Raceway’s bid for more karting days stalls as campaigners nab poll position

Campaigners opposed to a Devon karting circuit’s push for more race days have bagged poll position after the firm’s plans were blocked.

Dunkeswell Raceway wanted to be able to host races on 42 days of the year compared to its 33 now, but residents who live in areas near the circuit were vociferous in their objections.
Packing the tight public gallery, various objectors outlined a range of concerns, including the intrusive nature of the karting noise on residents, the potential impact on the area’s wildlife, and made multiple claims the raceway was already breaching existing rules meant to dictate its usage.
Supporters of the raceway cheered it as one of the country’s “most respected tracks”, praised the “investment and focus” of director Sergii Gavryliuk, and expressed gratitude for the community it creates, as well as stating their belief it contributes to the area’s tourism economy.
But the campaigners dominated the grid, with six people speaking against it at the meeting, against three for it, including the agent, Iestyn John.
Oversight of the raceway is managed via a complex web of conditions linked to historic planning applications, as well as a legal agreement – known as a Section 106 – struck in 2010 with a former owner.
The raceway wanted to start from scratch, and had offered to implement a noise management plan – which it emerged had undergone more than two years of work with the council on – and a formal complaints procedure.
It had also sought to allow 24 karts to race during its leisure racing sessions from 12 now.
Because the new rules of usage would have all come under planning conditions, East Devon District Council said it would be easier to carry out enforcement, because the council could take action itself rather than the current requirement through the Section 106 of having to lodge an injunction with the High Court.
Resident Karen Hill told East Devon’s planning committee (Tuesday 24 February) the proposed changes “fill me with fear”.
“On race days, the noise is relentless, with engines revving, tyres screeching, and the constant grinding assault on the senses,” she said.
“It’s like a swarm of furious hornets trapped in a valley.”
She claimed she was “forced to plan our life around the raceway”, and retold the toll it took on neighbours “in tears pleading for the noise to stop”.
Fellow resident Peter Clark emphasised the suggestion from planning officers, who were recommending approval, that their decision had been “marginally in favour” meaning he felt it had been made on “incomplete and flawed evidence”.
He called the proposed noise management plan “self-regulation” and stated he didn’t think it strengthened oversight of the raceway. Furthermore, he said while the proposed hike in race days was equivalent to 27 per cent, he argued that much of the extra racing would likely take place in spring and summer “when the tranquility is most desired by residents and tourists”.
Ben Wilson, reading a statement on behalf of resident Peter Hill, referenced 20 breaches, meaning there was “no credible basis for replacing the Section 106”, while Bob Nelson, speaking for Caroline Clark, questioned how allowing more racing was “furthering the purposes of the protected Blackdown Hills National Landscape”.
And resident David Dow said the council had “not taken the applicant’s history and past behaviour into account”.
“How can the council and community trust any revised restrictions will be adhered to when they don’t comply with the current ones,” he said.
“The noise management plan is weak, it won’t work, and history shows the raceway will not adhere to it.”
Phil Wardman spoke in the raceway’s favour, outlining its “important role in the surrounding area, not just as a recreational facility but as a community asset”.
“It’s a safe, structured and well-managed environment that people of all ages can take part in,” he said.
“When so much entertainment is screen-based, having a venue that gets people outside and engages them in healthy competition is incredibly valuable.”
He added even if youngsters weren’t destined to become professional drivers, the raceway provided a grass roots discipline in the likes of engineering and mechanics.
And Rob Scurlock said many other similar tracks were closing, meaning the South West was “lucky” to have Dunkeswell Raceway.
He referenced efforts by Mr Gavryliuk to diversify the business, such as with laser tag and virtual kart racing, adding that the owner’s “conscientious approach is a genuine effort to respect the villagers even though it has been hard to find a perfect balance”.
The raceway’s agent, Mr John, acknowledged “some sensitivity” around the proposals but that the noise management plan had been through 10 drafts due to “extensive” dialogue with the council.
He stated the context was important, in that the raceway was an existing business simply seeking to tweak its existing business, adding that the “robust controls” could be relied upon by the council.
The committee heard from its environmental health expert, Ian Winters, who stated that the level of noise from the track could be considered to have “adverse impacts” under noise-related legislation, but those are allowable with mitigation, whereas ‘significant adverse impacts’, which had not been detected, should be avoided.
The committee also heard planning officers confirm there had been complaints about the raceway and breaches, but that the council hadn’t taken action because the planning application was seeking to legitimise the issues complained about.
Residents audibly scoffed at this, with some shouting out claims that far more complaints had been made than recorded.
After a marathon three-and-a-half hour session, the planning committee came down almost unanimously in favour of the residents, with 10 members voting to reject the application, and two abstaining.
Neither Mr Gavryliuk or Mr John wished to comment after the decision.