RE: Mallory Park's future in doubt
Discussion
Krikkit said:
Bloody disgusting. Who the hell moves next to a racetrack and complains about the noise? That's like moving next to Heathrow and whinging about the planes!
Well said that man, exactly what I've just said to a work colleague.I live a couple of villages away from Goodwood and they have similar issues, rest assured that when my Wife sells her company we will be looking to buy one of said houses around / near the circuit, and frankly they can TURN THE NOISE TO MAXIMUM.
RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR
One reason to buy another TVR, decat it, sleeve the exhausts and drive past at 5000rpm
FurtiveFreddy said:
Why don't you tell us all what they say if they haven't contributed in the public domain? If the information is factual, there is nothing to stop you.
Well this one has commented in public I live in the village of Barlestone (look it up) yah sure some times I hear the odd race day but when I moved to the area 16 years ago Mallory was one of the draws for me a race circuit on my doorstep bloody great!Hinckley and Bosworth council have told us during various planning hearings that there is a shortage of housing in the area to meet the demand shown by their own polls taken in the borough. In fact I had yet another one of their questionnaires just the other week due to a planning application put forward for 49 houses in Barlestone.
The fact remains Mallory has an unsustainable model with the 1980,s agreement. The locals with the backing of the local council will not allow them to increase the days when they can use the track.
No one is going to operate at a loss so the track will close and the track owner (who it seems is not willing to take less money in rental) will be left with an asset making no income and possibly costing them in rates/security costs etc.
Unless the owners can find someone to run Mallory who do not need to make a profit (big hint there) they will sell . Now no farmer is going to buy the land as it would cost to much to return it to green fields
so it will either stand empty and the 3.147keys will move in (for some reason we are over run with them here)or it will be developed which means housing as you cannot develop the site for industrial use due to the restrictions on the roads in and out of Mallory.
so well done residents of Mallory you have not only removed a historic race track you have screwed your own village as well I will look on and laugh my socks off in the coming years as they b
h and moan.citizensm1th said:
FurtiveFreddy said:
Why don't you tell us all what they say if they haven't contributed in the public domain? If the information is factual, there is nothing to stop you.
Well this one has commented in public I live in the village of Barlestone (look it up) yah sure some times I hear the odd race day but when I moved to the area 16 years ago Mallory was one of the draws for me a race circuit on my doorstep bloody great!Hinckley and Bosworth council have told us during various planning hearings that there is a shortage of housing in the area to meet the demand shown by their own polls taken in the borough. In fact I had yet another one of their questionnaires just the other week due to a planning application put forward for 49 houses in Barlestone.
The fact remains Mallory has an unsustainable model with the 1980,s agreement. The locals with the backing of the local council will not allow them to increase the days when they can use the track.
No one is going to operate at a loss so the track will close and the track owner (who it seems is not willing to take less money in rental) will be left with an asset making no income and possibly costing them in rates/security costs etc.
Unless the owners can find someone to run Mallory who do not need to make a profit (big hint there) they will sell . Now no farmer is going to buy the land as it would cost to much to return it to green fields
so it will either stand empty and the 3.147keys will move in (for some reason we are over run with them here)or it will be developed which means housing as you cannot develop the site for industrial use due to the restrictions on the roads in and out of Mallory.
so well done residents of Mallory you have not only removed a historic race track you have screwed your own village as well I will look on and laugh my socks off in the coming years as they b
h and moan.
Evo said:
citizensm1th said:
FurtiveFreddy said:
Why don't you tell us all what they say if they haven't contributed in the public domain? If the information is factual, there is nothing to stop you.
Well this one has commented in public I live in the village of Barlestone (look it up) yah sure some times I hear the odd race day but when I moved to the area 16 years ago Mallory was one of the draws for me a race circuit on my doorstep bloody great!Hinckley and Bosworth council have told us during various planning hearings that there is a shortage of housing in the area to meet the demand shown by their own polls taken in the borough. In fact I had yet another one of their questionnaires just the other week due to a planning application put forward for 49 houses in Barlestone.
