Kent 2016

[Sings4Speedway]

At a meeting tonight (Thursday 28/4) of Swale Council Planning Committee, permanent planning consent has been given to Kent Speedway meaning that the sport can now carry on indefinitely at the Sittingbourne Greyhound Stadium.

 

Superb news that Kent can now carry on racing indefinitely. With the constant threat of tracks closing around the country this comes a huge relief & massive congratulations to all those involved in getting this signed off.

[Guest]

At a meeting tonight (Thursday 28/4) of Swale Council Planning Committee, permanent planning consent has been given to Kent Speedway meaning that the sport can now carry on indefinitely at the Sittingbourne Greyhound Stadium.

 

Superb news that Kent can now carry on racing indefinitely. With the constant threat of tracks closing around the country this comes a huge relief & massive congratulations to all those involved in getting this signed off.

 

 

How does the council decision affect the actual curfew time limits for racing. Is there still a deadline? What was the previous council ruling in regard to planning consent for Kent Kings speedway? Aside from that, a most encouraging development for the sport in Sittingbourne.

Edited April 29, 2016 by Guest

[teaboy279]

I believe last night was just to get permanent permission, as it was felt arguing curfews and the like would cloud the main arguments.

 

Believe they will go back later in the year to extended the curfew.

[arnieg]

The report makes interesting reading. During the latter part of last season noise complaints about the speedway were as likely to occur when there was no speedway!!!!

[SCB]

The report makes interesting reading. During the latter part of last season noise complaints about the speedway were as likely to occur when there was no speedway!!!!

Same rubbish, different track!

 

Years back Ipswich had someone complaining about the noise to the council from the speedway on a week where the meeting had been rained off and on a week where there was no speedway as it was a GP weekend.

[speedibee]

The report makes interesting reading. During the latter part of last season noise complaints about the speedway were as likely to occur when there was no speedway!!!!

That is ecxactly what happened at milton keynes , the council were at a meeting with noise meters and it got rained off before an engine even started , they then saw the complaints as a vendetta aginst the speedway and granted 25 years PP . sadly Milton Keynes was then effectively closed down by the BSPA

[mrscambelt]

Good news for Kent all the hard work is starting to pay off and seems that the team are doing well and Mr Silver hats off to you Sir as you have done a great job at Kent and the speedway world.

[Halifaxtiger]

The report makes interesting reading. During the latter part of last season noise complaints about the speedway were as likely to occur when there was no speedway!!!!

 

'What is significant, however, is that on average 16% of the complaints received were when no races were taking place at the stadium. This raises questions about the validity of the complaints, particularly since between June and October 2015 there was no difference in the number of complaints on days with or without races'.

 

Brilliant, and I am sure you will all agree with me in saying a big thank you to anyone who contributed to that 16%. There's no doubt that they would played a part - quite possibly a major bone - in Kent receiving planning permission.

[speedibee]

 

'What is significant, however, is that on average 16% of the complaints received were when no races were taking place at the stadium. This raises questions about the validity of the complaints, particularly since between June and October 2015 there was no difference in the number of complaints on days with or without races'.

 

Brilliant, and I am sure you will all agree with me in saying a big thank you to anyone who contributed to that 16%. There's no doubt that they would played a part - quite possibly a major bone - in Kent receiving planning permission.

Bloody hell Speedway is often accused of shooting itself in the foot , but these muppets have certainly done a better job , someone post their addresses so we can send them a thank you card in the post !

[Guest]

 

'What is significant, however, is that on average 16% of the complaints received were when no races were taking place at the stadium. This raises questions about the validity of the complaints, particularly since between June and October 2015 there was no difference in the number of complaints on days with or without races'.

 

Brilliant, and I am sure you will all agree with me in saying a big thank you to anyone who contributed to that 16%. There's no doubt that they would played a part - quite possibly a major bone - in Kent receiving planning permission.

 

 

On the ratio total of complaints about noise, it is indicated that 16% were invalid. That leaves a massive 84% whose complaints seemingly were valid? If so, just because the council have made their latest decision in favour of Kent Kings, what are those whose complaints were it would seem acceptable going to do now? As I see it this is something which Kent Kings need to consider carefully.

The 84% will remember this latest action when the next council elections take place - and accordingly Kent Kings to ponder just how many of those who attend the track are LOCAL people compared to those who travel from outside the area for meetings.

Kent Kings now urgently need to put in place acampaign to persuade the dissenting 84% to change their attitude towards speedway noise. Otherwise, this dispute about noise could easily resurface and that's is something nobody wants to happen.

Edited April 30, 2016 by Guest

[Ben91]

 

 

On the ratio total of complaints about noise, it is indicated that 16% were invalid. That leaves a massive 84% whose complaints seemingly were valid? If so, just because the council have made their latest decision in favour of Kent Kings, what are those whose complaints were it would seem acceptable going to do now? As I see it this is something which Kent Kings need to consider carefully.

The 84% will remember this latest action when the next council elections take place - and accordingly Kent Kings to ponder just how many of those who attend the track are LOCAL people compared to those who travel from outside the area for meetings.

Kent Kings now urgently need to put in place acampaign to persuade the dissenting 84% to change their attitude towards speedway noise. Otherwise, this dispute about noise could easily resurface and that's is something nobody wants to happen.

I assume that for example a complainant knows that speedway is run every Monday starting at 6.30 so every Tuesday they have been complaining about noise to the council, even when there hasn't been a meeting for whatever reason before. So that casts doubt on the credibility of their other, valid, complaints because they've been complaining about noise when there hasn't been any. Sounds an awful lot like something someone would do to complain for the sake of complaining to me.

