Coventry Bees Nl ?

[Woz01 3,589]

1 hour ago, mac101 said:

Que the MH vultures lol 

To be fair though I'd understand concerns after what happened last winter. However this seems to be something beyond Coventrys control, these things will happen when we are borrowing a stadium from another promotion.

[00000 1,279]

2 hours ago, brianbuck said:

Tony Gillias will have to declare and interest and withdraw from the Planning Committee meeting as also will any other Councillor who has publicly stated that he/she either supports or opposes the application. Having said this though, it would be naive to imagine that the matter will not be discussed in private by the members of the committee. The majority will probably have little or no knowledge of speedway, so that is where Mr Gillias will be invaluable.

I can only quote from my experience from Birmingham City Council's Planning Committee rules, but presumably these rules apply to all Councils.

Come the day of the meeting, the applicant and an objector will be allowed three minutes to address the committee. The applicant has to speak first, so this will be to our advantage (it wasn't in the case of Birmingham because the objector was able to make all sorts of outlandish claims which we couldn't answer because we had already used our three minutes - which does highlight the unfairness of the system) Three minutes means three minutes so if more than one objector wants to speak then the three minutes has to be shared.

Yes, Brian, that is my experience, as I outlined. It may, from a speedway viewpoint seem unfair, but the rules are there to be fair to all sides (spit as much as you like at this point).

If Tony were found to have any influence in the decision, that would be disastrous for speedway.

The other thing people must remember is that a planning committee is a meeting in public; not a public meeting.

As you rightly say, public speaking at such meetings is strictly limited and once the period of public speaking is up, there is no comeback on any subsequent remarks. Even the right to public speaking can be withdrawn.

I think some of you will be shocked to see what I and Brian and written but this is the real world. 

The other problem the speedway community has, is that there is a lack of housing in this country. Whether that is true is Rugby district I do not know.

However, I note the application has a high proportion of social housing which, if this application were in Sussex, the council would bite the developer's hand off.

I don't want to sound negative but history tells us when it is housing v speedway stadium, it is often housing that wins.

[arnieg 3,614]

Most councils allow more public participation than Rugby, but them's the rules we have to work with.

I think the committee members will be more inclined to listen to someone who lives in Brandon or Binley Woods.

[silverrocket 5]

14 hours ago, Richard Weston said:

Yes, Brian, that is my experience, as I outlined. It may, from a speedway viewpoint seem unfair, but the rules are there to be fair to all sides (spit as much as you like at this point).

If Tony were found to have any influence in the decision, that would be disastrous for speedway.

The other thing people must remember is that a planning committee is a meeting in public; not a public meeting.

As you rightly say, public speaking at such meetings is strictly limited and once the period of public speaking is up, there is no comeback on any subsequent remarks. Even the right to public speaking can be withdrawn.

I think some of you will be shocked to see what I and Brian and written but this is the real world. 

The other problem the speedway community has, is that there is a lack of housing in this country. Whether that is true is Rugby district I do not know.

However, I note the application has a high proportion of social housing which, if this application were in Sussex, the council would bite the developer's hand off.

I don't want to sound negative but history tells us when it is housing v speedway stadium, it is often housing that wins.

Rugbys local plan has been done and the quota of houses needed has been fulfilled.No need for anymore houses.

[brianbuck 928]

Based on all the evidence seen so far, it seems highly likely that Rugby Council will reject the application, but no one should get the idea that Brandon Estates will then go away with their tails between their legs. They won't, they will come back with repeated applications and will eventually go the Planning Inspector to appeal. The Planning Inspector will be one based 100's of miles away (in Bristol in Cradley Heath's case) who will know nothing of local feeling against the loss of the stadium - so this is where the REAL battle will have to be fought.

I don't believe that this is a lost cause by any means, but we mustn't be lulled into thinking that because we have lodged our individual objections that there is nothing more that we can do.

[naffer 442]

7 hours ago, silverrocket said:

Rugbys local plan has been done and the quota of houses needed has been fulfilled.No need for anymore houses.

 I am sure you are right there is a new town/village being built at Crick and several  large developments at  Dunchurch and Cawston.

