London Entertainment Resort: All Discussion

[WillPS]

Who owns the land? I guess that is/was the most important thing.

Swanscombe Development LLP which is itself up for sale. LRCH is to all intents and purposes asset-less.

 

[Quantum]

Swanscombe Development LLP which is itself up for sale. LRCH is to all intents and purposes asset-less.

If will be interesting to see if the environmental nutters have the same level of anger when a big developer wants to stick a load of fancy apartments there

 

[Matt N]

If will be interesting to see if the environmental nutters have the same level of anger when a big developer wants to stick a load of fancy apartments there

I’m not sure it’s necessarily fair to call them “environmental nutters”. There clearly is biodiversity that Natural England saw fit to protect on the site, hence its designation as an SSSI.

An interesting comparison is Universal’s proposal in Bedford, a proposal by an established theme park company in a less contentious location. That has been known about for a year and has no known environmental concerns; heck, it has even had environmentally-minded bodies express approval of the proposal.

 

[WillPS]

If will be interesting to see if the environmental nutters have the same level of anger when a big developer wants to stick a load of fancy apartments there

There were huge site suitability questions even ignoring the SSSI designation.

If you ask me (and of course nobody has) the true purpose of the project was never to deliver a resort theme park. Whether it delivered in those true aims, I don't know, but a theme park appearing on the Swanscombe Peninsula was never a possible outcome.

 

[benpicko]

I’m not sure it’s necessarily fair to call them “environmental nutters”. There clearly is biodiversity that Natural England saw fit to protect on the site, hence its designation as an SSSI.

An interesting comparison is Universal’s proposal in Bedford, a proposal by an established theme park company in a less contentious location. That has been known about for a year and has no known environmental concerns; heck, it has even had environmentally-minded bodies express approval of the proposal.

The quote from the Times article did make me laugh though:

Natural England said the industrial use had left a landscape providing “ideal conditions for a unique variety of wildlife,” including plants such as the divided sedge and the slender hare’s-ear.

So an industrial use in the past makes it unsuitable for any further development?