Brands Hatch circuit changes
#1
Posted 14 December 2011 - 16:34
http://www.stevespla...brandshatch.pdf
General public can apparently comment on the planning application which is here
http://pa.sevenoaks....l=LTCRIABK8V000
Palmer comments here (December 9th)
http://www.thebikein...h-changes-2012/
Advertisement
#2
Posted 14 December 2011 - 16:46
#3
Posted 14 December 2011 - 16:50
There's no change of use; no buildings to be constructed or demolished; not even a case that the change will make the place more popular and therefore increase traffic.
#4
Posted 14 December 2011 - 17:23
Section 55 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 defines the meaning of development for which planning permission is required as being:Hard to know what there is about it that requires planning permission. Even the application form doesn't make it clear and unusually there is no supporting statement, only the drawings.
There's no change of use; no buildings to be constructed or demolished; not even a case that the change will make the place more popular and therefore increase traffic.
"the carrying out of building, engineering, mining or other operations in, on, over or under land, or the making of any material change in the use of any buildings or other land."
The proposed alterations to Graham Hill Bend constitute engineering operations and that is why they require planning permission.
#5
Posted 14 December 2011 - 18:27
I just thought it's Mallory Park flipped through 180 degrees Steve!Mike, when I first saw it a few weeks ago, I thought, "funny, I never knew Herman Tilke was British". Doesn't look like a lot of thought went into it does it!!?
I don't know if anyone noticed but look again at the photo & zoom into the area where the developer is based...
If you read this description here it doesn't fit with the bus stop hairpin shown on the photo
http://www.visordown...ised/19697.html
#6
Posted 14 December 2011 - 18:52
#7
Posted 14 December 2011 - 20:31
JPs description talks of a constant radius left hander whereas the plan shows a hairpin immediately followed by a right hand bend.
Edited by opplock, 14 December 2011 - 20:36.
#8
Posted 14 December 2011 - 21:11
#9
Posted 14 December 2011 - 21:16
I wonder if they did something as straightforward as asking a rider?Confusing innit!? it just needs the inside radius smoothing out, returning it to something like it was before the latest incarnation!
#10
Posted 14 December 2011 - 23:15
My guess is the proposed extension would not need to go uphill very much at all - it would be almost entirely in the 'bowl' below PaddockAs someone pointed out elsewhere there is a rather steep slope running up from the existing bend to Paddock
#11
Posted 14 December 2011 - 23:15
Very unlikely Mike, a corporate decision based on future TV rights, i.e. income for advertising from a slower corner.I wonder if they did something as straightforward as asking a rider?
Never mind that it will destroy the character of one of the country's most historic race circuits.
A cynical person could say that it is for purely selfish financial motives, but, JP? He has motor sport's best interests at heart of course...
#12
Posted 15 December 2011 - 00:48
I can't see it being any benefit to racing on four wheels at all.
As has been mentioned the corner has already been altered, this latest abomination to my mind is a step on the slippery slope to turn what was once one of the more challenging circuits into a glorified karting track.
#13
Posted 15 December 2011 - 07:52
Where's the extra run off at the new hairpin? There's very little space between the corner and road to the tunnels.
It all looks a bit strange to me
#14
Posted 15 December 2011 - 08:39
JP quotes: "the corner simultaneously more challenging and yet increasingly safer as a result of barrier movement and extra run off space in the correct areas."
Where's the extra run off at the new hairpin? There's very little space between the corner and road to the tunnels.
It all looks a bit strange to me
Current Graham HB has acres of run-off, never seen anything come close to the barriers on the outside of that corner.
#15
Posted 15 December 2011 - 08:42
#16
Posted 15 December 2011 - 10:06
PS I just spotted this elsewhere:
http://pa.sevenoaks....l=LTCRIABK8V000
It is the link to the Sevenoaks Council's website and it is where you can comment on the Planning Application.
Edited by Stephen W, 15 December 2011 - 10:10.
#17
Posted 15 December 2011 - 10:56
wrong URL StephenIt strikes me that the "proposed changes" will only be of benefit to the hooligans in BTCC as it will provide two more opportunities to punt off the opposition!
PS I just spotted this elsewhere:
http://pa.sevenoaks....l=LTCRIABK8V000
It is the link to the Sevenoaks Council's website and it is where you can comment on the Planning Application.