 

[Woz01 3,589]

10 hours ago, adonis said:

and of course the upside is , showing how sharing is unviable long term , unable to run the very fist meeting because of a clash with the parent club , you could say it's a good thing 

 

This is actually a very good point.

[Booey boy 123]

On 09/02/2018 at 7:33 PM, Richard Weston said:

Yes, Brian, that is my experience, as I outlined. It may, from a speedway viewpoint seem unfair, but the rules are there to be fair to all sides (spit as much as you like at this point).

If Tony were found to have any influence in the decision, that would be disastrous for speedway.

The other thing people must remember is that a planning committee is a meeting in public; not a public meeting.

As you rightly say, public speaking at such meetings is strictly limited and once the period of public speaking is up, there is no comeback on any subsequent remarks. Even the right to public speaking can be withdrawn.

I think some of you will be shocked to see what I and Brian and written but this is the real world. 

The other problem the speedway community has, is that there is a lack of housing in this country. Whether that is true is Rugby district I do not know.

However, I note the application has a high proportion of social housing which, if this application were in Sussex, the council would bite the developer's hand off.

I don't want to sound negative but history tells us when it is housing v speedway stadium, it is often housing that wins.

There is a lot of houses being built in the Rugby area a new town is being built on the old BT site 6.000 houses I believe schools and all the inferstructer Houlton I tphink it is called

 

On 22/01/2018 at 9:23 PM, sugarray said:

 

 

[greyhoundp 990]

I must admit im not overly familiar with the whole Brandon site, would it not be worth talking with the owners, and Council to see if modified plans could be drawn up, where both houses and a smaller basic stadium could be included, something similar to the Swindon proposals, keep the Track, but have a spectator area catering for about 2500.

[Woz01 3,589]

6 hours ago, greyhoundp said:

I must admit im not overly familiar with the whole Brandon site, would it not be worth talking with the owners, and Council to see if modified plans could be drawn up, where both houses and a smaller basic stadium could be included, something similar to the Swindon proposals, keep the Track, but have a spectator area catering for about 2500.

The owners are not interested in talking, this was actually suggested by the Rugby Council leader. The site would be big enough, the stadium take up quite a bit of land and it could easily get similar facilities using far less land. However that would rule out Stox featuring at Brandon as they would need the space that Brandon currently has.

[Woz01 3,589]

The viability report for Brandon has finally been published. Says Coventry Speedway made a loss every year but Companies House accounts suggest otherwise. Also claims Sandhu was offered the lease which I find very hard to believe. BE didn't want this public, I wonder why.

Coventry Stadium - Viability NTS Document For Public Record.pdf

Edited February 22, 2018 by Woz01

[mac101 1,187]

Don’t know any Speedway club that makes a profit most clubs struggle to make ends meet these days 

[Woz01 3,589]

1 hour ago, mac101 said:

Don’t know any Speedway club that makes a profit most clubs struggle to make ends meet these days 

According to the article in the speedway star accounts suggest Coventry Speedway made profit in some seasons, remarkable I know!

Edited February 22, 2018 by Woz01

[25yearfan 476]

The vast majority of professional football clubs in this Country run at a loss and that includes the big clubs!

 

Iconic sports venues like Coventry speedway should have preservation orders put on them preventing them being demolished!

 

The fact that their are parties who would take on the stadium and reopen it regardless of profit or loss margins speaks for itself. Anyway, has the Stadium been a burden on the Local or National tax payers?

 

I'd suggest that the stadium has increased the local economy and gave a few jobs to locals!

 

While I've got nothing against Mick Horton and appreciate that running a British speedway track in modern times isn't easy, Chris Harris' pretty damning assessment of him in this weeks speedway star says as much as you need to know about him!

 

[Midland Red 2,383]

On 2/22/2018 at 2:29 AM, greyhoundp said:

I must admit im not overly familiar with the whole Brandon site, would it not be worth talking with the owners, and Council to see if modified plans could be drawn up, where both houses and a smaller basic stadium could be included, something similar to the Swindon proposals, keep the Track, but have a spectator area catering for about 2500.

That would be the Swindon stadium which . . . . . ?????