128 replies to this topic

[wewantourdarbyback]

Why does Graham Hill need to be an overtaking spot? Paddock is an overtaking spot, so is Druids. The great thing about Graham Hill is that it's a tricky corner that means that a mistake can be punished on the run to the next corner, making Clearways also an overtaking point.

I can't see the logic at all.

[NeilMick]

God forbid something might change! Lets have everything stay the same forever.

Brands Hatch is one of the worst circuits I have visited, also seems to kill a lot of people too.

[Russell Burrows]

Brands Hatch is one of the worst circuits I have visited

From which side of the fence?

[Clatter]

God forbid something might change! Lets have everything stay the same forever.

Brands Hatch is one of the worst circuits I have visited, also seems to kill a lot of people too.

A lot? Does it have a worse record than many other circuits?

[Tonka]

I'm pretty sure that's not why Palmer did it.

Oh yes it was

http://www.thisislon...ld-superbike.do

Jonathan Palmer, the man who runs Brands Hatch, hit out today after the Kent circuit was left off 2009's provisional World Superbike Championship schedule.
Palmer accused the WSC series owners, FG Sport, of asking for too much money.
He said: “FG Sport expected us to pay twice as much to host a race next year. If we had matched the price FG Sport wanted we would have had to add an extra £15 to the cost of raceday tickets. That's just not acceptable.”

[Ross Stonefeld]

Where does it say anything about a joke?

[Tonka]

Where does it say anything about a joke?

If you don't quote the post you're answering...

[Ross Stonefeld]

It's pretty likely I'm responding to the post immediately before me(that quoted me no less) than some other random post.

[Crafty]

Don't be sorry, he's a wind up merchant, German style. On cancellation: the council have told me the proposal has NOT been withdrawn and they will pronounce on the issue in due course.

A "wind up merchant" because he clarified the earlier information he gave He never said the proposal had been withdrawn, but that the work was not going to go ahead.
If you had paid the architects and submitted a planning proposal you'd typically let it go through, nothing left to lose - if it gets granted you'll have a certain time period before the permission expires and you'd have to re-apply, probably something like 3 years.

So it would seem the latest is that they are looking at postponing the work to an unspecified date.

Those of you who are proper motorsport fans (i.e. don't like this idea) may be interested in this post
http://pistonheads.c...of Brands Hatch

[Russell Burrows]

A "wind up merchant" because he clarified the earlier information he gave He never said the proposal had been withdrawn, but that the work was not going to go ahead.
If you had paid the architects and submitted a planning proposal you'd typically let it go through, nothing left to lose - if it gets granted you'll have a certain time period before the permission expires and you'd have to re-apply, probably something like 3 years.

So it would seem the latest is that they are looking at postponing the work to an unspecified date.

Those of you who are proper motorsport fans (i.e. don't like this idea) may be interested in this post
http://pistonheads.c...of Brands Hatch

Yes, a wind up merchant; his contribution was largely extraneous waffle and unsubstantiated claims. As far as I recall, I never alleged that our German friend had made any claims as to the plan being withdrawn. You however, did did make such as suggestion. And your attempting to do it again. Why is that?

[Crafty]

Mixing up two posts here - our friend who says Brands is a rubbish track and the cancellation thing... apologies for the confusion.

Follow the pistonheads links, the guy who said its been cancelled and then postponed with no new date set for the work marshals and/or works for Brands (look at his previous posts), so he does have some insight. As I said if you've got a planning application in there is nothing to gain from cancelling it.

Either way, I think my last link will be of interest to you Russell.

[Amphicar]

As the proposed works require planning permission it would be rather unwise to draw up a firm schedule for carrying them out until it is clear whether planning permission will be granted. Dr Palmer appears to be well aware of this - hence his comment that "Nothing will move on it until the end of next year, subject to the plans being approved by the local authority.”

I therefore see no reason to think that the proposed changes have either been abandoned or postponed.

[Crafty]

Where/when was that quote given ?

[Amphicar]

Where/when was that quote given ?

Here: http://www.thebikein...h-changes-2012/ on 9th December. See also post#49 above.

Edited by Amphicar, 19 December 2011 - 09:35.

[Crafty]

Ok thanks, I hadn't seen that, its roughly about the same time as the guy on pistonheads was posting, given a weekend for the information to "drip down".

Maybe it was scheduled for earlier than the end of 2012 and they pushed it back.

Either way, it looks like a job they want to do next winter. Still not sure on the change..

[Tonka]

Has JP removed the application? From the Sevenoaks council planning website

Application details not available

This application is no longer available for viewing. It may have been removed or restricted from public viewing.

