London Entertainment Resort: All Discussion

[Matt N]

Just thought I’d add this to the mix.

www.thestar.co.uk/lifestyle/family/water-slides-dinosaurs-and-26-rides-inside-ps37-million-gullivers-valley-theme-park-2894632%3famp

they have In the entire time of this London park saga been able to buy the land, get planning permission and build and decent family park. While London resorts have wasted 25 million so far and have nothing to show apart from some reports.

While I admit that there is nothing to show on the face of it, if you delve a bit further into the report they recently published, then it’s clear that the years gone by have not just been spent by them sat doing nothing and getting paid a decent wage. They have conducted very in-depth archeological studies since 2015, which have resulted in them actually reworking the proposal in order to make it more reasonable (it’s a lot smaller now than it was intended to be in 2014/15 during the last round of public consultations). They have done an awful lot of work to do with infrastructure and archeological research over the last 5 years, apparently.

If you’re wondering where I’m getting all of this from, toofpikk over on CoasterForce has very kindly delved much further into the report published yesterday than I did, and it unveils some incredibly interesting info, as well as some shots of the site comparing the 2014 proposal to the current proposal. Here’s what they found:

Doing it's own separate post. Sorry mods. Not spam


The document is very much a surveying one, which is not my area of expertise (apart from the drawings), however i have a little bit of an understanding of it. The focus is obviously on the impact of the proposal on everything from the fish in the Thames to the traffic in south Essex, however there is still some other, interesting bits of info that can be derived from it. Matt N's post does a really good job at highlighting some of the more interesting bits of info from it.

• The first part of the document breaks down all of the planning guidelines, frameworks and documents that the proposal is compliant with; an essential part of UK developments.
• I believe there is a table which shows alternate site options the development team did studies of, interestingly including the Olympic park & several locations just North of London, and Southend.
  
  
  
• The design has been massively matured since 2014/15, as can be seen on page 54 of the report (2015 is first image, most recent 2nd)
  
  
  
  
• Project site is 504 hectares
• 500 apartments with shared living room and kitchen facilities for workers. Surprised it wasn't more but thats the cap for this kind of project.
• All forms of travel will be directed to the 22,500m2 entry plaza.
• The main comment about the height of structures is to avoid sight lines that clash with neighbourhood or electricity lines to allow for full immersion. With the QE2 bridge, electricity pylons including a 190m super pylon as well as riverside freight cranes, they will have plenty of nearby examples to break their current 60m barrier.
• The proposal will include cycle routes round the area, and will ‘enhance’ existing public transport routes to encourage non-car modes of transport, especially for staff. Further info in the DCO at a later time. (DCO means development consent order)
• It’s own sub station will be built, along with waste facility, water treatment work and these will use sustainable drainage systems.
• Flood defences that comply with kent’s 2100 thames estuary flood strategy (it won’t sink hopefully)
• Those habitats which will be destroyed or displaced by the development will be compensated for by the moving of (where possible) animals and the creation of off site appropriate habitats
• as said elsewhere, 6.5 million annual guests with 1 gate, 12.5 with 2, 12% of which will be overseas.
• I would really recommend looking at the drawings on the actual pdf from page 80 onwards to see stuff in high detail.
• they REALLY want people to use tilbury rather than the crossing lol - they predict 25% of attendees will use the Tilbury dock & boat, which should decrease traffic coming from north of the river quite a bit
• because the site sits on 3 different local planning authority areas they have 3 times as many schemes to sift through than usual, although they will likely be largely rinse and repeat.
• The document acknowledges how bad the bottle neck at dartford is 1/3 of the way in the document and cites ongoing & future proposed works in its main issues page as the resolution. They point out that with the ferry dock and the decrease in resort size they’re expecting a reduction in m25 use but it’ll still be busy. :/
• They have basically said ‘Don’t worry everyone we love how natural the area is and we promise not to f*** it up!’
  Having said that the site sits partially on green belt, public rights of way cross the site, ancient woodland is on the site and there’s some issues with some statutory landscape designations within 6km of the site which poses an issue. Fortunately the site has just 3 listed buildings within it, and only a couple of historically important dig sites.
• By now we’re up to the maps on page 172. you’re going to be able to see it from a good 5km away at its proposed height. Case studies like Silver Star could be used to show how impressive having taller structures would be for the drive up.
  