#18
Posted 15 December 2011 - 11:09
#19
Posted 15 December 2011 - 11:13
The percieved problem is clearly the potential for a head-on impact with the barrier beyond the gravel trap currently on the exit of the bend (left hand side of photo).Current Graham HB has acres of run-off, never seen anything come close to the barriers on the outside of that corner.
That implies that the new loop will be used for both cars & bikes.
The changes will be justified if there is a history of incidents resulting in racers ending up in that gravel trap.
From a racing point of view, I would suggest that it would increase the number of lines into Surtees as the racing line along the straight would be towards the left of the track.
The line out of Druids will change also. Instead of switching towards the right of the track for the immediate entry into Graham Hill Bend, cars might be more able to go round the outside of competitors around Druids and compete along the new, longer, straighter straight into the new hairpin.
The combination of the two new corners will have a similar effect to the current trend in F1 thinking for first & second corners at new circuits; a driver challenging on the inside of the first element of the new complex will be on the outside into the second element. The position will have to be won decisively into the first element to be retained through the second.
The longer, straighter new straight might add better overtaking opportunities into the new corner than the current layout.
The new hairpin doesn't look any 'sharper' than Druids, so it won't, necessarily, make the new complex a case of 'point-and-squirt'; with current downforce levels it should flow reasonably well.
The number of lines into Surtees might decrease overtaking opportunities there, on the GP circuit at least, as the racing line would begin on the left of the track, the defensive line into Surtees.
The lap length will increase, of course, but whether it will be faster or slower I'm not sure; the flow of the current layout from Druids to Surtees will be replaced by the braking and accelerating through the new complex, following the longer straight.
Spectators at Paddock Hill Bend will have the best view in the house.
While I too lament the passing of a much loved layout that I have enjoyed immensely, I'm conscious of the fact that nostalgia isn't the best reason to oppose change. I'm willing to wait and see what effect it has. Photos never present such plans at their most attractive.
For me the changes will be deemed successful or not after seeing some racing.
Advertisement
#20
Posted 15 December 2011 - 11:56
Mike, when I first saw it a few weeks ago, I thought , "funny, I never knew Herman Tilke was British". Doesn't look like a lot of thought went into it does it!!?
Steve, you could not have put it better....
What an absolutely pointless alteration!
Are they in the business of motor racing or just selling space on advertising hoardings?
I wonder how long will it take to recoup the cost of this ground work from any extra advertising bucks that might result?
Apart from the fact it ruins the flow and character of the track it's just plain boring.....
Please JP, change it's name to "Tilke Corner".
It's an insult to name it after a double world champion/Indy 500/Le Mans winner but entirely suited to someone synonymous with all that's gone bad in recent circuit design.
Better still, revert to it's previous,sweeping layout which was far better than the one you now seek to make even worse.
#21
Posted 15 December 2011 - 13:33
The present Graham Hill Bend is a very good means of aiding the better drivers who can then use their higher exit speed to overtake on the bottom straight and into Surtees. I think the proposed layout will nullify that variance in skill level.
I also don't see how the corner can go as close to Paddock Bend as it suggests without a lot of disorientating lengths of barrier (thereby osbscuring the view). I see this exercise in a similar vein to the extension at Snetterton which I don't enjoy. The topography is non existent - you just feel you are driving along a drain. For spectators it's also very unsatisfactory as although you can see a lot it's so far away as to be pointless.
It is clearly designed for maximising TV exposure and doesn't in my opinion offer anything to the driver or spectator at all.
#22
Posted 15 December 2011 - 14:34
Yes, I think the obvious step after the Bottom Bend improvements have been carried out, is to tackle Paddock Bend. I’ve long been concerned about this same old, same old, corner. In line with current trends and thinking, I would like to see at least one, or perhaps two, chicanes introduced at this location. This will introduce much needed variety to a corner that is so last century. The measure will, of course, also have the effect of both slowing and funeling throughput in the corner, thereby maximising opportunities for televisual appeal with both advertisers and viewers, as opportunities for slow speed impacts are enhanced. In addition, the circuit length will be increased in the most cost effective way, thereby opening up further potential opportunities for increased asset usage and stakeholder investment yield.The percieved problem is clearly the potential for a head-on impact with the barrier beyond the gravel trap currently on the exit of the bend (left hand side of photo).
