, see what you mean. As it stands from the planning documents that's not what they've applied for. I'd have thought they wouldn't be happy with a building that size (and cost) subject to such stipulation, but I suppose planners could push them that way.

 

[ChristmasPud]

I'd have thought they wouldn't be happy with a building that size (and cost) subject to such stipulation, but I suppose planners could push them that way.

Yeah I hope there's some compromise, that huge area of the park could be really nice and has been hidden away so long. An indoor attraction is really the only big ride you could build there. I hope one day guests get to see the flag tower again, maybe if it gets restored in a planning deal.

 

[Matt N]

Yeah I hope there's some compromise, that huge area of the park could be really nice and has been hidden away so long. An indoor attraction is really the only big ride you could build there. I hope one day guests get to see the flag tower again, maybe if it gets restored in a planning deal.

Wouldn’t the building block views of the Flag Tower from inside the park, though? Or are you talking about building a path going up to it?

 

[Dave]

Alton Parish council object to everything, I wouldn’t be overly concerned just yet.

 

[Dave]

Yeah I hope there's some compromise, that huge area of the park could be really nice and has been hidden away so long. An indoor attraction is really the only big ride you could build there. I hope one day guests get to see the flag tower again, maybe if it gets restored in a planning deal.

They won’t restore the flag tower as it’s covered In mobile phone masts and the council won’t allow new masts to be built to replace the use of the flag tower.

 

[Poisson]

Also where would MMM North move to? It makes sense to base them within the grounds and where they are now makes sense for them to stay.

 

[Rob]

It is no surprise at all that some local residents are objecting to this development; it will no doubt be the usual suspects who object to every major Alton Towers development.

I do think there are some valid points in some of the objections, not least the contradiction in a couple of documents where it is stated that Alton Towers do not expect this to result in any increased visitation to the Resort. And it will inevitably be visible from outside of the park from a couple of locations, but then so are many other structures and buildings at Alton Towers.

When deciding whether to grant planning permission it is all about the balance between the positives and the negatives. Do the positive impacts of the development (more jobs, keeping a major tourist destination relevant) outweigh any negatives (change to landscape, potential noise impacts etc.). I don't think this is as straight forward as some previous major planning applications, not least because they have not been able to seek any pre-application advice from the Council due to resource issues, but I do expect this to pass with conditions as usual. It is in SMDC's interest for Alton Towers to thrive, and I am sure the Councillors on the Planning Committee with agree with that.

 

[tech]

It is no surprise at all that some local residents are objecting to this development; it will no doubt be the usual suspects who object to every major Alton Towers development.

Walt Disney: “I’ll only open in Orlando if you convert your air force base into an international airport, build a freeway straight from said airport to my door, and allow me to operate the entire area as its own municipal district and handle our own planning”

Merlin: “Please? We’ll try and be quiet, you won’t see it too much and hopefully not many people will come. Please locals, purleeeeese?”

 

[Ash]

Walt Disney: “I’ll only open in Orlando if you convert your air force base into an international airport, build a freeway straight from said airport to my door, and allow me to operate the entire area as its own municipal district and handle our own planning”

Merlin: “Please? We’ll try and be quiet, you won’t see it too much and hopefully not many people will come. Please locals, purleeeeese?”

Completely, the fact the railway was never reinstated and the bypass to the A50 built using cpo (but it was JCB…) is farcical, for a country that wants growth this would help.

Look at other reasonable comparisons in Europe (EP, Phantasialand etc)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[RIPCorky]

There will be a way around this, planning laws in recent times have been relaxed significantly. However their house pretty much backs on to coaster corner and it's a miracle they even got those three coasters there originally. I guess AT will counter and say you can see the dungeon building in winter or they'll plant trees/paint the building green or build a big wooden fence.

 

[Steve74]

There will be a way around this, planning laws in recent times have been relaxed significantly. However their house pretty much backs on to coaster corner and it's a miracle they even got those three coasters there originally. I guess AT will counter and say you can see the dungeon building in winter or they'll plant trees/paint the building green or build a big wooden fence.

I've not read the objections, but are you saying they are coming from the owners of the house where you have marked? A quick look on Google street view at that point shows that even in April when there is not much leaf cover (unfortunately there is no winter street view from that road) you can't see anything - 1) because of the amount of trees, 2) because of the steepness of the hillside and 3) because of the distance between the road and the top of the hill

I know Street view doesn't show the whole story, but if they are complaining about being able to see the building I mean really? Or am I missing something?

 

[Dave]

I don’t think the visual impact will be a major consideration. The way the slope of the hill is profiled I would be very surprised if you would get any major visual impact even in winter. Noise is the bigger issue though with this being an indoor coaster that argument is challengeable.

 

[RIPCorky]

I've not read the objections, but are you saying they are coming from the owners of the house where you have marked? A quick look on Google street view at that point shows that even in April when there is not much leaf cover (unfortunately there is no winter street view from that road) you can't see anything - 1) because of the amount of trees, 2) because of the steepness of the hillside and 3) because of the distance between the road and the top of the hill

I know Street view doesn't show the whole story, but if they are complaining about being able to see the building I mean really? Or am I missing something?

"The woodland is mostly deciduous and over the past few years a large number of the older, larger trees have been lost due to their age, disease and storm damage. The opening up of the canopy due to these losses will only add to the potential for more trees to be lost due to storm damage, especially as we see considerably stronger & more violent storms due to the impact of climate change. This will increase the visibility of this site and any replanting will take many decades before having any impact as cover."

Looks like it yes. I don't think it'll be a major issue regarding the visual impact. It's noise and possibly light that will be the problem. May not be the location of the house but that's what google came up with... I assume you can hear all rides from that location or general noise. It's actually on the opposite side of the road. Can't see the objections being taken seriously

 

[rob666]

Hmmm...
Opening up the canopy will allow rapid growth of recent seedling trees already naturalised in the area, increasing cover, and obscuring the new shed completely within five years at the most.
And I'm sure the Towers gardeners know that.

 

[Dobba]

To prevent anyone who checks the Planning Portal and gets too excited by a new document that has been posted, showing an email from Staffordshire County Council's Planning and Enabling Officer talking about a planning decision being made in regards to Project Horizon...

When you run the reference number through SSC's version of the planning portal, it says that the project has got through their Planning and Enabling Officer with no objections. But only in regards to the SCC's role as the county's Mineral and Waste Planning Authority. No more, no less.

Environment Agency
Just as I was writing this post I checked the application page on the Moorlands Planning Portal again and a consultation response from the Environment Agency has been uploaded. They state they have 'no objections to the proposed development, subject to the imposition of conditions'. Those conditions are an investigation into the groundwater of the site, a remediation plan put in place in regards to the chemicals that are currently being stored/used on site and verification that the works undertaken as part of the remediation plan are complete. Without all of those, they would then object to the project on the grounds of risk of water pollution. At least they can't be worried about flooding with this one!

 

[Nick🎢]

New from premier rides

 

[Skyscraper]

New from premier rides

If a coaster I'd say it's unlikely to have a drop track as Thirteen has one.