teaboy279 1,038 Posted September 30, 2014 https://www.change.org/p/swale-council-kent-reconsider-a-rejection-for-central-park-speedway-revised-start-times?utm_campaign=friend_inviter_chat&utm_medium=facebook&utm_source=share_petition&utm_term=permissions_dialog_false&share_id=rlIunPfwHj Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
westhamboy66 599 Posted October 2, 2014 The crux in the appeal, according to a friend who is a Bromley councillor, rests with how many attending meetings are actually local residents and those from further afield. The council case will rest on proving, most likely, that those who attend are not local residents which would indicate that it is therefore LOCAL people most affected by ANY noise problems. I hope that makes sense? For all that, IMO what has happened is nonsense and we must hope Kings can win any appeal. There is normally a counter argument that is more compelling. Like a lot a people attending Meetings at Sittingbourne i am from far away well across the river. Now i,like a lot of others wouldn't dream of visiting a place like Sittingbourne and spending my hard earned money there. But actually i am supporting a local Business that supports local people giving them a source of income, lets also remember i might visit local shops and buy fuel whilst there and as i see it that is helping the local economy. Lets remember this is not only about a noise nuisance but the nuisance has to be weighed against the benefits of such a venture. This is not my opinion but experience gained whilst working at The London Borough of Barking and Dagenham and trying to educate Councillors and prompt them past their own interests and needs thus having an appreciation of the overall picture Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
arnieg 3,697 Posted October 2, 2014 The crux in the appeal, according to a friend who is a Bromley councillor, rests with how many attending meetings are actually local residents and those from further afield. The council case will rest on proving, most likely, that those who attend are not local residents which would indicate that it is therefore LOCAL people most affected by ANY noise problems. I hope that makes sense? For all that, IMO what has happened is nonsense and we must hope Kings can win any appeal. No it doesn't. the appeal will be heard by a planning inspector in Bristol who couldn't give a flying fig for where the fans come from. The inspector will look at the material issue - which is it a 'noise nuisance' (answer - yes) and is the condition (the 8.30pm curfew) a proportionate response (I'd hope not but given the hostility in the officer's report I won't be putting any money on it). Where the spectators come from may play a role in the thinking of the Swale councillors (it shouldn't), but the appeal will not be in their hands. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Halifaxtiger 5,318 Posted October 2, 2014 There is normally a counter argument that is more compelling. Like a lot a people attending Meetings at Sittingbourne i am from far away well across the river. Now i,like a lot of others wouldn't dream of visiting a place like Sittingbourne and spending my hard earned money there. But actually i am supporting a local Business that supports local people giving them a source of income, lets also remember i might visit local shops and buy fuel whilst there and as i see it that is helping the local economy. Lets remember this is not only about a noise nuisance but the nuisance has to be weighed against the benefits of such a venture. This is not my opinion but experience gained whilst working at The London Borough of Barking and Dagenham and trying to educate Councillors and prompt them past their own interests and needs thus having an appreciation of the overall picture Weymouth is a seaside town and there is a difference between that and Sittingbourne, but when planning permission was granted at the Wessex a few years ago it was stated that every signature counted wherever people were from. I think you are dead right. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cityrebel 2,960 Posted October 2, 2014 Petition signed. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted October 2, 2014 There is normally a counter argument that is more compelling. Like a lot a people attending Meetings at Sittingbourne i am from far away well across the river. Now i,like a lot of others wouldn't dream of visiting a place like Sittingbourne and spending my hard earned money there. But actually i am supporting a local Business that supports local people giving them a source of income, lets also remember i might visit local shops and buy fuel whilst there and as i see it that is helping the local economy. Lets remember this is not only about a noise nuisance but the nuisance has to be weighed against the benefits of such a venture. This is not my opinion but experience gained whilst working at The London Borough of Barking and Dagenham and trying to educate Councillors and prompt them past their own interests and needs thus having an appreciation of the overall picture If non-local people attend the speedway - go directly there and at the end of the meeting leave for home, apart from the speedway promotion to what extent are they supporting business and trade in Sittingbourne? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
teaboy279 1,038 Posted October 3, 2014 We travel up from ashford straight after work. I normally stop at a local shop in sittingbourne prior to the meeting and get 20 fags, and some crisps and fruit shoots for my 4 year old girl. Then after the meeting we go to Ossie's fish bar so local businesses get around 30 quid a week just from me that they would not if speedway was not there. Even if only another 50 people do similar that's a few grand over a season. Glad to hear the appeal will be heard in Bristol as both independent and council tests showed the noise was under the agreed levels. And the reason why the residents group got involved against the speedway was because of the leaflets being pushed through doors suggesting speedway would be run from 3 pm to 10pm every week. No the council did not question either piece of those evidence, so on paper the appeal if we are appealing should really favour the speedway. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Parsloes 1928 nearly 495 Posted October 7, 2014 No it doesn't. the appeal will be heard by a planning inspector in Bristol who couldn't give a flying fig for where the fans come from. The inspector will look at the material issue - which is it a 'noise nuisance' (answer - yes) and is the condition (the 8.30pm curfew) a proportionate response (I'd hope not but given the hostility in the officer's report I won't be putting any money on it). Hi Arnie, The answer to, is it a noise nuisance isn't 'yes', it's 'no'. To be a noise nuisance the sound levels have to exceed certain agreed levels and they have NOT. The promotion's testing confirms this and you'll note (despite indeed the hostility by the Officers in the report - a hostility which is totally unprofessional, as I'm sure as a former Cllr you'll agree),the EHO does NOT disagree with these findings. From that one can deduce that the EH's sound tests also confirm no 'noise nuisance' is being caused. The lack of any empirical evidence of noise is why the report had to rely on the ludicrous statements of residents along the lines of "we can't hear each other talk in our living room when the racing is happening"... As for patronising local businesses, I call in at Bobbing MaccyDs every Monday!! Oh and more often than not buy diesel at a local petrol station! 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
raymondbudd 57 Posted October 7, 2014 I've just been involved in a planning appeal on a separate issue. Any decision will be based entirely on its merits taking into consideration planning policy, past appeals and case law. The appellant will state their case, with local council given the opportunity to respond. A period of time will follow at which point all parties will be given the file and asked for final comments. Interested parties will also be given a small window to provide their views/evidence. It is also fair to say that the planning inspectorate will not be swayed in any way by political pressure. In my situation a local MP was involved and to a certain extent a government cabinet minister. Since Kent Kings will realistically only get one shot at this (unless they lose and go through a very costly appeal court process). I'd suggest they get the best lawyer in they can and spend as long as they can producing the best case possible. Whatever happens this will take a long, long time to resolve. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RedcarRacer 229 Posted October 14, 2014 Why would running at 630 not be manageable in the PL? Away fans dont need to be taken into consideration in speedway so - if your getting say 800 now for NL at 630 - you would surely get that in PL, and given some crowds in PL that would be up there with some of the best. I for one wished Redcar started earlier than 730 - getting kids home sometimes at 10 on a school night simply doesnt work IMO - everyone talks about speedway stuck in dark ages but most are unwilling to imagine it starting before 730... But good luck to everyone at Kent, hope Mr Cearns et al get what they want and clearly deserve. 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
