Curborough Sprint Course Under Threat
Discussion
The UK’s premier and most used Sprint Course is under threat from the development of a new community containing up to 5000 dwellings and associated amenities.
Make your views known to Lichfield District Council, you can make a difference, this is not a done deal !
Please visit the Curborough website to obtain details of how to oppose this development and do so before 29th April.
This venue is of National importance and we need YOU to help us preserve it.
Please visit: www.curborough.co.uk to find details of how you can help.
Many thanks
Steve Udall
Vice Chairman SDCC
Make your views known to Lichfield District Council, you can make a difference, this is not a done deal !
Please visit the Curborough website to obtain details of how to oppose this development and do so before 29th April.
This venue is of National importance and we need YOU to help us preserve it.
Please visit: www.curborough.co.uk to find details of how you can help.
Many thanks
Steve Udall
Vice Chairman SDCC
It's a planning application, and comments should go to the council. Given the scale of the eco-town proposals and their national "importance" it would need a concerted effort to halt the proposal (if Curborough is selected as one of the ten sites). The loss of a sprint site probably doesn't hold too much weight, but other issues may combine.
I THINK that this Eco Town stuff is a national project and will be approved at Secretary of State level, not by the Council. The Council will have the right to have their opinion heard, and make a recommendation, but the Sec of State doesn't have to agree.
15 places have been short listed for Eco Town development throughout the country. 10 will get the go ahead so its not a done deal yet at Curborough.
15 places have been short listed for Eco Town development throughout the country. 10 will get the go ahead so its not a done deal yet at Curborough.
andy97 said:
I THINK that this Eco Town stuff is a national project and will be approved at Secretary of State level, not by the Council. The Council will have the right to have their opinion heard, and make a recommendation, but the Sec of State doesn't have to agree.
15 places have been short listed for Eco Town development throughout the country. 10 will get the go ahead so its not a done deal yet at Curborough.
I think that is effectively what the local MP was complaining about in a local newspaper recently. 15 places have been short listed for Eco Town development throughout the country. 10 will get the go ahead so its not a done deal yet at Curborough.
Lichfield has changed quite significantly over the last few years with decent size housing and commercial developments both in the city and surrounding areas such as Fradley. The knock on impact to local services and infrastructure has seen them "stretched" according to the MP.
5000 homes within 1 mile of the Lichfield boundary is rumoured to add approx 12,000 to the local population (approx the same nr. as combining the total population of nearby villages Alrewas, Barton and Yoxall).
To call this scheme an eco-"village" is incorrect imho. The village of Fradley has already been fundamentally altered with recent developments (both commercial and domestic).
5000 more units and it might as well be called a town bolted onto the side of the Lichfield.
Additionally the eco wording is just a SOP from what i can see.
I've seen a plan that shows the extent of Fradley Airfield (which includes Curborough)on the website of one of the developers in the consortium (Bates Developments)
From it there appears to be a larger proportion of the area within the Airfield demarcation that i would term as greenfield (agricultural) as opposed to brownfield. Even then ref: the brownfield area it's also worth noting how much of that area has been commercially developed already (big Tesco's warehouse etc).
The sprint track itself is right on the SW corner of the demarcation area so it may possibly "escape" due to it's location?
However i suppose the noise argument then comes into the equation if the track does still exist alongside some new "eco" neighbours?
Cheers.
Dan Friel said:
It's a national strategy - with funding from central government. BUT the proposals will still need to go through the local planning process.
...before they get steam-rollered through. 
At least Johnny Two-Jags isn't around any longer to 'ensure' his pet plans get through
This must be done by 29th April. Please do it now, or do it this evening if the site is busy.
