Jump to content


Photo

Brands Hatch under threat


  • Please log in to reply
56 replies to this topic

#1 Russell Burrows

Russell Burrows
  • Member

  • 6,253 posts
  • Joined: December 07

Posted 20 December 2011 - 11:23

Guys, just in case any of you based outside of Britain are not aware, there are proposals before the local council to 'bus stop' Brands Hatch. Since it's one of the few unscrewed up and historic circuits still around, and the reasons for such change appear to have more to do with a cheap way of lengthening the circuit rather than those stated on the planning application of increased safety/overtaking opportunities, many here are not best pleased. Since many of you out there know and love Brands, and you don't have to be a resident to object to this crazy plan, you can add your comment here:

http://pa.sevenoaks....l=LTCRIABK8V000

http://www.stevespla...brandshatch.pdf
[/quote]

Edited by Russell Burrows, 28 December 2011 - 23:12.


Advertisement

#2 dixie

dixie
  • Member

  • 65 posts
  • Joined: October 09

Posted 20 December 2011 - 12:07

Guys, just in case any of you based outside of Britain are not aware, there are proposals before the local council to 'bus stop' Brands Hatch. Since it's one of the few unfucked up and historic circuits still around, and the reasons for such change appear to have more to do with a cheap way of lengthening the circuit, rather than those stated on the planning application of increased safety/overtaking opportunities, many here are not best pleased. Since many of you out there know and love Brands, and you don't have to be a resident to object to this crazy plan, you can add your comment here:

http://pa.sevenoaks....l=LTCRIABK8V000

http://www.stevespla...brandshatch.pdf

Just registered my objection.

#3 Russell Burrows

Russell Burrows
  • Member

  • 6,253 posts
  • Joined: December 07

Posted 21 December 2011 - 11:43

Guys, just in case any of you based outside of Britain are not aware, there are proposals before the local council to 'bus stop' Brands Hatch. Since it's one of the few unscrewed up and historic circuits still around, and the reasons for such change appear to have more to do with a cheap way of lengthening the circuit, rather than those stated on the planning application of increased safety/overtaking opportunities, many here are not best pleased. Since many of you out there know and love Brands, and you don't have to be a resident to object to this crazy plan, you can add your comment here:

http://pa.sevenoaks....l=LTCRIABK8V000

http://www.stevespla...brandshatch.pdf


There's only a few days left before the decision is made, Gentlemen. Surprisingly, we have only 21 objections thus far - none in agreement - but it's not exactly a flood of protest. All you dudes who raced/visited there back in the day, surely you have a view on yet another classic circuit being stuffed ? You don't have to live here to make your views known. Please take a couple of minutes to make your comment here:
http://pa.sevenoaks....l=LTCRIABK8V000

Edited by Russell Burrows, 21 December 2011 - 11:53.


#4 picblanc

picblanc
  • Member

  • 12,529 posts
  • Joined: October 06

Posted 21 December 2011 - 17:49

I must admit I find it amazing how few people on this forum & the car forum seem to care & the rest could not seem to care a jot?
Especially as this is a Nostalgia forum, so by the same token they must be happy with the 'radical' changes?........ confused I am. :confused:

#5 RC162

RC162
  • Member

  • 332 posts
  • Joined: December 10

Posted 21 December 2011 - 19:10


21 objections should be more than enough if one objection can shut down Carnaby and two objections can cause a whole heap load of trouble for Snetterton then the day must be won already ( NOT )

#6 graham houlihan

graham houlihan
  • Member

  • 356 posts
  • Joined: August 09

Posted 21 December 2011 - 19:11

I must admit I find it amazing how few people on this forum & the car forum seem to care & the rest could not seem to care a jot?
Especially as this is a Nostalgia forum, so by the same token they must be happy with the 'radical' changes?........ confused I am. :confused:



I've tried to put a comment, but it won't register. Maybe 'cos I'm a foreigner ! Will try again... Do comments appear straight away once you've up loaded them?

