Potential New Universal UK Park

[Auribus]

The Cardiff Bay Development Corporation had several SDOs granted for the Cardiff Bay regeneration project. The project still took 13 years. It's difficult to put an exact time frame in how long planning took, even with the SDOs, because of overlapping projects, but it's a decent comparison.

In-fact, the Wiki entry on Cardiff Bay Development Corporation reinforces the efficacy of the SDO - for this project at least. The Universal UK project is just a fraction of the size and should be a breeze in comparison [he says ] if it goes ahead.

From Wiki

During the CBDC's lifetime [April 1987 to March 2000] 14,000,000 square feet (1,300,000 m2) of non-housing development and 5,780 housing units were built. Around 31,000 new jobs were created and some £1.8 billion of private finance was invested.

The corporation was established as part of an initiative by the future Deputy Prime Minister, Michael Heseltine, in April 1987

The corporation was dissolved on 31 March 2000.

Cardiff Bay Development Corporation

 

[Matt N]

It also sounds as though that project took place between 1987 and 2000, where things are bound to have been very different. That project finished 25 years ago; things are bound to have changed in that time, for better or worse.

The current Labour government has a strong focus on overhauling planning processes to get things built more quickly. I’d be surprised if this project wasn’t a beneficiary of that to at least a certain extent.

 

[GooseOnTheLoose]

The current Labour government has a focus on overhauling planning laws to get things built more quickly

The Planning and Infrastructure Bill has yet to be introduced to Parliament, though the government is expected to do so in the Spring. Waiting for this legislation to progress through our legislative process, in the hope that it might make planning a tinsy little bit easier, will add a further delay of a year or two.

 

[Matt N]

Even still, I feel 3 years is a tad pessimistic for the amount of time this will likely spend in the planning process. I don’t know if Universal will wait for this bill, or whether they’ll just press ahead anyway.

I know it was ultimately ill-fated, but the London Resort project was estimating 18 months in planning, and that had a DCO rather than an SDO, which I ascertain makes planning more complicated than an SDO. I know it won’t be instantaneous, but I would be surprised if this spent much longer than a year in planning.

I also wouldn’t be surprised if Universal has already undertaken many of the required studies prior to announcing; they’ve clearly been doing some degree of work on the site, as evidenced by the presence of diggers and temporary fences.

 

[GooseOnTheLoose]

Even still, I feel 3 years is a tad pessimistic for the amount of time this will likely spend in the planning process. I don’t know if Universal will wait for this bill, or whether they’ll just press ahead anyway.

I know it was ultimately ill-fated, but the London Resort project was estimating 18 months in planning, and that had a DCO rather than an SDO, which I ascertain makes planning more complicated than an SDO. I know it won’t be instantaneous, but I would be surprised if this spent much longer than a year in planning.

At the moment Universal have neither. An SDO will still need to put before Parliament and subject to a potential judicial review, before being granted.

More importantly, I don't want anything rushed through. I want the proper scrutiny, I want the environmental impact studies, I want the economic impact studies, especially if this is going to have state aid and finance backing it.

I love a theme park as much as the next Thoosie, but not at any cost.

 

[Matt N]

More importantly, I don't want anything rushed through. I want the proper scrutiny, I want the environmental impact studies, I want the economic impact studies, especially if this is going to have state aid and finance backing it.

I love a theme park as much as the next Thoosie, but not at any cost.

As I said above (apologies; you may have caught me pre-edit, it would seem!), I wouldn’t be surprised if Universal have done a large proportion of these studies already. Just because the full specifics of the project aren’t yet in the public domain, it doesn’t mean that Universal haven’t already conducted these studies and consulted relevant bodies.

In fact, I’d be very surprised if they haven’t done this already; planning applications are usually submitted with impact assessments completed, and Universal have had this land for almost 2 years if rumours are to be believed. There have also been workers on the site doing things with diggers and such; I’d be surprised if that wasn’t to perform some form of environmental assessment.

If we’re to take the government at their word (dangerous, I know, but hear me out here), Rachel Reeves has said that Heathrow’s third runway will be completed within the next decade. This is a project that will require the demolition of multiple villages, including some listed buildings, and a tunnel being built over the M25, and has historically been hugely controversial from an environmental standpoint. If the government thinks they can get Heathrow’s third runway built within the next decade given the controversy that project has faced, then Universal should have relatively minimal problems. (I know an airport runway might seem a strange comparison, but I feel that they are quite comparable projects in terms of both being private enterprises with considerable government backing)

 

[rob666]

Even still, I feel 3 years is a tad pessimistic ...

But Matt...you are a born optimist, so you would feel that way.
Big planning takes forever.
Everyone wants their say, rightly so, and a right to reply, and an appeal if needed.
A new runway in a decade is an essential(?) infrastructure project that will use many tons of British steel (in the contract allegedly).
This is non essential, huge, and the new fasttrack just hasn't happened yet.
About a decade sounds right to me.

