I believe the planning decision is being taken by Matthew Pennycook, Minister of State in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government rather than the Secretary of State, so Angela Rayner's resignation shouldn't affect the timetable.Given that MHCLG now has a new Minister, you can expect a further minor delay whilst they get up to speed and the public interest documents are updated.
- News all the latest
- Theme Park explore the park
- Resort tour the resort
- Future looking forward
- History looking back
- Community and meetups
-
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. -
⚠️ Online Safety Act Changes
We've made some changes to the forum as a result of the Online Safety Act. Please check the post in guest services for further information. - Thread starter Craig
- Start date
- Favourite Ride
- Ug Bugs
- Favourite Ride
- Ug Bugs
- Favourite Ride
- Colossus
- Favourite Ride
- Ug Bugs
- Favourite Ride
- Ug Bugs
- Favourite Ride
- The Metropolitan Line
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
[🌎 Universal GB] General Discussion
GooseOnTheLoose
TS Member
Whilst you're correct that the Secretary of State is specifically excluded from the decision making process (with regards to Universal's planning application), a small delay is likely due to internal changes within the department, brought on by the resignation of the previous position holder.I believe the planning decision is being taken by Matthew Pennycook, Minister of State in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government rather than the Secretary of State, so Angela Rayner's resignation shouldn't affect the timetable.
I suspect the delay will be so small as to not affect the timetable. I think having a Minister excluded from the planning decision, in this case the Secretary of State, allows for the government to rule on any appeal that the applicant might make if they are unhappy with the decision by having a Minister unconnected with the initial decision conduct the appeal process. If that's the case, the new Secretary of State can't be involved with the decision on the planning application as that would compromise their independence in the event they have to decide on an appeal.Whilst you're correct that the Secretary of State is specifically excluded from the decision making process (with regards to Universal's planning application), a small delay is likely due to internal changes within the department, brought on by the resignation of the previous position holder.
I think it's likely that the next major step in the process, assuming the planning application is approved (perhaps subject to some reassurance around the objections), will for for the government to table the Statutory Instrument that contains the Special Development Order. I think it's very likely that this will be done using the "made negative" procedure, so it won't involve any scheduled debates in the Lords or the Commons, and the SI is assumed to become law on the day it is tabled. Parliament will then have a certain period of time to suspend the SI, I think this might be up to 41 days, but the chance of this happening is so vanishingly small that I think we can discount it. The government might want to avoid tabling the SI during the Parliamentary recess for party conference season (16 September - 13 October), so I think the earliest we are likely to see the Statutory Instrument tabled will be in the second half of next month. That should be the final step in the planning process, and Universal will have final authority to move forwards with major work on the site.
GooseOnTheLoose
TS Member
According to the Planning Permission Arrangement document, the Secretary of State is specifically excluded due to potential or perceived conflict of interest, because they may have had a role in the promotion of the development.I think having a Minister excluded from the planning decision, in this case the Secretary of State, allows for the government to rule on any appeal that the applicant might make if they are unhappy with the decision by having a Minister unconnected with the initial decision conduct the appeal process. If that's the case, the new Secretary of State can't be involved with the decision on the planning application as that would compromise their independence in the event they have to decide on an appeal.
The approval of the planning permission has to be solely on the merits of the application, that is paramount. As the government have thrown their backing behind this development, they cannot be seen to be marking their own homework and pushing it through no matter what; which is why it's been passed along to the civil servants.
The Secretary of State for Business and Trade is similarly excluded for the same reasons.
In the event of an appeal, the Secretary of State would still, more than likely, not be able to rule as they have been explicitly recused due to the conflict of interest.
Yes, I remember reading that and thinking it was odd, as Matthew Pennycook was closely involved in the government side of the negotiations with Universal, and could easily be described as having a role in promoting the project within government. But whatever the case, I think the chance of the government declining the planning application is so infinitesimally small as to be not worth considering. The government is going to say yes, even if they ask for a few tweaks and place a few restrictions around construction traffic. Universal know this, and their work continues as they prepare for the first stages of construction.According to the Planning Permission Arrangement document, the Secretary of State is specifically excluded due to potential or perceived conflict of interest, because they may have had a role in the promotion of the development.