That implies that the new loop will be used for both cars & bikes.
The changes will be justified if there is a history of incidents resulting in racers ending up in that gravel trap.
From a racing point of view, I would suggest that it would increase the number of lines into Surtees as the racing line along the straight would be towards the left of the track.
The line out of Druids will change also. Instead of switching towards the right of the track for the immediate entry into Graham Hill Bend, cars might be more able to go round the outside of competitors around Druids and compete along the new, longer, straighter straight into the new hairpin.
The combination of the two new corners will have a similar effect to the current trend in F1 thinking for first & second corners at new circuits; a driver challenging on the inside of the first element of the new complex will be on the outside into the second element. The position will have to be won decisively into the first element to be retained through the second.
The longer, straighter new straight might add better overtaking opportunities into the new corner than the current layout.
The new hairpin doesn't look any 'sharper' than Druids, so it won't, necessarily, make the new complex a case of 'point-and-squirt'; with current downforce levels it should flow reasonably well.
The number of lines into Surtees might decrease overtaking opportunities there, on the GP circuit at least, as the racing line would begin on the left of the track, the defensive line into Surtees.
The lap length will increase, of course, but whether it will be faster or slower I'm not sure; the flow of the current layout from Druids to Surtees will be replaced by the braking and accelerating through the new complex, following the longer straight.
Spectators at Paddock Hill Bend will have the best view in the house.
While I too lament the passing of a much loved layout that I have enjoyed immensely, I'm conscious of the fact that nostalgia isn't the best reason to oppose change. I'm willing to wait and see what effect it has. Photos never present such plans at their most attractive.
For me the changes will be deemed successful or not after seeing some racing.
Edited by Russell Burrows, 15 December 2011 - 14:35.
#23
Posted 15 December 2011 - 15:39
Yes, I think the obvious step after the Bottom Bend improvements have been carried out, is to tackle Paddock Bend. I’ve long been concerned about this same old, same old, corner. In line with current trends and thinking, I would like to see at least one, or perhaps two, chicanes introduced at this location. This will introduce much needed variety to a corner that is so last century. The measure will, of course, also have the effect of both slowing and funeling throughput in the corner, thereby maximising opportunities for televisual appeal with both advertisers and viewers, as opportunities for slow speed impacts are enhanced. In addition, the circuit length will be increased in the most cost effective way, thereby opening up further potential opportunities for increased asset usage and stakeholder investment yield.
#24
Posted 15 December 2011 - 17:20
#25
Posted 16 December 2011 - 10:08
wrong URL Stephen
That was posted elsewhere!
#26
Posted 16 December 2011 - 11:25
http://pa.sevenoaks....l=LTCRIABK8V000
#27
Posted 16 December 2011 - 11:34
Sevenoaks DC's planning application system was offline for a spell yesterday - that's why the link didn't work.I don't understand why the Sevenoaks Council link posted by Steve doesn't work - it appears to be the same as the one I posted in the other TNF Brands thread which originally appeared in the bike (MCN) thread. See if this one works:
http://pa.sevenoaks....l=LTCRIABK8V000
#28
Posted 16 December 2011 - 11:35
Yes, I think the obvious step after the Bottom Bend improvements have been carried out, is to tackle Paddock Bend. I’ve long been concerned about this same old, same old, corner. In line with current trends and thinking, I would like to see at least one, or perhaps two, chicanes introduced at this location. This will introduce much needed variety to a corner that is so last century. The measure will, of course, also have the effect of both slowing and funeling throughput in the corner, thereby maximising opportunities for televisual appeal with both advertisers and viewers, as opportunities for slow speed impacts are enhanced. In addition, the circuit length will be increased in the most cost effective way, thereby opening up further potential opportunities for increased asset usage and stakeholder investment yield.
nice one Russell!!
#29
Posted 16 December 2011 - 12:11
nice one Russell!!
I just ventured across to similar thread on the RC forum. Always makes me wish I hadn't bothered. Russell seems to be fighting a one man battle...sadly one comment I'll paraphrase said something like "so what, it's not as if F1 goes there..."
