37 thoughts on “Vaucluse Raceway Saga Thickens!”

1. 
   

   Resident: The Environmental Impact Assessment is not geared towards neutrality; it is geared towards generating approval. It contains gross errors and data has been misinterpreted, as outlined in the 30 page objection by the resident.

   Please elaborate on this statement. What are the errors to which you are referring.

   Loading...

   Reply ↓
2. 
   

   The following is a letter written to the Town Planning Department question the EIA which was submitted to Town Planning on the Vaucluse project.

   Chief Town Planner
   The Garrison
   St. Michael

   Shop Hill
   St. Thomas

   6 January, 2005

   Re.: Objection Vaucluse as location for Race Track

   Dear Sir

   I am a resident of Shop Hill, and have noted that there is a plan by “Friends of Motor Sport Inc.” to create a raceway next to our village. Many of the residents in the surrounding communities object to it. I am writing today to ask for permission to be refused to the application for the Vaucluse Raceway. The project is inappropriate for the location. I am a resident identified within the Environmental Impact Assessment, and therefore have good grounds to ask for refusal, since I am from the sampling of the community referred to in the EIA. However, my grounds do not end there. I am going to show reasons in this letter why the EIA is not substantial enough to warrant granting of the application.

   In order to understand this letter, please have the copy of the EIA open and indexed for this letter, because every paragraph of my letter refers to a paragraph or statement in the EIA.

   Many objections were mentioned at the public meeting of December 13 at Lester Vaughan School, where Town and Country’s Patrick Bryan represented the Town Planning Department. A stenographer, (probably) employed by the Friends of Motor Sport, was present at the meeting, and took some notes. Please confirm whether you have these notes from the Dec 13 meeting, and whether the concerns voiced have been addressed yet by actions. Please also confirm that the Town Planning Department has read, studied and understood the entire contents of this letter, the way it refutes the EIA, plus the implications.

   EIA: Response to section 1.1

   Present use: The site in question is zoned as an agricultural field. The Friends of Motor Sport, the owners of the land in question, and other car drivers have contravened the law in making a dirt race track there, and have conducted commerce other than in agriculture by taking admission fees and by disrupting the peaceful enjoyment of the named residents. As a member of the resident sub-groupings, please ensure to contact the appropriate authorities and have them investigated, and punished under the law. There is no designated car-park, race track, or any such thing in our quiet peaceful community. These acts are contraventions of appropriate behaviour, and the residents of the areas have been already damaged by the said acts.

   I note that racing is scheduled at the track, starting on March26, 2006- in contravention of the law- as advertised at http://www.rallyman.com I also note that http://www.barbadosrallycarnival.com advertises that the track is something that already exists, although Town and Country Planning has not given its approval. How can this be? I have printed off these advertisements, and enclose them for your inspection.

   Response to “Proposed development”, writ in EIA:

   Phase 1. Proposed construction, as suggested by the EIA, of berms, or tree barriers, will in no way sufficiently reduce the noise and/or dust pollution, and there will be continuance to destruction of peaceful enjoyment of life on the days when driving has occurred, and will occur. Justin Jennings of Stantec said on Dec 13 that EIA proposed mitigation measures have in no way been investigated, and therefore any proposal is only a theoretical suggestion, and in no way assured.

   The noise pollution was excessive on the last race day, which I heard from my bedroom, and which prevented me from sleeping. This occurred even before phase one has had any Town Planning approval. Traffic and associated problems with people coming to and from the racing has severely inconvenienced (and annoyed) residents, and has damaged their ability to have a peaceful existence on their home lands.
   Phase 2: This is a phase of the race track that many residents of the area will not accept could come to exist within our quiet communities nearby. It would further disrupt and degrade the standard of life, even more radically.

   Response to Section 1.2 of the EIA

   Study Objectives:
   There is no question that the named phenomena (dust, noise, traffic, waste disposal, drainage, pollution, the storage and/or disposal of hazardous/ flammable materials, and activities listed), have- and will- create undue and unnecessary hardship, loss of peaceful enjoyment, and damage to the communities.

   For the Social Impact Assessment only 15 samples were taken, which is insufficient statistically to assess the impact upon the communities listed in section 1.1; and the mode of sample selection, though said to be ‘random’, has not been indicated. These facts nullify and probably discredit the study.

   Response to “Data analysis and acquisition”

   Dust impact

   The data for both dust and noise were challenged at the Dec 13 meeting as being false and under-reported. A nearby resident, downwind of the proposed track, reported of choking dust during a time when cars went around the area. Thus, by this resident’s testimony, contrary to the EIA on dust section 1.1, there IS evidence and testimony on the stenographer’s record of Dec 13 to show that dust generated from racing activities (page 5) is more than “minimal dust impact on nearby residential properties”. Was this contained in the stenographer’s notes from Dec 13, and are you in possession/ consideration of these?

   It was noted at the Dec 13 meeting that improvements to the track to reduce dust might well increase noise, and this was also actually indicated in the EIA. It was also noted that there were many days of the year when the wind direction changed, or was not present at all. On those days the dust levels would an even greater problem. It is the same with ‘noise’. The EIA states this, but it suggests that calm days are not the norm. The EIA states that wind direction is usually constant, when in fact it is not. During the summer months especially, the wind clocks from north as a tropical wave approaches, to south as it passes by. There are also many days during the year when winds are light. Calm days and light wind days are very numerous, especially in summer. Mitigation of noise/dust must be researched all case scenarios, rather than a report like the EIA, which expects residents to rely on some kind of prevailing weather to mitigate, while making no provision for normal weather patterns. Data was not collected on a long-term basis encompassing all weather conditions (especially noise and dust), and analysed in the weather conditions mentioned above, so one must question the validity of the EIA data results as insufficient to warrant making the conclusion it reached, which is to approve a track in the location?

   Response to “Noise impact”

   The EIA has considered noise impact in the section on page 5 and has stated that neither attendees to an illegal racing event, nor residents of surrounding areas were subjected to “significant” noise impacts.

   I am very sorry to report that this statement is false. Since there are no noise laws, and I (among others) say that it IS significant. The last race day woke me out of my bed in Nazarene Gap, Shop Hill; prevented me from sleeping; and caused me to start to think about the noise this track was generating. I do not fully understand how the EIA can state that Shop Hill and surrounding districts within a mile or two of this track are not “impacted”, because I heard the noise very loudly from a distance of 2 kilometres away, at Bridgefield pasture, on highway 2, near Cane Garden, after I decided to jog (because I could not nap).

   Having a race track in close proximity (within 2 km) to our communities will impact on our peaceful lives. Citizen residents have a right to protection and assurance that they will never, ever be impacted.

   In developed countries in Europe, noise mitigation is practiced from several kilometers away from any potential noise source, and before it is allowed they have to take measures to ensure that local populations are not impacted at any time whatsoever. The EIA has not taken this approach, and has used a North American model, which is not as stringent as the European ones. The EIA does not seek to force the Vaucluse Raceway to ensure that noise will be mitigated beforehand, which is a serious flaw.

   “Noise” must be investigated and taken into account by Town Planning in depth. In Barbados we do not follow a USA legal precedent, but a British one. It is important for Town Planning to investigate noise fully, as I am in process of doing, and to consider strict guidelines laid down in all European nations which conform to peace and quiet. Please do not forget that there is a polo development close by, and residents of million dollar homes will object just as strongly as we from Shop Hill, to noise impacts.