  

• The images up to page 218 really show you how colossal this project site is. Its way more than just a theme park. We knew this but seriously, this thing is gargantuan. So much more infrastructure, green space and area working around road and train networks than just a resort. And even then the resort has been massively shrunk from the proposals 5-6 years ago. Mental stuff.
• Studies have been ongoing from 2015 on the archaeological side of things. It’s starting to become clear that actually the stuff they’ve been doing has been very timely and they haven’t just been sitting about. With the reworking of the proposals to make them much more reasonable and the amount of work that is involved with infrastructure and desk study research its not surprising its taken so long, especially with the constant changing of funding, management and partners as well as the countries economy.
• Lots of really interesting history stuff done by historians and archeologists. Could totally do an attraction around the areas rich history (pg 255-259)
• They’re using framework that is used for roads and bridges in case they come across any archaeologically important bits and pieces because there is simply no framework appropriate for a project like this to be done in the UK. Very cool. As well as this it's worth noting that once the project is granted the go ahead the planning permissions will be a bit more relaxed due to the sheer scale of the development. A special government grant, first project of its kind in the UK. Can't remember the name of it but yeah.
• Lots of notes on the concern of the crossing and traffic to the site, whether its noise, traffic congestion or air pollution. replies are noted, or we’re working on it as existing air quality management areas don’t reach far enough.
• This is a greatly reassuring document which has plenty of detail and shows a lot of work has gone into making this project come to fruition, however it also displays the sheer amount of paperwork that the project team still have to produce (unless I have missed something? It seems like they are sure there are few matters to be scoped out despite these comments on outstanding studies to produce).

Should be noted the current lead of the project salvaged the projects that have become quite successful in the shape of Euro Disney & the Millenium Dome. Neither of those had strong starts, or indeed introductions, however they have both become iconic tourist destinations that can be seen today as positives. I hope that the same person can spearhead another project to success!

I appreciate that this project does raise some alarm bells on the face of it, but if you look at the details, then I personally think it looks a little more plausible and a little easier to digest.
EDIT: Here is the actual PDF that LER themselves published, if you’d like to have a read: https://www.southparks.co.uk/files/2020/06/London-Resort-Scoping-Report.pdf

 

[Mr Pearse]

If they was being serious about this situation they would of decided to buy the land by now and considering they don’t own any of it since the last 8 years says it all.

 

[jon81uk]

What makes you all believe that this park will not achieve its attendance targets?

It doesn't have the brand awareness that Disney has.

If they could get this sort of attendance, why hasn't any UK park already got this sort of figure?
Alton Towers has been the UKs more visited theme park for years and still doesn't get those numbers.

In terms of London being close, it could be asked why Thorpe doesn't get that many, but then it doesn't have the infrastructure or ride count to cope with a huge amount more on the busiest days.

It could work as you say, but without the brand recognition of Disney it feels unlikely unfortuantly.

 

[Matt N]

It doesn't have the brand awareness that Disney has.

If they could get this sort of attendance, why hasn't any UK park already got this sort of figure?
Alton Towers has been the UKs more visited theme park for years and still doesn't get those numbers.

In terms of London being close, it could be asked why Thorpe doesn't get that many, but then it doesn't have the infrastructure or ride count to cope with a huge amount more on the busiest days.

It could work as you say, but without the brand recognition of Disney it feels unlikely unfortuantly.

The reason I think no other UK theme park has pulled these types of figures is because this development is absolutely gargantuan in comparison to anything we’ve seen in Britain before. Alton and Thorpe are much, much smaller and designed for a more regional crowd; not that there’s anything wrong with that, but this project has nothing comparable to it in terms of scale and type of experience in this country. The sheer size of the Resort and the amount on offer is unlike anything else in this country in terms of a complete package.

 

[jon81uk]

The reason I think no other UK theme park has pulled these types of figures is because this development is absolutely gargantuan in comparison to anything we’ve seen in Britain before. Alton and Thorpe are much, much smaller and designed for a more regional crowd; not that there’s anything wrong with that, but this project has nothing comparable to it in terms of scale and type of experience in this country. The sheer size of the Resort and the amount on offer is unlike anything else in this country in terms of a complete package.