Just a few guidance notes for voicing your objection to the planning application
1) Please urgently visit this page:
http://www.curborough.co.uk
Please also paste this onto forums where the topic is yet to be raised
Just a few guidance notes for voicing your objection to the planning application
1) Please urgently visit this page:
http://www.curborough.co.uk
- Click on the planning application link
- Then on the next page, at the bottom of the top box, click on "Comment on this planning application"
- Click "Save and continue"
- Point 10: The application number is 08/00324/OUTM
- Point 11: The application address is "Land To The Northeast Of Lichfield Centered Around Fradley Park"
- Point 12: Ensure you click the second box: "I/We wish to object to the proposed application"
- Point 13: Suggested text: "Curborough Sprint Course is the premier and most used sprint course in the country and an essential part of the UK Motorsport scene as an entry level venue for the sport. In the past, Curborough has received National Lottery funding, such is the importance of the venue. Curborough must be protected from development for this fundamental reason. I urge you to reject this planning application."
- Click: "save and continue"
- Click: "Submit"
- Thank you
Please also paste this onto forums where the topic is yet to be raised
Edited by Chris Eyre on Monday 21st April 11:51
I posted the folloing on another web site but I hope no one minds me repeating it in case there is a different constituency here:
Remember when you object that an objection based on the loss of a Sprinting venue is hardly likely to cut the mustard on its own. Motorsport is perceived to be noisy & environmentally unsound and yet this development is meant to be all about "green credentials". You need to find nother basis for the objection - showing that the eco town is not exactly eco friendly for eg...loss of agricultural land, unsuitable transport infrastructure, excessive use of unsustainable resources such as cement, excessive use of energy in both the construction and occupation of the houses, poor plans for the disposal of the waste produced, distance to Tescos and other amenities, excessive and adverse impact on other local communities (can the neighbourhood cope with the population that 5000 house will bring in terms of schools, hospitals, doctors surgerys)etc etc.
You should also try to show that there is no need for this development in accordance with local development plans and that, if 5000 houses are needed there are better locations for it, eg on Brown field sites (Rugely Power Station site??).
It may be worth emphasising that the loss of Curborough will be the loss of a local amenity that is used for things other than motor sport such as cycling (it is still used for cycling isn't it?). Is the venue used for young driver training and to give somewhere for the Chavs to demonstarte their blinged up Novas safely, rather than Tescos car park?
Is there a Site of Special Scientific Interest nearby - Talk to "Natural England". Any threat to such a thing may be a more legitimate reason to object than a motorsport venue. It might also be worth trying to find out from the RSPB if there are any nesting sites of rare (ish) birds in the area - The RSPB are one of the most politically astute lobby groups going.
I also understand that there is a public footpath through the site - the development would potentially stop the ability of ramblers to walk through "green and pleasant land" - get the Ramblers Association on side.
And finally, try to find out if there are any Great Crested Newts in the area - they are a protected species in Europe (although actually fairly common in the UK). And no, I'm not joking!
Try to show that the birds and Newts have happily co-existed with an occasional motorsport venue for many years but an "eco town" is likely to destroy their habitat for good.
You can bet your bottom dollar that the developer will have carried out his Environmental Impact Statement work - he has to - and he will try to show that there are no adverse impacts. You have to show that he is wrong and that will be difficult and expensive, hence the reason to get Natural England and the RSPB on side.
It is also worth remembering that of the 15 "eco town" proposals that have been shortlisted, 10 are scheduled to get the go ahead. Curborough could be one of the 5 that fails to be selected, particularly if the objections are strong enough and well argued enough.
Eco towns are a national political initiative and need to be fought off in a politically savvy way - I don't think that single issue objections based on the loss of a small motorsport venue will win the day unfortunately.
I just hope that I'm wrong.
Remember when you object that an objection based on the loss of a Sprinting venue is hardly likely to cut the mustard on its own. Motorsport is perceived to be noisy & environmentally unsound and yet this development is meant to be all about "green credentials". You need to find nother basis for the objection - showing that the eco town is not exactly eco friendly for eg...loss of agricultural land, unsuitable transport infrastructure, excessive use of unsustainable resources such as cement, excessive use of energy in both the construction and occupation of the houses, poor plans for the disposal of the waste produced, distance to Tescos and other amenities, excessive and adverse impact on other local communities (can the neighbourhood cope with the population that 5000 house will bring in terms of schools, hospitals, doctors surgerys)etc etc.
You should also try to show that there is no need for this development in accordance with local development plans and that, if 5000 houses are needed there are better locations for it, eg on Brown field sites (Rugely Power Station site??).