   At present a petition to stop the development of this race track application is in process, which will be submitted shortly, and it will be seen that there are numerous members of the nearby communities, near to the proposed raceway, who object.

   We implore The Chief Town Planner, and Town and Country Planning to defend the welfare of local residents.

   Response to the EIA “Measures to mitigate noise impacts” (page 5)

   The EIA admits that there are noise impacts, which is contrary to earlier EIA statements, and also states that impacts will grow after planning permission is granted (if it is granted). The EIA advocates:
   1) Reducing noise at the source:
   Noise-reducing mufflers for vehicles, and loudspeakers:
   All cars in Barbados are fitted with both a noise reducing muffler and a silencer. This is not the case for rally cars, and one can very easily detect their approach to the vicinity due to the high noise. The need for speed is the reason why rally car drivers do not use regular noise-reducing mufflers and silencers. The inflow of air and gas into the engine through the carburetor is choked unless the exhaust from the engine is allowed to escape quickly. Regular mufflers choke the ‘souped-up’ engine and cause it to lose power, at least in the case of the racing car. Regular cars are not affected, because they do not require to burn as much fuel in as short a time. Race cars need to burn more fuel in order to obtain the necessary power to drive the cars faster than regular automobiles, and to create the necessary acceleration.

   In fact many rally and race cars rely on attachments at the exhaust end which actually create a bigger draft into the engine, much like tall chimneys on a fire-place, serving to draw a larger amount of air into the combustion chambers. This results in a great deal more noise from these machines, compared with any normal regular road-worthy vehicle.

   Drag cars and rally cars create a higher level of decibels, no higher than 102 (quote by the EIA), but very noisy nonetheless, and unacceptably so. They both use special fuels, infused with ethanol and other compounds. Rally and drag cars are much louder than regular road-worthy cars. What measures must be put in place to ensure that these cars are not going to create more noise than regular automobiles do, on the roads of Barbados?

   Vehicles such as race- and rally-cars, set up without proper mufflers AND silencers impinge on the peaceful enjoyment and the right to peaceful enjoyment of citizens at present on the roads of Barbados, and placing them on a race track near us for profit and sport enjoyment would localize noise in such a way as to affect both health and property values.

   The EIA has stated that there should be a rule to keep the noise of each individual car below 102 decibels, which is 50 decibels above recommended EIA/USA Federal Highways code for peaceful, tranquil communities.

   In terms of quantification the quantifiable amount of a noise is proportional to the square of the decibel level, by a mathematical equation.

   Noise amount is proportional to the decibel level squared.

   A single car at 102 decibels would create approximately 4 times the noise level of maximum acceptable for “tranquil” in the USA (50 dBa).

   102 dba/50 dba = 2.04 times the noise level in decibels.

   The amount of noise is proportional to the square of the level, so:

   Noise amount = 2.04 x 2.04 = for 1 car 4.16 times the amount of actual noise/ sound impact

   If 2 cars on parallel tracks at 102 decibels were run simultaneously the noise would be 8.32 times above acceptable than the 50 dBa USA/EIA standards for quiet communities.

   2 cars at 102 decibels = 4.16 + 4.16 noise amount
   Noise for 2 cars = 8.32 times as much noise than “tranquil”

   If 8 cars were racing, the noise would be 33.3 times as much as quiet, tranquil community permitted levels in the (noisier) USA.

   If the track is expanded from 3000 to 12000 patrons, the noise levels could conceivably be 3 times greater (by mathematics of the patronage), which makes the amount of noise 32 x 3 = 99.9 times the maximum noise amounts acceptable in tranquil countryside communities.

   In every case above, including a single car, this is a great deal of noise.

   On wind-less days the noise of just one car at 102 decibels (as it did during the last race meet) will be able to travel as far as 2 kilometers, and come straight through our open doors and windows, will infuse our shops, churches, and meeting places, because on these days the noise will travel up to 2 kilometres, as noted on the last race day. What would it be like if it were even twice as much, ten times, or more than 100 times as much?

   Investigation of these figures by Stantec (EIA) has been insubstantial, and this important section is most pertinent to Town Planning’s reading and understanding of this objection.

   2) Comments on the EIA “Reducing noise during propagation”:

   Tree screens and berms

   Please read the EIA (page 5). There is no way that tree-screens and berms such as those suggested can stop sound from traveling far and wide. For example, even in the USA’s urban areas, in noisy urban cities with highways and motorways, it is standard for there to be a concrete screen that projects 20 feet above the highest level of a noise generating centre. Since the proposed track is situated on a hill to the north, the concrete screen to try to bounce noise back inwards towards the race track and keep it away from us would have to be as much as 50 feet tall at the southern side to enable noise mitigation from traveling outwards and southwards from northern slope towards the south. However, that will quite possibly only bring the noise level to 75 decibels, which is still 25 decibels above where it should be for “tranquil” country living according to the USA quiet and tranquil standards.

   3) Earplugs/ earmuffs (page 5 EIA)
   Can residents of communities be expected to be given earplugs in exchange for the tranquility of the countryside at present, or is it an infringement of their rights? Maybe race car fans expect to be hearing impaired, but nearby residents certainly do not anticipate such things. We do not accept any suggestion that residents could have to wear earplugs all day on Sunday race-days, and during illegal practising that may (or may not) occur, outside of the scheduled events.

   Post construction monitoring (page 5)
   Who will monitor and protect the residents of the St. Thomas areas if planning permission is granted? Will it be Town and Country Planning? If permission is granted, it could prove quite impossible to prevent and monitor noise, traffic and other impacts. In this case the need would arise to assess damages and/or to create alternative solutions.

   It is possible that Town and Country Planning should look towards the liability aspects to the Government of Barbados before granting or refusing this permission. Although residents are patriots, we cannot be expected to bear damages and/or impacts of a private, profit-seeking venture.

   Without proper investigations and re-testing of the EIA’s “mitigating measures” it cannot be guaranteed to work. From the data seen in the EIA it is certain, however, that mitigation is necessary. However, none of the mitigating measures in the EIA eliminate the problems to us, the villagers, of: the traffic impacts, or the noise, or the dust, or the environmental; or the other concerns.

   There is a Polo development up the hill from the proposed race track, where land spots are selling for large sums. What will be the drop in value if the race track forces the property values there to diminish? What will the drop in foreign exchange earnings become for the land spots in the area?

   There are million dollar spots down at Sandy Lane, quite nearby the highway 2A. Who will pay damages for the losses incurred to Sandy Lane? What will be the drop in foreign exchange earnings when potential investors decide not to buy at Sandy Lane Estates?

   What will be the loss in value to my own 2 acre site next to “Countryside”, where I had planned to retire to a peaceful spot, and to live out my time? What about the loss of value to the properties in the area, where I now have lived for 35 years, along with the law-abiding and peaceful residents of Ship Hill?

   Loss of financial values, as stated in the above 2 paragraphs is one way to quantify repercussions. But how will the loss of quality of life be measured for the residents in the nearby communities, and can dollar figures be placed on their peaceful lives?

   Traffic Impacts and mitigation: PTO/

   Residents of the communities described in the EIA noted their roads being blocked off by patrons who visited the illegal track, even though there was parking available in an adjoining field. The residents of Dukes tenantry were blocked from entering and/or leaving their homes by people parking their cars on the roads, trying to view the event for free from an elevated slope above the track. Friends of Motor Sport Inc employed police, but they did not keep the roads clear, nor prevent intense discomfort and hardship to the residents. The experience is similar for the residents of Shop Hill and Whitehall.

