85 replies to this topic

[Amphicar]

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.

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.

I agree that criterion 2 of Policy WK2 refers to the general area within which Brands Hatch is located - I was meaning criterion 3: The proposed development should be appropriate in scale and character to the existing uses or buildings. I think it is arguable that the proposed changes to Graham Hill bend are inappropriate in character to the existing circuit. I'm not sure that I would want to hang my hat on that as a defensible reason for refusing the application but it might be enough to justify a Sevenoaks councillor calling for it to go to the committee for determination. (provided you could find one who was sympathetic).

I also agree with you that achieving some form of protected heritage status via EH would be a rather dangerous sledgehammer to crack a potential Kentish filbert. Brands Hatch's future as a racing circuit depends on it continuing to be commercially viable and that requires the ability to adapt and change it to meet current requirements. However, I don't like the look of the changes proposed in the current application and I feel sure that there must be other, more sympathetic ways of achieving the (apparently) desired result - a corner that is "fast enough to be a real challenge on a Superbike or slow enough to be a place for a safe overtake".

[Stephen W]

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.

Just the way all the castles and other properties are dealt with? You have to remember that where English Heritage actually own a property they try to maximise footfall. This is exactly what MSV are doing. However in the case of major alterations such as adding extra race track to the current layout there are several concerns.
Just because a property is "listed" doesn't mean that you can't alter it. What it does do is make the process more complicated however on the plus side it does hold the current landowner to account.

[RAP]

I'm going to disagree with most people ! I think Jatwarks says it well. Currently Brands Hatch is not suitable for single seaters ; overtaking is almost impossible - I've seen far too many F3 etc races with virtually no place changes from start to finish. So much so that I've largely stopped going - assuming I'm not unique (and the size of crowds suggests I'm not) MSV DO have a commercial need to do something.

It has always struck me that the best place to change would be Bottom Bend (Graham Hill) as most spectators would be able to see the resulting action and the current layout is not an overtaking spot.

Whether the exact proposals will work I'm not qualified to say, not being a modern single seater racer. But similar layouts do eleswhere eg Nurburgring Turn 1.

BH cant live in the past - it has to be fit for purpose in the 21st century or we will loose it altogether to housing !

Edited by RAP, 31 December 2011 - 11:56.

[BRG]

Just the way all the castles and other properties are dealt with? You have to remember that where English Heritage actually own a property they try to maximise footfall.

Maximise footfall yes, but within some very restricted parameters, though. If you suggested that turning one of their castles into a 5-star luxury hotel, spa and conference centre, it would doubtless increase footfall, but would not be acceptable to EH. Listed properties have to be kept more or less as they are, with only minor changes being allowed that are in keeping with the character of the property. So a listed Brands Hatch would probably not be allowed to redevelop the pitlane or change the race control building, perhaps in order to accommodate some money spinning future race series.

[Thundersports]

The proposed changes at Graham Hill aren't going to happen..........

[RAP]

The proposed changes at Graham Hill aren't going to happen..........

Why not ? What have I missed

[Thundersports]

Why not ? What have I missed

You'll have to just take my word on this one but what is proposed isn't going to happen.

[fil2.8]

You'll have to just take my word on this one but what is proposed isn't going to happen.

If that is true , and I and many others hope so , it is the best news i've heard in ages

[Stephen W]

Currently Brands Hatch is not suitable for single seaters ; overtaking is almost impossible - I've seen far too many F3 etc races with virtually no place changes from start to finish.

Is that a problem with the circuit or the Formula?

What little I have seen of BF3 in 2011 there has been precious little overtaking full stop!

[RAP]

Is that a problem with the circuit or the Formula?

What little I have seen of BF3 in 2011 there has been precious little overtaking full stop!

Its not JUST F3, any current "wings & Slicks" Formula - yes its a problem with the cars, but thats not going to change - circuits have to adapt. They seem to be able to overtake at Rockingham and Silverstone reasonably well.

[CoulthardD]

The proposed changes at Graham Hill aren't going to happen..........

Motorsport have said there is more to the application than meets the eye, and will reveal all in the March edition.

DC

[eurocardoc]

Old place needed change, after all we wouldn't want races like this would we?

http://www.youtube.c...feature=related


(joking!) I loved watching and driving there, all those undulations and nuances in the track and surfaces.

Edited by eurocardoc, 01 January 2012 - 17:32.

[Amphicar]

I see that Dr Palmer has got his planning permission: http://pa.sevenoaks....l=LTCRIABK8V000

[LittleChris]

Looking at the documents, there doesn't seem to be a decision taken by English Heritage yet ( or maybe I missed it ). Could they yet prevent any changes ?

[Thundersports]

Motorsport have said there is more to the application than meets the eye, and will reveal all in the March edition.

DC

Indeed there is.......

