RYE HOUSE

[noaksey]

7 hours ago, Chris said:

They have put in for retrospective planning on the spectator stand that they turned into a gymnastics centre. They lied in 2020 and said the size of the building hadn't changed so didn't need to apply for planning permission.

They stuck a huge extension on the end as a viewing area

They are currently being investigated by East Herts District Council planning enforcement for this breach and others

It sums up the state of planning in this country that you can put in for retrospective planning just when the investigation for the breach is coming to an end

In the overall scheme of things, it doesn't mean a great deal. The area of the track is where it matters. How long can they keep a white elephant after paying out a tidy sum for the lease?

Maybe the OP just saw the planning application and presumed it was for the stadium 

Anyway let's hope this one gets refused 

[Chris]

https://publicaccess.eastherts.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?keyVal=S9ZI48GLFP200&activeTab=summary

The retrospective planning application for the big extension that was stuck on the spectator stand 4 years ago that breached building laws

Any objections would be welcome. Just go to the comment section.

Comments should focus on:

• East Herts District Council were informed 4 years ago of the breach by the Rye House Action Group
• Strong action should be taken against unlawful building work
• The applicant has destroyed a community asset(track and club) and broke planning laws. They shouldn't be helped or rewarded for such reprehensible behaviour
• Not a good look for EHDC if they don't enforce building laws

The harder the council make it for Rye House Group the better the chances for Speedway being part of the future. If it wasn't for the RHAG the whole complex would have been a football pitch and clubhouse by now.

[jeff]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c164359694no.amp

[Ray Stadia]

20 hours ago, jeff said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c164359694no.amp

What a mess! Hindsight is a wonderful thing, but it is a pity Len Silver didn't protect the club a bit better, when he passed the reins to someone else. Especially as speedway was lost before, but miraculously came back! 

[Chris]

On 4/5/2024 at 1:36 PM, jeff said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c164359694no.amp

It's a nonsense article where the reporter has just looked at the planning portal on EHDC website and made a story from it. Crap journalism.

He's added parts from the retrospective planning application from the Rye House Group and added a couple of fan comments from the public comments to try and make it seem fair. RHAG have serious allegations against EHDC and Lee Valley Park Authrority which need to be answered.

Rye House Group are still trying to bullsh1t their way through all the mess they have created by saying it's now unsafe. Anyone with eyes can still see the area where the track was is clear. 

The Environmental Agency have put in an objection to the unlawful building though which could make things interesting.

11 hours ago, Ray Stadia said:

What a mess! Hindsight is a wonderful thing, but it is a pity Len Silver didn't protect the club a bit better, when he passed the reins to someone else. Especially as speedway was lost before, but miraculously came back! 

Yep. Was more worried about the £ signs than the future of the club by all accounts

[Chris]

Last day to OBJECT to the retrospective planning application at Rye House Stadium. Click on the link below 

https://publicaccess.eastherts.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?keyVal=S9ZI48GLFP200&activeTab=summary

Lots going on in the background to get the track reinstated but public support is needed. Will take a couple of minutes.

[IainB]

3 hours ago, Chris said:

Last day to OBJECT to the retrospective planning application at Rye House Stadium. Click on the link below 

https://publicaccess.eastherts.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?keyVal=S9ZI48GLFP200&activeTab=summary

Lots going on in the background to get the track reinstated but public support is needed. Will take a couple of minutes.

Done!

[Robbo 403]

Thanks to everyone who has taken time to object,anyone who has not now is the time.Always surprises me how few riders and officials object as they would be the main beneficiaries of a saved stadium.

Edited April 21 by Robbo 403

[Ray Stadia]

I have submitted my objection! 

[mikebv]

On 4/21/2024 at 1:30 PM, Robbo 403 said:

Thanks to everyone who has taken time to object,anyone who has not now is the time.Always surprises me how few riders and officials object as they would be the main beneficiaries of a saved stadium.

A distinct lack of any co-ordination by the governing body to the majority of closures..

Is it because there isnt enough riders to fill any extra teams? Hence it is "better" to let some simply disappear? 

Imagine if the dozen or so tracks that have closed in circa the last decade where still running? 