#30
Posted 16 December 2011 - 12:43
sadly one comment I'll paraphrase said something like "so what, it's not as if F1 goes there..."
That person has no regard for history and should be taken outside and spoken to with something heavy.......................
#31
Posted 16 December 2011 - 13:27
I just ventured across to similar thread on the RC forum. Always makes me wish I hadn't bothered. Russell seems to be fighting a one man battle...sadly one comment I'll paraphrase said something like "so what, it's not as if F1 goes there..."
To be fair to RC, there was an earlier thread on the same subject (which has now become corrupt) in which several of us voiced our displeasure at the proposed changes.
Edited by midgrid, 16 December 2011 - 13:27.
#32
Posted 16 December 2011 - 13:34
...or racing in other forms, as if they're of no consequenceThat person has no regard for history...
#33
Posted 16 December 2011 - 18:27
Give it up Russ & come back here with the grown ups.
#34
Posted 16 December 2011 - 19:11
#35
Posted 16 December 2011 - 20:19
On the RCF thread, there is just ONE poster who said that it didn't matter, and he made a reasonable sensible case for saying that. You might not agree with him, but he was far from making the sort of dismissive comments that are implied by some here. Most posts have been against the proposed changes.
In fact, it is one of the more measured and sensible threads in RCF, with several people urging some restraint until we know a bit more about the plans, and one wise poster (cough...me) questioning whether using the planning process to combat this might not rebound on us. The only poster there getting a bit hysterical is Mr Burrows, who seems to have taken it upon himself to conduct a Holy War and is hostile to anyone who doesn't immediately agree with him.
Personally, I would prefer not to see these changes made to Brands Hatch. But I imagine that MSV have some good reasons for planning this. I am sure that they aren't intending to throw their money away for no good reason, just to spite race fans. Until we hear the full story, we should be a bit cautious. This is only a planning application at the moment, it doesn't mean it will necessarily be carried out.
#36
Posted 16 December 2011 - 21:03
JP quotes: "the corner simultaneously more challenging and yet increasingly safer as a result of barrier movement and extra run off space in the correct areas."
Where's the extra run off at the new hairpin? There's very little space between the corner and road to the tunnels.
It all looks a bit strange to me
i agree.. not enough run off , not even close... why do you think they have so much run off there already.
#37
Posted 16 December 2011 - 23:47
Quite a lot of foolish comments here about the thread in RCF - I would expect better from this Forum, where facts are usually regarded as important.
On the RCF thread, there is just ONE poster who said that it didn't matter, and he made a reasonable sensible case for saying that. You might not agree with him, but he was far from making the sort of dismissive comments that are implied by some here. Most posts have been against the proposed changes.
In fact, it is one of the more measured and sensible threads in RCF, with several people urging some restraint until we know a bit more about the plans, and one wise poster (cough...me) questioning whether using the planning process to combat this might not rebound on us. The only poster there getting a bit hysterical is Mr Burrows, who seems to have taken it upon himself to conduct a Holy War and is hostile to anyone who doesn't immediately agree with him.
Personally, I would prefer not to see these changes made to Brands Hatch. But I imagine that MSV have some good reasons for planning this. I am sure that they aren't intending to throw their money away for no good reason, just to spite race fans. Until we hear the full story, we should be a bit cautious. This is only a planning application at the moment, it doesn't mean it will necessarily be carried out.
You accuse me of waging a Holy war, yet I'm the hysteric I suspect sloth and a lack of insight characterises your stance on things other than this issue, but try hard to understand the following: the proposal remains under consideration and the council will pronounce in a matter of weeks, ergo - as per the council's invitation - now is the time to lobby the authority, not after the decision has been reached without them having considered the views of those opposing the plan. As for contacting, Palmer: you're either additionally, staggeringly naive, or perhaps I'm actually currently in debate with Dr Palmer?
Edited by Russell Burrows, 17 December 2011 - 00:08.
#38
Posted 17 December 2011 - 00:16
I don't see a great significance in this issue. If the owners think the re profiling of the corner will be beneficial they probably have given it some thought.
