Universal Great Britain - Speculation & Rumors

[rob@rar]

The land between Wootton and the Theme Park is owned by Q&H Q7 Limited and was destined to be an education campus but that never got planning so its just a farmers field right now.

It's not Q&H it's O&H, this is the website for the overall company. I guess Q7 is just one of the registered companies run by the same directors (this is their company registration for Q7, but all the directors and the registered company address are the same as for O&H).

When was the proposal for that land to be used for an education campus? I believe that currently O&H are engaged with Bedford Council's local development plan and are promoting that parcel of land for residential use (you can see here some of O&H's detailed comments on the draft Local Plan from a couple of years ago). O&H have commissioned Varsity Town Planning to manage and promote their scheme.

As part of their submission to Bedford Council for the Bedford Local Plan 20240, O&H commissioned a heritage impact assessment of that parcel of land, undertaken by the Museum of London Archaeology service. You can see their report here. Fig.1 of that report shows the extent of the land (known as CP Farm, but excluding Elms Farm).

 

[rob@rar]

I know everyone was hanging their hat on what they said on the website about a SDO, but all signs so far lead to what I concluded when we dropped the story that they would persue building the resort via an NSIP,

Has there been a story that planning approval will come via a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project rather than a Special Development Order? I think I might have missed that. I'm surprised as nothing about this commercial development of a tourism and leisure facility meets the criteria for a NSIP as outlined in the Planning Act 2008 or the Localism Act 2011, which would be the two relevant pieces of legislation.

 

[tommyhawkins]

Has there been a story that planning approval will come via a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project rather than a Special Development Order? I think I might have missed that. I'm surprised as nothing about this commercial development of a tourism and leisure facility meets the criteria for a NSIP as outlined in the Planning Act 2008 or the Localism Act 2011, which would be the two relevant pieces of legislation.

They're expecting almost 10million visitors a year to the area that does not see that, it's four times more than Alton Towers or Legoland Windsor gets, it will impact the roads and the railways, I have been talking about NSIP because this is a significant infrastructure project. Also the precedent for going down this route with planning was established with The London Resort, that had a Development Consent Order not an SDO, we did a heck of a lot of research before we even dropped this info

 

[rob@rar]

They're expecting almost 10million visitors a year to the area that does not see that, it's four times more than Alton Towers or Legoland Windsor gets, it will impact the roads and the railways, I have been talking about NSIP because this is a significant infrastructure project. Also the precedent for going down this route with planning was established with The London Resort, that had a Development Consent Order not an SDO, we did a heck of a lot of research before we even dropped this info

OK, I thought I might have missed a story that this was going down the route of a NSIP. We know that the previous government and the current government initially agreed to a Special Development Order, but maybe the Labour Ministers have changed their minds. We’ll see what happens. Personally I think this is going to be. Special Development Order by way of a Statutory Instrument in Parliament. That’s mostly breaking new ground in legislative terms, and I think this accounts for the delay in moving to the next step as Universal and the DCMS negotiate some of the key parameters for granting planning permission. It would certainly be my preferred route as I think NSIPs can still be bogged down by consultations and appeals.

The criteria for a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project are defined in the Planning Act 2008, Sections 15-30. I don’t think that Universal’s proposed theme park meets those criteria, which is why I don’t think it will go down the route of a NSIP.

 

[tommyhawkins]

OK, I thought I might have missed a story that this was going down the route of a NSIP. We know that the previous government and the current government initially agreed to a Special Development Order

How do you know that? other than a mention in the FAQ says that "one route is ......SDO"

, but maybe the Labour Ministers have changed their minds. We’ll see what happens. Personally I think this is going to be. Special Development Order by way of a Statutory Instrument in Parliament. That’s mostly breaking new ground in legislative terms, and I think this accounts for the delay in moving to the next step as Universal and the DCMS negotiate some of the key parameters for granting planning permission. It would certainly be my preferred route as I think NSIPs can still be bogged down by consultations and appeals.

The criteria for a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project are defined in the Planning Act 2008, Sections 15-30. I don’t think that Universal’s proposed theme park meets those criteria, which is why I don’t think it will go down the route of a NSIP.

you can see the DCO on the infrastructure planning inspectorate site yourself here:
https://infrastructure.planninginsp...edule of updated and new documents Rev 03.pdf

 

[rob@rar]

How do you know that? other than a mention in the FAQ says that "one route is ......SDO"https://infrastructure.planninginsp...edule of updated and new documents Rev 03.pdf

We know that Universal and the (current) government were working on an SDO proposal as Bedford Council’s Priority Project Consultant said exactly that to one of Bedford’s council committees. See Minute 30 from their meeting in September. It might well be that Ministers have changed their mind since then and decided to go down the route of a NSIP, but there seems to be no evidence in the public domain that I’ve spotted to indicate that’s true. So we know that last autumn everyone was working on the basis of an SDO, getting as far as Universal sending a draft of their SDO application to Bedford’s consultant for comments. So I think they are still on an SDO application, unless you’ve seen something different?

