Jump to content


Ian G

Member Since 22 Sep 2011
Offline Last Active Today, 07:49 PM

Posts I've Made

In Topic: UK Ovals not running Brisca F1

11 October 2019 - 07:16 PM

We need tracks, shale or tarmac.
Scunthorpe is not easy to get to... if you live where i do!
So Aldershot, Ringwood and Bristol will do nicely thanks.

In Topic: Skegness - Saturday 12th & Sunday 13th October 2019

11 October 2019 - 07:13 PM

Ex-Chris Bonner car?
It must have had one refurb after another as the original width surely had be trimmed down after 'Axle-gate'.

In Topic: Coventry Stadium

03 October 2019 - 05:41 PM

Sorry guys and gals, its gone and it wont be coming back. Stoke and Belle Vue are the next two in line to go in the next couple of months. Start looking forward for new opportunities and options, not pipe dreams of glory days. The future is tarmac based or not at all.


I'm pretty sure people would be happy enough to move on.... but please do remind us what these new opportunities and options are exactly for the future?
Swaffham next year?!

There's good reason why folk cannot just let Coventry go.

In Topic: Coventry Stadium

02 October 2019 - 05:48 PM

 

This is a very positive development for Coventry and other stadiums under threat from planning applications being submitted to develop the land on which they stand.
The independent report, as i read it, says that paragraphs 97a and 97b of the National Planning Policy Framework document have to be complied with.  This essentially says that the developer has to prove that the stadium is surplus to requirement or that (if they wish to proceed with re-development) then they must provide and equivalent facility. 
 
In the case of Coventry, the developer has not proven that it is surplus to requirement.  They haven't met the requirement of paragraph 97a and so, if they wish to proceed, must comply with 97b and provide an equivalent facility.
 
Not the end of the road but encouraging news indeed.

This is essentially what I read into it too. However at what time i wonder was the National Planning Policy Framework adhered to in respect of Wimbledon or will be adhered to for Stoke or Belle Vue?


 
 
Hi Ian,
I can't comment on Wimbledon, but, in my opinion, the independent reports conclusion that Paragraph 97a and 97b of the National Planning Policy Framework document must be adhered to definitely has positive implications for Belle Vue.  The stadium is clearly not "surplus to requirement" so the developer cannot comply with 97a.  If they do want to develop the land, then they must comply with 97b and provide an equivalent or better facility.
I have written to Jeni Regan (the Case Officer for the Planning Application at Belle Vue) to point this out.  I have also sent the information to the MP for Manchester Gorton and to the Longsight Councillors.
If anyone would like to email them, send me a PM if you want contact details, it can only help to show support for the campaign to save Belle Vue.

Thank you Andy.
Good work 👍

In Topic: Coventry Stadium

01 October 2019 - 11:10 PM

This is a very positive development for Coventry and other stadiums under threat from planning applications being submitted to develop the land on which they stand.
The independent report, as i read it, says that paragraphs 97a and 97b of the National Planning Policy Framework document have to be complied with.  This essentially says that the developer has to prove that the stadium is surplus to requirement or that (if they wish to proceed with re-development) then they must provide and equivalent facility. 
 
In the case of Coventry, the developer has not proven that it is surplus to requirement.  They haven't met the requirement of paragraph 97a and so, if they wish to proceed, must comply with 97b and provide an equivalent facility.
 
Not the end of the road but encouraging news indeed.


This is essentially what I read into it too. However at what time i wonder was the National Planning Policy Framework adhered to in respect of Wimbledon or will be adhered to for Stoke or Belle Vue?

I hold on to a theory, part dream, that racing could return to Coventry if/when the council force some sort of resale. Except due to H&S, the mountain of red tape and all important cash needed, I can't see the actual stadium being much improved to what stands there today, so it will be basic compared to what we remember to say the least. That includes a condemned grandstand and top bar and running in daylight due to someone chopping down the floodlights!

If planning is rejected outright and its proven not to be surplus to requirements it isn't feasibly impossible for racing to return. After all there is a 'track' still there. To me thats a more realistic outlook than hoping for a new site and new track to appear somewhere in the Rugby/Warwickshire countryside.