For the wider public Brands Hatch is of no concern since it lost F1 status. It remains a fairly dangerous old track which seems to be unsuitable even for F2 as the Surtees death indicates. Several crash zones are deadly for open wheel race cars. Cars leaving the track due to driver or technical faults will hit the barriers at high speed levels raising concerns that drivers will be exposed to massive impact shocks and that wheels can be separated and return to the circuit.
QUOTE
Erm...F1 status??...F2?...open wheel race cars?...driver or technical faults?...wheels can be separated...blah blah blah
Do you you seriously believe that you 'four wheeled johnnies' are the only ones who have any interest in the configuration of the UK's most historic race circuit?
With the greatest respect... get a life.
To add...FFS
#39
Posted 17 December 2011 - 00:45
You accuse me of waging a Holy war, yet I'm the hysteric I suspect sloth and a lack of insight characterises your stance on things other than this issue, but try hard to understand the following: the proposal remains under consideration and the council will pronounce in a matter of weeks, ergo - as per the council's invitation - now is the time to lobby the authority, not after the decision has been reached without them having considered the views of those opposing the plan. As for contacting, Palmer: you're either additionally, staggeringly naive, or perhaps I'm actually currently in debate with Dr Palmer?
Advertisement
#40
Posted 17 December 2011 - 11:11
Do you you seriously believe that you 'four wheeled johnnies' are the only ones who have any interest in the configuration of the UK's most historic race circuit?
With the greatest respect... get a life.
To add...FFS
Personally I don't have a problem with any change to a race track's configuration so long as the changes:
(a) don't make it worse,
(b) don't make the track less safe,
© don't make viewing less enjoayable, and
(d) mean that the spectators are moved well away from the action.
It looks on the surface as if the proposal will make it worse, make it less safe, make viewing awkward and also keep the spectaors in their current positions at the old Bottom Bend.
I haven't been to Brands for many years and these changes will probably mean that I am less likely to ever go back.
#41
Posted 17 December 2011 - 13:26
As for contacting, Palmer: you're either additionally, staggeringly naive, or perhaps I'm actually currently in debate with Dr Palmer?
More hysterics....
Yes, you're right, I have been uncovered at last. Since 1999, I have been posting on this BB and in all that time, no-one has realised that I am actually Dr Jonathan Palmer MD, former F1 driver and owner of MotorSport Vision.
I suggest that you grow up and try to understand that just because some people don't agree with you absolutely and completely, that doesn't mean they are therefore the enemy.
#42
Posted 17 December 2011 - 14:00
Thank goodness for this reply. This thread is starting to resemble the Comments Forum for rationality.Personally, I would prefer not to see these changes made to Brands Hatch. But I imagine that MSV have some good reasons for planning this. I am sure that they aren't intending to throw their money away for no good reason, just to spite race fans. Until we hear the full story, we should be a bit cautious. This is only a planning application at the moment, it doesn't mean it will necessarily be carried out.
I have great affection for the Brands Hatch circuit I grew up with from the 1960s onwards. I don't understand all the references to TV and advertising, which I don't see as the prime reason for the changes at a good, national level club circuit, which Brands has become.
Only for bikers is Brands now used for significant international events, and it may be that these changes are required to retain that international status with the FIM. After all, look at the many changes that Siverstone had to make in order to be awarded the British MotoGP round?
It might be that the changes are aimed at attracting international events of all types from, amongst others, the FIA?
No-one is going to invest in such major construction work unless they consider it to be necessary.
Of those here who will still race at the potentially altered circuit, what are your specific objections to the changes, from a racing point of view?
For the armchair racers, how often do you attend events at Brands?
All the references to Tilke and F1 suggest that the obsession with Brands' current national level status is the main sore point here.
Perhaps you would all be happier if Brands was only used for 'historic' racing series'?
I expect posts to soon demand the return of railway sleepers and earth banks to replace all those horrible crash barriers!
#43
Posted 17 December 2011 - 14:16
More hysterics....
Yes, you're right, I have been uncovered at last. Since 1999, I have been posting on this BB and in all that time, no-one has realised that I am actually Dr Jonathan Palmer MD, former F1 driver and owner of MotorSport Vision.
I suggest that you grow up and try to understand that just because some people don't agree with you absolutely and completely, that doesn't mean they are therefore the enemy.
Lest it begins to feel like abuse, I operate a self imposed ordinance not to engage in debate with those unable to properly defend themselves with sensible argument. Since you're clearly in such a category, Goodbye.
