• 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.

London Entertainment Resort: All Discussion

Tim said:
Looking back on this topic I don't think any of us could have guessed that the final nail in the coffin (the one that stopped all the "but what if" speculation, even after it was long dead) would be Universal. When you think about it, negativity couldn't kill it, but confirmation that the concept was good, just in the wrong place and by the wrong people did. What an amazing note for this to end on!
Click to expand...

Feels like your post should be the topic close. Obviously removing my post
 
Sounds to me like a lot of what he is blaming is actually down to false expectations from those who do not understand how things work in the UK.

Let's see how Universal get on shall we...!
 
MaxPower said:
Well, he's not wrong about the planning situation being a nightmare. Takes too long and NIMBY's have too much power.
Click to expand...
If you're proposing the size of development that he was, planning shouldn't be rushed and impact studies should be taken into account. If you're proposing the size of development that he was, you also don't hire cowboys or announce anything until you're absolutely sure you know what you're doing. You don't announce anything until you've surveyed the land, made sure it's fit for purpose and taken the temperature of the people who live in that area.

People should absolutely have a right to reject the construction of a theme park in their immediate vicinity, or voice their concerns about it, that's the whole point of living in a liberal democracy. He went about everything the wrong way, which is why he didn't have the support, especially compared with how Universal have handled their proposed development.

DCMS are the sponsor organisation for the proposed Universal development. MHCLG will handle the planning proposals centrally, through an SPO. DLUHC will carry out a public consultation before any planning permission is given, but once everything is signed off Universal will not have to necessarily run every small, or big, thing through the planning system again. The current stall in the programme is just how much Universal want the government to pay / do to connect their park and support it with essential infrastructure. Once these negotiations are out of the way, Universal will make a decision and an announcement about it they're going to progress. The public consultation will begin after, along with environmental impact studies, and then a decision on planning will be made.

I agree that planning can appear restrictive, especially for things we need like housing, hospitals, schools or other essential services. I don't think that planning for leisure attractions should necessarily be as much of a walk in the park as he wants them to be.
 
I was talking about housing development primarily rather than large scale projects like this.

There is still too much red tape surrounding the planning of larger developments but as you mention, it shouldn't be a free for all either.

There needs to be more balance.
 
MaxPower said:
I was talking about housing development primarily rather than large scale projects like this.

There is still too much red tape surrounding the planning of larger developments but as you mention, it shouldn't be a free for all either.

There needs to be more balance.
Click to expand...
Ah that's a different topic entirely, one of economics! The problem you have (when your entire country's economy is reliant on property) is that building new housing immediately devalues the property market in the immediate area.

Falling house prices create a decline in wealth. Decline in wealth causes lower spending and higher saving. Many households become trapped in "negative equity".

Countries, like Germany, where the majority of people rent their homes (and there's a lot of state / social housing) don't suffer with this problem as much.

Everyone wants more housing, no one wants it near them because it means they'll lose wealth.
 
Considering the poor good quality, architecture, layout and general state of what passes for most newbuild housing these days with what's currently allowed, I struggle to believe there really is too much red tape and regulations. I've a mate who used to work in planning and they were really limited in what they could say no to. But that's getting away from the main point that this failed because projects like this depend mostly on politics, and the people behind this project were just not being very good at it
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top