 

[GooseOnTheLoose]

Rachel Reeves has said that Heathrow’s third runway will be completed within the next decade.

"In an interview with the BBC's economics editor Faisal Islam, Reeves said she wants a planning application for a third runway at Heathrow "signed off" before the next election, which must happen by 2029."
BBC News - Rachel Reeves backs Heathrow third runway in growth push - BBC News

Rachel Reeves backs Heathrow third runway in growth push

The chancellor tells the BBC she wants a planning application "signed off" before the next election.

www.bbc.co.uk

The Third Runway at Heathrow is a project which has been kicking along for far longer than Universal's proposed park in the UK. With countless private impact studies ready to go and at hand. If it could take a further 4 years to get planning for that project over the line, it's not a good yard stick to measure Universal against.

 

[Matt N]

I imagine Universal themselves will probably provide more detailed timescales than our pontification if and when their announcement comes. I guess we’ll have to wait and see what they say themselves; I’d trust that far more than any of our own pontificating (my own included). With Universal liaising closely with the government and other relevant bodies, they are bound to have a fairly good idea about our planning system and how long things should realistically take.

What I would say, though, is that I wonder if Reeves has priced some extra time in planning into the Heathrow pledge given how historically controversial it has been, similarly to HS2. Thus far, Universal has not had that level of controversy. We admittedly haven’t seen detailed plans yet, but given the nature of the project and the site, I don’t personally see as much potential for huge controversy as there has been with HS2 or the Heathrow third runway.

 

[GooseOnTheLoose]

What I would say, though, is that I wonder if Reeves has priced some extra time in planning into the Heathrow pledge given how historically controversial it has been, similarly to HS2. Thus far, Universal has not had that level of controversy. We admittedly haven’t seen detailed plans yet, but given the nature of the project and the site, I don’t personally see as much potential for huge controversy as there has been with HS2 or the Heathrow third runway.

Just to bring the conversation full circle. The Third Runway Heathrow project would almost certainly be granted an SDO, demonstrating that it is not a magic bullet for quick planning consent. It makes it easier, it doesn't necessarily make it quicker.

 

[Matt N]

To stop things from going too full circle, I have a somewhat related query; what do we think some potential causes for controversy could be in Universal’s proposal, and how do we think Universal could address them?

For the London Resort, the controversy was largely environmental, with the jumping spiders being a well known issue long before the site was designated as an SSSI in 2021. I’m hopeful that the same environmental issues won’t exist here given that Stewartby brickworks was only demolished a few years ago and the site was already destined for development anyway, but you never can tell.

The general ineptitude of the development team and painfully slow pace of the project was also arguably a source of controversy for the London Resort, but given the proactive approach we’ve seen so far from Universal in the UK, I have faith that that shouldn’t be a problem here (the London Resort took over 8 years from announcement to even submit a planning application, whereas it sounds like Universal will take no longer than 2, even if approval takes longer).

 

[rob666]

... our pontification...

C'mon mate, we are only fifteen months and a couple of thousand posts into this topic, plenty more to come in the closed season for around a decade...look on the bright side.

 

[Craig]

Environmental concerns will certainly play a factor, but away from that infrastructure will be the main concern. Will the road network cope? Will the proximity to the M1 pose a problem? Will utilities like sewerage and power have sufficient capacity? As mentioned previously, this is essentially the equivalent of a new town being built. The difference being a mass arrival and exodus of new residents of said town on a regular basis at one time.

One thing really worth considering though, is if the government are providing any sort of support, that does potentially open up the potential for objections from competitors. For example, where was the government support for a bypass at Alton when they were constantly told to build it themselves? We saw objections not only from Merlin for London Resort, but also from BALPPA. I'd expect similar for this project.

Yes, there's no doubt lots of work no going on in the background working with some stakeholders. But, there's almost certainly plenty of others who want to and should have their say on the project waiting for plans to be officially published. Until those plans are made public and the work that's took place to try and anticipate and mitigate those objections, I don't think anyone can realistically say this will be a"quick" process when precedent says otherwise.

 

[Bowser]

To stop things from going too full circle, I have a somewhat related query; what do we think some potential causes for controversy could be in Universal’s proposal, and how do we think Universal could address them?

I was going to say, beyond the potential SDO aspect i don't think the runway discussions are particularly pertinent to the planning of a theme park. I imagine if there was any major public outcry (particularly environmentally) it would already be vocalised and the only real opposition will be due to the economic impact on their competitors.