The fact remains Mallory has an unsustainable model with the 1980,s agreement. The locals with the backing of the local council will not allow them to increase the days when they can use the track.
No one is going to operate at a loss so the track will close and the track owner (who it seems is not willing to take less money in rental) will be left with an asset making no income and possibly costing them in rates/security costs etc.
Unless the owners can find someone to run Mallory who do not need to make a profit (big hint there) they will sell . Now no farmer is going to buy the land as it would cost to much to return it to green fields
so it will either stand empty and the 3.147keys will move in (for some reason we are over run with them here)or it will be developed which means housing as you cannot develop the site for industrial use due to the restrictions on the roads in and out of Mallory.
so well done residents of Mallory you have not only removed a historic race track you have screwed your own village as well I will look on and laugh my socks off in the coming years as they b
h and moan.C
CraigyMc said:
The rumour is/was 2200 homes, which would likely mean about 200-300 "affordable" ones.
C
there is a current planning consultation for a further 1200 homes in earl shilton and I know for a fact the county archaeologist has been digging test pits on the village side of the by-pass as I spoke to them just after they uncovered a bronze age ditch containing some pottery and with Mallory's misplaced reputation for being a posh village developers like Charles church would snap the landowners hands off to get hold of MPC
citizensm1th said:
CraigyMc said:
The rumour is/was 2200 homes, which would likely mean about 200-300 "affordable" ones.
C
there is a current planning consultation for a further 1200 homes in earl shilton and I know for a fact the county archaeologist has been digging test pits on the village side of the by-pass as I spoke to them just after they uncovered a bronze age ditch containing some pottery and with Mallory's misplaced reputation for being a posh village developers like Charles church would snap the landowners hands off to get hold of MPC
I'd like to point out the 2200 home thing is just a rumour - I've not seen any plans.
I did see a story saying it'd only cost £8m for the land, which is wrong whichever way you slice it. The land would be worth upwards of 25x that.
C
I have no local interest, no axe to grind, other than the fact that I would rather that motorsport venues are preserved.
I also loathe and detest the way that local councils, populated by design and architecture illiterate clowns, are giving planning permission to piss-poor, lowest common denominator, lazy and cheapskate housing developers to cover our green spaces with crappy identikit boxes.
So, that aside, I fear that the Mallory Park debate really distills into simple points:
1. An activity agreement set back in the 80's was reneged upon by the circuit operators. Why? Was this poor management or is the reality that the 1985 agreement does not allow for a sustainable, profitable level of activity, which was why the operators broke it? What is the answer to this question?
2. If there are forces in the village that do not like or want any noise from the circuit , do they represent a wide body of opinion or not?
3. If it is not possible to run the circuit profitably under the 1985 agreement, then eventually the circuit WILL BE DEVELOPED. This is inevitable. The character of the area will then change irrevocably, to a degree that will disrupt the lifestyles of the community far more than when the circuit existed and made more noise than they would like.
I worry that a vocal bunch of locals who don't like the circuit should be careful what they wish for.
I suspect they will like it even less when population density in the area has doubled and the fields are covered in desperately ugly, uninspired architecture, a DFS warehouse, a couple of supermarkets and a Harvester.
I also loathe and detest the way that local councils, populated by design and architecture illiterate clowns, are giving planning permission to piss-poor, lowest common denominator, lazy and cheapskate housing developers to cover our green spaces with crappy identikit boxes.
So, that aside, I fear that the Mallory Park debate really distills into simple points:
1. An activity agreement set back in the 80's was reneged upon by the circuit operators. Why? Was this poor management or is the reality that the 1985 agreement does not allow for a sustainable, profitable level of activity, which was why the operators broke it? What is the answer to this question?
2. If there are forces in the village that do not like or want any noise from the circuit , do they represent a wide body of opinion or not?
3. If it is not possible to run the circuit profitably under the 1985 agreement, then eventually the circuit WILL BE DEVELOPED. This is inevitable. The character of the area will then change irrevocably, to a degree that will disrupt the lifestyles of the community far more than when the circuit existed and made more noise than they would like.