That would need over 80 riders..

[Sir Sidney]

50 minutes ago, mikebv said:

A distinct lack of any co-ordination by the governing body to the majority of closures..

Is it because there isnt enough riders to fill any extra teams? Hence it is "better" to let some simply disappear? 

Imagine if the dozen or so tracks that have closed in circa the last decade where still running? 

That would need over 80 riders..

To be fair to SCB that did object to the original Rye House application to remove the track, and they objected to the Peterborough applications.

What I believe they should be doing is actively working with Councils to influence the local plans 

[winstoncigar]

24 minutes ago, Sir Sidney said:

To be fair to SCB that did object to the original Rye House application to remove the track, and they objected to the Peterborough applications.

What I believe they should be doing is actively working with Councils to influence the local plans 

The SCB did too little too late. Between them and the BSPA lies most of the responsibility for Rye Houses closure.

 

 

[Sir Sidney]

3 minutes ago, winstoncigar said:

The SCB did too little too late. Between them and the BSPA lies most of the responsibility for Rye Houses closure.

 

 

I might well agree with some of that,  but if the head leaseholder doesn't want speedway that is a problem.

However, I believe SCB / BSPL should have a plan in place to protect tracks before the problem occurs

[winstoncigar]

On 4/21/2024 at 1:30 PM, Robbo 403 said:

Thanks to everyone who has taken time to object,anyone who has not now is the time.Always surprises me how few riders and officials object as they would be the main beneficiaries of a saved stadium.

I’m not sure how much weight East Herts council will attach to objections from all over the world. 
Unfortunately for us, the majority of the gymnastics club users are locals and having had a quick look through the list of the objections most of them seem to be from hundreds of miles away.

[winstoncigar]

18 minutes ago, Sir Sidney said:

I might well agree with some of that,  but if the head leaseholder doesn't want speedway that is a problem.

However, I believe SCB / BSPL should have a plan in place to protect tracks before the problem occurs

Right on both counts.

Added to that, I suspect the SCB recognise all too well that the lack of available riders severely limits the number of viable teams that can hope to exist.

[Ray Stadia]

3 hours ago, winstoncigar said:

I’m not sure how much weight East Herts council will attach to objections from all over the world. 
Unfortunately for us, the majority of the gymnastics club users are locals and having had a quick look through the list of the objections most of them seem to be from hundreds of miles away.

Because you have to travel hundreds of miles to find a speedway track these days! 

[noaksey]

6 hours ago, winstoncigar said:

I’m not sure how much weight East Herts council will attach to objections from all over the world. 
Unfortunately for us, the majority of the gymnastics club users are locals and having had a quick look through the list of the objections most of them seem to be from hundreds of miles away.

I live in East Herts, they don't take much notice of anything sadly apart from the guidance telling them how much they can put up council tax bills by and cut refuse collections 

I wouldn't hold your breath on this 

[pvm]

Any objection should focus on the fact that it is a “retrospective “ application, and that if it is allowed, then in effect the planning department is rendered redundant, as anybody can build what they like and then apply for “retrospective “ planning. 
 

[Tom Thumb]

As Posted on Facebook

 

 

 

Important news from Rye House.

We, the Rye house action group have received a copy of a DEMOLITION ORDER sent by East Herts Council to Carter and Bailey Limited for their unlawful construction of the extension to the old grandstand. plus others (copy below) This is a significant step forward to the fight to return the Rockets to the stadium. Now, I am not saying that this is the beginning of the end, but it might be the end of the beginning!!!

We now await the next step by Messer's Carter and Bailey.

