Kent 2016

[Ben91 1,743]

The Bowen, Ayres and Shanes heatleader trio could be formiddible for the Kings. Clifton scored his average across the day and should only get better. Mason will be fine at Central Park once he gets into the swing of things too I'm sure. Very impressive points totals from the reserves too.

 

The Kings have struggled with a long tail every season they've raced so far, that doesn't look to be the case this year on yesterday's showings and they've also retained a potent top end.

[Reviresco 708]

Easter Monday's match called off early.

[Rebel1 72]

Shame Monday is off as it is now a couple of weeks before the team assembles again at CP.

[MANSE 480]

Danny Ayres was man of the match for Glasgow in their narrow defeat by Coventry on Sunday.What a character more of the same PLEASE

[Sings4Speedway 3,247]

At a meeting tonight (Thursday 28/4) of Swale Council Planning Committee, permanent planning consent has been given to Kent Speedway meaning that the sport can now carry on indefinitely at the Sittingbourne Greyhound Stadium.

 

Superb news that Kent can now carry on racing indefinitely. With the constant threat of tracks closing around the country this comes a huge relief & massive congratulations to all those involved in getting this signed off.

[Guest]

At a meeting tonight (Thursday 28/4) of Swale Council Planning Committee, permanent planning consent has been given to Kent Speedway meaning that the sport can now carry on indefinitely at the Sittingbourne Greyhound Stadium.

 

Superb news that Kent can now carry on racing indefinitely. With the constant threat of tracks closing around the country this comes a huge relief & massive congratulations to all those involved in getting this signed off.

 

 

How does the council decision affect the actual curfew time limits for racing. Is there still a deadline? What was the previous council ruling in regard to planning consent for Kent Kings speedway? Aside from that, a most encouraging development for the sport in Sittingbourne.

Edited April 29, 2016 by Guest

[teaboy279 1,038]

I believe last night was just to get permanent permission, as it was felt arguing curfews and the like would cloud the main arguments.

 

Believe they will go back later in the year to extended the curfew.

[arnieg 3,643]

The report makes interesting reading. During the latter part of last season noise complaints about the speedway were as likely to occur when there was no speedway!!!!

[SCB 0]

The report makes interesting reading. During the latter part of last season noise complaints about the speedway were as likely to occur when there was no speedway!!!!

Same rubbish, different track!

 

Years back Ipswich had someone complaining about the noise to the council from the speedway on a week where the meeting had been rained off and on a week where there was no speedway as it was a GP weekend.

[speedibee 3,091]

The report makes interesting reading. During the latter part of last season noise complaints about the speedway were as likely to occur when there was no speedway!!!!

That is ecxactly what happened at milton keynes , the council were at a meeting with noise meters and it got rained off before an engine even started , they then saw the complaints as a vendetta aginst the speedway and granted 25 years PP . sadly Milton Keynes was then effectively closed down by the BSPA

[mrscambelt 27]

Good news for Kent all the hard work is starting to pay off and seems that the team are doing well and Mr Silver hats off to you Sir as you have done a great job at Kent and the speedway world.

[Halifaxtiger 5,318]

The report makes interesting reading. During the latter part of last season noise complaints about the speedway were as likely to occur when there was no speedway!!!!

 

'What is significant, however, is that on average 16% of the complaints received were when no races were taking place at the stadium. This raises questions about the validity of the complaints, particularly since between June and October 2015 there was no difference in the number of complaints on days with or without races'.

 

Brilliant, and I am sure you will all agree with me in saying a big thank you to anyone who contributed to that 16%. There's no doubt that they would played a part - quite possibly a major bone - in Kent receiving planning permission.

[speedibee 3,091]

 

'What is significant, however, is that on average 16% of the complaints received were when no races were taking place at the stadium. This raises questions about the validity of the complaints, particularly since between June and October 2015 there was no difference in the number of complaints on days with or without races'.

 

Brilliant, and I am sure you will all agree with me in saying a big thank you to anyone who contributed to that 16%. There's no doubt that they would played a part - quite possibly a major bone - in Kent receiving planning permission.

Bloody hell Speedway is often accused of shooting itself in the foot , but these muppets have certainly done a better job , someone post their addresses so we can send them a thank you card in the post !

[Guest]

 

'What is significant, however, is that on average 16% of the complaints received were when no races were taking place at the stadium. This raises questions about the validity of the complaints, particularly since between June and October 2015 there was no difference in the number of complaints on days with or without races'.

 

Brilliant, and I am sure you will all agree with me in saying a big thank you to anyone who contributed to that 16%. There's no doubt that they would played a part - quite possibly a major bone - in Kent receiving planning permission.

 

 

On the ratio total of complaints about noise, it is indicated that 16% were invalid. That leaves a massive 84% whose complaints seemingly were valid? If so, just because the council have made their latest decision in favour of Kent Kings, what are those whose complaints were it would seem acceptable going to do now? As I see it this is something which Kent Kings need to consider carefully.

The 84% will remember this latest action when the next council elections take place - and accordingly Kent Kings to ponder just how many of those who attend the track are LOCAL people compared to those who travel from outside the area for meetings.

Kent Kings now urgently need to put in place acampaign to persuade the dissenting 84% to change their attitude towards speedway noise. Otherwise, this dispute about noise could easily resurface and that's is something nobody wants to happen.

Edited April 30, 2016 by Guest

[Ben91 1,743]

 

 

On the ratio total of complaints about noise, it is indicated that 16% were invalid. That leaves a massive 84% whose complaints seemingly were valid? If so, just because the council have made their latest decision in favour of Kent Kings, what are those whose complaints were it would seem acceptable going to do now? As I see it this is something which Kent Kings need to consider carefully.

The 84% will remember this latest action when the next council elections take place - and accordingly Kent Kings to ponder just how many of those who attend the track are LOCAL people compared to those who travel from outside the area for meetings.

Kent Kings now urgently need to put in place acampaign to persuade the dissenting 84% to change their attitude towards speedway noise. Otherwise, this dispute about noise could easily resurface and that's is something nobody wants to happen.

I assume that for example a complainant knows that speedway is run every Monday starting at 6.30 so every Tuesday they have been complaining about noise to the council, even when there hasn't been a meeting for whatever reason before. So that casts doubt on the credibility of their other, valid, complaints because they've been complaining about noise when there hasn't been any. Sounds an awful lot like something someone would do to complain for the sake of complaining to me.