   The plans for this race track envision 3,000 to 12,000 patrons. This is a patronage level that is about the same as Kensington Oval before the present re-development. How can residents of our villages and housing areas be expected to put up with the inconveniences of this much traffic? Please consider the traffic before and after cricket, before and after events at the National Stadium, before and after the gymnasium, and please try to superimpose them into our area. This is the nightmare of traffic that we are starting to look at.

   Since there is a bar in the proposed development, and you can read about refreshments as being key in the rally sites and links aforementioned, we are also looking at 12,000 patrons who are positively “liquid refreshed” as an additional factor, legally so, from the ample bar at the race track. Once the patrons are set loose upon the roads, some may enjoy a little after event racing, if they so choose.

   This is a great fear, since our children walk and play close to, and around, these roadways, that there will be a great danger posed, one which the Rally Club is in no way able to prevent, or to mitigate. Town Planning can prevent this from happening.

   Social Impact

   There must have been a great deal of alcohol abuse during the last illegal race day at Vaucluse, which is the one which was very noisy, and after the event the roads then became a death watch for an accident from drunken supporters, driving as if he or she were on the track itself. I myself had to pull to the side at Edghill Heights phase one, and was nearly head-on destroyed by a man who clearly could hardly see, far less drive. My wife and Daughter were in the car too.

   We do not accept that traffic impact will be mitigated from “after event roadsters”, and we fear for our lives, and those of our children. If there is a death or injury originating from a person attending a race track event Town and Country Planning, the Friends of Motor Sport, Stantec, and the driver(s) of the vehicle(s) will be held responsible, and damages could, and probably will, be sought.

   Waste water

   For 12,000 patrons as proposed, there will need to be 72 ‘porta-potties’, as per the EIA, in order to satisfy regulations. Will this be complied with?

   Similarly, oil and gas runoff from environmentally unfriendly machines is said by the EIA to be negligible. This is not so. All oil and waste will inevitably end up in the water supply, either at Sandy Lane, or in the zone 1 Belle pumping system, because that is where the runoff and ground water goes. This is a fact, and the EIA seems to be avoiding recommending mitigation pre-construction of the environmental issues.

   Conclusion: It is imperative for Town and Country Planning to refuse permission, to make the developers prove that mitigating factors would be sufficient, along with government departments responsible for policing, and to protect the residents fully. It cannot be left to police, or agencies which are paid by organizers of events, to do a job, because they cannot be impartial.

   The EIA is wrong to suggest approval of this project, and it is not a neutral stance to set out a case for an EIA in such a way. It is seems indicative of non-neutrality.

   Permission cannot be granted to this project after it is seen by reading, that the EIA opinion on page 5, bottom of the page, last 2 paragraphs, is not neutral. Please go to the EIA and read these words. We see Stantec proposing mitigation measures and recommending them only post construction. It can be said to be farcical to hear a neutral party placing the horse before the cart, so to speak, in that it never even sought to investigate its recommended mitigation?

   Similarly, an EIA cannot hedge itself by saying post construction monitoring may be necessary. To do so is as if to say, “This report is (going to be) incorrect, but we do not accept responsibility.”

   Allowing this project to proceed, there must be liability accepted. This liability is going to be shared between three parties presently involved: The Friends of Motor Sport, Stantec, and Town Planning. If the residents receive this signed, sealed assurance, and the project goes ahead, then the residents can seek damages from future loss of their qualities of life, values to property, and other areas; in the law courts. This may occur separately or as class action suits.

   The EIA was paid for by the Friends of Motor Sport and is not neutral from our viewpoint. A neutral EIA is an imperative for the Town Planning Department to enforce, long before this project can ever be approved.

   In questioning of Justin Jennings-Wray of Stantec at the Dec 13 meeting, he confirmed that mitigation measures were purely theoretical, and had not been in any way measured or investigated.

   After a neutral EIA is done, then there must be a series of new Town Hall meetings, and not at Christmas time when people are distracted, and should be advertised. With full page ads, not the tiny ads that no-one saw in the papers at the busy Christmas advertising season. The residents and general public have a right to a neutral study on this proposed project, and they have a right for this to be done at a time on the calendar when it is convenient; not a Tuesday evening at Christmas.

   At the bottom of page 8 the EIA recommends the granting of permission to the project in advance of mitigation. Is this what a neutral party would do? Why has there been no measurement or investigation of whether any mitigating measures will work? And again, who will monitor the project; who will measure the effects on residents, and who will protect us if this project goes ahead and measure the mitigation?

   Phase 2 is not going to be acceptable to residents, nor is phase 1, or even the illegal racing that has already occurred in the past.

   Comments on “Executive Summary” of the EIA

   Page numbers in the EIA are not sequential. The executive summary of the EIA reverts back to pages numbered as 1.1, 1.2, etc, when in fact this portion of my letter is an analysis of a completely different section. The EIA is quite a fuzzy, ambiguous document in this respect.

   Page 1.1 of the executive summary points out that paving of a track in the location of an agricultural field was done in 2003, which contravened the law.

   Page 1.1 of the executive summary points out that it is expected to have 12,000 patrons, a drag strip, a club house, and to take away the public road, but uses figures for smaller race events to justify a recommendation for approval.
   1) It is unusual for a public road that has been used for generations to be interfered with, and residents do not wish for it, nor do they give their permission. I use this road when I drive to Welchman Hall, to Cattlewash, Bathsheba and Baxters. I do not think it correct to remove it, even if a bypass is proposed. It is also part of my afternoon jogging, and ZI enjoy its use in my 5 and 10 Km practices.
   2) What will noise levels be like?
   3) What are the traffic problems that will be associated?
   4) What are the environmental issues?

   Section 1.4 of the executive summary of the EIA: “Dust Issues”
   It seems somewhat strange that the issue of dust is considered on agriculture before being considered on people. There was a complaint from a resident at the Dec 13 meeting about dust. The resident did not consider the cloud of dust entering his home to be “negligible”. Thus the EIA has somehow come to the wrong conclusion concerning dust.

   Quite rightly the issue of dust could be mitigated by paving a track at the location. However, as the EIA stated earlier, it would result in an increased generation of noise. This is stated clearly within the EIA, but it is not used as a reason to prevent the paving. Instead it is used to make representation for reducing dust.

   In contravention of the laws of Barbados, a portion of the proposed race track has already been concreted. This is wrong, and the Friends of Motor Sport should be punished.

   Section 1.5 of the EIA “Noise issues”

   The EIA does not consider residents to be subjected to noise impacts in paragraph 1.5. This is incorrect. Tree screens and berms are not a solution, or a mitigating factor, that will be sufficient to allow approval of this project. Ear plugs are unacceptable to residents. A pertinent question is, “If the residents are not noise impacted, why does the EIA propose mitigating factors?” Is this a logical scientific thing for professional people to conclude?

   Contrary to the EIA, the potential for huge noise impact is real. It is not negligible, nor has it been negligible during past race meets that were held illegally. The EIA has thus come to an incorrect conclusion in respect of noise, and is equally errant, in terms of neutrality, when it recommends the approval of the project, especially as a neutral party doing a study is mandated to be.