IMPORTANT - THIS COMMUNICATION AFFECTS YOUR PROPERTY
TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990
(AS AMENDED BY THE PLANNING AND COMPENSATION ACT 1991) (‘the Act’)
ENFORCEMENT NOTICE - E/20/0423/ENF
ISSUED BY: East Herts District Council
1. THIS NOTICE is issued by the Council because it appears to them that there has
been a breach of planning control, within paragraph (a) of section 171A(1) of the
above Act, at the land described below. They consider that it is expedient to issue this
notice, having regard to the provisions of the development plan and to other material
planning considerations. The Annex at the end of the notice and the enclosures to
which it refers contain important additional information.
2. THE LAND TO WHICH THE NOTICE RELATES
Rye House Stadium, Rye Road, Hoddesdon, Ware, Hertfordshire. EN11 0EH
3. THE MATTERS WHICH APPEAR TO CONSTITUTE THE BREACH OF
PLANNING CONTROL
Without planning permission, the formation of hardstanding, the erection of fencing,
the extension of the existing substation building. The conversion of the open sided
grandstand to form a fully enclosed gymnastic centre with the addition of a side
extension and platform structure to the south east elevation.
Without planning permission, the material change of use land for commercial car
storage and the storage of building materials, welfare units, trailers, shipping
containers, HGVs and trailers.
4. REASONS FOR ISSUING THIS NOTICE
It appears to the Council that the formation of hardstanding, the erection of fencing,
the extension of the existing substation building and the conversion of the open sided
grandstand to form a fully enclosed gymnastic centre with the addition of a side
extension and platform structure to the south east elevation has occurred within the
last 4 years.
It appears to the Council that the material change of use of land for car storage and for
the storage of container units, welfare units, and building materials has occurred within
the past 10 years.
The land is located on the south-eastern side of Rye Road and is bordered by the
River Lee to the south-west, Rye Park Homes to the north-east, and Rye House Kart
Raceway to the south-east which is accessed through the land. The land is located
within the Metropolitan Green Belt, within the Lee Valley Regional Park, and most of
the site falls within flood zone 3, with the remaining small elements in flood zone 2.
The site is currently being operated as a site for mix sports and recreation with there
being 3 active and operational businesses on the site: Cre8 gym, Hertfordshire
Gymnastics Club, life change fitness. There are also a number of supporting buildings
in current use including a security office and substation building. There are extensive
areas of hardstanding for vehicle parking and tall fencing in a security style throughout
the site.
The hard standings include consist of areas adjacent to each of the buildings on the
land alongside an area of carparking to the entrance of the site. It is not considered
that any permitted development rights do exist for the surfaces. The erection of 2.4
metre high security fencing is considered harsh and to have a detrimental impact on
the openness of the site . Furthermore, in addition to the built form on site, the fencing
creates further bulk and mass on the site which did not previously exist and which by
its very nature would result in harm to the openness of the Green Belt, in addition to
the harm from there being inappropriate development.
The refusal of planning permission 3/21/1522/FUL at reason 3 states:
The layout and appearance of the hardstanding is considered unacceptable. This is
due to the high proportion of hardstanding which covers much of the site, the style,
height and level of fencing proposed, and the lack of any meaningful soft landscaping.
The combination of these results in a stark and hostile appearance to the site to the
detriment of the character and appearance of the site and surrounding street scenes.
This falls contrary to policies DES2, DES3 and DES4 of the East Herts District Plan
(2018), and the aims and objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework.
In relation to the substation, the addition of the atrium roof over and above the existing
roof results in an increase in volume to the building however, when compared against
the existing building it is clear that the increased roof space would result in a
significantly larger building than that which was previously in its place. It is clear that
there is harm to the Metropolitan Green Belt in terms of openness from this
constructed feature. It was also noted in planning application 3/21/1522/FUL that the
resultant design of the substation is of poor design appearing at odds with the overall
character of the site with the large roof lantern appearing as an almost separate
additional storey to the building. The development would therefore be considered
contrary to Policy GBR1, DES2, DES3 and DES4 of the East Herts District Plan 2018,
and Section 13 of the National Planning Policy Framework.
The Hertfordshire Gymnastics Centre is a conversion of the former concrete portal
framed grandstand through the installation of rendered north west elevation fully
