Jump to content
British Speedway Forum

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, adonis said:

With a site as large as Brandon , and a proposal for 130 houses , does anybody believe the affordable housing ploy ? 

“Affordable housing” always makes me giggle. The implication is all other housing is “unaffordable” :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 09/02/2018 at 10:32 AM, Steve Shovlar said:

No I saw it all though. I was on the apex of the third and 4th bends. The track was underwatered and dusty and some fans took it on themselves to water the track, on the first bend if I recall.  I was only a 16 year old young lad and it would have been beyond my comprehension at the time to consider doing such a thing.

I was sat up against the little wall at the edge of the dog track on the first turn (along with others I had been lifted over the wall because I was too small to see over it from the terrace, I am much younger than you!). Having spent the first few races not being able to see due to the thick dust it was a relief to see someone 'do something' with a hose pipe but the watering proved to be disastrous for PC, who was unbeaten and actually had made a great start until he hit the rogue wet patch.

 

Edited by Fred Flange
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, adonis said:

With a site as large as Brandon , and a proposal for 130 houses , does anybody believe the affordable housing ploy ? 

If they get permission and build those 130 houses you can pretty much guarantee that they will try to get more housing on the site in future. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, adonis said:

exactly what happened on the school field opposite  my house , appllication  for  280 houses rejected , revised  to 150  accepted ,   built on half the site  . 2 years later application for 280 house on the remaining land   rejected , revised to 160 , accepted , so 310  built  on land that was rejected for 280 . 

In the plans all the houses are on one side of the site the other side is walkways, grass, ponds etc. It's obvious what they will do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have just read both the Turley report from the planning application, and the Peter Oakes article in Speedway Star. 

He (Oakes) wastes no time in bringing Mr Horton's role to attention. Whilst not able to make any direct accusation or inference, the article raises in ones mind the possibility that Mr Horton is acting in collusion with Brandon Estates by providing financial information to Turley, and by running a Coventry team at Leicester, both of these providing substantial planks for Turley and BE to use within their application.

Mr Sandhu comes across as someone who, although capable of operating the stock cars company, and perhaps the speedway company prior to Mr Horton taking over, was out of his depth as stadium owner.

Hopefully Peter Oakes's report will reach the planning committee. It's just a shame that no local press did anything along the same lines but sadly those days seem to be gone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Hamish McRaker said:

I have just read both the Turley report from the planning application, and the Peter Oakes article in Speedway Star. 

He (Oakes) wastes no time in bringing Mr Horton's role to attention. Whilst not able to make any direct accusation or inference, the article raises in ones mind the possibility that Mr Horton is acting in collusion with Brandon Estates by providing financial information to Turley, and by running a Coventry team at Leicester, both of these providing substantial planks for Turley and BE to use within their application.

Mr Sandhu comes across as someone who, although capable of operating the stock cars company, and perhaps the speedway company prior to Mr Horton taking over, was out of his depth as stadium owner.

Hopefully Peter Oakes's report will reach the planning committee. It's just a shame that no local press did anything along the same lines but sadly those days seem to be gone.

As I said early, both Coventry papers should be 100% behind their city’s sports teams but neither are really making any effort at all to help a campaign bring back either sport. Two words for both Coventry papers. Utterly useless.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/02/2018 at 11:00 AM, SCB said:

“Affordable housing” always makes me giggle. The implication is all other housing is “unaffordable” :lol:

 

Hmmm ..... it used to make you giggle because you couldn’t afford “affordable” housing!  Welcome to the bourgeoisie, SCB! :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Steve Shovlar said:

As I said early, both Coventry papers should be 100% behind their city’s sports teams but neither are really making any effort at all to help a campaign bring back either sport. Two words for both Coventry papers. Utterly useless.

There used to be a good investigative journo who worked on one of the papers (Cov Telegraph) and produced some highly embarrassing information about the activities of Coventry Council when the Ricoh Arena fiasco was in full flow. There was a story that the paper's editor was heavily "leaned on" by bigwigs at CC and the journo had to curtail his investigations or at least their publication. Obviously this is Rugby Council, and such journos are being pushed out of local papers by their corporate owners.

There was also I seem to recall a story a few years ago by Private Eye about Framptons (BE's estate agents, by co-incidence), which alleged that a prominent Rugby Borough councillor was rather more closely linked to Framptons than perhaps ought to have been the case, in relation to a house building project in the Borough at the time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/diy-sos-bid-save-brandon-14285947

Article in Coventry Telegraph tonight

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Steve Shovlar said:

As I said early, both Coventry papers should be 100% behind their city’s sports teams but neither are really making any effort at all to help a campaign bring back either sport. Two words for both Coventry papers. Utterly useless.

Hugely unfair on the Cov Observer. They've done a lot for the campaign and one of the journalists  ( just recently left) is/was part of the SCS group.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Woz01 said:

Hugely unfair on the Cov Observer. They've done a lot for the campaign and one of the journalists  ( just recently left) is/was part of the SCS group.

Now, now Woz. Steve knows better!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, hammer1969 said:

www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/diy-sos-bid-save-brandon-14285947

Article in Coventry Telegraph tonight

With Buildbase as the Bees last sponsors, one would hope that they would be more than a help with the materials. Could be a problem with trespass though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, ABS said:

With Buildbase as the Bees last sponsors, one would hope that they would be more than a help with the materials. Could be a problem with trespass though.

This is about showing that the stadium can be restored back into a functioning stadium and a decent cost as BE claim it's not viable too do that. 

Of course if Sandhu ever gets the chance to fulfil his promise (if he means it) then a good chunk of that would come from him. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TesarRacing said:

Now, now Woz. Steve knows better!!

Even the telegraph have reported about needing trades people. Hopefully they are finally on board. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/02/2018 at 3:46 PM, adonis said:

exactly what happened on the school field opposite  my house , appllication  for  280 houses rejected , revised  to 150  accepted ,   built on half the site  . 2 years later application for 280 house on the remaining land   rejected , revised to 160 , accepted , so 310  built  on land that was rejected for 280 . 

Happens in Hull too, problems which prevent the building projects like shops are somehow quickly and easily solved when it comes to housing.  And some of the existing traffic nightmare bottlenecks / 'snaking carparks' where new house building is taking place have to be seen to be believed....

Edited by martinmauger
grammar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Privacy Policy