 

[Matt N]

One thing really worth considering though, is if the government are providing any sort of support, that does potentially open up the potential for objections from competitors. For example, where was the government support for a bypass at Alton when they were constantly told to build it themselves? We saw objections not only from Merlin for London Resort, but also from BALPPA. I'd expect similar for this project.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but I thought the objections from Merlin and BALPPA to the London Resort were more to do with concerns about their lack of engagement with key stakeholders, irregularities in their planning application, and wildly, wildly optimistic estimated attendance figures, amongst other things very specific to that project?

 

[Craig]

Correct me if I’m wrong, but I thought the objections from Merlin and BALPPA to the London Resort were more to do with concerns about their lack of engagement with key stakeholders, irregularities in their planning application, and wildly, wildly optimistic estimated attendance figures, amongst other things very specific to that project?

The main issue for LR was that, mainly on account of LR being absolutely useless. But the point is Merlin want to protect their existing market. They will determine reasons to raise objections off the back of that, and if there is government support for this project they'll almost certainly raise that as a potential issue. That's as well as any sort of DCO or SDO designation, particularly when they have spent thousands fighting local planning processes over the years at the likes of Legoland Windsor.

Likewise with BALPPA, they raised concerns that they hadn't seen a market assessment. But why did they want that in the first place? They also have a duty to protect their existing members, and I have no doubt that they would have also raised objections off the back of that assessment.

 

[Ash]

The main issue for LR was that, mainly on account of LR being absolutely useless. But the point is Merlin want to protect their existing market. They will determine reasons to raise objections off the back of that, and if there is government support for this project they'll almost certainly raise that as a potential issue. That's as well as any sort of DCO or SDO designation, particularly when they have spent thousands fighting local planning processes over the years at the likes of Legoland Windsor.

Likewise with BALPPA, they raised concerns that they hadn't seen a market assessment. But why did they want that in the first place? They also have a duty to protect their existing members, and I have no doubt that they would have also raised objections off the back of that assessment.

Agreed.

You would think Merlin would be playing holy hell to demand equivalent tax breaks for a UK based company, or even similar infrastructure investment maybe a railway extension at Chessington or Alton or road improvements/bypass at Thorpe or Alton.

All would have been welcome additions for decades to support a UK company’s growth.

Or even removal of restrictions on planning. Either for height, expansion or lake reclamation at Thorpe.

All could have been done to support these parks, now arguably they are “behind” their European counterparts and certainly the US. Their ability to catch up remains hampered.

 

[Blackrock]

Whist a Special Development Order can significantly speed up the planning process, it doesn't mean planning becomes instantaneous and they are not a magic bullet. Planning permission, even with an SDO, can take years. Whilst it means that not every structure needs to go through the planning process, the entire project will do.

After an SDO has been drafted, it needs to go before Parliament before it can be granted. Environmental impact studies and further public consultation will still need to be made.

Even once an SDO is granted developers will need to comply with any conditions and limitations set out in the order.

The Cardiff Bay Development Corporation had several SDOs granted for the Cardiff Bay regeneration project. The project still took 13 years. It's difficult to put an exact time frame in how long planning took, even with the SDOs, because of overlapping projects, but it's a decent comparison.

Well if Labour really do want to cut the red tape or whatever their slogan is this is the perfect opportunity to do that.

Planning in this country is an absolute chore, the sooner some of this crap is scrapped the better. Most of it exists to keep people in jobs.

 

[JT01]

Agreed.

You would think Merlin would be playing holy hell to demand equivalent tax breaks for a UK based company, or even similar infrastructure investment maybe a railway extension at Chessington or Alton or road improvements/bypass at Thorpe or Alton.

All would have been welcome additions for decades to support a UK company’s growth.

Or even removal of restrictions on planning. Either for height, expansion or lake reclamation at Thorpe.

All could have been done to support these parks, now arguably they are “behind” their European counterparts and certainly the US. Their ability to catch up remains hampered.

I would say they are behind other parks because of how merlin manage / run and plan their parks rather than planning objections

 

[Craig]

Without wanting to turn the topic into being about Merlin's portfolio, I don't think you can disagree that planning issues have hampered their park's development over the years. There's a cost to that, and perhaps to the detriment of the sort of developments the parks deserve. Of course, on the other hand Merlin have their own issues too which I also agree with as well. However, without those planning issues, perhaps Merlin never end up buying the likes of Tussauds in the first place?

There's lots said about Labour wanting to reduce planning red tape, but as it stands it's just just that - talk. Of course there's legislation that needs to be written and put through parliament in order for that to happen. A law change that would have a knock on effect for planning law across the country isn't going to be an easy feat, more so than an SDO would. I agree there needs to be some reform to planning law, but with everything going on in the world at the moment, I don't see it happening any time soon resulting in spades on the ground in a matter of weeks.

As I and also @GooseOnTheLoose have mentioned already, I really want this project to happen. But I don't want it to happen at the expense of having its wings clipped further down the line for the sake of rushing the initial planning process.