Perhaps he's picked up the complaints about his proposed improvement.

[Amphicar]

Has JP removed the application? From the Sevenoaks council planning website



Perhaps he's picked up the complaints about his proposed improvement.

'fraid not - the Sevenoaks DC planning application system has gone down again.

[BRG]

'fraid not - the Sevenoaks DC planning application system has gone down again.

No, it's working, but says "This application is no longer available for viewing. It may have been removed or restricted from public viewing.". Curious. Nothing official from MSV, nothing visible on the council site. Is this all a red herring?

[Russell Burrows]

I've several times attempted to speak to Joanna Russell (01732 227000), the planning offer concerned, but strangely she's never in her office and has yet to return return any call. I did today speak to 'the duty officer' who said the public consultation period has ended. I recall nothing about a time limit on the site. Did anyone else see anything about it being taken down today for that reason? The same duty guy said he thought the proposal remained live. He said too he would attempt to get more info and either him or Ms Russell would get back to me.

It might be a good idea if others made a quick call to ask about the status of the plan and why now no website access in order to make comment.

[southcoast]

I'm a regular at Brands (car meetings).

There seemed to be a big issue with cars getting all four wheels off the track on the exit of Graham Hill Bend last year. It was mentioned a lot by commentator at least. Whilst almost everyone seemed to do it, there were a number who received penalties for it. Maybe this is a factor ?

I can't see any other reason to be honest. The existing run-off area is more than sufficient. There's very little chance of connecting with the barrier between the tunnel and the pits. However, if the track is taken up towards this barrier, where will the run-off area be ? There will need to be a barrier to stop cars ending up in the tunnel surely ?!

Also, will there need to be a huge barrier between the outside of the new hairpin and the inside of Paddock Hill Bend ? Or will there be a gravel trap which runs as far as the inside of Paddock ?

I don't think it's for safety reasons so it must be for overtaking.

Seems a little odd but I'm sure JP knows what he's doing !

[Ross Stonefeld]

Wouldn't it be easier to make the runoff at the existing corner less friendly to cars, rather than tearing up a corner and replacing it with a new one? How much time/money would it really take to remove the 'grasscrete'

[Amphicar]

No, it's working, but says "This application is no longer available for viewing. It may have been removed or restricted from public viewing.". Curious. Nothing official from MSV, nothing visible on the council site. Is this all a red herring?

Yes but it says that for all applications at the moment!

[Amphicar]

I've several times attempted to speak to Joanna Russell (01732 227000), the planning offer concerned, but strangely she's never in her office and has yet to return return any call. I did today speak to 'the duty officer' who said the public consultation period has ended. I recall nothing about a time limit on the site. Did anyone else see anything about it being taken down today for that reason? The same duty guy said he thought the proposal remained live. He said too he would attempt to get more info and either him or Ms Russell would get back to me.

It might be a good idea if others made a quick call to ask about the status of the plan and why now no website access in order to make comment.

The Council cannot make a decision on the application until after the statutory 21 day consultation period. However Councils will normally accept comments after the 21 day period and the Brands Hatch application has not been taken down - the problem is that Sevenoaks Council's online system is not working - so you can't currently view any planning appplications. It went down last week too so I guess they have an IT problem - possibly an overloaded server.

[Amphicar]

The Council cannot make a decision on the application until after the statutory 21 day consultation period. However Councils will normally accept comments after the 21 day period and the Brands Hatch application has not been taken down - the problem is that Sevenoaks Council's online system is not working - so you can't currently view any planning appplications. It went down last week too so I guess they have an IT problem - possibly an overloaded server.

If anyone is still interested, the Sevenoaks DC planning application system is back online and the Brands Hatch application is viewable again: http://pa.sevenoaks....l=LTCRIABK8V000

[Crafty]

Motor Sport Magazine @Motor_Sport
Just chatted to Mr Palmer of MSV and there's more to the "possible" alterations at Brands than meets the eye.

Motor Sport Magazine @Motor_Sport
Will tell all in the March issue! #shamelessplug

[Amphicar]

Motor Sport Magazine @Motor_Sport
Just chatted to Mr Palmer of MSV and there's more to the "possible" alterations at Brands than meets the eye.

Motor Sport Magazine @Motor_Sport
Will tell all in the March issue! #shamelessplug

We should know whether he's got his planning permission by then.

[Tonka]

Motor Sport Magazine @Motor_Sport
Just chatted to Mr Palmer of MSV and there's more to the "possible" alterations at Brands than meets the eye.

Motor Sport Magazine @Motor_Sport
Will tell all in the March issue! #shamelessplug

Turn right at the top of Paddock and Brands becomes an oval !