Theme Parky McParkface it is then.Wonder if they'll trademark a few, then get the public to vote for their favourite? Certainly possible.
SuperMuscleMan
TS Member
Where as labour just see fields of food and go.. we can build on that there's plenty of space we don't need food security.Bring you back to the legislation currently passing through parliament that will make this less of a thing.
Plus we build plenty of good things so long as it doesn’t pass through a Tory, Lib Dem or Green constituency.
(I know it's a only brick works but it felt very politically biased)
PhalanaxOperativeA1127
TS Member
Going back a bit here, but am I missing something?
If they build Harry Potter, how will it affect popularity of the studio tour? thats the argument ive seen, rights aside of course, but they'd be 2 completely different attractions competing in 2 different areas?
One is a studio tour, showing real sets, behind the scenes and experiences of the movie series. No attractions.
The other would potentially be an immersive world, nothing to do with the film sets, behind the scenes and immersive attractions.
Aside from the brand, not entirely sure how the two attractions would be competing as such.
If they build Harry Potter, how will it affect popularity of the studio tour? thats the argument ive seen, rights aside of course, but they'd be 2 completely different attractions competing in 2 different areas?
One is a studio tour, showing real sets, behind the scenes and experiences of the movie series. No attractions.
The other would potentially be an immersive world, nothing to do with the film sets, behind the scenes and immersive attractions.
Aside from the brand, not entirely sure how the two attractions would be competing as such.
Last edited:
I'm wondering if its something to do with the planned HP area in Warner Bros World Abu Dhabi. Not that its the same market, but could potentially affect European visits to that attraction if there's one in UK. Not sure if this would be a valid reason, just a thought. Wouldn't surprise me if they have signed an exclusivity deal for the EMEA region (barring the one existing in the UK)
Last edited:
GooseOnTheLoose
TS Member
There's only about 30 miles between the Universal development in Bedford, and Warner Bros. Studio Tour.Going back a bit here, but am I missing something?
If they build Harry Potter, how will it affect popularity of the studio tour? thats the argument ive seen, rights aside of course, but they'd be 2 completely different attractions competing in 2 different areas?
One is a studio tour, showing real sets, behind the scenes and experiences of the movie series. No attractions.
The other would potentially be an immersive world, nothing to do with the film sets, behind the scenes and immersive attractions.
Aside from the brand, not entirely sure how the two attractions would be competing as such.
Although one has rides, and the other doesn't, they are effectively both theme parks. They will both compete for the same limited leisure spend that people have.
The studio tour is very much a theme park style attraction, similarly to how Puy du Fou is regarded, and Warner Bros. already have plans to expand its offering there.
Warner Bros. already has an established Harry Potter attraction in the UK. Any other Harry Potter type attraction, which they don't own, would cannibalise their offering.
Why go and see some sets and pictures of the Harry Potter films, when you could actually visit and experience the worlds instead just up the road? That's the argument which is preventing Warner Bros. from granting Universal a licencing agreement for the UK.
PhalanaxOperativeA1127
TS Member
Studio tours is not in any way a theme park style attraction. I just don't see any way in which they're competing here, beside using the IP.There's only about 30 miles between the Universal development in Bedford, and Warner Bros. Studio Tour.
Although one has rides, and the other doesn't, they are effectively both theme parks. They will both compete for the same limited leisure spend that people have.
The studio tour is very much a theme park style attraction, similarly to how Puy du Fou is regarded, and Warner Bros. already have plans to expand its offering there.
Warner Bros. already has an established Harry Potter attraction in the UK. Any other Harry Potter type attraction, which they don't own, would cannibalise their offering.