Although Alton Towers is smaller, it is national rather than regional. It really does attract people from all over the UK, compared to many others. But it could attract more again if they had something else as a big new draw.

 

[Mr Pearse]

The reason I think no other UK theme park has pulled these types of figures is because this development is absolutely gargantuan in comparison to anything we’ve seen in Britain before. Alton and Thorpe are much, much smaller and designed for a more regional crowd; not that there’s anything wrong with that, but this project has nothing comparable to it in terms of scale and type of experience in this country. The sheer size of the Resort and the amount on offer is unlike anything else in this country in terms of a complete package.

So what’s the usp that’s going to draw more people into this park then anywhere in the uk?. At the moment it sounds like it’s a massive park trying the copy Disney parks. So why would people travel here when they have an actual Disney park only a few hours away?

 

[Matt N]

I certainly agree; Towers definitely has the makings of a national resort, but my point is that this project has no immediate comparison within this country in terms of size and amount on offer. This will be more comparable to something like Disneyland Paris or PortAventura, and the park does intend to try and attract a decent-sized international crowd as well as a UK crowd. That’s where the key differences lie for me.

So what’s the usp that’s going to draw more people into this park then anywhere in the uk?. At the moment it sounds like it’s a massive park trying the copy Disney parks. So why would people travel here when they have an actual Disney park only a few hours away?

As I said above, the Resort is intended to be a very unique product within the UK. There are no places in Britain of this size and with this much to offer within one resort. It also has very different IPs and looks to be a different type of product to any Disney theme park. This will be the first time that I’m aware of that some of the BBC’s more adult-orientated IPs will be represented properly within a theme park, and aside from IAC at Thorpe, this will be the first time that ITV have been represented properly in a theme park as well; certainly the first time that any of their kids brands have been represented properly within a theme park, as far as I’m aware. In terms of international appeal, this will use Paramount IPs, and there is currently no Paramount theme park in Europe.

The key difference between this and Disney is that this will also aim to provide thrill rides as well as family attractions, which while Disney does provide some thrilling rides, the parks on the whole are very family-orientated. London Resort wants to aim itself towards a more universal demographic, from what I can gather. In terms of the actual park experience and types of attractions on offer, I think it could be more comparable to something like Universal, but with a wider blend of IPs from different sources, and the nearest Universal theme park is in Orlando. Having been to Walt Disney World, the parks themselves don’t actually have a huge number of rides, whereas I think London Resort will provide quite a few more rides. Disney is very much about the “magical” elements and subtler non-ride things, whereas London Resort will have more rides from what I can gather.

There is also the factor that 70% of the park’s attractions are to be undercover, so the weather doesn’t matter; since MetroLand closed, the UK has lacked a proper all-weather theme park, and I can’t think of any notable theme parks in mainland Europe with a substantial proportion of indoor attractions, either (I’m probably missing a really notable one now...). I suppose there is Toverland which has quite a substantial proportion of indoor attractions, but that proportion is definitely smaller than LER’s will be now that they’ve really expanded their outdoor area, and Toverland is also a far, far more regionally-targeted product than LER and doesn’t have anywhere near the full package that LER will offer in terms of a resort; that’s not a dig at Toverland by any means, but the intended scale and type of combined product at LER will be very, very different. With the infamous British weather, a major theme park with a substantial proportion of indoor attractions could really plug a gap in our theme park industry, as it could still tempt people in on those rainier & colder days that Britain often experiences; that’s something they can definitely claim over the competition, in my eyes.

 

[Ian]

Yes, the physical size may be comparable to the likes of DLP and PA, but this isn’t simply a case of “build it and they will come”. Disney has an almost global appeal, and PA had the mammoth that is/was the Spanish tourism industry to get people in (plus, it also had the Universal brand behind it for a brief period, which might have had some influence, maybe...). It worked as an attraction people could work into a larger sea, sun and sand family getaway.

Shanghai Disneyland attracted the figures it did as it was one of the first park of its kind in the region, and the first Disney park in mainland China. For a lot of local people the prospects of traveling to even Hong Kong Disneyland would be unattainable, both financially and socially.