#44
Posted 17 December 2011 - 14:27
Agreed. There is no point arguing with you.Lest it begins to feel like abuse, I operate a self imposed ordinance not to engage in debate with those unable to properly defend themselves with sensible argument. Since you're clearly in such a category, Goodbye.
#45
Posted 17 December 2011 - 15:57
A heresy nowadays I know, but a utilitarian, bottom line, approach isn’t always the way to go, even if it can be shown to be the driver for change – and in this case that’s far from clear - there are other considerations. Your ‘terms of reference’ do not address the startlingly obvious issue of change to the character of this iconic site. You are silent too on the venue being one of last remaining circuits yet to be ‘bus stopped’. You presumably are aware that this fate has befallen so many of our other racing circuits? In the past we had quick circuits and slower ones – where is it written that that they must now be so similar. Surely it’s worth preserving the undulating swervery of at least this circuit, one of our very best.Thank goodness for this reply. This thread is starting to resemble the Comments Forum for rationality.
I have great affection for the Brands Hatch circuit I grew up with from the 1960s onwards. I don't understand all the references to TV and advertising, which I don't see as the prime reason for the changes at a good, national level club circuit, which Brands has become.
Only for bikers is Brands now used for significant international events, and it may be that these changes are required to retain that international status with the FIM. After all, look at the many changes that Siverstone had to make in order to be awarded the British MotoGP round?
It might be that the changes are aimed at attracting international events of all types from, amongst others, the FIA?
No-one is going to invest in such major construction work unless they consider it to be necessary.
Of those here who will still race at the potentially altered circuit, what are your specific objections to the changes, from a racing point of view?
For the armchair racers, how often do you attend events at Brands?
All the references to Tilke and F1 suggest that the obsession with Brands' current national level status is the main sore point here.
Perhaps you would all be happier if Brands was only used for 'historic' racing series'?
I expect posts to soon demand the return of railway sleepers and earth banks to replace all those horrible crash barriers!
Edited by Russell Burrows, 17 December 2011 - 16:01.
#46
Posted 17 December 2011 - 18:50
Of those here who will still race at the potentially altered circuit, what are your specific objections to the changes, from a racing point of view?
I have already stated my objections from a driver's point of view.
#47
Posted 17 December 2011 - 19:53
Believe me, I don't disagree with your views, and I would love the character of Brands to be retained.A heresy nowadays I know, but a utilitarian, bottom line, approach isn’t always the way to go, even if it can be shown to be the driver for change – and in this case that’s far from clear - there are other considerations. Your ‘terms of reference’ do not address the startlingly obvious issue of change to the character of this iconic site. You are silent too on the venue being one of last remaining circuits yet to be ‘bus stopped’. You presumably are aware that this fate has befallen so many of our other racing circuits? In the past we had quick circuits and slower ones – where is it written that that they must now be so similar. Surely it’s worth preserving the undulating swervery of at least this circuit, one of our very best.
My posts simply try to offer reasons why the changes are being considered, rather than blindly oppose them.
If the planning permission is refused for any reason, and the proposed changes abandoned, then I will be as happy as anyone.
#48
Posted 29 December 2011 - 18:51
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.
#49
Posted 30 December 2011 - 00:39
See my reply on the Racing Comments forum: http://forums.autosp...a...t&p=5464122Ladies 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.
#50
Posted 30 December 2011 - 13:13
And a very sensible reply it was. The only point which I would question was your interpretation of the Council's policy point 2 re the 'character of the area'. I am sure that by this they mean the overall environment - a partly wooded, partly open and grassed area, which happens to have a race track in it. I doubt very much that they care at all about the exact layout of that track - and indeed, why should they? I don't want Council planners telling us how to lay out race tracks. We are regulated more than enough already, which is why I am chary about using planning authorities as a weapon against MSV.See my reply on the Racing Comments forum: http://forums.autosp...a...t&p=5464122
As for getting English Heritage involved, that could also prove a massive own goal. If we ended up with a listed, protected Brands Hatch, it would be almost impossible to ever make any changes to anything there in the future; it would be preserved in aspic for future generations, but as a museum piece, not as a living, working, financially viable race facility.