• ā„¹ļø 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.

[šŸŒŽ Universal GB] General Discussion

danlouislucy said:
SDO has been granted it seems
postimg.cc

Screenshot 20251216 113213 Facebook ā€” Postimages

postimg.cc postimg.cc
Click to expand...
It seems the Civil Service clerks have worked overtime to get the Statutory Instrument laid just 48 hours before the House rises for recess. That is impressively efficient, or desperate, depending on your view of the government's growth agenda.

There is a bit of a constitutional sleight of hand going on though.

An SDO is subject to the Negative Resolution Procedure. Convention dictates that a Statutory Instrument should be laid at least 21 days before it comes into force. With a laid date of 16th December and an in force date of 12th January, they have technically met that 21 day minimum.

However, the 40-day "praying time" (the window MPs have to table a motion to annul the order) pauses during recess (when the House is adjourned for more than four days).

Laying the SDO two days before Christmas recess, the "coming into force" clock keeps ticking (27 days total), but the "objection" clock freezes on Thursday. This means the SDO will become active law on January 12th, long before Parliament has had its full statutory 40 days to object.

Universal will legally have planning permission before MPs have even had a realistic chance to read the document, let alone debate it. It is executive railroading at its finest.

This creates a fait accompli. If an MP raises an objection in late January, the Order is already in force. The diggers could theoretically already be on site. It reduces Parliamentary sovereignty to a rubber stamping exercise, ensuring that a decision involving a heck of a lot of taxpayers' money and massive environmental impact bypasses both local democracy (via the SDO mechanism) and effective national scrutiny (via the timing).

Universal Great Britain is essentially being slipped under the door as everyone is looking at the Christmas tree. Whilst this will not be a problem for the vast majority of community members here, the lack of following proper conventional procedure leaves a bitter taste in my mouth.

I feel as though I may need to set the record straight here a little, as some of you may believe that I am bitterly against this development. I am not.

I welcome the Universal UK project and relish its reality, but I also value due process, scrutiny and democratic accountability. To rush through a decision of this magnitude, involving significant public infrastructure spending and environmental impact, via a Statutory Instrument laid just 48 hours before Parliament rises for Christmas, feels less like efficient governance and more like executive evasion.
 
GooseOnTheLoose said:
It seems the Civil Service clerks have worked overtime to get the Statutory Instrument laid just 48 hours before the House rises for recess. That is impressively efficient, or desperate, depending on your view of the government's growth agenda.
Click to expand...
I used to work in DFT and this is absolutely standard Christmas rush stuff. My record is seeing a SI approved something like 5 minutes before Parliament rising for Christmas.

As for the rest of it I generally agree in principle that someone is taking full advantage of parliamentary timetables to get this through with the minimum of opposition
 
Worth noting that there is a period of, I think, 6 weeks following granting of an SDO whereby it can be challenged via Judicial Review so this isnā€™t a 100% guarantee that work can commence as yet.

Obviously Judicial Review will need to be brought on the grounds of something meaningful otherwise it will be struck out but it wouldnā€™t shock me if the likes of Merlin will try their luck to, at least, delay the process.
 
dave___ said:
... to get this through with the minimum of opposition
Click to expand...
These proposals have been in gestation for a few years. Has there been any opposition from any elected body in that time? I'm not aware of any opposition.

SIs are designed to allow the government to push non-contentious secondary legislation through Parliament without having the parliamentary timetable grind to a halt. There's a fail safe position where either House can annul the SI if it thinks the government has over-stepped its authority, including a Standing Joint Committee to scrutinise what the government Tables. I think the Universal proposal is a good example of non-contentious proposals being approved in an effective manner, given the context that we have seen over the last two or three years.
 
Last edited:
GooseOnTheLoose said:
It seems the Civil Service clerks have worked overtime to get the Statutory Instrument laid just 48 hours before the House rises for recess. That is impressively efficient, or desperate, depending on your view of the government's growth agenda.

There is a bit of a constitutional sleight of hand going on though.

An SDO is subject to the Negative Resolution Procedure. Convention dictates that a Statutory Instrument should be laid at least 21 days before it comes into force. With a laid date of 16th December and an in force date of 12th January, they have technically met that 21 day minimum.

However, the 40-day "praying time" (the window MPs have to table a motion to annul the order) pauses during recess (when the House is adjourned for more than four days).

Laying the SDO two days before Christmas recess, the "coming into force" clock keeps ticking (27 days total), but the "objection" clock freezes on Thursday. This means the SDO will become active law on January 12th, long before Parliament has had its full statutory 40 days to object.

Universal will legally have planning permission before MPs have even had a realistic chance to read the document, let alone debate it. It is executive railroading at its finest.

This creates a fait accompli. If an MP raises an objection in late January, the Order is already in force. The diggers could theoretically already be on site. It reduces Parliamentary sovereignty to a rubber stamping exercise, ensuring that a decision involving a heck of a lot of taxpayers' money and massive environmental impact bypasses both local democracy (via the SDO mechanism) and effective national scrutiny (via the timing).