   Section 1.6 of the EIA “Fuel/ disposal”

   Since fuel is largely non-biodegradable, the EIA has come to an incorrect conclusion re disposal of fuel and hydrocarbon wastes. Hydrocarbon reserves have existed underground for billions of years before being discovered without them bio-degrading. The only way to contain this waste would be to construct walls and an impervious ground surface at all points of the site. Otherwise the hydrocarbons will find their way into the water sooner rather than later. This is not negligible. Again, the EIA is incorrect in suggesting that this would be negligible. There are environmental issues to be studied.

   Section 1.7 of the EIA “Traffic Issues”

   The EIA again has ignored the basic issue of impingement on the rights of residents when it considers traffic, and is suggesting that management is a solution. It is unacceptable. It is probable that the public roads can accommodate traffic flow for vehicles that might wish to come past such location, but accommodation and impacts are another thing altogether. The EIA focuses on the wrong area- ‘traffic flow’- rather than the real problems of: obstruction of traffic, trespassing, drunk driving, and harassment of residents. Cars park illegally, impede pedestrian and regular traffic flow, and the reckless culture of the amateur rally-car driver on the public roads of Barbados should not be entertained. In fact the EIA quite studiously seems to ignore and gloss over these areas. If this project is to be entertained, it should be far away from the peaceful and tranquil village communities like ours.

   Consideration of a drag strip cannot be entertained. It would be as loud as the end of Grantley Adams runway. Noise impact studies in the USA consider projects of racing tracks and airports as completely separate from regular noise studies. The EIA has not even once mentioned that this is a fact. It is strange that it has not.

   Section 1.8 of the EIA “Social Impact”

   The social impact Assessment outlines the concerns of the residents polled on page 1.6.

   The SIA pollsters asked residents whether negative impacts could be improved by adequate policing, organization, and management, and naturally the majority agreed. This is a ‘leading question’, in that it suggests that the solution to the problems associated with this track will be manageable by upgrading their infrastructure. This is a false and misleading statement. Since there is no monitoring or policing solution suggested except through the organisers, it is again quite presumptuous that the unbiased SIA could possibly suggest that these factors are, on page 1.7, ‘too insignificant to warrant cessation of racing’, rather than making a presentation of the facts to the Dec 13 meeting, and taking note of residents’ concerns. There were concerns voiced on Dec 13 which were legitimate, and were not ‘insignificant’.

   We were informed that the results of the objections brought at the Town Hall meeting of Dec 13, legitimately objecting to the EIA, would not be available to those wishing to know, bespoke by Patrick Bryan of Town Planning on Dec 13 at Lester Vaughan School. As objectors we need to understand how our objections are being addressed, and we implore all government agencies to please act with transparency to the local populations, who are very worried about the impacts. No approval should be given without the general public knowing what procedures and measures are being stipulated and being discussed. Since the concerns are voiced by ourselves, do we not have a right to know how we are being protected?

   “Environmental monitoring” Section 1.10 of EIA, page 1.7

   The EIA recommends monitoring of nuisances, but who will do so if this track is approved? Will it be an arm of the Friends of Motor Sport? Can the residents of these areas depend on neutral and fair protection from the organizers of race events in truth? Would it be a valid assumption for Town Planning to make?

   On page 1.8 there are recommendations for the reduction of soil erosion. This is a good idea. However, the EIA advocates the idea of suck-wells downstream of the track, where hydrocarbons, pollutants and other wastes will go into the ground water. Not a good idea.

   On page 1.9 we read that the plans for this track, contrary to what is written elsewhere, involve the excavation and removal of the entire soil bed from this field down to rock. Alternatively and within the EIA, we read of a different approach elsewhere in the report. We do not revisit the idea of dust reduction by way of excavating and removing every bit of soil form this site, which continues to be a legally designated agricultural field! Which plan that is contained in the EIA is the correct one?

   On page 1.10 under “noise” the EIA states that racing, including practicing, should be limited to one Sunday per month. Do we really believe that this can and will be limited to one day per month?
   How would the residents stop rally cars from practicing on other days, and where would their complaints be heard?

   On the same page, 1.10, the EIA states that, “all racing should be in day light, but for night racing, permission would be sought from residents within 500 metres”. The first question is, “Would residents have ability to say ‘no’?” The second question is “whether the residents who live further away, and who would continue to be affected, would be able to object?” Apparently not under this EIA. Therefore we would have to state that the EIA cannot be held as authoritative, because we maintain that we have already seen impacts. The EIA designates only an area of 500 metres from the race track as an area that is significantly impacted. This is simply not true. We do not accept the EIA designation of 500 metres.

   On page 1.11, it is false to suggest that trees would prevent noise from leaving the site.

   On page 1.11 it is admitted and published that there will be vehicles of greater up to 102 dBA. If more than one, or bunches of these vehicles are deemed acceptable, the noise level becomes greater. This admission is extremely scary, but it is very important, and must be noted. It is indicative that we are looking at a hugely noisy project.

   Page 1.11 conceptualises shuttle buses and locked gates between our communities. Will shuttle buses ever be organized? By whom? Residents will continue to be inconvenienced, and their rights will continue to be contravened.

   “Social Impacts”, page 1.12 of the EIA

   If race events are only to be held once per month, then it is logical that we would know when they would occur. What is this statement in Social Impacts, where it says: “organizers would give a week’s notice”?

   Section 1.12, EIA Conclusions

   It is incorrect for an EIA to recommend a conclusion if it is submitting an impartial and unbiased report that is tabled to the general public. This conclusion is surely to be done by the Chief Town Planner. The decision to approve or to reject by Town Planning will be based on balanced concerns for the residents, the environment, the surrounding developments, and the proposers.

   The general public has a right to an unbiased EIA. And the Town and Country Planning Department has the obligation to protect the common citizen in his/her quest for peaceful and healthy life on his land.

   The EIA goes on to describe the project outline, and moves on afterwards to talk about waste disposal, dust impact and then noise impact (yet again).

   On page 5.6 there is a photograph of a dust cloud in the air at Vaucluse, and as a layman I would like to comment on the dust impact by simply asking, “What if this cloud were to be coming into your window, like it has done to residents at Dukes, St. Thomas?”

   On page 6.1 there is a definition of noise, plus a few named barriers to sound/noise. Unfortunately, I cannot foresee the named barriers, as writ in the EIA, stopping noise from traveling to surrounding neighborhoods. Most especially, when the winds are light, the sounds of this track are not only audible, but profoundly disturbing, from Bridgefield and Cane Garden, St Thomas. This is about 2 kilometres away. Having a race track near to your house is identical to having an airport near your house. Residents simply cannot accept it.

   “Noise abatement standards” pages 6.1- 6.12 of EIA

   There are no noise abatement standards in Barbados, as written in the EIA page 6.1, and as spoken by Justin Jennings-Wray of Stantec. However, the EIA does show that there will be significant noise increases if a race track is at Vaucluse, and no increase whatsoever over present tranquil can be accepted by residents. Town Planning must ensure it to remain as it is.

   The EIA uses standards for the USA under the federal highway act. Noise in other countries is kept to lower levels than the USA standards. The EIA is of the opinion that utilizing standards of USA urban developed areas is acceptable. I do not agree. Should Town and Country Planning find it acceptable, one would have to ask that the low noise levels of pristine parks and agricultural land be the designation and standard used (50 decibel maximum), rather than the EIA choice of “other”, which is what it would become, if the project were granted.