 

[Lost Meerkat]

We know that Universal and the (current) government were working on an SDO proposal as Bedford Council’s Priority Project Consultant said exactly that to one of Bedford’s council committees. See Minute 30 from their meeting in September. It might well be that Ministers have changed their mind since then and decided to go down the route of a NSIP, but there seems to be no evidence in the public domain that I’ve spotted to indicate that’s true. So we know that last autumn everyone was working on the basis of an SDO, getting as far as Universal sending a draft of their SDO application to Bedford’s consultant for comments. So I think they are still on an SDO application, unless you’ve seen something different?

Indeed, it was there on video for us all to watch as the consultant said the draft SDO they had been sent was impressive but he had made some suggestions and Universal were working on those..

 

[rob@rar]

Indeed, it was there on video for us all to watch as the consultant said the draft SDO they had been sent was impressive but he had made some suggestions and Universal were working on those..

Yes, here is the video recording of the update, hosted by @ProjectUniversal.

The update is from Sam Fox of Finefield Consulting, who is a Chartered Town Planner and was contracted by Bedford Council to lead their work on the Universal project. As usual, the actual report from the Project Consultant is rather more illuminating than the somewhat anodyne minutes.



Sam Fox explicitly said that a Development Consent Order was not being used (at the time of that update for the Council, 26 September 2024). For me the key point was when Mr Fox said that the negotiation towards an SDO was a learning experience for everyone concerned. As I have said here for months, an SDO for a project of this kind is almost unique. The closest there has been that I can find dates back more than 35 years, to the SDO for the development around Trafford Park. More recent SDOs have all been concerned with turning former RAF bases in to temporary accommodation for asylum seekers or similar, over-riding the wishes of local councils who might not want such a facility on their doorstep. There is no precedent for using an SDO in this way, and I think this "learning experience" accounts for the delay in when we expected to see a consultation on the draft SDO and then the Statutory Instrument laid in Parliament, allowing Universal to commence full-scale groundworks. Mr Fox suggests that the negotiation was in two stages, the first being the financial package around public investment in infrastructure, then a second stage is negotiations around the details of the SDO. I think it is a reasonable guess that the negotiation around the financial package was delayed well in to the Autumn, possible beyond that, given the state of public finances and the priority for the Chancellor to set her first Budget priorities. Then there's the negotiation of the detail on the SDO, which I'd guess will set a wide range of parameters for the theme park and the site as a whole. I think this is what is taking the time, and why we still haven't seen the consultation on the draft SDO.

 

[rob@rar]

you can see the DCO on the infrastructure planning inspectorate site yourself here:
https://infrastructure.planninginspectorate.gov.uk/wp-content/ipc/uploads/projects/BC080001/BC080001-000976-AS - London Resort Company Holdings 8.1 Schedule of updated and new documents Rev 03.pdf

Thanks for that, very interesting. I always thought the London Resort was a bit Pie In The Sky, so never paid much attention to it.

As you can see from the Planning Inspectorate's timeline, the very first thing that happened (9 May 2014) was the Inspectorate requesting a direction from the relevant Secretary of State that the London Resort be considered as a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project. I think this is because it did not meet any of the criteria specified in the Planning Act 2008 (S.15-30), so the Secretary of State had to use the catch-all S.35, which basically empowers the SoS to declare a project a NSIP regardless of whether it meets the criteria. Is it any wonder that the London Project ran it to so much bureaucratic hurdles given such an inauspicious start?! You can see the letter of direction here.

It's notable to look at the timetable from that point. The examination of the merits of the London Resort as a NSIP commences with the SoS's letter of direction on 9 May 2014. The next step in the Planning Inspectorate's timeline is when the application from the London Resort team is received, almost seven years later on 4 January 2021. Let's hope that the government and Universal are rather more on the ball for the SDO application at Bedford.

 

[yepthatguy]

That’s quite a lot to take in, but following the links is a very worthwhile read, if I may say so myself.

 

[bedfordmassive]

New quote from Universal (I think someone on this thread got there first about the trademark though!)