Why go and see some sets and pictures of the Harry Potter films, when you could actually visit and experience the worlds instead just up the road? That's the argument which is preventing Warner Bros. from granting Universal a licencing agreement for the UK.
The Studio Tour also has a physical limit on it's yearly visitation. Expansions will boost that cap but I doubt the Studio ever tops 3m visitors a year. So it's feasible that WB would agree to licensing to Universal for UGB if the fee is high enough as the Studio Tour has a limit to how much it can bring in.
GooseOnTheLoose
TS Member
We can agree to disagree here, but it is a theme park style attraction in a similar vein to the original Universal Studios Tour or Puy Du Fou. You don't have to have rides.Studio tours is not in any way a theme park style attraction. I just don't see any way in which they're competing here, beside using the IP.
It is a carefully cultivated experience around a themed attraction, with themed food, drink and other options.
We can agree to disagree here, but it is a theme park style attraction in a similar vein to the original Universal Studios Tour or Puy Du Fou. You don't have to have rides.
It is a carefully cultivated experience around a themed attraction, with themed food, drink and other options.
Technically it's a Theme Park but it serves a very different aspect of the Themed Attraction sphere than a HP Themed Land. It's a walkthrough attraction for Movie props, models and sets. For Potter fans this is a very different prospect to immersing yourself in lands made to feel like you're actually there.
I actually think they can co-exist, especially if they do ticket bundles for both places. Potter film fans will still flock to the Tour even if UGB opens with Potter or has a Potter expansion.
I expect the reason negotiations for licensing has taken so long is not just because of the overall cost but perhaps because WB wants some sort of co-operation deal between both attractions to avoid serious cannibalisation.
DiogoJ42
TS Member
I suppose it depends on your definition of "theme park". Many would say that implies a large outdoor site with many individual attractions. Most would assume that includes rides.
Personally, I'd call the studio tour a "themed attraction", a bit like the London Dungeons. It's a walk through once-and-done in an hour or two place, not somewhere you can spend a whole day at revisiting attractions multiple times.
(And let's not get started on the question of "how many of the sets are actually original, especially the ones that opened two decades after the film was shot?")
Personally, I'd call the studio tour a "themed attraction", a bit like the London Dungeons. It's a walk through once-and-done in an hour or two place, not somewhere you can spend a whole day at revisiting attractions multiple times.
(And let's not get started on the question of "how many of the sets are actually original, especially the ones that opened two decades after the film was shot?")
Dave
TS Founding Member
Where as labour just see fields of food and go.. we can build on that there's plenty of space we don't need food security.
(I know it's a only brick works but it felt very politically biased)
Eh?
Most farm land is in green belt which remains protected. And as you say this is on old industrial land so your point is as irrelevant as it is misinformed.
Project Universal has dropped a drone video showing the newt fencing and even some digging at the top of the Lake Zone.
From: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tfeiu4eTo3Y
From: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tfeiu4eTo3Y
pluk
TS Member
Going back a bit here, but am I missing something?
If they build Harry Potter, how will it affect popularity of the studio tour? thats the argument ive seen, rights aside of course, but they'd be 2 completely different attractions competing in 2 different areas?
One is a studio tour, showing real sets, behind the scenes and experiences of the movie series. No attractions.
The other would potentially be an immersive world, nothing to do with the film sets, behind the scenes and immersive attractions.
Aside from the brand, not entirely sure how the two attractions would be competing as such.
My theory is they have negotiated to have an attraction, not a land, that is quite limited in scale. I could see that WB could consider this almost as (or potentially literally as with signage, queue vids etc) advertising to tourists to their own offering which is relatively nearby. So something in universal that isn't big enough for fans to think 'that's enough Potter for me', but Universal gets to have some of the inevitable Potter draw.
Wine win?
I don’t think JK would settle for less than what’s abroad and ultimately she has the final say.
JK is incredibly strict in what she allows Universal to do, she would never allow them to build a single attraction. That's the thing Disney wanted to do and she flatly rejected it.