When this project had the Paramount name behind there was certainly IP opportunities that would have had an appeal (all though to me Paramount has never really been a name that I group with Disney and Universal, and while it has made a lot of films, I’m not sure I could name all that many off the top of my head). However, I’m really not sure what IP opportunities there are here which would have a wider European or global appeal. The likes of Doctor Who, potentially, but I think most of the other names and ideas that have surfaced throughout this project were a bit obscure. They have domestic appeal, but I’m not sure if there’s much beyond that. If the appetite from overseas custom was there, perhaps the likes of Granada Studios would have taken off on a larger scale.

Fundamentally, parks which pull off Disney and Universal level gate figures are the exception. Not the rule.

 

[Matt N]

Come to think of it, there are other examples in Europe that don’t have IP appeal. Europa Park has no IPs besides Arthur and the Minimoys, as far as I’m aware, and the theme park alone pulled 5.7 million guests in 2018. Combine that with their numerous hotels and what Rulantica will presumably pull in an average year (maybe around 1-1.5m?) and EP’s estimated overall average attendance adds up to about 7 million, which is not a dissimilar figure to what LER’s first phase (gate 1, water park, entertainment district and some of the hotels) wants to provide in a year, and bear in mind that Europa is not a 365 day resort like LER presumably will be (I’m admittedly not sure about the hotels & Rulantica, but the park definitely isn’t). Admittedly, Europa has built up this appeal gradually over 45 years, but I’m sure that if something of that kind of size was built in Britain, with a few IPs to help it out, I think it would be very popular. It’s worth pointing out that Britain is more densely populated than Germany (274 people per km squared as opposed to 240 in Germany), and EP is also in a far more rural, less populated area of Germany than LER will be in Britain.

 

[Ian]

Europa Park has also been operating for over 40 years, practically sits on the open border of two of Europe’s largest countries (one of which until the last few years has had little in the way of a theme park industry), and is located in the vicinity of some great beauty spots which already had a tourist appeal. It also offers themes which, while not IP based, can certainly be relatable to some visitors.

 

[Matt N]

Before I go too deep down the rabbit hole of debate, you do all make some very, very valid points, but my personal point is; I don’t necessarily think that if this project happens, it will be as doomed to fail as some of you predict.

 

[Ian]

I don’t think anyone is necessarily saying that it is doomed to fail. Just that there needs to be realistic expectations if the resort is built.

The danger comes from them investing too heavily based on these delusions of grandeur, and then being unable to sustain and operate the resort effectively. That’s when you end up with situations like Hard Rock Park on your hands.

 

[Mr Pearse]

I just can’t get my head around why someone would travel across Europe for a Disney knock off when they can actually go to Disneyland Paris. The pricing structure will put a lot of the uk theme park going public off. People who are used to 2-4-1s or cheap tickets won’t pay the high price for a park. You could have the worlds best rides in the park but unfortunately Money talks. If places like DisneyLand Paris didn’t happen then this sort of set up works but unfortunately Disney is in Paris. End of the day no major theme park operator has yet wanted to build a park in England I think that says it all.

 

[James]

Europa Park is much like Towers where it has built up gradually overtime. It did not open to 5.7 million guests in its first operating year.

Disney is the only company capable of opening a brand new park and gaining huge guest numbers in its first year, and even they have struggled with some parks. How will a park with a mish mash of different IPs draw in huge numbers? .

If this were a more toned back project, small entertainments complex with conference facilities, with the scope to develop a theme park in future... people would most likely pay more attention to it becoming a reality.

 

[Dave]

Although Alton Towers is smaller, it is national rather than regional. It really does attract people from all over the UK, compared to many others. But it could attract more again if they had something else as a big new draw.

Towers has never wanted to really attract more than 3 million yearly visitors. Once you go much above that you end up needing some hefty changes to your infrastructure and local road systems (see the massive changes to EP’s approach roads and parking facilities over the last decade). Towers couldn’t achieve this even if they wanted to due to its location.

London Resort is expecting just under 10% of the UK population to visit each year, yet it’s tucked into the south east, which although the most populous park of England is not a short trip for a huge population of the country.