#7 dommieracer

dommieracer
  • Member

  • 216 posts
  • Joined: March 10

Posted 21 December 2011 - 19:43

Well, 2 more objections just sent in, one being myself as a former racer and one that will be returning next year and the other being my father who is all for improvement but not this ' macabre act ' i think thats what he called it.

Kevin

#8 picblanc

picblanc
  • Member

  • 12,529 posts
  • Joined: October 06

Posted 21 December 2011 - 20:16

21 objections should be more than enough if one objection can shut down Carnaby and two objections can cause a whole heap load of trouble for Snetterton then the day must be won already ( NOT )


That was a noise issue by ***** who buy a home next to a race track then complain its a bit noisy! Unbelievably they win!!!

#9 Tonka

Tonka
  • Member

  • 834 posts
  • Joined: November 11

Posted 21 December 2011 - 21:30

I've tried to put a comment, but it won't register. Maybe 'cos I'm a foreigner ! Will try again... Do comments appear straight away once you've up loaded them?


The comments are checked by the council - then posted. Otherwise we'd be reading exactly what people think about the 'improvements' !




#10 rd500

rd500
  • Member

  • 474 posts
  • Joined: August 09

Posted 22 December 2011 - 09:53

i put my comments on a while ago and they didnt show up at all so i hope they got them, as you say graham its total ignorance for people to buy homes next to race tracks then demand they be closed.
we have had endless trouble with this at my local tracks. motocross and road racing.

#11 Russell Burrows

Russell Burrows
  • Member

  • 6,253 posts
  • Joined: December 07

Posted 22 December 2011 - 13:46

i put my comments on a while ago and they didnt show up at all so i hope they got them, as you say graham its total ignorance for people to buy homes next to race tracks then demand they be closed.
we have had endless trouble with this at my local tracks. motocross and road racing.


If it didn't appear, you can send another one - I did after I sent the wrong copy, and both are still up there.


#12 rd500

rd500
  • Member

  • 474 posts
  • Joined: August 09

Posted 22 December 2011 - 14:09

thanks russell, that might be why it didnt show up, ill put it on again. cheers

#13 fil2.8

fil2.8
  • Member

  • 19,493 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 22 December 2011 - 22:06

Now registered my thoughts :up: , come on crew , not a lot of time left to have your say !!!!

#14 Russell Burrows

Russell Burrows
  • Member

  • 6,253 posts
  • Joined: December 07

Posted 24 December 2011 - 16:30

I must admit I find it amazing how few people on this forum & the car forum seem to care & the rest could not seem to care a jot?
Especially as this is a Nostalgia forum, so by the same token they must be happy with the 'radical' changes?........ confused I am. :confused:


Fret not, Graham: English Heritage have told me we should have more than enough objections to ensure the plans are decided at planning committee level, rather than going through on the nod. As I understand it, this should take some time. EH have also been helpful with other advice.  ;)

#15 fil2.8

fil2.8
  • Member

  • 19,493 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 24 December 2011 - 17:37

Fret not, Graham: English Heritage have told me we should have more than enough objections to ensure the plans are decided at planning committee level, rather than going through on the nod. As I understand it, this should take some time. EH have also been helpful with other advice. ;)



Pleased to hear that , Russ :up:

#16 picblanc

picblanc
  • Member

  • 12,529 posts
  • Joined: October 06

Posted 24 December 2011 - 17:51

Fret not, Graham: English Heritage have told me we should have more than enough objections to ensure the plans are decided at planning committee level, rather than going through on the nod. As I understand it, this should take some time. EH have also been helpful with other advice. ;)


Lets hope so Russ, thanks for the info matey! :up: :wave:

#17 zxrman

zxrman
  • New Member

  • 27 posts
  • Joined: October 10

Posted 29 December 2011 - 17:04

Just added my views on the council website - here's hoping !

Mark

#18 Russell Burrows

Russell Burrows
  • Member

  • 6,253 posts
  • Joined: December 07

Posted 29 December 2011 - 18:12

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.

Edited by Russell Burrows, 29 December 2011 - 18:13.