   I would therefore place our community in the category A or E of the designation table, because we are a countryside peaceful, serene, agricultural community. The EIA places us in category C (75 decibel maximum). In other words, the EIA seems to deem it acceptable to change the present category into a new category. This is an incorrect assumption, because many residents have purchased land and have built houses in this area for the precise reason that it is quiet and peaceful. In fact, the “Countryside” development (sold to buyers by the same owner of this track- Vaucluse Estates), sold at prime real estate prices, was advertised as a “beautiful place to live”, (quote from advertising leaflet). If loud rally race-meets are conducted at this location, then the advertising of “Countryside” is less than correct..

   The EIA admits that there will be individual cars which (EACH) may create up to 102 dBA (ref page 1.11 EIA). If several of these cars are present, then the levels WILL be above the acceptable standards.

   The EIA has made decibel testing a few times, but it has not made the distinction between sustained noise, and transient noise. This is one very serious criticism to the Stantec EIA. This is a criticism that should be responded to with a great deal of further study, since the EIA measurements are insufficient to quantify sustained noise versus transient noise, and it draws conclusions without understanding or addressing the distinction.

   On page 6.4 of the EIA we are shown that the noise levels at 475 metres from the proposed track are above 50 dBA. Yet the EIA states a different conclusion in writing than what the graphs show. Please be careful to look at the graphs, and to understand that there is a conflict between here. Which is correct?

   The EIA has levels of base noise between 55 and 75 dBA. Often wind in the microphone can give a falsely higher reading, and I would have to recommend that the base measurements be retaken carefully by several other neutral parties in shaded areas out of the wind. I will do my own measurements, and will use them for my own purposes at appropriate times, and I will be looking at distinctions between sustained versus transient noise additionally.

   Does a passing truck constitute a sustained noise, when compared with a day of constant rally car racers at high decibel levels? Is a transient momentary noise comparable with the sustained noise of the race-car track? The EIA does not test this important area. The EIA measurements do not show the decibel level per second, and this is yet another serious flaw in the testing methods. The decibel levels recorded do not show whether decibel levels are actually lower than the EIA results on average, whether the EIA used the highest recorded level for their study, or any sampling methods. Town Planning must call for a study from an independent firm who specializes in noise level studies from abroad. Even the equipment that Stantec used was borrowed from another firm in Barbados. Better studies and examination must be undertaken. The reason for this has been shown in this letter, that the Stantec EIA has not shown conclusively or exhaustively that the recommendation to approve is the correct one.

   Maximum SUSTAINED noise levels during racing were 85-95 dBA, which is above the permitted thresholds, and were measured at 95 dBA at a distance of 350 metres.

   Maximum permitted noise levels of the rally cars were therefore measured above the acceptable levels, and this can be seen by reading the graphs. Thus the project cannot be acceptable, even within its own definition. How can the EIA recommend the approval of the project when these measurements have been recorded? The graphs do not indicate the same conclusions as the written words of the EIA.

   If the race meets are expanded, or the facilities developed, the decibel levels will rise correspondingly, probably to above 100 dBA.

   How will the impact of noise be on days with no wind? On these days there will be up to 100 decibels in the windows of Shop Hill residents. What if the meets are made larger? Will the Friends of Motor Sport, Stantec, and Town Planning be prepared for class action?

   The EIA in section 6 says there is no significant difference between race days and normal days at measured points around the race track. This is incorrect, and further study is mandatory.

   On page 6.9 the EIA states that noise from trucks at Central playing field are more significant than the racing car. Why then did we only hear sustained noise of the race cars in Shop Hill and not the mentioned trucks, as per EIA section 6.9? Is this a difference between “sustained noise” versus “transitory noise”?

   At point W, X and Y, residential homes, regular base readings are 53 dBA, whereas the racing days bring it to 94 dBA. Not only this, but the race cars are SUSTAINED noise, whereas a passing truck is transitory.

   “Environmental monitoring program” EIA page 6.15

   There are no environmental agencies in Barbados that presently link with any enforcement agencies in government. If it is approved, how will the residents interests be protected?

   The EIA has written much about noise measurement in section 6, but it has not undertaken a study that is in any way exhaustive enough to make any conclusions regarding noise impacts.

   The EIA has only suggested mitigation measures, but it has not undertaken to guarantee that any or all of these measures can or could be successful. Mitigation measures surely cannot be backed by an EIA unless they are guaranteed?

   A new study must be undertaken by a neutral party.

   “Traffic Impact Analysis” EIA- section 7, page 7.1:

   Monitoring of our roads and counting cars does not take into account the inconvenience and disruption to residents. The EIA considers an area that is not relevant to we residents, while it does not consider relevant facts that relate to impedance of access, time lost, danger in event of household emergency, dangerous driving, and other inconveniences.

   Other than acknowledging that these factors exist, the EIA has not addressed them. A new, neutral EIA should address these things.

   We do not accept a bypass in lieu of our public road at Dukes, and we categorically state our opposition to its removal, with a great many grounds.

   Social Impact Assessment, section 8, page 8.1:

   The SIA notes that if passed, there will be an increase in “intensity” of rally car racing at the site. The SIA study has not taken the study to the full impacted community, as per this letter, into account.

   The SIA notes that one house in the very close proximity to the proposed project has a commercial enterprise. However, it is not noted as to whether it is disruptive or damaging to the community’s welfare.

   On page 8.3, section 8.4, the SIA notes that residents expect that there will be potential changes in the property value. This is very significant. Who will be responsible for the drop in property values for the homes and the land in proximity to this project?

   The SIA states that householders polled only considered traffic impacts, and not noise impacts to be significant. I can do nothing at this point in time but to say that this statement should be discarded, and a more neutral, more extensive study in this area be undertaken, and for further testing to be done.

   The SIA is incorrect that noise is only an issue during rallies, and not during the race-meets at the track, and it is incorrect that dust is insignificant.

   The SIA is in conflict to its own statement on page 8.3, where it says householders only experienced difficulty with traffic, because on page 8.4, in the table 8.2 it states that residents complained for the noise. Statements in this respect by the EIA may thusly be discarded.

   Re increased employment in our community: Vaucluse was once a well-run plantation which rotated sugar cane, and supplemented ground provisions as a way to generate cash flow out of sugar season. It was not re-possessed because it was bankrupt. After the sale to its present owners, for whatever reasons applied, the entire full-time staff was terminated, most of who came from St. Thomas areas.

   We heard at the Town Hall meeting of Dec 13 about the carrot of employment (possibly for nearby residents).

   The SIA seems to have little concern for local residents’ peace, when it suggests that loud noise be up until 10 PM at night, in section 8.5, page 8.5. How can babies, school-children, and early risers accept this?

   The SIA is incorrect in section 8.6, first sentence, where it states that the number of households affected is small. It is only small because of the way that this EIA has demarcated the noise impacts, but it is not small when one demarcates it with reference to the communities written in the overview of the EIA- namely Dukes, Vaucluse, Shop Hill, Countryside, Christie Village, Whitehall, and others. Any new EIA must change this method of demarcation, in the same way as it must enlarge and expand on the noise measurement and analysis.

   The SIA on page 8.6 in the bottom paragraph notes that dust problems are not generally a problem. One complaining resident at the Dec 13 meeting categorically denied this.

   Furthermore, in the summer, when tropical waves go by; which is 6 months of the year; the wind clocks between north, south, east and west. To hear a neutral SIA state that impacts may be only due to a “localised weather event” (quote) is interesting. What is a “localised weather event”? How often does it happen?

