NOTICE: Beginning July 10th, 2008, this message board service will no longer be active or available for use.

Cradley Speedway Web Forum / Public Inquiry Reports Nov 2002 / DAILY REPORTS

Steve J Administrator	Nov 18th 6:27 AM Exclusive daily reports on the second public inquiry regarding Dudley Wood, to appear here from Tues 20th November 2002. For topic discussion, see Dudley Wood message board.
Simon User ID: 1105234	Nov 20th 3:02 PM Inspector: Brian Sims Barratts/Landowner Attendants include: Harry Wolton Q.C, Noel Bridgewater & Judith Moody Dudley MBC/Cradley Heathens: Alan Evans, Bob Edwards, Chris Haynes, Margaret Bytheway, Tony Mole, Peter Toogood & Mr. Skelton After the proceedings commenced by the inspector, Harry Wolton gave his opening speech, which included his questioning of the evidence of permission for speedway racing at Dudley Wood. He went on to talk about the abandonment issue of the site and stated that he felt that there would be no chance of a return for speedway. Harry made clear that Barratts had only applied for outline planning permission. Alan Evans began his opening by arguing that the proposal would not give safisfactory living conditions and would restrict uses of the nearby factories and argued that the land should be returned as a speedway site. Tony Mole began his evidence by giving a background of himself and his vast experience of running speedway. He proceeded by saying that if the appeal were to be refused, he would be willing to purchase the site in its current form and hoped to have speedway up and running by the 15th March 2003. It was pointed out that 'Sky Sports' played a big role in the increased popularity of speedway and this could only be seen as a positive. Under cross examination, Harry questioned where Tony's proof was to back-up his statement that he could produce a viable business plan. Tony will forward this evidence over the next two days. Peter Toogood then gave evidence on behalf of the BSPA. His first year in charge at Swindon reminded him of the dedicated and passionate support which surrounded the 'Heathens'. He then echoed a previous statement by Tony that the attendances had increased for the sport. The noise issue was next to be debated, where evidence for this was forwarded by the council. Noise generated by local factories still appears to be a major factor. Barratts argued that Kimber Drop Forgings would be sound-proofed and a barrier would be erected. The council voiced concerns over the said barrier and that it may need to be 20mts high to be effective. The council then stated that a statutary notice was issued to the landowners over the state of the site, evidence of this was requested. Reports continue tomorrow.
Simon User ID: 1105234	Nov 21st 12:52 PM Day Two... The previously requested statutory notice and valuation report were supplied today before proceedings began. The noise issue continued with Mr.Walters on behalf of Barratts giving evidence. He stated that they had a legal agreement with Kimber Drop Forgings to implement noise reduction measures to their site. The logistics of this were then debated. Re-assurance was requested that sound-proofing would be successful. The sound testing done on behalf of Barratts only took place on one afternoon in May of this year. No tests were done early morning or during the night. The council argued that this did not give a true reflection. The council then began to give evidence with regard to the planning issue. It was agreed by all parties that planning permission would have to be given for speedway to return to the site. Other similar cases were mentioned, including that of Long Eaton, to support the point of the land being used for sporting purposes. It was also mentioned that no other appropriate sites were available, although this was challenged by Harry Wolton where Castle Gate was put forward. It was then made clear by the council that this particular site had already been partly developed with development plans submitted for the remaining area. A local resident, Mr. Southall wished to speak. He stated that although he is not against speedway, he is against the prospective intention for Dudley Wood to be returned to its former use. The Mayor of Dudley then wished to speak. He stated that he was a Cradley Heathens supporter but was not there to represent or side with either party. He wanted to say that he had received no letters in favour of the housing development, only letters supporting the return of speedway. He asked for the UDP to be considered very seriously and to retain the site for sporting and recreational facilities. Mr. Skelton on behalf of Sport England also gave support for the land to be retained as a sporting facility. Chris Haynes took the stand on behalf of CRASH and Club CH. The landowners offered no alternative sites for speedway. He then pointed out that Mr Harry Wolton QC had, in his opinion, confused Tony Mole with Alf Swingewood who spoke in the previous inquiry. He then provided a run-down on Cradley's history including stating that the BS Group were interested in purchasing the site previously. He commented on Club CH's development as an attempt to keep the fans involved with speedway. He also said that no serious fund-raising had taken place but that this would occur when the go ahead was given for speedway to return to Dudley Wood. Mr Haynes also mentioned the website having 550 hits per week on average. He commented that Ian Pearson MP supports the Cradley Heathens cause. The inspector praised Mr. Haynes for his well delivered evidence. The inquiry continues at 11:00, slightly later due to a visit to Dudley Wood.
Simon User ID: 1105234	Nov 22nd 2:30 PM Day three.... The day began with a site visit to Dudley Wood and Kimber Drop Forgings, from persons from both sides. On behalf of Barratts, Mr.Fenwick was the first to speak about planning. He claimed that the site had been previously developed land and not that of open space. He said it was a good site for housing as its location was in close proximity to local amenities. It was also said that a childrens play area would be supplied and that 30% of the housing would be used for approved housing in line with council policies. He argues that the speedway side could ground share with either Coventry or Wolverhampton and that although sporting facilities were included in the councils proposed future plans, speedway wasn't. Under cross examination, it was put to Mr. Fenwick that because the land had not altered on the site, the landowners had not totally abandoned the site for speedway uses and if they had that intention, there was no written evidence to support it. Mr. Fenwick then produced a previously unseen document from Mr. Bridgewater which confirmed his intent not to allow speedway to return. This document had not been submitted as evidence prior to the beginning of the inquiry,it was frowned upon and was seen to be not in the spirit of the rules of a public inquiry by the council. It was then requested that Mr. Bridgewater be available to give evidence. Mr. Fenwick referred to the Cradley Heath Web Site and quoted extracts from a speedway supporters view which had been posted in May. Mr. Fenwick was asked the question that if the inquiry were to find in favour of the council, would the value of the land be cheaper and would it be a good idea for the council to wait before applying for a compulsary purchase order? Mr. Fenwick agreed it would. All parties agreed that no alternative sites were available. Mr. Evans, for the council, went on to say that an application could not be given the go-ahead if only a small part were to be developed. Chris Haynes then wished to cross examine. It was agreed that both Buxton and Somerset had both managed to run speedway on a low-key basis without incurring major cost for stands etc. Barratts argued that speedway was not viable at Dudley Wood but they could not prove this. Harry Wolton then said that of the 35 houses adjoining the site, 5 houses now have different occupants since speedway left the site and the assumption was made that they would object to the return of speedway. 6 letters of objection to speedway had been submitted. Mr. Bridgewater was then called to the stand. He wanted to assure all that he did not want speedway to return and he clarified this with aformentioned document. Under cross examination, it was questioned why this document was dated 14th November 2001, and why was it not submitted earlier. Mr. Bridgewater claimed that this was the case because it had not been requested from him earlier. He submitted it on the request of Barratts. Mr. Butters on behalf of Barratts submitted evidence on marketing. He confirmed that 7 bids had been received for the site with varying amounts from different activities. Mr. Butters had forwarded his calculations of the cost of bringing speedway back to the site. Included in these costs were: new riders, bars and restaurants. Chris Haynes, made it very clear that, two of the top riders in the world were still owned by Cradley and the stadium ran quite sufficiently without the need for a restaurant or corporate facilities. It was made apparent that he was unaware of the landowners intention and what ties they had with Barratts. Both parties have now concluded their evidence and tomorrow will be for each party to give their summary. The inquiry continues tomorrow at 11am.
Simon User ID: 1105234	Nov 23rd 1:18 PM Day four. The final day..... Chris Haynes gave his closing statement first. He said that it was accepted that the site was a buffer between housing and industry. On the noise issue, he accepted that some housing was possible on the site, albeit only a small portion. Although the noise reduction measures to Kimber Drop Forgings were possible, no evidence was giving to its success. On abandonment, the government wishes to retain sports facilities. It was an important site for sporting activities. A compulsary purchase order was still an option. The state of speedway is in better condition now, than that of 1997. No replacement site could be found. Through the marketing campaign by Barratts, parties were interested in the site using it for speedway purposes. Alan Evans for the council then gave his closing statement. On the noise issue, it was agreed by all parties that the councils findings were acceptable. With regard to potential plans of sound proofing, this was not backed up with any structural engineering or ventilation evidence. Noise problems from Beaconsfield had not been taken into consideration. With regards to the loss of the site as a sporting venue, it was apparent that the landowners had not been decisive to abandon the use for speedway because the physical appearance of the site had not been altered. He then referred back to the appeal of 1997 to back up his evidence. As the site had been marketed, this proved that it was still viable to run a profitable speedway operation and that Barratts became aware of its importance. If the appeal were to be dismissed, the land value would be reduced and a compulsary purchase order could be obtained. Mr. Mole gave evidence that he could make speedway work. Harry Wolton for Barratts gave his closing. He argued that the 1947 planning document was not acceptable. No credible argument in favour of speedway returning to the site. Although the support and loyalty were unquestionable, passion should not be a factor in planning matters. On noise, it was agreed that some parts of the site could be developed and there are various ways and means of reducing noise levels. He continued by saying that all Barratts houses are sound and built to a high standard. He said that there was no evidence to say that speedway would be viable and due to other local greyhound tracks, the potential for dog racing would be detremental to those tracks. Due to the demise of the London Lions and the proposed sale of Brandon Stadium,this supported his case that speedway was not viable. The inspector concluded the inquiry by advising that he hoped a decision would be made by Christmas 2001.
Steve J Administrator	Jan 9th 11:10 AM **News breaking today is that planning permission HAS been granted by the inspector, for the planning application on Dudley Wood, subject to certain conditions. I know very little more than that at the moment, but obviously it is not good news for speedway fans. Web site will be updated later. :o(