#19 dommieracer

dommieracer
  • Member

  • 216 posts
  • Joined: March 10

Posted 30 December 2011 - 14:20

Well thats just like the SDC that i knew when i lived in sevenoaks, fill in the forms before the deadline for a company that can use bully tactics over the amount of revenue it brings in and employment. Not that a change of the track layout makes a difference to either.

Kevin ( disgusted ) :mad:

Advertisement

#20 mfd

mfd
  • Member

  • 2,889 posts
  • Joined: May 03

Posted 01 January 2012 - 14:02

Ladies and Gents. After trying repeatedly...

Russell, there's some chap on the TNF thread saying "take my word for it, isn't going to happen"
I don't get it :confused:

#21 Russell Burrows

Russell Burrows
  • Member

  • 6,253 posts
  • Joined: December 07

Posted 01 January 2012 - 16:25

Russell, there's some chap on the TNF thread saying "take my word for it, isn't going to happen"
I don't get it :confused:


Another 'insider' who won't reveal his sources. . Someone else is quoting a car mag as reporting the plan as part of some other scheme.



#22 Russell Burrows

Russell Burrows
  • Member

  • 6,253 posts
  • Joined: December 07

Posted 02 January 2012 - 17:00

Apart from the indifference shown buy lots of you old racers/fans towards the Brands issue, I was depressed too by the stance of Bemsee. I contacted them in the expectation that they too would see the inappropriateness of two 1st gear corners on such an historic circuit, and that they might like to join the lobby against the proposal. But not a bit of it. For them, Palmer has been responsible for on going improvements at the various circuits with which he is involved, citing Snetterton as a wonderful example. They claim too that there is no dissent on the Brands 'improvements' from any of their members. I think I too often forget that spotty youths are now running the world.

I've been in contact with some of the local councillors in an attempt to get them to follow their own policies and have the issue placed before the planning committee. The EH issue is on-going too.

Edited by Russell Burrows, 02 January 2012 - 17:03.


#23 Herr Wankel

Herr Wankel
  • Member

  • 885 posts
  • Joined: January 08

Posted 02 January 2012 - 17:56

Apart from the indifference shown buy lots of you old racers/fans towards the Brands issue, I was depressed too by the stance of Bemsee. I contacted them in the expectation that they too would see the inappropriateness of two 1st gear corners on such an historic circuit, and that they might like to join the lobby against the proposal. But not a bit of it. For them, Palmer has been responsible for on going improvements at the various circuits with which he is involved, citing Snetterton as a wonderful example. They claim too that there is no dissent on the Brands 'improvements' from any of their members. I think I too often forget that spotty youths are now running the world.

I've been in contact with some of the local councillors in an attempt to get them to follow their own policies and have the issue placed before the planning committee. The EH issue is on-going too.


Hmm,us dinosaurs are a dying breed I think ! If Mallory (my former local circuit) is anything to go by it won't be long before Brands is buggered too. :mad: (I put my 2 centimes worth forward on the council site)

HW

#24 picblanc

picblanc
  • Member

  • 12,529 posts
  • Joined: October 06

Posted 09 January 2012 - 09:42

Got a letter from Sevenoaks council this morning, saying plans now amended here is link to amended plan.
http://pa.sevenoaks....l=LTCRIABK8V000

This one keeps to original circuit integrity I feel.

Edited by picblanc, 09 January 2012 - 09:44.


#25 picblanc

picblanc
  • Member

  • 12,529 posts
  • Joined: October 06

Posted 09 January 2012 - 11:01

Probably coz it looks (is?) the same as now!?

#26 fil2.8

fil2.8
  • Member

  • 19,493 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 09 January 2012 - 12:36

Probably coz it looks (is?) the same as now!?



yes it does my learned fiend , just takes the action further away from the spectators , I think :rolleyes:

#27 dixie

dixie
  • Member

  • 65 posts
  • Joined: October 09

Posted 09 January 2012 - 14:17

Probably coz it looks (is?) the same as now!?

It's much better than the previous proposal but what's the point?