[Amphicar]

Looking at the documents, there doesn't seem to be a decision taken by English Heritage yet ( or maybe I missed it ). Could they yet prevent any changes ?

The quick answer is no. EH is still considering Russell Burrows's bid to have the circuit listed but even if they decide to list Brands Hatch that would not negate the planning permission just granted by Sevenoaks DC. If MSV carry out the changes now permitted before EH reaches a decision, listing would not result in the changes having to be undone. If MSV have not carried out the works by the time EH reaches a decision and EH decides that Brands Hatch should be listed, the works will also require listed building consent. However the application would still go to Sevenoaks Council, who would make the decision. Listed status does not mean that nothing can be changed as long as the changes "preserve or enhance" the character of the listed building.

[thirtytwo]

So they won't be putting the earth banks back in then.

[john aston]

I may be in a minority here but listing Brands - if an attempt to make life difficult for MSV -seems to me churlish and inappropriate. MSV have done a bloody briliant job on the two circuits I visit regularly of theirs- Cadwell and Oulton. Both were tatty , run down and going nowhere. They are a infinitely better now and JP - who I know is not always popular- gets my support.

[Stephen W]

I may be in a minority here but listing Brands - if an attempt to make life difficult for MSV -seems to me churlish and inappropriate. MSV have done a bloody briliant job on the two circuits I visit regularly of theirs- Cadwell and Oulton. Both were tatty , run down and going nowhere. They are a infinitely better now and JP - who I know is not always popular- gets my support.

Couldn't agree more, however there is a difference between smartening up a run-down venue to making significant changes to the track layout. I was at Cadwell the day before JP was due to arrive for an inspection, the staff were out mowing, painting and cleaning - it was a bit like the preparation for a royal visit.

[Paul Taylor]

If it ain't broke, don't fix it. I can't believe they're actually going to do this to the track.

[RAP]

Quite agree with John Aston and Stephen W. To Paul Taylor - sorry, it is broke, in regards to modern racing cars. By all means blame that on the cars but they arn't going to change. Just be grateful we've still got Brands and don't assume change is ALWAYS bad !

Edited by RAP, 25 February 2012 - 11:31.

[jatwarks]

I've just watched the TV coverage on ITV4 of the second Clio Cup race at Brands. The accident at the exit of Graham Hill Bend is exactly why the layout needs to be reviewed.

The potential for a head-on impact with the barrier behind the pits is unacceptable.

The proposed changes might not be popular, but available alternatives, that shift points of impact away from that location, and preferably towards the left hand side of the track, are limited.

I don't want to lose a feature like Graham Hill Bend, but known risks cannot be ignored.

[David McKinney]

In that case, best close the whole circuit. And every other circuit in Britain. And the world

All circuits are dangerous, given the wrong set of circumstances

[jatwarks]

In that case, best close the whole circuit. And every other circuit in Britain. And the world

All circuits are dangerous, given the wrong set of circumstances

That's an eventually that will be possible, decided by non-racing people, if action is not taken to limit known risks.

If a driver died, suffered a loss of income or was subject to an expensive insurance/assurance claim by an unsympathetic family, due to falling victim to a known risk at a circuit that had not been attended to by the owners, then you would get your wish.

Welcome to the 21st century.

[Stephen W]

I've just watched the TV coverage on ITV4 of the second Clio Cup race at Brands. The accident at the exit of Graham Hill Bend is exactly why the layout needs to be reviewed.

The potential for a head-on impact with the barrier behind the pits is unacceptable.

The proposed changes might not be popular, but available alternatives, that shift points of impact away from that location, and preferably towards the left hand side of the track, are limited.

I don't want to lose a feature like Graham Hill Bend, but known risks cannot be ignored.

In that case, best close the whole circuit. And every other circuit in Britain. And the world

All circuits are dangerous, given the wrong set of circumstances

That's an eventually that will be possible, decided by non-racing people, if action is not taken to limit known risks.

If a driver died, suffered a loss of income or was subject to an expensive insurance/assurance claim by an unsympathetic family, due to falling victim to a known risk at a circuit that had not been attended to by the owners, then you would get your wish.

Welcome to the 21st century.

I have to say I find Jatwarks comments ill informed. If you want to remove the problem of a "head-on impact" with a crash barrier then there are more ways than re-routing the circuit to achieve this. Maybe if the racers didn't leave the tarmac then there wouldn't be a problem!

[David Lawson]

I don't know about the legal ramifications of a circuit's responsibilities but as Brands Hatch is an inspected, approved and licensed track it surely can do very little else.

Under Palmer's excellent management the track and facilities have been constantly improved over the last few years.

What was patently obvious from the racing yesterday at Brands was the high number of crashes caused by drivers using this current day technique of deliberatley tagging the rear of the car in front to cause it to spin. Safety is the responsibility of everyone concerned not just the circuit owners.

