• 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

It'll be amazing if this happens, but 2024 does sound very optimistic. I was watcing a Park Stop video the other day about Epic Universe, and according to that, Epic Universe is most likely to open in 2025. Construction on that has already started, even if it got delayed by covid. Even if construction work started on the London Resort early next year, it'd be difficult to get it all ready for 2024.
 
Danny said:
I take this statement regarding aspiring marketing employees back. At least when it comes to social media, given their latest post is a cut and paste from a news article...

Click to expand...


Well at least we now know why Gerbeau is so bullish about this project going ahead - he stands to lose his own investment if it doesn’t.

Why on Earth have they set up offices in Mayfair?! The need to look the part, even though it’d be cheaper and more useful to rent out some cheap office space in Ebbsfleet?
 
It might seem a bit extravagent having their office in Mayfair, but they've spent £40 million so far, and realistically they couldn't spend it all on refreshments.
 
I think the actual spend so far has been quite high; I think I heard £70m quoted somewhere?

I’m going to give this project some time and see how the DCO planning application goes once they’re ready to submit. I’m feeling cautiously optimistic about its chances, personally, as they now have an investor onboard and the project seems to have really gained momentum in the last year or so.
 
A new article on BBC News regarding "dozens of changes" to the plans:

BBC News said:
Theme park developers will make dozens of changes to their plans after the proposed location was protected as a wildlife haven, documents show.

A planning inspector is due to examine the plans to build the London Resort in Swanscombe Peninsula later this year.

The inquiry was delayed after the area, in Kent, was named a site of special scientific interest (SSSI).

Developers said they are making no "material" changes, but wildlife charities have urged them to pull out.

After being granted a four-month delay, the London Resort Company Holdings (LRCH) has revealed it plans to alter nearly half of the 460 documents submitted as part of the application.

Eleven documents will be replaced or receive "substantive" updates, with 46 taking "some amendments" and about 160 expected to receive "minor amendments," a letter to the planning inspectorate shows.

About 250 documents will receive no changes.
Click to expand...

The beginning of the end for this saga, if there was ever a beginning at all?
 
Matt N said:
Interestingly, Merlin have now lodged an objection to the London Resort planning application, in a move that could majorly derail the project’s progress: https://escapismproject.co.uk/news/...UVxXpB3cw7_nU2mQ7g0jdJK-ou_zD7Za4MVoncCuUaxsE
Click to expand...

The objections they've raised are to the planning process itself, not the planning application. London Resort are advising they want to submit a document called "Supporting Resort and Leisure Market Assessment" by September. The objection Merlin have made is because they believe this should have been submitted back in December to allow sufficient time for them to review the document and make relevant representations, with that period to make representations now closed.

At present, the planning inspectorate have allowed an extension for documents to be submitted regarding the site being designated as a Site of Specific Scientific Interest (SSSI), and Merlin believe the "Supporting Resort and Leisure Market Assessment" document is well outside of that scope.

This isn't just a Merlin objection, BALPPA have also written to the Planning Inspectorate with similar concerns. Merlin have gone in stronger with the language, but the basis of their argument is still the same - that this new document should have been entered at the beginning of the process, not after the period of Relevant Representations as the public and other businesses would've needed to be aware of it beforehand.
 
Danny said:
Time is perhaps what the minds behind this have too much of. Over ten years and still nothing to show for it other than some drawings, copy/pasted social media articles, and some literature that any intern copywriter could put together.

It's about time the realism settled in now.
Click to expand...
I understand that view, but this a multi-billion pound project, the channel tunnel was talked about for 200 years before it opened.

If it happens, it happens, not losing any sleep either way. Merlin think there is enough of a risk of it occuring to stick their two-penneth in.
 
Rick said:
I understand that view, but this a multi-billion pound project, the channel tunnel was talked about for 200 years before it opened.

If it happens, it happens, not losing any sleep either way. Merlin think there is enough of a risk of it occuring to stick their two-penneth in.
Click to expand...

The difference between this and the Channel Tunnel, however, is that the latter serves a tangible purpose. The London Resort really isn't vital. A failure to deliver on it now certainly won't be generating discussion about it in 200 years' time. It'd long be a housing estate, and whatever replaces said housing estate by that point.
 
Danny said:
The difference between this and the Channel Tunnel, however, is that the latter serves a tangible purpose. The London Resort really isn't vital. A failure to deliver on it now certainly won't be generating discussion about it in 200 years' time. It'd long be a housing estate, and whatever replaces said housing estate by that point.
Click to expand...
Its tangible purpose is to create a return on investment.
 
Rick said:
Its tangible purpose is to create a return on investment.
Click to expand...

It doesn't make the mentioned projects comparable in the slightest other than in cost. One is a vital link that is an alternative to only two other options. The other is a proposed entertainment complex next to a capital city full of entertainment offerings, and a handful of alternative attractions within an hour or so in either direction.
 
Danny said:
It doesn't make the mentioned projects comparable in the slightest other than in cost. One is a vital link that is an alternative to only two other options. The other is a proposed entertainment complex next to a capital city full of entertainment offerings, and a handful of alternative attractions within an hour or so in either direction.
Click to expand...
You're missing the point.
 
Danny said:
The difference between this and the Channel Tunnel, however, is that the latter serves a tangible purpose. The London Resort really isn't vital. A failure to deliver on it now certainly won't be generating discussion about it in 200 years' time. It'd long be a housing estate, and whatever replaces said housing estate by that point.
Click to expand...

The same could be argued about the tunnel though. Ferries and planes served the market just fine before, they would continue to serve it just fine if the tunnel closed for whatever reason. Many countries in the world manage just fine without a sea tunnel.

The purpose the tunnel serves is basically quicker transit times for people and freight. By no means vital. Just a convenience. It is not like the economy will collapse if the tunnel closed. Everything that goes through the tunnel could very easily be moved by other means, but a bit slower.

But with your argument you could argue that Disney does not serve a tangible purpose in Florida, as there is a massive offering of other entertainment facilities around and within close proximity. But it does serve a purpose, a massive one, each entertainment complex delivers it's own unique brand of entertainment and with more facility's, increases the capacity for said place or area to entertain the masses.

As for the resort, I still do not think it will happen.
 
Last edited:
Merlin have sent a letter of concern over the planning process for the London Resort. Most people seem to agree this comes across as anti competition. In a way it does show how Merlin thinks The London Resort is now a credible threat and not just an investors wet dream.

Now it’s got Merlins official attention, I hope it does go ahead for the sake of competition. Merlin are going to have to start planning some new coasters if they’re want to draw people away from a brand new theme park. Small walkthrough attractions and rebrands aren’t going to cut it.

 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top