#28 Russell Burrows

Russell Burrows
  • Member

  • 6,253 posts
  • Joined: December 07

Posted 09 January 2012 - 15:28

Like many bureaucracies, particularly it seems of the local government variety, 7Oaks likes to obfuscate - I think it makes them feel powerful. So, as I understand it, the proposal remains current. The amendment referred to in their letter is not to alter the circuit into something approximating the corner's current profile, it's due to Palmer having to re- submit the same proposal due to what amounts to the breach of a technicality in the original plans. It's a dreadful plan of the current layout, but the design as set on the council's website, is the circuit as it presently is.

The council have also said to me that many of the comments critical of the plan would never have been considered due to them being timed out. You will recall they continued to allow comment to be added to their site, one on which the decision date could be found only after exhaustive searching. The council have said too that as Graham Hill Bend was changed only recently, then any application made to protect the site via English Heritage will not cover this proposal. As many will know, the corner was altered slightly in the mid seventies, so not very recently at all. Quite why the council have usurped the function of English Heritage on the issue by deciding which parts of any protection given to Brands would be viable, is something of mystery and all a bit worrying. This is particular so, since the application to EH largely argued the proposed changes would destroy the character of our oldest, continously used, purpose built, motor sport venue.



#29 Robin127

Robin127
  • Member

  • 378 posts
  • Joined: May 10

Posted 09 January 2012 - 18:11

....The council have said too that as Graham Hill Bend was changed only recently, then any application made to protect the site via English Heritage will not cover this proposal. As many will know, the corner was altered slightly in the mid seventies, so not very recently at all...


Paddock Hill Bend was altered in the mid-70's. Graham Hill (Bottom Bend) was changed sometime between 1995 and 1999, the last two times I raced there.


#30 Russell Burrows

Russell Burrows
  • Member

  • 6,253 posts
  • Joined: December 07

Posted 09 January 2012 - 18:40

Paddock Hill Bend was altered in the mid-70's. Graham Hill (Bottom Bend) was changed sometime between 1995 and 1999, the last two times I raced there.

Yes, Graham has reminded me that they made further limited alterations to Bottom Bend about five years or so ago. Paddock, isn't an issue, yet. Of course, unlike the other mods on the orginial course, the latest proposal is for radically new sections that bear no resemblance to the line of the original corner.

#31 rd500

rd500
  • Member

  • 474 posts
  • Joined: August 09

Posted 09 January 2012 - 22:47

got my letter from them today also, there doesn't seem much point in what they want to do now.

Edited by rd500, 09 January 2012 - 22:48.


#32 Russell Burrows

Russell Burrows
  • Member

  • 6,253 posts
  • Joined: December 07

Posted 09 January 2012 - 23:17

got my letter from them today also, there doesn't seem much point in what they want to do now.

Hi rd, They're not doing anything differently. The same plan has bee re- submitted due, they say, to planning procedure not being followed properly.

#33 Tonka

Tonka
  • Member

  • 834 posts
  • Joined: November 11

Posted 10 January 2012 - 15:48

Wonder if Palmer has got the message ? I'm surprised no top line bike or car competitor has made comments publicly about the changes. I'd be surprised if everyone is happy with the roundabout.





#34 mfd

mfd
  • Member

  • 2,889 posts
  • Joined: May 03

Posted 12 January 2012 - 23:16

Wonder if Palmer has got the message ?


I doubt it

http://www.autosport...rt.php/id/96977


#35 picblanc

picblanc
  • Member

  • 12,529 posts
  • Joined: October 06

Posted 13 January 2012 - 10:38

I doubt it

http://www.autosport...rt.php/id/96977


Nice to get a mention!

#36 Tonka

Tonka
  • Member

  • 834 posts
  • Joined: November 11

Posted 13 January 2012 - 10:43

Surprised he's not talking about using computer simulation to if his great idea would work.



#37 Classicpics

Classicpics
  • Member

  • 431 posts
  • Joined: December 06

Posted 14 January 2012 - 22:03

Nice to get a mention!


So it's cars only at Brands then?