Universal Great Britain is essentially being slipped under the door as everyone is looking at the Christmas tree. Whilst this will not be a problem for the vast majority of community members here, the lack of following proper conventional procedure leaves a bitter taste in my mouth.

I feel as though I may need to set the record straight here a little, as some of you may believe that I am bitterly against this development. I am not.

I welcome the Universal UK project and relish its reality, but I also value due process, scrutiny and democratic accountability. To rush through a decision of this magnitude, involving significant public infrastructure spending and environmental impact, via a Statutory Instrument laid just 48 hours before Parliament rises for Christmas, feels less like efficient governance and more like executive evasion.
Click to expand...

Nothing stops MP's from objecting though, and would always happen if the implementation date is 21 days, and the 40 days prayer time. In fact they have longer to object to it than if they waited till after christmas
 
rob@rar said:
These proposals have been in gestation for a few years. Has there been any opposition from any elected body in that time? I'm not aware of any opposition.

SIs are designed to allow the government to push non-contentious secondary legislation through Parliament without having the parliamentary timetable grind to a halt. There's a fail safe position where either House can annul the SI if it thinks the government has over-stepped its authority, including a Standing Joint Committee to scrutinise what the government Tables. I think the Universal proposal is a good example of non-contentious proposals being approved in an effective manner, given the context that we have seen over the last two or three years.
Click to expand...
If you are referring to MPs or national figures, I would suggest that silence does not necessarily equal consent, nor does it render a project "non-contentious".

It is easy to be broadly supportive of a hypothetical headline promising investment and jobs. It is significantly harder to scrutinise the minutiae of Green Belt development, environmental impact, and over half a billion pounds of state aid when the details are buried in a Statutory Instrument laid just as everyone is packing up for the holidays. The opposition hasn't formed because, until this morning, there wasn't a piece of legislation to actually oppose.

To classify a project that necessitates half a billion pounds of taxpayer funding, significant Green Belt development, and the executive overriding of local democratic planning controls as "non-contentious" is stretching the definition to its absolute limit.

The reason you haven't seen formal opposition from the relevant local elected body (Bedford Borough Council) is precisely because the SDO mechanism removes their ability to determine the application. They have been relegated to the status of a consultee. It is easy to claim a proposal is non-contentious when you remove the primary mechanism for contention.
SeeSharpy said:
Nothing stops MP's from objecting though, and would always happen if the implementation date is 21 days, and the 40 days prayer time. In fact they have longer to object to it than if they waited till after christmas
Click to expand...
I fear you've overlooked the specific constitutional hazard created by the "made vs laid" gap during a recess.

Yes, the 40 day prayer period clock pauses during the recess. This means the window for objection stays open longer on the calendar. However, the implementation date of January 12th does not pause.

When Parliament returns on January 5th, the clock for the SDO becoming active law will have nearly run out. The SDO will come into force on January 12th. The 40 day prayer period will effectively run until February.

This creates a scenario where the legislation becomes active law, and Universal can legally begin work, weeks before Parliament has finished its statutory period to object to it. If an MP tables a motion to annul in late January, they are trying to annul a law that is already in force and acting upon the real world. That is significantly harder, politically and legally, than blocking a law that hasn't started yet.

It turns the "fail safe" into a retrospective complaint box. It is a calculated move to ensure that by the time anyone gets around to objecting, the concrete mixers have already started pouring.
 
rob@rar said:
This is the Statutory Instrument:

The Town and Country Planning (Entertainment Resort Complex, Bedford) Special Development (No. 2) Order 2025
Click to expand...
Oh my god I forgot how boring governemnt documents can be. However the opening hours segment is of most interest to me. Lots of late night opening; potentially 7am-11pm days are going to really rattle a few competitors' cages:

(2) Subject to sub-paragraphs (2) to (6), on any calendar day, the ticketed area must notā€”(a) open to visitors earlier than 7 am;(b) close to visitors later than 11 pm.

(3) On up to 30 occasions in a calendar year when a special event takes place in the ticketed area, that area, having opened to visitors on one calendar day, may remain open to visitors after 11pm on that calendar day, but must close no later than 1 am on the next calendar day.

(4) Subject to sub-paragraphs (5) and (6), on up to 65 occasions in a calendar year when a seasonal event takes place in the ticketed area, that area, having opened to visitors on one calendar day (the ā€œseasonal event start dateā€) may remain open to visitors after 11 pm on the seasonal event start date.

(5) On five occasions whereā€”(a) the ticketed area remains open to visitors after 11 pm on a seasonal event start date under sub-paragraph (4), and(b) the seasonal event start date is within 7 calendar days of the first day of the Chinese new year, 5th November, the day of Diwali, or 25th or 31st December, the ticketed area must close to visitors no later than 1 am on the calendar day following the seasonal event start date.
 
GooseOnTheLoose said:
The reason you haven't seen formal opposition from the relevant local elected body (Bedford Borough Council) is precisely because the SDO mechanism removes their ability to determine the application. They have been relegated to the status of a consultee. It is easy to claim a proposal is non-contentious when you remove the primary mechanism for contention.
Click to expand...
There has however been a significant amount of support for the project from local councillors. Yes the planning permission stage is removed, but has there been a single statement from any councillor against the overall project?
 