   That is my summary and commentary on the EIA, which responds sequentially to the sections written in the EIA. I reserve the right to add to my concerns, or to modify them.

   If a race-track, or any project similar to the one referred to is approved, all parties in the community have the right to seek redress and damages from all the parties presently involved: The people who are developing the track, the property owners, Stantec, the Government of Barbados, and/or Town and Country Planning. Other parties may also be added. Drop in land values, damages to the peace and enjoyment, damage to health and other areas are only a few examples of areas of concern, because there are a great many more that are not listed, but will no doubt be added.

   Many thanks for your department’s study of my letter in conjunction with the EIA, and I do look forward to Town Planning’s acknowledgement to this registered letter, which demands your response.

   Yours truly,

   .

   cc.: The Hon Cynthia Forde, MP for St. Thomas.
   The Hon Elizabeth Thompson, Minister for Housing and Lands.
   Anthony Headley, Director of the Environmental Protection Agency.

   Executive Summary of this letter

   1) Objections to the Vaucluse Raceway were voiced on Dec 13 at Lester Vaughan School. The “Friends of Motor Sport employed a stenographer”, who was supposed to take full notes, and Patrick Bryan was present as the representative from the Town Planning Department.
   2) We have not had any response or help with our objections, voiced on Dec 13.
   3) We ask that the application be refused.
   4) The site in question has been used illegally for commerce, and is still zoned as an agricultural field. However, at http://www.rallyman.com they advertise further illegal racing at the Vaucluse venue on March 26, in contravention.
   5) Mitigation measures suggested by the EIA are hypothetical, and the EIA have admitted that they have not been investigated practically at all.
   6) At the proposed 12,000 patrons, the impacts on residents of the proposed development would be huge.
   7) Mitigation measures are inadequate.
   8) The racing already damages peaceful enjoyment entitled to residents. Noise, traffic, dust, and environmental issues surround the application, and our letter goes into depth regarding each impact.
   9) Contrary to the EIA, impacts have already been observed by residents from as far away as 2 kilometers, making it mandatory to refuse the application. The EIA states that all impacts are negligible.
   10) The EIA makes conclusions of its own, but alternate conclusions are equally possible, if not more probable, from the data.
   11) The EIA is not neutral. It makes recommendation.
   12) Noise for airports and race tracks are both considered separate in the USA, because they are much noisier than regular commerce, excepting highways/ motorways. The EIA wrongly attempts, controversially, to classify the race track, using inadequate testing methods, and classification methods.
   13) Dust impacts were complained on Dec 13, from Dukes.
   14) Noise impacts were complained about from Shop Hill, on Dec 13.
   15) Traffic impacts were complained about from Dukes and Shop Hill, and from Vaucluse, on Dec 13.
   16) A petition is being signed and will be submitted soon.
   17) Race cars create more noise than a rural setting allows, and this is mathematically examined inside this letter.
   18) Traffic problems have been observed, and are not addressed by the EIA. Behavioral impacts during “traffic problems” are a problem that it is impossible to mitigate, and which poses danger to residents.
   19) Sanitation and environmental issues have not been properly addressed. Waste water containing hydrocarbons will be sent into the water supply through suck-wells.
   20) There will be large-scale diminished property values from a development of this sort in this location, and a great reduction in potential business in several areas surrounding the proposed site, including the Polo estate and Sandy Lane, and also my own lot, adjoining the “countryside” development.
   21) Economic impacts are a shared liability, and Town Planning will carry a share if the project is passed.
   22) There are no adequate post-construction monitoring or enforcement methods in place to protect residents.
   23) Many patrons at race days do drink alcohol. This is dangerous, and traffic problems always have always resulted at other venues. This area is not such a venue. Lives of residents are at risk. Town Planning will be hold a share of the responsibility if injury of loss of life occurs during, before, or after a race event; by patron(s) who were present at the event.
   24) After race events patrons use the roads to drive quickly. Liability in the case of injury or loss of life will be held in the same way as in 21), whether or not a patron/ former patron has been drinking alcohol.
   25) Race cars have not been caused to practice sound reduction to a level of 50 decibels, which is acceptable, and many of them create more than 103 decibels noise level.
   26) Trees and ‘berms’ cannot stop sound from traveling far and wide.
   27) Social impacts were observed and admitted in the EIA.
   28) The EIA has demarcated impacts incorrectly.
   29) The EIA has not correctly measured noise, and has not separated, nor understood, the meaning of ‘sustained noise’ versus ‘transient noise’.
   30) The EIA has not understood the need for measurement of noise per second.
   31) The EIA used borrowed equipment, and is not experienced in studies of noise pollution.
   32) The proposal suggests night racing, which will impact residents with children and jobs, and stop them from resting at night.
   33) The EIA relies on weather conditions to mitigate their disturbances, which is incorrect.
   34) The EIA does not consider a large enough sample to be relevant.
   35) The EIA does not say how random samples were obtained.
   36) Town Planning will have shared liability if it allows the project to proceed- in every way.
   37) The writers urge careful study of this letter, and refusal of the application for this race track.

   Loading...

   Reply ↓
3. 
   

   David- I sent it to you. It’s a 20 pager. Plus other info and letters. By the way, is there a big road on the google earth link by the gate at Vaucluse? Here’s the link again
   http://maps.google.com/maps?ie=UTF8&ll=13.176189,-59.593416&spn=0.005735,0.011694&t=k&z=17&om=1

   That guy Frankology is a big liar. How come you let him blog on your site?

   Loading...

   Reply ↓
4. 
   

   U. Goodenough,

   Stupid crap.

   Get a life you ignorant loser.

   Loading...

   Reply ↓
5. 
   

   Could someone place an summarised and bulleted version of this excellent piece of information for those millions of people who don’t like to read extremely lengthy contributions on the internet….and since it’s unlikely we’ll ever see it in the local news the sooner the better.

   Observer we know that our resident Analyst Frankology who has been following this matter with keen interest will oblige!

   David
   

   Loading...

   Reply ↓
6. 
   

   That guy Frankology is a big liar. How come you let him blog on your site?
   …………………………………………………………………….
   The same way you are allowed to bring yout personal vendetta on the same blog. Same scenario from your original post, this time lota waste information no related to the real facts.

   I will respond tomorrow. Iam spending quality time with my family.

   Loading...

   Reply ↓
7. 
   

   What “evidence”?

   There is nothing posted there but another load of sh*t from another stupid cowardly Bajan lickmout.

   The usual stuff… gossip and lies.

   Loading...

   Reply ↓
8. 
   

   U.Goodeneough ………go live somewhere else then ignorant fool …..jeez u need a brain u dummy. i dont even know how to comment on this filthy garbage i ill say this though shame on BU for even thinking of publishing it

   Loading...

   Reply ↓
9. 
   

   I don’t take part in
   kadoomment
   party moarch
   reggae on the hill
   jazz festival
   gospel fest
   holders season
   fun run
   fun ride
   emancipation walk
   etc etc
   and I have no problem with who does.
   My point?
   this island is only 14 x 26 miles in size [ i think ] and it is inhabited by people of various races, classes, religion, etc.
   SO WE GOT TO LEARN HOW TO LIVE WITH AND TOLERATE EACH OTHER AND OUR PAST TIMES, HOBBIES OR WHATEVER. U.Goodenough get a life!!

