The frustrating thing is that I'm not sure that they have that many issues aside from the issue of obtaining planning permission. On the issues raised surrounding money and the like, I maintain much of my stance from 2 years ago.
They claim that they have an investor on board to fund the project fully within the planning permission, which in theory solves the money issue. Yes, I accept previously made points about KEH (the main publicly declared investor) and their less than stellar previous record, but this investor may well be a different investor entirely to KEH, so I'd be hesitant to make any pre-judgements about their ability to fund the project without knowing who they are.
Back in 2020, they were starting to sign construction contracts and the like, so
some firm stuff was arguably beginning to happen. I'll admit that I'm a tad unconvinced by how vague some of the concept art was, but if you're signing contracts and seeking out suppliers, you are bound to have a fairly firm idea of what you wish to build, so I had hope that these vague drawings were simply placeholders to hide what they were actually planning to build.
Yes, things have taken a very long time up to this point, but I thought that was simply down to the general nature of building large infrastructure projects in the UK. Things like HS2 and Crossrail also took ages (HS2 took 11 years to even get planning permission, apparently), yet HS2 is now very much happening and Crossrail has already opened its first phase, so I assumed that any large project like this in the UK would almost inevitably take ages and ages to come to fruition.
I will, however, concede that some of the forecasts and numbers don't quite add up, in my view, which I don't think I realised 2 years ago. For instance:
- They claim to be seeking 6.5 million guests per annum from the beginning. Getting 6.5 million guests from day 1 does seem like a rather tall order; even Disney have managed this in fairly few cases, and they're Disney. Somewhere around 3-4 million in the initial years, with that 6.5 million being attained when the Resort was complete with all gates and had been running with everything there for a bit, seems feasible depending on what was to be built, but the visitor targets they proposed seem rather bold. 12.5 million for the completed resort would put them roughly on a level peg with Disneyland Paris, which seems like a very unlikely figure to hit unless they had a big hitter of an IP up their sleeves.
- They also claim to be seeking for 40% of their visitors to come from abroad. With the previously proposed IPs, I have doubts that the resort would have that kind of foreign appeal. Many of the IPs, such as BBC and ITV, are quite uniquely British in appeal, and I'd argue that Paramount does not exactly have any big hitters IP-wise.
- The resort is proposed to contain 3,500 hotel rooms, which is a huge number (for comparison, Alton Towers has 694). Many of these are slated to exist from day 1. That to me gives off similar tones to Disneyland Paris, where the resort was built with far too many hotels for its needs and ended up having to shut many of them for the first few years due to low occupancy and high running costs.
- On the flip side, the number of parking spaces sounds very low. The Resort is proposed to have 10,000 parking spaces, yet they're expecting 53,000 visitors on peak days. Assuming everyone travelled by car, they're hoping for an average of 5.3 people per car, which seems far too high in my view. I'm very aware that the developers are keen to emphasise the proposal's green credentials and public transport links, so they may be expecting a certain percentage of visitors to come via public transport, but I'd wager that most visitors would still drive to an attraction like this, and 10,000 parking spaces sounds somewhat under-equipped to handle 53,000 guests, in my opinion.
- The developers are proposing a 2025 opening (or at least were when I last heard the opening date referenced). Given the current state of affairs, this seems highly, highly unlikely to be met even if planning permission is gained. Based on the proposed timeline of the previous GDO application, it would take 18 months from the date of acceptance for a verdict to be reached, so even if a new GDO application was filed and accepted tomorrow (highly unlikely), that would already take us to mid-2024. The chances of Phase 1 being built in 6-18 months would be slim to none, in my view.
- The developers are relying on public transport links that either haven't been confirmed or have been cancelled in some cases, which does throw their transport calculations into question somewhat.
This is all ultimately irrelevant, however. Planning permission is a significant obstacle to overcome; it may only be one obstacle, but actually getting permission to build on the site is a pretty crucial element to the project's progression. And seeing as the chances of that currently appear to be slim, what with the SSSI designation and the present local exasperation with the project, that is where my doubts lie and that is why I have recently grown more sceptical about the project's chances of coming to fruition. If they can't gain planning permission, that completely grinds them to a halt and renders everything else pointless, and it does seem as though their chances of getting planning permission are pretty slim at present.