Universal Studios registers name in connection with theme park - BBC News

Universal Studios says it routinely files "trademarks all over the world".

www.bbc.com

 

[rob@rar]

Posted on the “We want Universal Studios” Facebook group by Daryl Wood, another news item about the project soon to be agreed by the government, this time in The Mirror. Similar to previous news coverage in the last couple of weeks, but this article makes reference to four lands in the theme park, and two transport hubs. I think this is new info, at least I’ve not seen a reference to either of those details before?

 

[yepthatguy]

Both are mentioned in the PDF they released last year before the consultation.

2 transport hubs marked TH on the map in orange, and a section on “being a good neighbour” which mentions they create “lands”. It doesn’t specify 4 lands, but they talk about sound / noise and immersion.

 

[Elijah Abrams]

Thanks for that, very interesting. I always thought the London Resort was a bit Pie In The Sky, so never paid much attention to it.

As you can see from the Planning Inspectorate's timeline, the very first thing that happened (9 May 2014) was the Inspectorate requesting a direction from the relevant Secretary of State that the London Resort be considered as a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project. I think this is because it did not meet any of the criteria specified in the Planning Act 2008 (S.15-30), so the Secretary of State had to use the catch-all S.35, which basically empowers the SoS to declare a project a NSIP regardless of whether it meets the criteria. Is it any wonder that the London Project ran it to so much bureaucratic hurdles given such an inauspicious start?! You can see the letter of direction here.

It's notable to look at the timetable from that point. The examination of the merits of the London Resort as a NSIP commences with the SoS's letter of direction on 9 May 2014. The next step in the Planning Inspectorate's timeline is when the application from the London Resort team is received, almost seven years later on 4 January 2021. Let's hope that the government and Universal are rather more on the ball for the SDO application at Bedford.

Didn’t the London Resort project get scrapped because of the discovery of an endangered species of spider in the project's site?

 

[LieutLaww]

Something along those lines.

 

[Altonsky]

Didn’t the London Resort project get scrapped because of the discovery of an endangered species of spider in the project's site?

They never had the money in the first place.

 

[rob@rar]

They never had the money in the first place.

Yes, which is why I always thought it was a bit pie in the sky. The rare spider, or whatever it was, might have been one of the challenges the London Resort faced, but by far the bigger problem is that they never had the money to build the park. It was all a bit ‘hopes and dreams’, and inevitably came to nothing. Compare that to Universal’s plans where they started with spending a quarter of a billion dollars to buy a huge parcel of land. Comcast are in this in the most serious way possible, the people behind the London Resort were never really in the game.

 

[rob@rar]

Both are mentioned in the PDF they released last year before the consultation.

2 transport hubs marked TH on the map in orange, and a section on “being a good neighbour” which mentions they create “lands”. It doesn’t specify 4 lands, but they talk about sound / noise and immersion.

I think the 4-lands quote is oddly specific. It might be that The Mirror is simply rehashing the Bloomberg story from a couple of weeks ago, adding their own speculation about the composition of the park to pad out their story. Or, they’ve been briefed by someone who has seen the detail of Universal’s proposals to the DCMS and the opening day roster for Universal GB will be based on an entrance zone/hub plus four separate lands (or portals ;-) ). Sounds perfectly plausible.

 

[Della]

I think the 4-lands quote is oddly specific. It might be that The Mirror is simply rehashing the Bloomberg story from a couple of weeks ago, adding their own speculation about the composition of the park to pad out their story. Or, they’ve been briefed by someone who has seen the detail of Universal’s proposals to the DCMS and the opening day roster for Universal GB will be based on an entrance zone/hub plus four separate lands (or portals ;-) ). Sounds perfectly plausible.

4 lands does sound plausible, I think it will be more similar to Epic Universe than any other universal park because when the Universal team had their consultations in Bedford last year they said they were building a very similar theme park in Florida right now (Epic Universe) to the one that will be in Bedford.

Would these be single IP lands? If so then perhaps Nintendo, Jurassic World, Lord of the Rings and Wicked/Oz?

 

[Elijah Abrams]

They never had the money in the first place.

Yes, which is why I always thought it was a bit pie in the sky. The rare spider, or whatever it was, might have been one of the challenges the London Resort faced, but by far the bigger problem is that they never had the money to build the park. It was all a bit ‘hopes and dreams’, and inevitably came to nothing. Compare that to Universal’s plans where they started with spending a quarter of a billion dollars to buy a huge parcel of land. Comcast are in this in the most serious way possible, the people behind the London Resort were never really in the game.

Then maybe Universal should build their UK park on the site where the London Resort was going to be. That would make the new Universal park closer to London.