London Entertainment Resort: All Discussion


TS Member
So basically they've announced the two things most likely to kill of the project. Or at the least the excuse to do so. I wish I could share your optimism about it @Matt N and I do really envy that.
l also be spelling out the implications of the SSSI designation by 24th November.
Would this be that a massive busily theme park that will also want to expand in the future is likely to hurt the local wildlife so NO. This is a likely killer to the project
  • Assessment of the proposals by the ExA is now unlikely to begin before summer 2022.
And another dealy. What a surprise. This one's a important one though as it's likely to mean they're going to be waiting even longer before they'll even get the initial feedback from the planners.

As much as I really want this to happen I'm just not sure it can. Especially with things like this cropping up all the time.


TS Team
Favourite Ride
Steel Vengeance
I really don't see how a huge theme park can be built on the location of an SSSI. Forget about all of the other problems, they need to stop wasting time and money on this now.

Ever since going to look at the site wayyyyy back during the first round of public consulation, I've thought it was a poor site for a theme park.

Matt N

TS Member
Favourite Ride
Mako (SeaWorld Orlando)
I know the answer is probably no, but; would it be remotely possible for them to move the project to a different site, altering the specifications to fit the new site? I know they said that they considered a number of sites during development, so I’m sure that one of those other sites would be more likely to gain planning permission than this one.

That does make me wonder why this site in particular was chosen, though… surely they would have known about the spiders when they picked Ebbsfleet?

Although for all we know, I wouldn’t be surprised if they find a way around the SSSI designation and manage to progress with the project anyway… if they’d thought the SSSI designation would render the project a dead end, surely they’d have pulled out when it was first considered?


TS Member
I’ve always thought a site closer to Birmingham would have loads more general sense anyway. Can still get international guests from the airport and rail from London but also much more accessible to drive to for most of the country.


TS Member

London is fantastic, but realistically having this in East London was always going to be a nightmare for most people to get to, especially when you consider that the vast majority will want to drive no matter how much they pretend it will have great public transport links.

I do still think that it should be easily accessible from London though for those staying in London, a bit like how Disneyland Paris is a 20 minute train ride away from the centre.


TS Member
I always thought this was a terrible location. Anyone travelling from the west, both north and south, it means contending with some of the most congested motorways in the country. The west midlands , somewhere north east of Birmingham would be your best bet if trying to be as in easy reach of as many people as possible.

I watched a documentary about 10 years ago about ecology (no idea why I was watching it) and it was talking about insects and birds on brownfield sites. Basically saying that sites we may think are ugly or ex industrial sites ripe for development are actually full of wildlife and are important for birds, insects and certain types of plants. It mentioned the route of HS2 a couple of times. Other than a site in Liverpool it actually used the Swanscombe peninsula as an example of this!


TS Contributor
Favourite Ride
Steel Vengeance
They could have at least dragged this out for 10 years. I was looking forward to making an Expedition Theme Park-esque Wikipedia copy stealing video looking back at the biggest decade long marketing drivel the UK theme park industry has ever seen.

Inconsiderate, if you ask me.