[BRG]

Turn right at the top of Paddock and Brands becomes an oval !

Which is how it was before that the Druids loop was added.

I wonder if people whined about that change back in 1954, complaining how it was ruining an iconic and characterful race track etc etc.

[BRG]

If anyone is still interested, the Sevenoaks DC planning application system is back online and the Brands Hatch application is viewable again: http://pa.sevenoaks....l=LTCRIABK8V000

Interesting. So it will be effectively a banked corner, judging by the map with contour lines. But it is not in character with the rest of the track.

[Little Leaf]

Interesting. So it will be effectively a banked corner, judging by the map with contour lines. But it is not in character with the rest of the track.

With not a lot of run-off.

[Little Leaf]

Thinking about it shouldn't they be trying to do something about the dangerous nature of the bridges that go over the GP loop? That Superleague crash last year was pretty spectacular and that needs to be addressed, the run-off there is nearly nothing at the sides of the track

[Imperial]

This thread puts me in mind a little of the Croft debacle (those in the south look it up on Google - this was a big issue in the north), Croft got royally shafted essentially on personal issues amongst locals with a previous interest in the circuit having an influence. It should not be forgotten that Croft is now viewed by other local authorities in the UK as being a landmark case when making certain decisions.

I'd be extremely wary of supporting opposition to any changes tracks want to make, because you personally could contribute to bigger issues for the circuit further down the line.

Palmer and his legal team aren't dummies so wouldn't put forth proposals that could have a negative impact on the track, but mark my words as someone who closely followed the complete shafting of Croft that it would be a fool who speaks out against their local track.

[Tonka]

This thread puts me in mind a little of the Croft debacle (those in the south look it up on Google - this was a big issue in the north), Croft got royally shafted essentially on personal issues amongst locals with a previous interest in the circuit having an influence. It should not be forgotten that Croft is now viewed by other local authorities in the UK as being a landmark case when making certain decisions.

I'd be extremely wary of supporting opposition to any changes tracks want to make, because you personally could contribute to bigger issues for the circuit further down the line.

Palmer and his legal team aren't dummies so wouldn't put forth proposals that could have a negative impact on the track, but mark my words as someone who closely followed the complete shafting of Croft that it would be a fool who speaks out against their local track.

Claptrap. By making changes to the circuit, the owners are putting Brands Hatch under the microscope. I can think of an obvious complaint that could be made due to the change. As it stands, no local residents or council have any issues with the changes. It's only the users of the place who are not pleased.

As to Croft, a similar ruling affects Brands Hatch, in that the long circuit isn't used more than X times a year and the noise levels are limited to (IIRC) 106 Db.

If Palmer has plans for the circuit, I see no reason why he's not made them public. It's not like Tesco will be stealing them for their own place.

[Dudley]

With not a lot of run-off.

And this is the actually interesting bit to me, there's no way as presented it's going to fly for any kind of motorsport. So they're planning something else too.

I think we have to wait for that Motor Sport interview.

[Risil]

Perhaps they'll make the pit straight longer and turn Paddock into a hairpin 400m down the road.

[Russell Burrows]

This thread puts me in mind a little of the Croft debacle (those in the south look it up on Google - this was a big issue in the north), Croft got royally shafted essentially on personal issues amongst locals with a previous interest in the circuit having an influence. It should not be forgotten that Croft is now viewed by other local authorities in the UK as being a landmark case when making certain decisions.

I'd be extremely wary of supporting opposition to any changes tracks want to make, because you personally could contribute to bigger issues for the circuit further down the line.

Palmer and his legal team aren't dummies so wouldn't put forth proposals that could have a negative impact on the track, but mark my words as someone who closely followed the complete shafting of Croft that it would be a fool who speaks out against their local track.

Precisely what are the parallels as you see them ? And I see you've not been to Snetterton recently.

[Russell Burrows]

I understand that there are just a few days left before the council pronounce on the proposal, so if you're agin it, please spend a couple of minutes registering your comment here:

http://pa.sevenoaks....l=LTCRIABK8V000
[/quote]

Edited by Russell Burrows, 22 December 2011 - 18:02.

[DS27]

And I see you've not been to Snetterton recently.

I'd have to agree - the new infield section is mickey mouse, and that's being polite. I hated it; once off the grid, you don't use 2nd gear again at most peoples favourite tracks, certainly not 2 or 3 times a lap anyway.

