• 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

Matt N said:
They might be hiring similarly rapid contractors to the ones who built Zadra at Energylandia; it seemed as though one minute, that thing was a field, and the next, it was open!
Click to expand...

Again, that's being built onto an existing park. Not a park spawning from nowhere in 24 months.
 
Yep toilets and similar are harder than erecting a ride. Need access to sewers (or septic tanks) to connect them to, running water for washing hands, electricity for lighting, meters to pay for it all etc.

A ride needs electricity and thats about it.
 
Interestingly, the London Resort team have now lodged an objection against the site’s SSSI designation:

Could this have much of an impact, if successful?
 
If successful, it merely clears a hurdle which they didn't have when they were initially starting this project. So the impact it would have if they were successfully is ultimately it sets them back to square one.

The SSSI designation is pretty much a killer for an already unlikely project as it is planned at the moment, hence the objection from London Resort. It'll be interesting where it goes, but win or lose it's ultimately a further cost and setback to an already lengthy timeline.
 
I wouldn't be surprised if they hope to lose this case and use it as an excuse to cancel this project. Wrong location and pie in the sky has to set in somewhere. Funny thing is, between Cardiff and Swansea, Edinburgh and Glasgow or Belfast and Dublin this project would work. Just not around London or the Midlands.
 
Out of interest, why do you think it would work in Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland better than it would Kent @Poisson?

Admittedly, I think they could have gone for a more central location within the UK; I know I might be a tad biased as it’s very close to me, but I think that the South West/South Midlands would be a good place for a new UK theme park; I’m thinking Gloucestershire/Worcestershire/Oxfordshire kind of way, as this part of the UK currently lacks a major theme park within the near vicinity (I live in the Forest of Dean region within Gloucestershire, and my nearest major theme parks are Drayton & Paultons, both of which are nearly 2 hours’ drive away), and it’s also conveniently equidistant between the country’s two most populous cities in London & Birmingham, as well as not being unreachably far from the populous North. It surprises me that my area doesn’t have any major theme parks, as it seems like one could work in this area of the UK; the only theme park link that Gloucestershire currently has is that Interlink are based in Stroud!

By comparison, the current Kent location is over a 3 hour drive from where I live, and likely even further from Birmingham/the North.
 
Scotland has no proper theme park
The Norn'/Rep Ireland has one small one being Tayto Park
Wales has one small park and it's miles from anywhere

Whereas London has Thorpe, Chessie, Lego and Paultons all within easy access. Midlands has semi-easy access to both the London parks and Towers.
 
AT86 said:
The park would only be financially viable with strong numbers of international visitors, hence its location in the South East close to London for international rail connections and the ‘London’ Airports.
Click to expand...

Yup and don't forget this would be a very different resort to the ones we already see in the UK, it's not just about getting families to the resort.

If it happened, then the plans state that they would be aiming to welcome leisure visitors who are not visiting the theme park itself, something we don't see (at least not to a large extent) with Alton Towers etc. You've also got to remember that the plans have a big focus on providing business conferencing facilities. Whilst the likes of Alton and say Drayton cater to that to an extent for smaller events, London Resort seem to be pushing toward large multinational companies using them as opposed to the likes of the NEC, Manchester Central or ExCel London.

You've then got them wanting to focus on eSports, something that's not really specifically catered for in the UK at present. Again, international transport links are insanely important for that.
 
Personally, I think this has been done as it's win/win.
outcome 1: The win the case however they have spent all there planning budget on it = CANCELLED
outcome 2: They lose the case and therefore can't develop the site = CANCELLED
Gives them a reason to get out of any contracts and sort out the investors. To be honest the government will want the environmental agency to win to show that they care about the environment. It makes no sense for the planners or the government to support the resorts side. There has already been many complains from potential voters, which is what the government intimately wants.
 
My general view hasn't really changed. There's a relatively high likelihood something will eventually end up being built there, but we won't get the huge theme park we think we're going to get. My best guess is things will inevitably get scaled down to a conference and leisure destination, something along the lines of Resorts World Birmingham albeit maybe on a higher scale. I really can't see a theme park being introduced at the level that they're looking at doing, and certainly not the second gate as quickly as they state. If we get anything it'll be considerably smaller than what we've seen so far in the plans.
 