It may be worth emphasising that the loss of Curborough will be the loss of a local amenity that is used for things other than motor sport such as cycling (it is still used for cycling isn't it?). Is the venue used for young driver training and to give somewhere for the Chavs to demonstarte their blinged up Novas safely, rather than Tescos car park?
Is there a Site of Special Scientific Interest nearby - Talk to "Natural England". Any threat to such a thing may be a more legitimate reason to object than a motorsport venue. It might also be worth trying to find out from the RSPB if there are any nesting sites of rare (ish) birds in the area - The RSPB are one of the most politically astute lobby groups going.
I also understand that there is a public footpath through the site - the development would potentially stop the ability of ramblers to walk through "green and pleasant land" - get the Ramblers Association on side.
And finally, try to find out if there are any Great Crested Newts in the area - they are a protected species in Europe (although actually fairly common in the UK). And no, I'm not joking!
Try to show that the birds and Newts have happily co-existed with an occasional motorsport venue for many years but an "eco town" is likely to destroy their habitat for good.
You can bet your bottom dollar that the developer will have carried out his Environmental Impact Statement work - he has to - and he will try to show that there are no adverse impacts. You have to show that he is wrong and that will be difficult and expensive, hence the reason to get Natural England and the RSPB on side.
It is also worth remembering that of the 15 "eco town" proposals that have been shortlisted, 10 are scheduled to get the go ahead. Curborough could be one of the 5 that fails to be selected, particularly if the objections are strong enough and well argued enough.
Eco towns are a national political initiative and need to be fought off in a politically savvy way - I don't think that single issue objections based on the loss of a small motorsport venue will win the day unfortunately.
I just hope that I'm wrong.
andy97 said:
I posted the folloing on another web site but I hope no one minds me repeating it in case there is a different constituency here:
Remember when you object that an objection based on the loss of a Sprinting venue is hardly likely to cut the mustard on its own. Motorsport is perceived to be noisy & environmentally unsound and yet this development is meant to be all about "green credentials". You need to find nother basis for the objection - showing that the eco town is not exactly eco friendly for eg...loss of agricultural land, unsuitable transport infrastructure, excessive use of unsustainable resources such as cement, excessive use of energy in both the construction and occupation of the houses, poor plans for the disposal of the waste produced, distance to Tescos and other amenities, excessive and adverse impact on other local communities (can the neighbourhood cope with the population that 5000 house will bring in terms of schools, hospitals, doctors surgerys)etc etc.
You should also try to show that there is no need for this development in accordance with local development plans and that, if 5000 houses are needed there are better locations for it, eg on Brown field sites (Rugely Power Station site??).
It may be worth emphasising that the loss of Curborough will be the loss of a local amenity that is used for things other than motor sport such as cycling (it is still used for cycling isn't it?). Is the venue used for young driver training and to give somewhere for the Chavs to demonstarte their blinged up Novas safely, rather than Tescos car park?
Is there a Site of Special Scientific Interest nearby - Talk to "Natural England". Any threat to such a thing may be a more legitimate reason to object than a motorsport venue. It might also be worth trying to find out from the RSPB if there are any nesting sites of rare (ish) birds in the area - The RSPB are one of the most politically astute lobby groups going.
I also understand that there is a public footpath through the site - the development would potentially stop the ability of ramblers to walk through "green and pleasant land" - get the Ramblers Association on side.
And finally, try to find out if there are any Great Crested Newts in the area - they are a protected species in Europe (although actually fairly common in the UK). And no, I'm not joking!
Try to show that the birds and Newts have happily co-existed with an occasional motorsport venue for many years but an "eco town" is likely to destroy their habitat for good.
You can bet your bottom dollar that the developer will have carried out his Environmental Impact Statement work - he has to - and he will try to show that there are no adverse impacts. You have to show that he is wrong and that will be difficult and expensive, hence the reason to get Natural England and the RSPB on side.
It is also worth remembering that of the 15 "eco town" proposals that have been shortlisted, 10 are scheduled to get the go ahead. Curborough could be one of the 5 that fails to be selected, particularly if the objections are strong enough and well argued enough.