In section 12 of that document where they talk about the grand opening it states they will have capacity for 8.5 million visitors within the first 12 months, this seems to be listed as a condition of opening as well.

So god knows what theyā€™re building that we havenā€™t seen because Tommy over in Universals forum said it looked nowhere near that.
 
Here is a summary and a breakdown of the key highlights, with help from NotebookLM to do the heavy lifting in such a short space of time.

What they are allowed to build (Schedule 2)
The permission covers a massive array of facilities split into specific zones (Core Zone, Lake Zone, Gateway Zones). Highlights include:
  • Theme Park: Rollercoasters, water coasters, slides, flumes, dark rides, and event venues.
  • Hospitality: Hotels, camp sites, restaurants, bars, nightclubs, and retail.
  • Specific call-outs: The list of permitted retail specifically includes "tattoo parlours" and "vehicle showrooms."
  • Infrastructure: A four-platform railway station at Wixams, transport hubs, multi-storey car parks, and extensive solar/battery energy systems.
  • Backstage: Rehearsal facilities, animal accommodation (cats/dogs for security/visitors), and film/media production facilities.
Highlights & Constraints
1. Massive Height Allowances (Schedule 4)
  • 115 Meters (377ft): The maximum height allowed for "attraction overlay" (decorative elements, spires, towers) in the Core Zone.
  • 75 Meters (246ft): The maximum height for general buildings/structures in the Core Zone.
  • Context: For comparison, Hyperia at Thorpe Park is ~72m. This allows for massive scale theming (e.g., a Hogwarts-esque Castle or Jurassic Park mountain).
2. The "Grand Opening" Requirements
Universal cannot officially open the park ("Grand Opening") until several strict criteria are met:
  • Wixams Station: The new railway station must be open to the public and served by scheduled rail services. Exception: They can open with a temporary shuttle bus scheme from another station if the Secretary of State approves it as a temporary measure.
  • Hotel Capacity: At least 500 hotel rooms must be ready for visitors.
  • Roads: Specific upgrades to Manor Road and public road infrastructure must be complete.
3. Opening Hours (Condition 89)
  • Standard Hours: No earlier than 7:00am, and no later than 11:00pm.
  • Late Nights: They are allowed to stay open past 11:00pm for "Special" or "Seasonal" events.
    • 1:00am Close: Allowed for up to 30 "Special Events" and specific holidays (Diwali, Bonfire Night, New Year's Eve, Chinese New Year).
    • 2:00am Close: Allowed for other "Seasonal Events" (likely Halloween Horror Nights).
4. Traffic & Parking
  • Car Parking Cap: Grand Opening requires at least 7,106 parking spaces. This can only be increased if visitor numbers exceed 8.5 million per year.
  • Modal Split Targets: Universal is legally required to reduce car dependency. By 2051, no more than 31.9% of visitors should be arriving by private car.
  • Construction Traffic: Strict caps on heavy-duty vehicle movements per day during the build phase.
5. Environmental Protections
  • "Dark Corridors": Specific areas must remain unlit (max 0.5 lux) to protect bat flight paths.
  • Riparian Zones: 10-meter wide vegetation buffers must be maintained along Elstow Brook and other watercourses.
  • Flood Resilience: The park must be built to withstand a 1-in-100-year flood event plus 40% allowance for climate change.

Key takeaways:​

  • Height: They have permission to build up to 115 meters (377ft) for themed structures in the Core Zone.
  • Transport: The park cannot hold its Grand Opening until the new Wixams Railway Station is operational (unless a temporary shuttle bus stop-gap is approved by the Gov).
  • Opening Hours: Standard close is 11pm, but they have allowance for 2am finishes for seasonal events (Halloween Horror Nights confirmed?).[/B]
  • Hotels: Must open with at least 500 rooms.
  • Capacity: Infrastructure is being planned for up to 55,000 visitors per day.
 
Last edited:
GooseOnTheLoose said:
3. Opening Hours (Condition 89)
  • Standard Hours: 7:00am to 11:00pm.
Click to expand...
Think it's worth noting that this is no earlier than 7am and no later than 11pm on standard operating days. Easy to misread the AI summary as those being the actual operating hours. Universal could open from 10am to 3pm and meet the requirements of the SI, for example.

I'm reading the SI now, but on first glance it appears that there's not much in the final planning permission which wasn't in the planning application. Be good if keen readers can highlight where there are differences.
 
rob@rar said:
Think it's worth noting that this is no earlier than 7am and no later than 11pm on standard operating days. Easy to misread the AI summary as those being the actual operating hours. Universal could open from 10am to 3pm and meet the requirements of the SI, for example.

I'm reading the SI now, but on first glance it appears that there's not much in the final planning permission which wasn't in the planning application. Be good if keen readers can highlight where there are differences.
Click to expand...
Amended, as suggested. That was an editorial mistake by this Goose, perhaps the robots do know better...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top