#38 drumwrecker

drumwrecker
  • Member

  • 48 posts
  • Joined: April 11

Posted 23 January 2012 - 19:51

From what I can make of it they want to put it back to how it was see picture from site Bottom bend

#39 Russell Burrows

Russell Burrows
  • Member

  • 6,253 posts
  • Joined: December 07

Posted 23 January 2012 - 21:16

From what I can make of it they want to put it back to how it was see picture from site Bottom bend


If only - as explained previously, the proposal remains as per originally submitted. The council required Palmer's outfit to resubmit the plan due only to an irregularity with the paperwork. Objectors have until Jan 26 to make their comments on the council website, or by letter. The council will decide the issue on or after this date.

Advertisement

#40 Russell Burrows

Russell Burrows
  • Member

  • 6,253 posts
  • Joined: December 07

Posted 25 January 2012 - 18:20

From the Bunker.

Situation Report:

Today is the very last opportunity for anyone to object to Palmer's insane plans. Just to be crystal clear: there is no putting Bottom Bend back as it was, nor do they intend to alter it to approximate the original corner profile. Rather, from tomorrow the council will consider the same proposal that gave us all an attack of the vapours when we first saw it - i.e. those freaking ridiculous 1st gear bus stop type corners being built beyond the current Grahan Hill Bend.

The Council appear to be onside, that is on Palmer's side, or maybe it's the indignant tone of the emails I've had from them. They have told me he included stuff in his re-submitted proposal to show bottom bend had been changed previously and therefore had no claim to historical significance, precisely because of our objections. This of course, is entirely misleading since unlike his proposal, any mods completed there have essentially followed the same contour of the corner. The council though seem to think Palmer's claim is really significant.

In an effort to get the proposal at least discussed at planning committee level, I've contacted three councillors who it was thought might be sympathetic, None has deigned to respond.

Bemsee I've mentioned previously. :mad: I contacted Steve Parrish, who's agin it and said he would try to speak to Palmer, but as yet nothing from him.

I wrote an application to English Heritage who say they're now considering this. The council seem pretty unimpressed by this and appear to be saying (they correspond in this curious pseudo legalise) that they'll decide the issue regardless.

The council's site remains open for comment and anyone is perfectly entitled to post more than once (Palmer is effectively doing precisely this). References to Palmer's absured claims re earlier changes to bottom bend and the perversity of the council deciding the issue without waiting for EH to pronounce, could be helpful. You could also chuck in the justice of having the issue decided by the planning committee rather than a lone council dude.





#41 RC162

RC162
  • Member

  • 332 posts
  • Joined: December 10

Posted 25 January 2012 - 20:26

Just to add my sixpence worth. Is it at all possible that this is being done to lengthen the circuit with a view to selling off the back section or part of it ? This came up several years ago but then fizzled out. This council seems to be giving this application a nice straight run and seems to have allowed confusion with the placing of previous circuit changes on their website. From what I have read on this topic my feeling is that people are being steered in one direction and that legitimate concern is being buried. The only time this happens is when both parties tend to be in a positon do very well out of it.

#42 Tonka

Tonka
  • Member

  • 834 posts
  • Joined: November 11

Posted 26 January 2012 - 20:41

If they were to sell off the long circuit for houses, the new homes would be even closer to the short circuit and the compliaints would start all over again. There is a slight hill from the short to the long circuit, this with the trees, helps cut down on the noise.



#43 dommieracer

dommieracer
  • Member

  • 216 posts
  • Joined: March 10

Posted 24 February 2012 - 01:01

Hi all,

I have had an email from JP himself stating the following.

'The current Graham Hill bend is not very historic – it was changed to its current layout in 1988!

We will only make it better overall if we change it, don’t worry!

Yours JP.'

I must admit that i last raced at brands in 1999 and at no time did i slam on the brakes and slow right down to take the wide line thru Graham Hill bend. As far as i and the other racers we came out of Druids leaning right, flowed over the right of the track and went left in a smooth (ish) flow. I would have thought that Mr Palmer would know when the track was changed as he is the owner, wouldnt you?