[Russell Burrows]

Ladies and Gents, After trying repeatedly before Christmas to speak to the planning person responsible at the council, I finally received an email today. This person said the paperwork for approval had been written up, although she didn't know if it had yet been signed off (my central question to her). It would appear then that the council have chosen to disregard the more than thirty objections and the information that English Heritage were expecting an application for protection of the site (something that both EH and myself advised them before Christmas). Since EH have told me a proposal with our number of objections should go before the full planning committee rather than being decided on a discretionary basis, I have got back to 7oaks council for an explanation.

Since the council appear Gung Ho for Palmer and an EH application was always a long shot, things could be better. But, if they have just whacked it through on the nod, it should be open to challenge and EH probably won't be best pleased after being treated with such contempt. It's my intention to lodge an application with EH ASAP, although it's not as straightforward as one might imagine. Any hot shots lawyers, planners, etc out there? Since the comment section on the council site remains accessible, it would be helpful if those who haven't lodged a protest did so ASAP.

[johnmhinds]

I'm sorry but why in the world would English Heritage care?
It's a relatively fresh piece of tarmac on a corner that barely anyone in the wider public could name, it's not a heritage site.

I commend you for wanting to keep the corner as it is, but you really should be directing your complaints towards the track owners themselves not the local council because it's not within their remit to make sure any race track has a certain racing character.

I suspect we'd need to see how this corner fits into any future changes they wish to make anyway, as it doesn't appear to have enough runoff for any kind of racing to take place.

[handel]

You would think it would make a fair amount of sense to consult fans about changes like this. We all respect the fact that motorsport is full of commercial interests but really there are a large group of people that actually fund the thing and know a thing or two about racing.

I really don't see how their bus-stop is going to make racing better, and they'd be far better putting something in place which introduced a challenge without completely ruining that sense of speed. I'm not against changing circuits per-se given the changing characteristics of cars/bikes. How about...

[PayasYouRace]

What's with the "bus stop" references? A bus stop in racing is a left-right-right-left like at Spa (or right-left-left-right).

I still see this thread as a massive overreaction. It's just one bloody corner!

[handel]

What's with the "bus stop" references? A bus stop in racing is a left-right-right-left like at Spa (or right-left-left-right).

I still see this thread as a massive overreaction. It's just one bloody corner!

Well I think in common parlance it's become a way of inferring a really slow chicane. In fairness the bus stop at spa is mild (at least the exit) so perhaps the phrase is faulty in the first instance

One corner is still worth fighting for. I suppose the main problem is the fact that they even want to make this change - signals a complete lack of nouse which will likely also be applied to the rest of the circuit.

[Amphicar]

Ladies and Gents, After trying repeatedly before Christmas to speak to the planning person responsible at the council, I finally received an email today. This person said the paperwork for approval had been written up, although she didn't know if it had yet been signed off (my central question to her). It would appear then that the council have chosen to disregard the more than thirty objections and the information that English Heritage were expecting an application for protection of the site (something that both EH and myself advised them before Christmas). Since EH have told me a proposal with our number of objections should go before the full planning committee rather than being decided on a discretionary basis, I have got back to 7oaks council for an explanation.

Since the council appear Gung Ho for Palmer and an EH application was always a long shot, things could be better. But, if they have just whacked it through on the nod, it should be open to challenge and EH probably won't be best pleased after being treated with such contempt. It's my intention to lodge an application with EH ASAP, although it's not as straightforward as one might imagine. Any hot shots lawyers, planners, etc out there? Since the comment section on the council site remains accessible, it would be helpful if those who haven't lodged a protest did so ASAP.

In Sevenoaks, the criteria for deciding whether an application goes to the Planning Committee for determination are set out in the council's website:

"An application will normally only go to the Development Control Committee if:

a District Councillor makes a requests based on planning reasons that the application be considered by Committee; or

a Parish Council makes comments on an application which are contrary to those of the planning officer."

In this case we already know that the Parish Council has responded saying that it has no objections to the application so your only hope is to persuade a Sevenoaks Councillor to ask for it to go to the committee. You will stand a better chance if it is a local resident who asks his ward councillor to "call-in" the application - do any of the 30-odd objectors actually live in Sevenoaks?

Assuming that you can persuade a Sevenoaks Councillor, he or she will still need a planning reason for asking for the application to go to committee. Your best bet is to find a relevant Council planning policy - in this case, Sevenoaks Local Plan saved policy WK2, dealing specifically with Brands Hatch, which states:

"The Local Planning Authority will permit proposals for outdoor sport, recreation and leisure activities at Brands Hatch, as defined on the Proposals Map, provided they will not have an unacceptable impact on the environment in terms of noise and visual intrusion and do not conflict with other policies in the Local Plan, including the policies for the protection of the Green Belt.