 

[Matt N]

It might be worth bearing in mind that 12% of the resort’s visitors are expected to be international, so the visitor figures will not be entirely UK-based by any means. This desired international appeal may have been the reason for picking a location in the South East.

If the park was only going to be targeted towards Britons (it’s not going to be, but I’m just talking hypothetically here), where do you guys think the most desirable location in the UK would be?

 

[Dave]

It might be worth bearing in mind that 12% of the resort’s visitors are expected to be international, so the visitor figures will not be entirely UK-based by any means.

It really won’t achieve that with the Paramount IP. If it was 15 years ago and they had got their hands on Potter then maybe. But paramount doesn’t have any huge draws for international guests.

 

[Matt N]

It really won’t achieve that with the Paramount IP. If it was 15 years ago and they had got their hands on Potter then maybe. But paramount doesn’t have any huge draws for international guests.

I suppose Paramount does own things like Star Trek and Mission Impossible. They seem quite popular, although as you say, I can’t think of a Paramount name that has the same global appeal as something like Harry Potter, Star Wars or any of Disney’s brands.

Then again, I suppose people said the same about Pandora at Animal Kingdom when that was being built, and look how popular that is now...

 

[pluk]

If nothing else, I’d argue that this is the closest we’ve come to “concrete progress” since at least 2014, even if it’s not actual “concrete” progress in the way that you describe.

That must be even just slightly more promising, surely?
.

Matt, concrete progress will be made of, well concrete.

This is paper progress. It's made of paper. You can't ride paper, noone wants to visit paper, paper has no value. It's just paper. They've got some paper, they've got no concrete.

The paper they have not got though are the bits with the queen's face on it, and with you ignoring the well informed and evidenced posts that point this out you remain in the world of fantasy that they do have some of this queens paper. That they don't have it, or any land, is not opinion but published fact, and it's a little frustrating you continue to ignore this honking great chasm in their little plan.

Peoples derision of the project is not based in them wanting it to fail, or even a belief that if it were built as described it would fail, but that the evidence shows us they don't have the means to succeed. That could change in the future, but as it hasn't changed during the extended period it's already been someone's dream for, and now finance and prospects for entertainment are at a low point in all of modern history thanks to covid, why would it change? This isn't pessimism for pessimism sake, it's looking at a set of circumstances and drawing a logical conclusion. Your current thought process lacks logic.

Edit, following bullygate this isn't meant to be nasty, it's a genuine attempt to explain how the situation is seen by others as you still seemed bemused by other people's negative opinions on it.

 

[Matt N]

Matt, concrete progress will be made of, well concrete.

This is paper progress. It's made of paper. You can't ride paper, noone wants to visit paper, paper has no value. It's just paper. They've got some paper, they've got no concrete.

The paper they have not got though are the bits with the queen's face on it, and with you ignoring the well informed and evidenced posts that point this out you remain in the world of fantasy that they do have some of this queens paper. That they don't have it, or any land, is not opinion but published fact, and it's a little frustrating you continue to ignore this honking great chasm in their little plan.

Peoples derision of the project is not based in them wanting it to fail, or even a belief that if it were built as described it would fail, but that the evidence shows us they don't have the means to succeed. That could change in the future, but as it hasn't changed during the extended period it's already been someone's dream for, and now finance and prospects for entertainment are at a low point in all of modern history thanks to covid, why would it change? This isn't pessimism for pessimism sake, it's looking at a set of circumstances and drawing a logical conclusion. Your current thought process lacks logic.

I thought they did have money, if that’s what you’re referring to? I could have sworn I read somewhere that some investment bank was providing £2bn of the budget, KEH Holdings were providing £500m and the rest of the money was coming from various other sources. I’ll see if I can find that article to show you. If not, it’s always something I could ask them at their online public consultations, as I believe they will be open to anyone when they occur?

I’m not trying to shun you all by any means, as you do make some very valid points. I do also have my own personal reservations about the project. However, as more and more has happened over the last few weeks, I’m starting to feel more optimistic about it happening, especially as the pandemic and resulting financial crisis would have offered the perfect excuse to pull the plug, in my eyes.