• 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

Considering the standard set by the Hex planning permission, if its proximity to the Flag Tower is the tipping point I can see it being approved with a similar caveat that the building has to come down when it's no longer in use.

For all the talk of Hex being a (in layman's terms) temporary application it'll have been open a quarter of a century by the time we're speculating this project opens, with no reason to suspect it'll be removed anytime soon.

If the park are switched on about it, they could do some evergreen planting whilst this project is being put together and by the time 25 years rolls around, you'd do well to find anyone deluded enough to say they'll be able to see this area of the park from outside of it.
 
Last edited:
Someone is late..

image-3.png

Schitts Creek Help GIF by CBC
 
Just checked the application page and noticed a new document (though it is from a week ago) from Staffordshire County Council's Historic Environmental Team has been added since my last visit.

Long story short, they reiterate the views of Historic England and the SMDC’s Conservation Officer that 'further consideration of the scale and/or location of the proposed scheme is highly encouraged'. They also recommend that a condition be added to any granted planning permission that would involve an archaeological investigation, on the subject of the Bunbury Hill Fort, be completed in the area prior to any development being allowed to commence.
 
I still think this will go ahead despite all the opposition. There has to be an allowance for development if done correctly with consideration to the local area. By funding these investigations and potentially setting money aside for renovations I can see this getting the green light
 
Agreed. At this point if the planning application is to fail I think it'd be from the conservation side of things rather than NIMBY locals whose 'issues' could be tackled with a half decent planting plan. The fact these conservation groups are coming up with easily achievable conditions definitely works in this application's favour as while they might be expensive (probably more in terms of time rather than money in the case of an investigation) any application worthy of this massive area will have similar issues regarding conservation so the park might as well spend the money/additional time on this one.
 
Another day, another document added to the application. This time it's Staffordshire Moorlands District Council focusing on the developments impact on Environmental Health.

The only bit worth noting is that they don't envision any sound issues from the ride itself and only raise concerns about area/ride music not being audible beyond the park boundary. Aside from the usual stuff around construction hours, pollution and contamination they have no EH objections to the development.
 
The biggest update to the application since it first appeared today with 32 additional documents since my last check. If I didn't know any better I'd guess there was some sort of planning decision being made in the next nine days.

Lichfields, who are working on the park's behalf with this application as they have done many others confirms that there were other areas considered for this development but this one was ultimately chosen in order to expand the park without needing to remove or replace an attraction. The letter, accompanying the new documents, pinpoints the concerns raised with the development so far and how the park feels they answer them. With 32 documents to cover, I imagine this post is going to be big enough without me copying and pasting bits of the full letter, so I highly recommend reading it yourself (It is the document titled 'Jo Gregory (Response to Comments Jan 2023)' on the application page).

The fairly mundane stuff
Six of those are updated drainage plans (reading those again like I had any idea what any of it meant was an absolute joy) with an additional permeable materials report and Severn Trent Water also confirming that the development will have little impact on the sewerage system so they have no objections to it.

Planting plan
Aside from the updated drainage plans, the bulk of the new stuff from this update relates to a planting plan which is pretty extensive. As almost none of you will be as nerdy about plants as me, I'll save you the boring (or in my opinion, fascinating) bits and point out that the biggest takeaway from it is that they plan to plant English Ivy on the south wall of the ride building, with climbing wires in place to assist in its growth upwards.

Views from outside the park
A couple of external viewpoints have been added as well. The first is from the playing field in Alton, showing how the building will not be visible from that viewpoint due to the canopy thickening and using a photo from a matter of weeks ago (9th January) to prove it.

The second is from Alton Castle and is in direct response to a Parish Councillor (unnamed) who brought up the view from that non-publicly accessible standing point showing that even from its prominent position none of the building would be visible, with 99% of it being hidden by the tree canopy when looking towards the development from Toot Hill. The previously referred to letter from Lichfields states that this was conducted to highlight the worst case of being able to see the ride building from Churnet Valley and Alton Village.

Frankly if this application falls on this absolutely laughable amount of visibility, that you'd need a pair of binoculars to even notice, then I highly doubt anything will be built above six feet in the Staffordshire Moorlands area until at least the next council elections. I believe these additional view documents are the closest you'll ever get to a FU in a planning application.

Conservation
As I have said previously, personally I think this development would only be refused permission at this point on conservation grounds, either in relation to the proximity to the Flag Tower, the hill fort or both.

In regards to the Hill Fort, ATR have got a third party (in the form of Archaeological Research Services) to produce a Historic Environment Desk-Based Assessment of the area. Long story short, they conclude that the proposed development site and associated landscape planting as part of the planting plan falls outside the Scheduled Ancient Monument and so will not directly impact the Scheduled Ancient Monument. With a third party now backing the park in regards to the development's impact on conservation, we might be seeing a trowel duel when the Committee Meeting takes place next week.