David

[jatwarks]

I have to say I find Jatwarks comments ill informed. If you want to remove the problem of a "head-on impact" with a crash barrier then there are more ways than re-routing the circuit to achieve this.

If I may quote myself from a previous post;

The proposed changes might not be popular, but available alternatives, that shift points of impact away from that location, and preferably towards the left hand side of the track, are limited.

Driver behaviour may contribute greatly to the danger, but penalising offenders will not protect the circuit owners in the event of a serious accident. I believe that drivers in the races at the weekend were penalised for running too wide at that point. Clearly for the very reason that we are discussing.

Accidents do happen; it's the responsibility of the circuit management to ensure that the consequences of accidents are not unacceptable.

[Russell Burrows]

If I may quote myself from a previous post;

Driver behaviour may contribute greatly to the danger, but penalising offenders will not protect the circuit owners in the event of a serious accident. I believe that drivers in the races at the weekend were penalised for running too wide at that point. Clearly for the very reason that we are discussing.

Accidents do happen; it's the responsibility of the circuit management to ensure that the consequences of accidents are not unacceptable.

Are you what the young people call a troll?

[Macca]

The corrollary of ignoring a known point of hazard would be to introduce a change which has been identified as more dangerous...............which is what most drivers and riders have said about the proposed new tightened Graham Hill Bend.

If, after having been warned, the owners alter that corner and someone is then injured in the type of accident that was predicted, could he sue?

Paul M

[BRG]

If, after having been warned, the owners alter that corner and someone is then injured in the type of accident that was predicted, could he sue?

Paul M

If he wanted to waste his money on paying his and the circuit owners' legal fees, then yes, he could sue. The judge would tell him that if he knew it was dangerous but still went a ahead and raced, it was his own fault.

Anyway, any claim that the current G. Hill bend is dangerous are very ill-founded. Clio drivers famously will manage to hit something whatever safety measures are put in place. No-one else hits the barrier there.

[jatwarks]

If he wanted to waste his money on paying his and the circuit owners' legal fees, then yes, he could sue. The judge would tell him that if he knew it was dangerous but still went a ahead and raced, it was his own fault.

Anyway, any claim that the current G. Hill bend is dangerous are very ill-founded. Clio drivers famously will manage to hit something whatever safety measures are put in place. No-one else hits the barrier there.

I'll leave you alone after this; clearly, none of you is a lawyer.

The circuit owners have an obligation to protect drivers from themselves.

Signing disclaimers does not clear the circuit owners of the responsibility for drivers' safety.

Potential danger only has to be realised once.

I'm certainly not a troll, I'm just trying to explain why the situation needs to be reviewed.

Jonathon Palmer, and his team, have obviously reviewed the situation themselves and decided they need to protect themselves.

[Russell Burrows]

I'll leave you alone after this; clearly, none of you is a lawyer.

The circuit owners have an obligation to protect drivers from themselves.

Signing disclaimers does not clear the circuit owners of the responsibility for drivers' safety.

Potential danger only has to be realised once.

I'm certainly not a troll, I'm just trying to explain why the situation needs to be reviewed.

Jonathon Palmer, and his team, have obviously reviewed the situation themselves and decided they need to protect themselves.

So, 120 years after motor racing began, suddenly the safety imperative determines Jonathan Palmer must turn our race tracks into something entirely other ? What happened that led us so suddenly into this unfortunate situation ?

[BRG]

Jonathon Palmer, and his team, have obviously reviewed the situation themselves and decided they need to protect themselves.

The proposed changes are NOTHING to do with circuit safety. The rationale that MSV have advanced is about providing a better overtaking opportunity. If MSV was really accepting your bizarre view, they would be closing all their race tracks and converting them to pasture.

[Allan Lupton]

Channel-chopping, I happened to see some racing at Brands bash on the TV yesterday. The saloon car racers that I saw were operating it as a contact sport so there was a lot more going off than I remember from the old days when driver safety was more marginal. To me the whole idea of motor racing includes coping with the demands of the circuit and the presence of other competitors.
Digressing slightly the commentators and screen graphics gave drivers' and the entrants' names but the graphics never named the make of car and the commentators rarely did so. Strange world where one of the only cars recognisable was a BMW which was referred to as eBay Motors.

[David McKinney]

Did they refer to The Number 5 Car and the Number 72 car instead? A modern trend which has been slated on this forum before, and which to me seems a mindless import from the other side of the Atlantic

[Allan Lupton]

Did they refer to The Number 5 Car and the Number 72 car instead? A modern trend which has been slated on this forum before, and which to me seems a mindless import from the other side of the Atlantic

No, probably because the numbers were almost as hard to see as they are on effone cars.