I worry that a vocal bunch of locals who don't like the circuit should be careful what they wish for.
I suspect they will like it even less when population density in the area has doubled and the fields are covered in desperately ugly, uninspired architecture, a DFS warehouse, a couple of supermarkets and a Harvester.
CraigyMc said:
FurtiveFreddy said:
CraigyMc said:
If there was no noise restriction there would be no problem.
But there is, always has been and every other circuit in the country has to abide by the same sort of rules to survive. Mallory chose not to and have paid the price.CraigyMc said:
For those on this thread saying it's not a NIMBY issue: it is. If there was no noise restriction there would be no problem. It's been like that for years, just like other classic tracks (Goodwood, I'm looking at you).
So, basically, you're agreeing, yes?Even before BARC took over, the operators had to be careful about noise (don't skid at Shaws Hairpin or it'll annoy the neighbours!) -- we were told this in 2002.
C
I don't agree with this power balance at all and in every other situation I can think of in recent years I have felt the circuits have been unfairly treated and wronged.
However, we live in a society where lines have to be drawn and if there was no noise restriction you can be sure that one would be put in place fairly quickly. In principle, I am not against that if it is a fair compromise. It's debatable whether the 1985 agreement was/is a fair compromise, but Mallory chose to ignore those restrictions and that is asking for trouble. And they have got trouble.
Blaming residents for that is absurd and unfair.
Donkey Apple summed it up nicely and he is well qualified to do so.
toppstuff said:
I have no local interest, no axe to grind, other than the fact that I would rather that motorsport venues are preserved.
I also loathe and detest the way that local councils, populated by design and architecture illiterate clowns, are giving planning permission to piss-poor, lowest common denominator, lazy and cheapskate housing developers to cover our green spaces with crappy identikit boxes.
So, that aside, I fear that the Mallory Park debate really distills into simple points:
1. An activity agreement set back in the 80's was reneged upon by the circuit operators. Why? Was this poor management or is the reality that the 1985 agreement does not allow for a sustainable, profitable level of activity, which was why the operators broke it? What is the answer to this question?
2. If there are forces in the village that do not like or want any noise from the circuit , do they represent a wide body of opinion or not?
3. If it is not possible to run the circuit profitably under the 1985 agreement, then eventually the circuit WILL BE DEVELOPED. This is inevitable. The character of the area will then change irrevocably, to a degree that will disrupt the lifestyles of the community far more than when the circuit existed and made more noise than they would like.
I worry that a vocal bunch of locals who don't like the circuit should be careful what they wish for.
I suspect they will like it even less when population density in the area has doubled and the fields are covered in desperately ugly, uninspired architecture, a DFS warehouse, a couple of supermarkets and a Harvester.
You missed out "Poundland" and "Cash a cheque"I also loathe and detest the way that local councils, populated by design and architecture illiterate clowns, are giving planning permission to piss-poor, lowest common denominator, lazy and cheapskate housing developers to cover our green spaces with crappy identikit boxes.
So, that aside, I fear that the Mallory Park debate really distills into simple points:
1. An activity agreement set back in the 80's was reneged upon by the circuit operators. Why? Was this poor management or is the reality that the 1985 agreement does not allow for a sustainable, profitable level of activity, which was why the operators broke it? What is the answer to this question?
2. If there are forces in the village that do not like or want any noise from the circuit , do they represent a wide body of opinion or not?
3. If it is not possible to run the circuit profitably under the 1985 agreement, then eventually the circuit WILL BE DEVELOPED. This is inevitable. The character of the area will then change irrevocably, to a degree that will disrupt the lifestyles of the community far more than when the circuit existed and made more noise than they would like.
I worry that a vocal bunch of locals who don't like the circuit should be careful what they wish for.
I suspect they will like it even less when population density in the area has doubled and the fields are covered in desperately ugly, uninspired architecture, a DFS warehouse, a couple of supermarkets and a Harvester.