Nine days to go...
 
Last edited:
Dobba said:
The biggest update to the application since it first appeared today with 32 additional documents since my last check. If I didn't know any better I'd guess there was some sort of planning decision being made in the next nine days.

Lichfields, who are working on the park's behalf with this application as they have done many others confirms that there were other areas considered for this development but this one was ultimately chosen in order to expand the park without needing to remove or replace an attraction. The letter, accompanying the new documents, pinpoints the concerns raised with the development so far and how the park feels they answer them. With 32 documents to cover, I imagine this post is going to be big enough without me copying and pasting bits of the full letter, so I highly recommend reading it yourself (It is the document titled 'Jo Gregory (Response to Comments Jan 2023)' on the application page).

The fairly mundane stuff
Six of those are updated drainage plans (reading those again like I had any idea what any of it meant was an absolute joy) with an additional permeable materials report and Severn Trent Water also confirming that the development will have little impact on the sewerage system so they have no objections to it.

Planting plan
Aside from the updated drainage plans, the bulk of the new stuff from this update relates to a planting plan which is pretty extensive. As almost none of you will be as nerdy about plants as me, I'll save you the boring (or in my opinion, fascinating) bits and point out that the biggest takeaway from it is that they plan to plant English Ivy on the south wall of the ride building, with climbing wires in place to assist in its growth upwards.

Views from outside the park
A couple of external viewpoints have been added as well. The first is from the playing field in Alton, showing how the building will not be visible from that viewpoint due to the canopy thickening and using a photo from a matter of weeks ago (9th January) to prove it.

The second is from Alton Castle and is in direct response to a Parish Councillor (unnamed) who brought up the view from that non-publicly accessible standing point showing that even from its prominent position none of the building would be visible, with 99% of it being hidden by the tree canopy when looking towards the development from Toot Hill. The previously referred to letter from Lichfields states that this was conducted to highlight the worst case of being able to see the ride building from Churnet Valley and Alton Village.

Frankly if this application falls on this absolutely laughable amount of visibility, that you'd need a pair of binoculars to even notice, then I highly doubt anything will be built above six feet in the Staffordshire Moorlands area until at least the next council elections. I believe these additional view documents are the closest you'll ever get to a FU in a planning application.

Conservation
As I have said previously, personally I think this development would only be refused permission at this point on conservation grounds, either in relation to the proximity to the Flag Tower, the hill fort or both.

In regards to the Hill Fort, ATR have got a third party (in the form of Archaeological Research Services) to produce a Historic Environment Desk-Based Assessment of the area. Long story short, they conclude that the proposed development site and associated landscape planting as part of the planting plan falls outside the Scheduled Ancient Monument and so will not directly impact the Scheduled Ancient Monument. With a third party now backing the park in regards to the development's impact on conservation, we might be seeing a trowel duel when the Committee Meeting takes place next week.

Nine days to go...
Click to expand...
This was all interesting thanks for summarising! I wouldn't want to read 32 pages :tearsofjoy:
I personally think it will be greenlit, I can't see anything strong enough really that would cause it to be rejected, but who knows
 
I said before that I did not think this would go ahead. I am quietly optimistic however..

Can someone please link the link to save scrolling through pages and pages.
 
If confirmation was even needed at this point the agenda for next week's Planning Committee meeting has been posted online and this application is item 10.

The committee report recommends that this application gets APPROVED (though admittedly with a whole host of conditions that I'm still going through).

It's not quite at the finish line yet, but those hurdles sure are running out.
 
Committee report conclusions
Aside from the usual conditions that this project be done to the exact mm and construction hour of the plans submitted, the two main takeaways from the conditions to their recommended approval are that as we speculated, it is pretty much going to be the same deal as Hex in that the building must come down within six months of it no longer being in use.

We also know that the next Heritage project will be the Scalloped Wall and Orangery. Prior to any non-demolition work with Project Horizon being undertaken they want plans submitted and approved for the restoration/repair of those heritage items. So there is your usual big ticket planning application/conservation trade off folks.
 
Last edited:
AT86 said:
Work to the Orangery in a similar vein to the conservatories would be welcome, pleased they went with this as opposed to the Flag Tower that nobody can ever access.
Click to expand...
If you're looking for similar, I'm sure you'll be very happy. I'd be surprised if anyone other than the team that did the Conservatories will be working on the Orangery.
 
The Orangery has needed a lot of work for a long time. Glad to hear it'll be getting restored. It was even used as a toilet block around the 1970s (I think). For some reason one entire dome went completely missing. With a bit of luck, they may re-introduce the fountain in front of it too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top