Kevin




#44 rd500

rd500
  • Member

  • 474 posts
  • Joined: August 09

Posted 24 February 2012 - 01:20

'The current Graham Hill bend is not very historic – it was changed to its current layout in 1988!

slightly amended a few times mabye but this "change for the better" is going to change the whole style of the circuit.


#45 picblanc

picblanc
  • Member

  • 12,529 posts
  • Joined: October 06

Posted 24 February 2012 - 09:17

It was still the same in 1996 (constant radius apex?)

#46 tonyed

tonyed
  • Member

  • 478 posts
  • Joined: July 09

Posted 25 February 2012 - 10:10

Just received a letter from Sevenoaks District Council.

'The Council has completed its consideration of this application and has taken into account the comments you made. The Council has decided on the planning merits that the application should be granted.'

This is yet another abominable misuse of the word ‘its’ without an apostrophe after the s to denote ownership. :eek: If Sevenoaks Council are unable to use the English language correctly how can they make judgement on planning applications. I demand that they should resign immediately. :clap:


#47 ChiliFan

ChiliFan
  • Member

  • 150 posts
  • Joined: March 07

Posted 25 February 2012 - 10:47

It was still the same in 1996 (constant radius apex?)


They made it into the slightly sharper corner we see now in the winter of 1998/99.

#48 Russell Burrows

Russell Burrows
  • Member

  • 6,253 posts
  • Joined: December 07

Posted 25 February 2012 - 11:04

Just received a letter from Sevenoaks District Council.

'The Council has completed its consideration of this application and has taken into account the comments you made. The Council has decided on the planning merits that the application should be granted.'

This is yet another abominable misuse of the word ‘its’ without an apostrophe after the s to denote ownership. :eek: If Sevenoaks Council are unable to use the English language correctly how can they make judgement on planning applications. I demand that they should resign immediately. :clap:


Yes, they flagged the not entirely unexpected decision from at least yesterday on their site. The EH application remains live.

Tony, don't ever take up proof reading.

#49 Amphicar

Amphicar
  • Member

  • 1,876 posts
  • Joined: December 10

Posted 25 February 2012 - 18:09

Just received a letter from Sevenoaks District Council.

'The Council has completed its consideration of this application and has taken into account the comments you made. The Council has decided on the planning merits that the application should be granted.'

This is yet another abominable misuse of the word ‘its’ without an apostrophe after the s to denote ownership. :eek: If Sevenoaks Council are unable to use the English language correctly how can they make judgement on planning applications. I demand that they should resign immediately. :clap:

Actually, it's you who is using the English language incorrectly. I quote from the OED:

It’s or its?

These two words can cause a lot of confusion: many people are uncertain about whether or not to use an apostrophe. These are the rules to remember:

* its (without an apostrophe) means ‘belonging to it’:
The dog wagged its tail.
Each case is judged on its own merits.

* it’s (with an apostrophe) means ‘it is’ or ‘it has’:
It’s been a long day.
It’s cold outside.
It’s a comfortable car and it’s got some great gadgets.


#50 tonyed

tonyed
  • Member

  • 478 posts
  • Joined: July 09

Posted 26 February 2012 - 07:39

Actually, it's you who is using the English language incorrectly. I quote from the OED:

It’s or its?

These two words can cause a lot of confusion: many people are uncertain about whether or not to use an apostrophe. These are the rules to remember:

* its (without an apostrophe) means ‘belonging to it’:
The dog wagged its tail.
Each case is judged on its own merits.

* it’s (with an apostrophe) means ‘it is’ or ‘it has’:
It’s been a long day.
It’s cold outside.
It’s a comfortable car and it’s got some great gadgets.


Much controversy over this in the Guardian some time ago.

The decision of the readers was that the OED is incorrect in its' use and that the apostrophe after the s is used to denote ownership.

Don't forget that dictionaries are often incorrect and that there can be several useages of the same language indicator for different purposes.

It still does not mean, however you interpret this, that Sevenoaks Council should not resign.