   Loading...

   Reply ↓
10. 
    

    well said crossroads U.Goodeneough is just a selfish self centered human

    Loading...

    Reply ↓
11. 
    

    sry above post was mine

    Loading...

    Reply ↓
12. 
    

    sry above post was mine

    Loading...

    Reply ↓
13. 
    

    U Goodenough,

    Very thorough and logical exposition. The only response of your detractors is abuse. They are lost for words.

    Crossroads, we learn to live with and tolerate each other by respecting the rights of others and following the rule of law for the orderly development of the country. Very important especially we are only 14 x 26 miles in size.

    If not the rule of law what then, the law of the jungle, the rich oppressing the poor, the political class oppressing the governed, the privileged oppressing the underprivileged?

    Based on Goodenough’s submissions I am coming around to the view that the developer has taken the attitude that he really could not care less what the Town Planning department says. He has had some legal advice and he is proceeding regardless and challenging Town Planning to do something about it.

    From the photos that Goodenough has presented there is no doubt development as defined by the Town Planning Act Cap240, is taking place. It is no longer debatable. Roads are being widened and paved. Maybe new roads have been cut?

    If there is no planning permission the law is being broken. Are you happy about that? If after all this time planning permission has not been granted, why is that?

    Loading...

    Reply ↓
14. 
    

    We are seeing three scenarios.

    The first being application 2263/10/2000 be the ‘retention of existing track.
    The language is retention of the track, it did not speak of erection of building, it did not speak of barber green roads. What you were seeing from then to now is marl. That is not ‘fixed’ construction.

    The second is change of use -again, this did not consist of any construction.

    The third is Christmas 2005, this was at the Town Hall where the developer might have been testing the waters and include 10 points for the grouping. This is where you can see a wide difference in the equation. If the developer had gone ahead and construct the various facilities as discussed. This would be totally illegal.

    The developer operated within a ‘safe area’ between 2000 and now, within TCP’s regulation. Motorsports can continued, but ensure that it is not entwined with illegal activities.

    All that long wasted submission did not move away from the original post; and I was surprise at the excited hype in the headline.

    Again I state, you receive an ‘enforcement order’ when you breached the law, you cannot get an ‘enforcement order’ during the run of the application – before or after the fact.

    This quote sums up the reason for objection by this Ursula Goodenough..
    ‘The Minister was beseeched – never to allow motor sport to be held in said area, and to refuse the application, and to designate the sole spot for motorsport in Barbados to be Bushy Park.
    The Minister was beseeched – call the Chief Magistrate for St. Thomas to refuse to grant a liquor license, and to call the Barbados Police to withhold their services.
    The resident, on behalf of the petitioners, thanked the Minister for judgment in favour of the residents.”

    This blog has been repeating itself and this will be the last submission for me until we see response from the PM himself,

    Loading...

    Reply ↓
15. 
    

    Frankology et al we commend the citizen/s of the area for highlighting the issues for Barbadians to know about and discuss. This is an example of democracy at work. One can agree or disagree but if more Barbadians would stand-up in a similar vain maybe the apathy, cynicism and down-right ignorance of Barbadians to attacking issues which should be of concern would fade. We can cite our passivity to matters related to consumerism, improvement of the educational and health care systems and our ad hoc approach to the development of sports. So some may think that the blog is going around in circles and that is OK but what we see is a resident(s) who feels passionate about a cause and is/are prepared to fight it.

    Bare in mind that motor sports has a strong lobby in Barbados and it takes tremendous courage to do what U.Goodenough is doing. BU remains impartial for the time being in this matter and continues to be prepared to give any citizen of Barbados who wants to articulate a cause a platform to do it.

    Loading...

    Reply ↓
16. 
    

    Anyone reading the transcription of the meeting cannot but notice the complete arrogance of the racetrack developer. “The Friends of Motorsport must be obeyed”. I mean WHAT??!!! Who does this individual think he is? Methinks that if this were Virginia or some rural part of the United States, he would be leading his own militia already. He has absolutely no regard for the law, nor respect for government officials. Well done, U. Goodenough and friends, for standing up to this insufferable ego.

    Loading...

    Reply ↓
17. 
    

    David, I have no problems with anyone vending problems on the blog, I prefer to wait for the outcome, thus my reason to refrain from commenting any further on this subject.

    When an event is taking place at Vaucluse,
    The organiser must pay VAT…
    Must get Police Approval…
    Must have Medical personnel present…
    Must get various licenses, namely liquor…

    As I stated constantly, once the developer operate without any fixed structures, the TCP cannot stop any activities, providing such activities do not go pass the legal required time.
    Based on those facts, it cannot be deemed as illegal and this can go on forever.

    That is the law governing the TCP. Application supercedes ‘enforcement orders’. Remember, racing was part of Vaucluse far longer than 2000.

    Loading...

    Reply ↓
18. 
    

    Frankology,

    So you are saying that no buildings = no development as set out in the Town Planning Act?

    From TCPDO website

    http://www.townplanning.gov.bb/content.aspx?c=9

    The Town and Country Planning Act, Cap. 240, defines development as “The carrying out of building, engineering, mining or other operations in, on, over or under any land, the making of any material change in use of any buildings, or other land or the subdivision of land”..
    The legislation relates to all lands within the limits of the territorial waters of Barbados and would therefore include all coastal and marine development within the 200 nautical mile territorial limits. There are three (3) aspects to this definition:
    1. carrying out operations in, on, over or under land; and
    2. material change of use; and
    3. subdivision.
    Any operation on land that requires planning permission should result in some physical alteration of the land and have some degree of permanence to the land itself. In the case of change of use, it would amount to activities, which are carried out in, alongside, or on the land, but would not interfere with its actual physical characteristics.
    It surely looks like material change of use form Agricultural to Car Racing/Recreation. What were formerly cart roads look to be being widened and paved etc. Major development taking place.

    I could be wrong but……….

    Loading...

    Reply ↓
19. 
    

    Waterboy, this is the said reason why I say the developers operated within ‘a safe zone’. The developer maintained an infrastructure void of any fixed building, thus the reason that TCP can not curtail any activities. A simple scenario is the Party Monarch, this area is temporary converted for this event. You will see that no fixed structures are in place, thus you will not see a ‘fixed change of use’, just permission granted from the other agencies of Government. Maybe, this might be a TCP loophole.

    Loading...

    Reply ↓
20. 
    

    Frankology
    Just read Waterboy’s submission again. How does the building of a racetrack, the pouring of used engine oil on compacted marl, and the building of a bridge, not constitute material change of use? If the area is zoned as agricultural, you would have to explain how it could be used for agriculture in the future, following what is happening now. What is happening at Vaucluse bears absolutely no similarity to the arrangements for Party Monarch, bad as they are. You also use the word “developers” – interesting word considering the context.

    Loading...

    Reply ↓
21. 
    

    The bridge was in existence for over 75 years, it was just rebuilt. The inside areas have not changed.

    We are hearing of agricultural uses, I do not anticipate that this area would ever be put back to the growing of canes. We know that the financial benefits are out weight by losses. Check with he agriculturist that are still growing canes.

    Instead of a race track, the owners could have allowed the area to run wild and down the road make application for ‘a change of use’. When you look at it, the area is a beautiful sight without the ugly tall bushes as seen on the opposite side.

    Loading...

    Reply ↓
22. 
    

    You obviously didn’t look at both the pictures posted in this very article.