Craig said:
My general view hasn't really changed. There's a relatively high likelihood something will eventually end up being built there, but we won't get the huge theme park we think we're going to get. My best guess is things will inevitably get scaled down to a conference and leisure destination, something along the lines of Resorts World Birmingham albeit maybe on a higher scale. I really can't see a theme park being introduced at the level that they're looking at doing, and certainly not the second gate as quickly as they state. If we get anything it'll be considerably smaller than what we've seen so far in the plans.
Click to expand...
I do think this is a likely outcome.
 
I do personally feel that a theme park of some description will be built on the site; all the press releases are orientated almost solely around the theme park aspect, so I’d say it would be almost required for them to build a theme park of some description on the site in order to be seen as delivering what their investors bargained for. Surely they’re in it to deliver the product that their investors signed up to invest into, no?

Whether that theme park ends up being the Disney/Universal-style thing being touted in the press is another thing entirely. I’m not sure if it’ll be on this sort of scale from day 1, but in the long-term (I’m thinking 10-20 years after opening), I think it could be something quite special. If the park’s other areas are anything like that dinosaur area they talked about a while back, then I think they could have some really eye-catching attractions planned for us!
 
Matt N said:
I do personally feel that a theme park of some description will be built on the site; all the press releases are orientated almost solely around the theme park aspect, so I’d say it would be almost required for them to build a theme park of some description on the site in order to be seen as delivering what their investors bargained for. Surely they’re in it to deliver the product that their investors signed up to invest into, no?

Whether that theme park ends up being the Disney/Universal-style thing being touted in the press is another thing entirely. I’m not sure if it’ll be on this sort of scale from day 1, but in the long-term (I’m thinking 10-20 years after opening), I think it could be something quite special. If the park’s other areas are anything like that dinosaur area they talked about a while back, then I think they could have some really eye-catching attractions planned for us!
Click to expand...
It is possible a small theme park could be built but nothing like the so called Disneyland of the UK or whatever. There just isn't much profit in it. While exhibition centre are cheap to run and make huge profits. Theme park hardware is expensive and needs a lot of labour to run. The infrastructure costs of a theme park are just unrealistic to be invested in a country like the UK where the tourism market fluctuates so much. It just doesn't make sense to do it.
This is most likely a plan to build lots of expensive houses which will make huge profit and maybe an entertainment space with some posh simulators.
I'd love to be proven wrong but after this being in the planning and being delayed and delayed for so long I just can't see it happening but lets see.
 
If you want planning permission for posh houses, you put in a plan for posh houses, not a theme park!
Not going to happen, I thought that a decade ago, when progress over five years came to nought.
Now fifteen years in, we are still, literally due to the SSSI appeal, back to square one.
Derelict site for another decade or two.
Nothing to see here, time to move on.
 
I think the issue with building "something" rather than "nothing" is that there is already a lot competing in that space. London Resort is trying to occupy the same space as DLP and I don't think you can do that on a smaller scale, particularly if you want to drag tons of international guests from South Bank.
 
JAperson said:
Personally, I think this has been done as it's win/win.
outcome 1: The win the case however they have spent all there planning budget on it = CANCELLED
outcome 2: They lose the case and therefore can't develop the site = CANCELLED
Click to expand...
Neither sounds like much of a win to me

JAperson said:
It makes no sense for the planners or the government to support the resorts side. There has already been many complains from potential voters, which is what the government intimately wants.
Click to expand...
It probably wouldnt dent the government's votership, otherwise they'd be voted out long ago for much bigger planning issues.

There is still a big economic case for the resort being built. But whether it holds up to scrutiny is something else and this why many past leisure projects have failed.
 
OilyWater said:
Neither sounds like much of a win to me


It probably wouldnt dent the government's votership, otherwise they'd be voted out long ago for much bigger planning issues.

There is still a big economic case for the resort being built. But whether it holds up to scrutiny is something else and this why many past leisure projects have failed.
Click to expand...
You have mentioned things I didn't think about. Infarct you have made me look a bit silly. Oh well never mind. :(
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top