The following criteria will also apply:

1) The proposed development must not increase noise levels which would be experienced by adjoining residential properties;
2) The character of the area should be retained and trees and woodland be retained and reinforced with additional landscaping;
3) The proposed development should be appropriate in scale and character to the existing uses or buildings;
4) Vehicular movements should be substantially confined to the existing access on the A20."

I would suggest arguing that the proposed changes to Graham Hill Bend are contrary to Policy WK2 because they are out of character with the existing, historic Brands Hatch track, typified by sweeping bends.

I wouldn't place too much hope on English Heritage - they have no power to over-rule the Council once it has made a decision, which is likely to have happened long before EH could reach a decision on your request for heritage protection. In any case, I don't see what they could usefully do: EH can designate listed buildings; protected wreck sites; registered battlefields; registered parks and gardens; and scheduled monuments. None of these designations seem appropriate for protecting the character of a racing circuit. Declaring Brands Hatch a conservation area might do the trick - but unfortunately Sevenoaks DC would have to do that, not EH.

There is no third-party right of appeal against the granting of planning permission so if Sevenoaks do permit the application your only recourse would be to seek judicial review of the decision but I wouldn't recommend that unless you have very deep pockets.

Edited by Amphicar, 30 December 2011 - 00:35.

[philhitchings]

To me the Access road is now pinched between tw corners. Traffic to and from the support paddock is constant during a race meeting. I have grave concerns that the safety of teams and competitors off track hasn't been given sufficient consideration. I can't see where post 7 will be placed if the changes go ahead?

[johnmhinds]

Are they planning to do a Silverstone and move the start/finish straight over to this new straight and create a larger paddock in the center infield?

If they reverse the track the hooked over section of the new corner seems to create the perfect Vale/Club style pit entry...

Hmm...

Edited by johnmhinds, 30 December 2011 - 13:13.

[wewantourdarbyback]

You would think it would make a fair amount of sense to consult fans about changes like this. We all respect the fact that motorsport is full of commercial interests but really there are a large group of people that actually fund the thing and know a thing or two about racing.

I really don't see how their bus-stop is going to make racing better, and they'd be far better putting something in place which introduced a challenge

As far as I was aware the downhill, medium speed nature of Graham Hill is a pretty good challenge. As I said before it induces mistakes and helps create overtaking opportunities at Clearways.

[Muz Bee]

Without addressing the merits or otherwise of Palmer's plans I think Russell's protest is foolish and dangerous.
Far from being a noble battle for the fan and the racer, I think his appeals to Seven Oaks will have either no effect or a negative one.
I have myself on occasions failed to muster sufficient support for a cause and there is no disgrace in that. But if by some strange process those trolls who hate having Brands Hatch near their properties draw encouragement and support from a disaffected motorsport person like Russell the damage to Brands Hatch's owners could be serious.

Russell, I am an ex bike racer and so can relate to bike unfriendly circuit changes. I also hate the way safety and other factors have contributed to mickey mouse corners and tacky new circuits that lack a real challenge and any sense of flow. However I am adamant that you are taking sides with the devil and should have been lobbying Brands Hatch management, and still should be. However why would Jonathon or any of his people listen to you now you have made this decision to side with the haters? You have chosen a strange group of bedfellows to lobby with.

Edited by Muz Bee, 30 December 2011 - 17:56.

[Crafty]

To be honest I still struggle with the logic, Russell appears to want the planning permission denied on the basis he doesn't like the change to the track ?

Hardly reason to deny a planning permission.

At the end of the day the track is a commercial property and changing a corner has little or no effect on nearby residents etc.

I don't see EH having much clout either.

[wrighty]

OK first and foremost do NOT underestimate the power of English Heritage.....i'm involved (via my employer) with a contract at the moment where, if we recommend a modification to a design detail then (bear with me here) we have to suggest it to our customer (the site contractor) who have to suggest it to the architects, but the site is a Heritage site so EH get the final say.....on. absolutely.EVERYTHING. If BH is already an EH site they they have the nod (if it is, you can think of MSV as a tenant with benefits lol) but i would be surprised if the EH interest included the track shape, and i know the Octagon building and the mod to Graham Hill Bend are fairly recent.
i have already registered a 'nay' vote against the proposal, but my main concern was that corner profiles of that type usually break up traffic into a dull string and therefore it would be totally out of sync with the rest of the circuit, especially the Indy layout....i can appreciate the problems that they have now with the GHB runoff area but really that's a consequence of the tighten-up job they did 10 (or whatever it was) years ago so i tend to think that they tinkered too much already and the new proposal is exactly how it looks.....a photo opp instead of a racing corner.

Edited by wrighty, 30 December 2011 - 20:19.