Eco towns are a national political initiative and need to be fought off in a politically savvy way - I don't think that single issue objections based on the loss of a small motorsport venue will win the day unfortunately.
I just hope that I'm wrong.
Bang on Andy.Remember when you object that an objection based on the loss of a Sprinting venue is hardly likely to cut the mustard on its own. Motorsport is perceived to be noisy & environmentally unsound and yet this development is meant to be all about "green credentials". You need to find nother basis for the objection - showing that the eco town is not exactly eco friendly for eg...loss of agricultural land, unsuitable transport infrastructure, excessive use of unsustainable resources such as cement, excessive use of energy in both the construction and occupation of the houses, poor plans for the disposal of the waste produced, distance to Tescos and other amenities, excessive and adverse impact on other local communities (can the neighbourhood cope with the population that 5000 house will bring in terms of schools, hospitals, doctors surgerys)etc etc.
You should also try to show that there is no need for this development in accordance with local development plans and that, if 5000 houses are needed there are better locations for it, eg on Brown field sites (Rugely Power Station site??).
It may be worth emphasising that the loss of Curborough will be the loss of a local amenity that is used for things other than motor sport such as cycling (it is still used for cycling isn't it?). Is the venue used for young driver training and to give somewhere for the Chavs to demonstarte their blinged up Novas safely, rather than Tescos car park?
Is there a Site of Special Scientific Interest nearby - Talk to "Natural England". Any threat to such a thing may be a more legitimate reason to object than a motorsport venue. It might also be worth trying to find out from the RSPB if there are any nesting sites of rare (ish) birds in the area - The RSPB are one of the most politically astute lobby groups going.
I also understand that there is a public footpath through the site - the development would potentially stop the ability of ramblers to walk through "green and pleasant land" - get the Ramblers Association on side.
And finally, try to find out if there are any Great Crested Newts in the area - they are a protected species in Europe (although actually fairly common in the UK). And no, I'm not joking!
Try to show that the birds and Newts have happily co-existed with an occasional motorsport venue for many years but an "eco town" is likely to destroy their habitat for good.
You can bet your bottom dollar that the developer will have carried out his Environmental Impact Statement work - he has to - and he will try to show that there are no adverse impacts. You have to show that he is wrong and that will be difficult and expensive, hence the reason to get Natural England and the RSPB on side.
It is also worth remembering that of the 15 "eco town" proposals that have been shortlisted, 10 are scheduled to get the go ahead. Curborough could be one of the 5 that fails to be selected, particularly if the objections are strong enough and well argued enough.
Eco towns are a national political initiative and need to be fought off in a politically savvy way - I don't think that single issue objections based on the loss of a small motorsport venue will win the day unfortunately.
I just hope that I'm wrong.
Just taking an approximate overview of one aspect of this whole proposal into consideration is enough to make the eyes water a bit.
Taking the ECO argument out of the equation for now.
5000 units of varying sizes are proposed.
Lets say that's an average of 1.5 cars per household so approx 7,500 more cars on the local regions road.
Nearest major route is the A38 which will probably bear the brunt of the additional cars as, despite whatever is said or possibly done, i just can't see public transport offering a similar level of flexibility / convenience over a car in the area in question.
In context that's the equivalent of one lane of the A38 being taken up for approx 18.5 miles if the "extra" cars were parked up nose to tail (or roughly the distance on the A38 from Lichfield to Derby) .
So both the A38 and the regions other roads will have to absorb roughly that amount of traffic during "peak" times. (Travelling along the A38 at peak times is already hairy enough with all the additional traffic on it from recent local industrial and domestic developments, but that's a seperate story!!)
Additionally the above doesn't take into account the unknown amount of additional traffic that the A38 and other local routes can expect travelling across from the Swadlincote / Ashby area once Roger Bullivant's have finished the bypass / new bridge at Walton on Trent.
All the above and from what i can see the only proposal by the developers is a junction improvement for Fradley?
So, to summarise a long winded post, that's just one aspect of the whole proposal and it just doesn't stack up to me, or maybe it's my maths........