    This is a very, very sad and ugly time.

    Loading...

    Reply ↓
23. 
    

    Frankology
    The ugly bush as far as the eye can see from even the highest elevation also belongs to Vaucluse. Sugar cane is not the only crop that can be grown in Barbados, and even though the thought of thousands of Bajans tending their back yards as per the PM is nice, it’s just not practical. Today, the PM warns of soaring import costs due to the decline of the US dollar. How much of that cost and foreign exchange could be saved by growing our own food, or the use of cane for ethanol? With the rapidly increasing cost of imported food, growing local could become more cost effective and profitable. Don’t tell it to Cozier, though. Some of the finest agricultural land in Barbados, in a high rainfall area, is being deliberatley let go in order to make megabucks in real estate. You seem to be happy with that, though, so long as a little part of it is chewed up for a race track. Are you any better than Cozier?

    Loading...

    Reply ↓
24. 
    

    Peltdownman,

    You mean that the people associated with the raceway have allowed the excellent agricultural land at Vaucluse to be overgrown by ugly bush?

    You must be mistaken because I believe that these same people are joining a consortium called Agricultural Investments Ltd to gain control of over thousands of acres of agricultural land owned by Barbados Farms Ltd. I think this guest column in the Nation says it all.

    http://www.nationnews.com/editorial/293450377327404.php

    GUEST COLUMN: Losing our arable land
    Published on: 9/28/07.
    BY FRANCES CHANDLER
    I NOTED WITH INTEREST and chagrin the proposal made by a company called Agricultural Investments Ltd, reported to comprise a number of individual companies, to buy Barbados Farms Ltd.
    In my opinion the name Agricultural Investments is a misnomer, since agriculture, as far as I am concerned, is not foremost in the minds of any of the persons involved.
    Judging from the condition of the plantation lands presently controlled by the head of one of the companies involved, it is difficult to believe that this person would suddenly promote agriculture on Barbados Farms lands.

    Loading...

    Reply ↓
25. 
    

    Thanks, Waterboy – that hits the nail on the head. Why is it that, as a country, we can’t seem to be able to think things through? The relationship between the landscape and tourism. The relationship between foreign exchange spending and agriculture. The “one shot” nature of development, where just a very privileged few abscond with the booty. Cozier and his racetrack are symptomatic of our problem but, does anyone really care?

    Loading...

    Reply ↓
26. 
    

    Ms. Goodenough

    Why dont u post ur address so that when there is nomore racing at vaucluse the 5000 fans can come by and show their appreciation? Silly, narrowminded, self-opinionated xxxxxxxx!!

    Loading...

    Reply ↓
27. 
    

    that xxxxxxxx should be j@ck@$$

    Loading...

    Reply ↓
28. 
    

    I am an ardent motorsports fan, but I don’t like the tone of Mr.cozier. I say shut it to hell down.

    Loading...

    Reply ↓
29. 
    

    Ask yourself this though… How do you know what Mr. Cozier’s ‘tone’ is? This is a biased report given by someone who is vehemently AGAINST Mr. Cozier and his plans.

    Loading...

    Reply ↓
30. 
    

    Why is it that this is turned into a huge issue. If Town and Country planning paid real attention in the first place it would have be shut down along time ago. How many squatters “houses” get removed due to safety, environmental concerns. They can surely push the small man around but people with money they have to pay more respect to. If government really wanted to close this potential foreign exchange earner then they would have. The ministry of toursim sees it potential as and earner, the fans that go to events see its potential but the only people that oppose it seem to live in a safe area that can’t be “trespassed” upon by the likes of the average motorsports fan because we apparently are all drunks and drive fast. COMPLETE NONSENSE.
    Allow the approproate permission and studies to be done andsee what they conclude. Everyone must abide by the law so if in violation then stop them but if not then leave it alone. This is just another example of the different areas of government working separately as opposed to an entity. One would have thought with older folks running the country they would be more togetherness. ( And I do have respect for older folks but some are very miserable and set in their wrong, backward ways)

    Loading...

    Reply ↓
31. 
    

    4morevalves. Anybody who knows or has met Cozier knows what his tone is. It’s funny how you car enthusiasts call names of people who genuainely have a concern. You would be the first to cry out for your “rights” if they were affected, but because you happen to like motorsports, suddenly anyone objecting is a subject of ridicule and abuse.
    Concerened Youth, I like the tone of your letter, but believe me, my house has been on the route of one of the rally stages, and I can assure you that my property was damaged, and a bunch of people of all ages drive up, unload cooler chests and booze throughout the stage, and then move on to the next one. There are plenty of drunk drivers, who then become “fast” drivers. Believe me. In Barbados, a “rally” is another word for a “moving party”.

    Loading...

    Reply ↓
32. 
    

    Who have I called names? I have a problem with Ms. Goodenough because of her attitude towards the entire thing. And I’m not interested in hearing anything about name calling, when MOST of the people in this discussion who are against Vaucluse have thrown the race-card in at every available opportunity.

    Loading...

    Reply ↓
33. 
    

    There are plenty of drunk drivers, who then become “fast” drivers. Believe me. In Barbados, a “rally” is another word for a “moving party”.
    ……………………………………………………………………..
    Although I do not condone the consumption of liquor, however, can you tell the bajan public who will consume the most liquor, Car Racing or Kadooment? You have the whole weekend to think about it.

    Loading...

    Reply ↓
34. 
    

    David
    I just sent you, The Nation, CBC, BFP a letter containing the following links, plus one other:
    PAVING
    http://www.youtube.com:80/watch?v=E5BjMlGo6eo

    They are now paving this road they have made. The application was for retention of a 20o0 dirt track.
    PAVING
    ILLEGAL
    PAVING
    ILLEGAL

    And David, our group has now been told by the Prime Ministerhimself, Right Hon. Owen Arthur, that he has also said ‘no’. That’s the news. We hope we’ll get some wider coverage soon… we are optimistic.

    How can these things happen like this? We need to closely examine whatever loopholes they think they are using, shut down these people’s illegal things- if not through Town Planning through RBPF or the Chief Magistrate- and update our laws. We cannot let lawyers and unscrupulouos people do this to innocent citizens.

    God bless Dukes. We know justice will find a way to protect the peaceful residents.

    Loading...

    Reply ↓
35. 
    

    And David, our group has now been told by the Prime Ministerhimself, Right Hon. Owen Arthur, that he has also said ‘no’. That’s the news. We hope we’ll get some wider coverage soon… we are optimistic.
    ……………………………………………………………………..
    Next time you are going to say these people tell you ‘NO’
    David Thompson might tell you ‘No’
    The Governor General might tell you ‘No’
    George Bush might tell you ‘No’
    The Lord might tell you ‘No’, but again you are against Christianity.

    Loading...

    Reply ↓
36. 
    

    Wow. I am a racing fan but not at this cost. It just shows that the MIGHTY HAS INHERIT THE EARTH [ BARBADOS ]. I personally don’t see anything that wrong with the idea but the method used is unacceptable. Whatif the residents of Gaskin road and surrounding areas of Bushy Park objests too. Where would we have car racing. For a long time both gov’ts been making promises but none have done anything to assist in finding a perminent place for one of the biggest sports in B’dos. What about the increase in illegal street racing all over this country and the police seem helpless in curbing it?

    Loading...

    Reply ↓
37. 
    

    Should not be done

    Loading...

    Reply ↓