[Guest]

 

 

On the ratio total of complaints about noise, it is indicated that 16% were invalid. That leaves a massive 84% whose complaints seemingly were valid? If so, just because the council have made their latest decision in favour of Kent Kings, what are those whose complaints were it would seem acceptable going to do now? As I see it this is something which Kent Kings need to consider carefully.

The 84% will remember this latest action when the next council elections take place - and accordingly Kent Kings to ponder just how many of those who attend the track are LOCAL people compared to those who travel from outside the area for meetings.

Kent Kings now urgently need to put in place acampaign to persuade the dissenting 84% to change their attitude towards speedway noise. Otherwise, this dispute about noise could easily resurface and that's is something nobody wants to happen.

 

 

I assume that for example a complainant knows that speedway is run every Monday starting at 6.30 so every Tuesday they have been complaining about noise to the council, even when there hasn't been a meeting for whatever reason before. So that casts doubt on the credibility of their other, valid, complaints because they've been complaining about noise when there hasn't been any. Sounds an awful lot like something someone would do to complain for the sake of complaining to me.

 

You seem to be missing the point? It was proven that 16% were complaining when there was no speedway. That it would appear was what turned the council decision in favour of Kent Kings. But 16% is only a fraction of 100% - so were 84% which is a majority correctly making their noise objections and it would seem were over-ruled? They may - we must hope not - reopen their noise campaign once again. Has it been proven that the 84% were also wrongly complaining? Why should there be 'doubt on their credibility' as well? If that was the case it should have been made clear that the council decision was based on a figure of 100% and not the 16% currently being publicised as the deciding factor in their decision to favour Kent Kings.

Edited April 30, 2016 by Guest

[iris123]

The things is i'd guess those people,the 16% were also complaining on days when speedway was run......so part of the 84% also.Which puts all their compaints even on days when speedway were run in question.Which imo greatly reduces this 84% as it has been shown that they will just complain without reason.Or do we think that these people have only complained on days when speedway wasn't run?Strange conclusion

[blueherb777]

The things is i'd guess those people,the 16% were also complaining on days when speedway was run......so part of the 84% also.Which puts all their compaints even on days when speedway were run in question.Which imo greatly reduces this 84% as it has been shown that they will just complain without reason.Or do we think that these people have only complained on days when speedway wasn't run?Strange conclusion

 

Spot on.

These people have obviously complained more than once so the Council have seen through their lies.

Why is it these people are not happy unless they are moaning to try and stop others having fun ?

[Guest]

I wonder what validity there is to the complainants case in that they have to live in the vicinity of the "speedway noise." I wonder how many of those who attend speedway at Kent Kings live within a one-mile radius of the stadium?

I do not in anyway want to see Kent Kings speedway vanish - far from it. But I have a feeling despite the recent council verdict that we have not see the end of this matter. I will just say - "...remember Hastings and Romford..." Two very sad episodes in speedway history.

 

The Hastings closure is mentioned here...https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hastings_Saxons

 

...as is the Romford closure here...https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romford_Bombers

Edited April 30, 2016 by Guest

[Ben91]

 

 

 

You seem to be missing the point? It was proven that 16% were complaining when there was no speedway. That it would appear was what turned the council decision in favour of Kent Kings. But 16% is only a fraction of 100% - so were 84% which is a majority correctly making their noise objections and it would seem were over-ruled? They may - we must hope not - reopen their noise campaign once again. Has it been proven that the 84% were also wrongly complaining? Why should there be 'doubt on their credibility' as well? If that was the case it should have been made clear that the council decision was based on a figure of 100% and not the 16% currently being publicised as the deciding factor in their decision to favour Kent Kings.

 

Say somebody complains ten times, on two occasions they complained there had been no speedway, that means 20% of their complaints were lies. Therefore that would cast doubts over the honesty of their complaints on the other eight occasions. So while 80% of the time there was speedway happening it doesn't mean they actually heard it, just that their complaints coincided with a meeting going on. It's really not that difficult to understand?

[iris123]

 

Say somebody complains ten times, on two occasions they complained there had been no speedway, that means 20% of their complaints were lies. Therefore that would cast doubts over the honesty of their complaints on the other eight occasions. So while 80% of the time there was speedway happening it doesn't mean they actually heard it, just that their complaints coincided with a meeting going on. It's really not that difficult to understand?

For 99% of the population,no,but we are dealing with 'gustix' here who has a long history of not being able to understand the simplest of matters

[teaboy279]

In 2015 all the complaints came from 5 households!

[Nikko]

Great news that permanent planning was given and it certainty seems that the council took into account sone bogus complaints that would not have helped.

 

I can't say if all the complaints only came from 5 households in 2015 as unless you are a privy to private council papers you won't be but it would surprise me if only 5.

 

The main thrust of the most vocal complaints in the lead up to the first season and in the first season itself was organised by a local who had a personal issue with Mr Cearns. It had nothing specifically to do with speedway but was an easy way for said individual to "get back" at Roger.

 

Some others jumped on the bandwagon.

 

Roger did everything the council asked and there were many thorough inspections.Iknow because I was there.

 

Roger deserves massive credit for the years it took to get speedway to Central Park and for everything achieved so far.

 

Riders and even co-promoters may come and go at CP over the coming years but without Roger there is no speedway at CP.

[teaboy279]

It is on the Kent website that only 5 households complained in 2015.