enclosing what was the open sided grandstand. Whilst planning permission was
granted for this building to be converted to a gymnasium under the planning
application 3/20/0650/FUL it is clear that the submitted plans were incorrect and
therefore no consent has ever lawfully been given for the concrete portal framed
grandstand to be converted. Whilst it was noted in this application that this use was
acceptable, and this is not argued with in principle there are issues with an unlawful
side extension and platform being added to the building. In this case the side
extension and platform are unacceptable in terms of bulk, massing, design and would
result in disproportionate additions within the Green Belt having a clear impact to the
openness of the site being visible from the canal footpath and surrounding residential
properties.
Concerns have also been raised by the Environment Agency and the Local Lead
Flood Authority these have been addressed in the report 3/21/1522/FUL whereby no
accurate flood risk assessment or structural report was provided to show how the
extension would avoid flood risk or undue impact on to the bank.
The development would therefore be considered contrary to Policy GBR1, DES2,
DES3 and DES4 and WAT1 of the East Herts District Plan 2018, and Section 13 of the
National Planning Policy Framework.
The land sees a partially gated off parcel of land to the southwest of the Life Change
Gym and to the rear of the security office being used for the storage of high-end luxury
vehicles resulting in land being turned to B8 use for the purposes of storage and
distribution. It is considered that the use of the land for car storage fundamentally
alters the character of the land in terms of its overall appearance. It is accepted that
this land may be used for vehicular parking during operating hours of the site, and this
would be considered acceptable with the rotation of a smaller number of vehicles,
however, in this case there is a significant volume of vehicles located in the same
position, appearing commercial and stagnant in nature. It is considered that the
storage results in undue harm to the openness of the Green Belt and would fail to fall
within the exception of Paragraph 155 (e) of the NPPF (2023) which states that any
material change of use of land should preserve the openness of the Green Belt and
should not conflict with the purpose of land within it. As this fails to comply with the
aims of the NPPF this would also fail to comply with the aims of Policy GBR1 of the
East Herts District Plan 2018.
To the southeast corner of the site beyond the Hertford Gymnastic Centre and behind
the existing grandstand there is a significant accumulation of building materials,
welfare units, trailers, shipping containers and vehicles including a HGV and trailer,
drift car, boat and dump truck. The Council consider that a change of use of the land
has taken place for storage. This results in undue harm to the openness of the Green
Belt and would fail to fall within the exception of Paragraph 155 (e) of the NPPF (2023)
contrary to Policy GBR1 of the East Herts District Plan 2018.
5. WHAT YOU ARE REQUIRED TO DO
5.1 Take up and remove from the land all materials forming the areas of hardstanding
as indicated shaded in blue on the attached plan “Hardstanding plan”.
5.2 Remove all metal security fencing as indicated in orange and annotated on the
attached site plan ‘A3 Annotated – Rye House’.
5.3 Demolish the extension to the south east elevation of the grandstand. Restore the
former elevation by re erecting in a brickwork and / or render finish to match that of the
existing grandstand.
5.4 Remove the platform attached to the south east elevation of the grandstand.
5.5 Cease the use of the land for commercial car storage and remove from the land all
vehicles associated with that use.
5.6 Cease the use of the land for the storage of building materials, welfare units,
trailers, shipping containers, HGVs and trailers.
5.7 Remove from the land all demolition materials arising as a result of 5.3 and 5.4
above
6. TIME FOR COMPLIANCE
The period for compliance is 9 months for requirements 5.1, 5.3, 5.4 and 5.7 each
from the date on which this notice takes effect.
The period for compliance is 3 months for requirements 5.2, 5.5 and 5.6 each from the
date on which this notice takes effect.
7. WHEN THIS NOTICE TAKES EFFECT
This notice takes effect on 10th of May 2024, unless an appeal is made against it
beforehand.
Dated: 10/04/2024
Signed:
Head of Planning
On behalf of: East Herts District Council
Wallfields,
Pegs Lane,
Hertford SG13 8EQ

[hammer1969]

Wow, Rye House Group or whoever, certainly seem to think they could do whatever they wanted on Green Belt Land, storage of high end vehicles, trailers, dump truck etc not to mention all the illegal building work thats gone on, OMG thank goodness the group trying to bring back Speedway to the site are on the case.  As for East Herts Council it beggars belief how they do or do not keep a strict watch on sites within their Green Belt Area especially in Lee Valley Regional Country and Nature Park.  Let's hope the Council now keep on the case and and if the Leaseholders at Rye House don't comply the Council should send in their own bulldozers and sort it and bill RHG for it.