Some more useless figures regarding the proposed build
Assume proposed useage will vary from apartments through to executive homes?
Taking a typical "average" 3 bed 2 storey detached house at approx 1250 square feet (what you would get for the average house price in the area).
For 5000 units that's approximately (and it is approximate!!)
1. 125,000m3 of concrete for the floor slab and foundations. (or using the A38 analogy again concreting the whole width of both carriageways 1m deep for 5 miles!!)
2. 45,000m3 of stone to go under the floor slab.
3. 800,000m2 of brickwork (or 48,000,000 bricks)
4. 800,000m2 of blockwork (or 8,000,000 blocks ignoring internal walls)
5. 40,000 nr. windows approx.
6. 10,000 nr. external doors.
7. 750,000m of floor joists approx.
8. 100,000nr. roof trusses.
9. 300,000m2 of roof tiles.
10. 600,000m2 of floor finishes (carpet etc).
11. 50,000nr. internal doors.
12. 25,000m of kitchen worktop.
13. 40,000nr. kitchen units.
And a partridge in a pear tree........
That's just headline figures for certain parts of a house. Doesn't even consider any external works, infrastructure works, public buildings etc etc.
Good news if your a local supplier i suppose.
Must go, need to go and find the life i've clearly lost
Assume proposed useage will vary from apartments through to executive homes?
Taking a typical "average" 3 bed 2 storey detached house at approx 1250 square feet (what you would get for the average house price in the area).
For 5000 units that's approximately (and it is approximate!!)
1. 125,000m3 of concrete for the floor slab and foundations. (or using the A38 analogy again concreting the whole width of both carriageways 1m deep for 5 miles!!)
2. 45,000m3 of stone to go under the floor slab.
3. 800,000m2 of brickwork (or 48,000,000 bricks)
4. 800,000m2 of blockwork (or 8,000,000 blocks ignoring internal walls)
5. 40,000 nr. windows approx.
6. 10,000 nr. external doors.
7. 750,000m of floor joists approx.
8. 100,000nr. roof trusses.
9. 300,000m2 of roof tiles.
10. 600,000m2 of floor finishes (carpet etc).
11. 50,000nr. internal doors.
12. 25,000m of kitchen worktop.
13. 40,000nr. kitchen units.
And a partridge in a pear tree........
That's just headline figures for certain parts of a house. Doesn't even consider any external works, infrastructure works, public buildings etc etc.
Good news if your a local supplier i suppose.
Must go, need to go and find the life i've clearly lost
Dear All
Thanks for the various comments and the interest, I am one of the SDDC members helping to put the submission from the club together
I can assure you that your objections will count and help to support us, so please dont let any negative concerns put you off objecting, please do, we need to demonstrate this venue is of more than local significance and your comments to the council will help.
Silence is consent! Its better to say something than let it go unopposed
Can you also encourage others to post and spread this onto other forums.
Oh and if anyone breeds crested newts or knows someone who does...... please pm me
Thanks for the various comments and the interest, I am one of the SDDC members helping to put the submission from the club together
I can assure you that your objections will count and help to support us, so please dont let any negative concerns put you off objecting, please do, we need to demonstrate this venue is of more than local significance and your comments to the council will help.
Silence is consent! Its better to say something than let it go unopposed
Can you also encourage others to post and spread this onto other forums.
Oh and if anyone breeds crested newts or knows someone who does...... please pm me
Edited by lewiscypher on Monday 21st April 23:03
I am unsure about what is happening here.
Who owns the ground?
Are the owners trying to get planning?
Is the government/local council forcing the closure of a "Leisure Facility" for development?
If it’s the owners they are just trying to realise the most money they can (to buy toys to rival those of the PistonHeads collective).
So if it’s the council - let’s stop them. If it’s the landowner lets make a PistonHead buy out.
Who owns the ground?
Are the owners trying to get planning?
Is the government/local council forcing the closure of a "Leisure Facility" for development?
If it’s the owners they are just trying to realise the most money they can (to buy toys to rival those of the PistonHeads collective).
So if it’s the council - let’s stop them. If it’s the landowner lets make a PistonHead buy out.
Forums | General Motorsport | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff