Karting showdown as campaigners bid to block extended hours

Campaigners are hoping to block efforts by a Devon karting track to expand the number of days it is allowed to host races.

More than 300 objectors have expressed opposition to plans by Dunkeswell Raceway to hold races on more days than it is allowed to now.
The track, which has secured 80 comments in favour of its plans, wants to hike the number of race days to 42 from 33 now – a rise of 27 per cent. 
To support its plans, it has proposed a way to manage the noise from the raceway, and a formal complaints procedure.
The bid will be discussed by East Devon District Council’s planning committee tomorrow (Tuesday 24 February).
It has made its way onto the committee’s agenda because of a difference of opinion between officers, who are recommending approval, and the area’s ward member.
Oversight of the raceway has developed over many years, with the restrictions placed upon it linked to various historic planning applications and a legal agreement known as a Section 106 struck in 2010 with East Devon District Council.
But the owners have made a bid to vary some of these conditions.
As it stands, the raceway operates on nine weekends a year (18 days) plus 15 Saturdays, making 33 days in total. Racing hours are from 9am-6pm on Saturdays, and then 10am-11am and noon-6pm on Sundays, which accounts for an hour’s break for the so-called ‘God Hour’ so that nearby residents can attend church in peace.
But the raceway wants to increase this to 14 weekends (28 days), as well as another six Saturday or Sundays, five Fridays and three weekdays per year – bringing it to 42 days.
Furthermore, it wants to be able to accommodate 24 leisure karts at a time compared to the 12 now. Leisure kart sessions are where members of the public use the raceway’s own karts, whereas other events can involve drivers bringing their own karts.
Among the opponents to the extra hours is resident David Dow, who highlights issues including noise, environmental harm and alleged breaches of existing rules among his concerns.
“We’ve complained about a number of breaches,” he said.
“Also, in the council’s report, it states it is ‘marginally’ in favour, and so we are going to argue that they have forgotten or omitted certain factors that weigh against allowing these changes.
“And the raceway is unreliable, so how can you make an agreement with an entity that is so unreliable?”
Residents also point out that most of the racing is likely to take place during spring and summer when they want to make the most use of their gardens and outside space, meaning it’s more likely they will have to do so with engine noise in the background.
Karen Hill, another resident who lives near the raceway, believed residents had recorded more than 20 breaches of existing conditions.
“Local residents have reported them, a whole host of them,” she said.
“There have been issues with noise, racing during the God hour, and three-day weekend racing as well as racing at the beginning of the month.
“So, it is far more serious than just a few small slips.”
Councillor Yehudi Levine (Liberal Democrat, Dunkeswell and Otterhead), wrote in his submission to the council that he opposed the appliction, and referenced residents’ claims of breaches.
“I find the objections and grievances raised by the residents of Sheldon to be justified,” he said.
“I have received complaints from the residents of Sheldon that the Section 106 agreement had been breached by the applicants on a number of occasions and was present with them at a meeting with the Environmental Health Team last January where their concerns were raised.”
Dunkeswell Raceway was asked about claims of restrictions being breached but did not address the issue.
A spokesperson said: “Because we want to be good neighbours, we are proposing, for the first time, a noise management plan with continuous monitoring, transparent reporting and a formal complaints procedure.
“To allow us to remain competitive with other racetrack facilities, the number of race days would increase slightly, but with the majority of these being during the working week. The revised schedule would also deliver shorter race days with earlier finish times.
“The new planning consents would increase support for local businesses and Devon’s visitor economy while at the same time respecting the needs of our neighbours.
Residents state they are not against the raceway as a business, and championed its efforts to diversify into the likes of marketing itself as a conference venue and other endeavours.
But they both felt the council needed to conduct a more robust noise analysis, believing that readings were taken from a location that had barriers to the sound from the raceway rather than locations with a clear line of sight.
They also state that the raceway’s location within a National Landscape (the new name for an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty or AONB) should act as a factor against the proposals, and claim that the total carbon emissions from kart racing would be equivalent to that produced by 40 homes in a year, if the extra days are granted.
East Devon’s report prepared for the planning committee states the proposals have been the “subject of close scrutiny” by its environmental health team.
“It concludes that the karting activity at the raceway does not constitute a statutory noise nuisance and, furthermore, that this situation would not be altered as a result of the proposed operational changes that are being sought provided that the controls and assessment/review processes set out within the noise management plan are adhered to,” the report states
It adds: “In the light of this, it is maintained that objection to the proposals on noise and National Landscape tranquillity grounds would be difficult to support, albeit it is fully recognised that the proposals would fundamentally increase the numbers of days’ racing activity at the circuit, including Sunday racing days.
“However, given the current levels of activity in terms of the overall percentage of days per year that it is conducted, alongside the comparatively modest level of increase proposed in the context of the number of days in a year, on balance it is felt that the proposals would be acceptable.”