FurtiveFreddy said:
It's debatable whether the 1985 agreement was/is a fair compromise, but Mallory chose to ignore those restrictions and that is asking for trouble. And they have got trouble.
Blaming residents for that is absurd and unfair.
I'm not sure. Residents may not be thinking too much about cause and effect.Blaming residents for that is absurd and unfair.
Perhaps a consultation period with local residents can create a new set of rules , a new compromise surrounding noise levels and activity, the layout of the track and how to mitigate noise interference, noise saving measures etc etc.? Something that can still make the circuit economically viable?
This has to be preferable to seeing the circuit built on and making everyones lives immeasurably and permanently worse than it was before.
Jagmanv12 said:
The Longcross track is near me and plans are progessing for housing on the part on the south side of the M3.
Full planning permission has been granted and work has started? If so, it's taken many years and several applications, which was the point I was making in my post. toppstuff said:
Perhaps a consultation period with local residents can create a new set of rules , a new compromise surrounding noise levels and activity, the layout of the track and how to mitigate noise interference, noise saving measures etc etc.? Something that can still make the circuit economically viable?
It could have worked, but the proposal Mallory put forward wasn't deemed acceptable so we are where we are. FurtiveFreddy said:
Jagmanv12 said:
The Longcross track is near me and plans are progessing for housing on the part on the south side of the M3.
Full planning permission has been granted and work has started? If so, it's taken many years and several applications, which was the point I was making in my post. http://www.getsurrey.co.uk/news/local-news/develop...
http://www.getsurrey.co.uk/news/chobham-common-pro...
A few miles away a few hundred houses/flats are being built on farmland. As posted about Mallory government directives are for councils to allow more building so eventually Mallory, Longcross, etc will be built on. Especially where the landowner sees a better return than leasing or renting it.
Jagmanv12 said:
I received a council newsletter that gave the impression that it was a foregone conclusion for 1500 houses/flats to be built. However looking at these two links it's still not confirmed.
http://www.getsurrey.co.uk/news/local-news/develop...
http://www.getsurrey.co.uk/news/chobham-common-pro...
A few miles away a few hundred houses/flats are being built on farmland. As posted about Mallory government directives are for councils to allow more building so eventually Mallory, Longcross, etc will be built on. Especially where the landowner sees a better return than leasing or renting it.
But it's not just the piece of land being built on which is the deciding factor as to whether planning permission is granted. A new housing estate or industrial estate, especially of the size we're discussing has all kinds of knock-on effects.http://www.getsurrey.co.uk/news/local-news/develop...
http://www.getsurrey.co.uk/news/chobham-common-pro...
A few miles away a few hundred houses/flats are being built on farmland. As posted about Mallory government directives are for councils to allow more building so eventually Mallory, Longcross, etc will be built on. Especially where the landowner sees a better return than leasing or renting it.
One of the reasons Longcross hasn't been developed yet is the amount of extra traffic it would generate and at one point it was said that a new junction on the M3 would need to be built. That's going to cost someone a lot of money and affect a lot of other people around the area on top of those living or working near the site itself.
The same would go for any mass development at Mallory. New roads, infrastructure, environmental impact all have to be considered. So many times over the years we've heard stories of Motorsport venues being under threat but how many of them have actually turned into housing/industrial estates? Brooklands is the only one I can think of!
When I used to race at Lydden Hill in the 80's it was always about to be turned into a supermarket! So far, it has tended to work out OK for most circuits in the end (albeit with some pretty tough usage restrictions in some cases) and I hope the same can be said for Mallory.
Anyway, in a few years we'll all be racing electric cars and bikes won't we? So the problem will go away...
standardman said:
I worry for the future of Castle Combe.
I think locals would love for it to be closed.
Especially with the grid lock that is Japfest.
Indeed. Which is why quality management is a must at circuits to ensure there are no breaches of agreements and that if the property is leasehold that extensions or agreements are renegotiated professionally. I think locals would love for it to be closed.
Especially with the grid lock that is Japfest.
Mallory stands as an example of the risks of putting pisspoor punters in charge.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff