Previous News Items (March 14 2005 - March 9 2006)

Racecourse development – Will the Joint Racing Committee be able to repay the loans? (9 March 2006)

HOOL understands that concerns have been expressed by the people of Musselburgh about the ability of the Joint Racing Committee to repay the massive loans which they would receive from East Lothian Council and the Horse Racing Betting Levy Board if planning mission is granted for the all weather track at the Links. Fears are that the council loan of £9m leaves the council exposed as they are required to indemnify the syndicate and persons nominated by them in respect of any liability which they incur in connection with MJRC business.

The racecourse reported a profit of £70,000 in the last year but on several occasions in the past decade there have been losses.

HOOL have had a senior bank executive scrutinise the figures. The repayment terms on these loans begs the question on whether they would be repayable. For example, on a 10 year loan at 4.5% interest – the annual repayment would be approximately £1.1m. This would be in addition to repayments on the £2m interest free loan from the Levy Board which would be £200,000 per year over 10 years making a yearly repayment figure of £1,300,000. 

It must also be borne in mind that the sum required for the project is estimated at £11,000,000 and we all know what happened to the final cost when the Scottish Parliament was built.

East Lothian Councillors must have been presented with a business case from the Joint Racing Committee which would give details of anticipated income and the loans would be repaid. This information should be put into the public domain so that the people of East Lothian can see how sound the case is.

It is a giant leap from annual profits of £70,000 to over £1,300,000 and a responsible lender would require an extremely sound business proposition prior to lending this significant amount. How is this shortfall to be met? And will it involve more race days, other events – further restricting access for the people to the Links - or further development on the Links?

Accord to ELC the loan is secured but it would be the public interest to know what it is secured against and if the Common Good Fund is involved. If the repayments were not met, ELC could be saddled with a massive financial catastrophe. Audit Scotland, who have national oversight of public spending and probity will no doubt be extremely interested in this arrangement.

The proposed £9m low interest loan offered by East Lothian Council could be better used in many other areas of our small county.  The benefits of such a loan could make an enormous positive difference to the lives of so many. The proposed racecourse development would not and could not do this.

Timely publication of Scottish Racing Strategic Plan - just a coincidence? (6 March 2006)

At the end of last month Scottish Racing published its’ Strategic Plan. The timing of the publication of Plan was very convenient to say the least. And it appears that the whole of the Scottish Racing industry depends upon what happens at Musselburgh. Well, to quote Mark Twain, if you have to ‘Put all your eggs in the one basket – WATCH THAT BASKET’. 

Subsequently, a number of commentators, particularly in the Scotsman Newspaper/ Evening News, have jumped upon the Plan as a justification for the development of AWT at Musselburgh. It is a shame that these individuals, one of whom admits to being biased, seem unable to report the other side of the story. The whole thing seems an unashamed use by MJRC of the racing media to pursue their point and gives no opportunity for a balanced viewpoint to be expressed. What about the destruction of an historic golf course? (It’s a shame we haven’t heard anything from the Golf correspondents on the matter). What about the fact that existing all weather tracks at Southwell, Lingfield and Wolverhampton are mainly away from the sight of local residents (1km for Southwell – not 10m as is the case for many homes on Linkfield Road). What about the fact that for those courses areas of local natural beauty and history were not torn up? What about the fact it is Common Good land?

Delving into the report does throw up a few interesting points. For example, quite a lot is made of using Musselburgh's AWT for the training of horses. Since it isn't safe to play golf on the Old Course when horses are on the track, we can only assume that there will be additional periods when the Old Course is inaccessible to golfers and walkers over and above the proposed 85 race days. What other plans are there that we haven’t been told about?

However let’s just remind everyone, including the Councillors on the ELC Planning Committee, that the Scottish Racing Strategic Plan, dated February 2006, was not submitted in support of the planning so this document shouldn't contribute towards the determination of the planning application.

PS For a slight more realistic assessment of the Scottish Racing Strategy read the article by Joe Rowntree in the Evening News Sat 4 March. (http://edinburghnews.scotsman.com/sport.cfm?id=331282006).

Local MSP slams AWT development (23 February 2006)

Local MSP Susan Deacon has come out against the AWT development. The all-weather, floodlit track at Musselburgh racecourse is not in the best interests of the town, according to Susan Deacon. Moreover "The proposal to build a floodlit all-weather track has caused real ill-feeling in the town. Whatever the outcome of the planning decision, it will take many years to heal some of the damaged relationships and to restore trust within the community. This genuinely saddens me.”

Ms Deacon also criticised the Labour Council members of the Musselburgh Joint Racing Committee (MJRC) for not doing enough to engage the local community. She also says the decision by the local council to loan the racecourse £9 million for the development just days from the application being considered by the Planning Committee as “insensitive”.

She added that many of Bill Farnsworth’s, the Racecourse General Manager, comments including describing opponents as “self interested” and “a vocal minority” and saying that the application will go to the Scottish Executive “for rubber stamping” as “not only ill-judged, but inaccurate”.

“Surely the key question is - particularly for local elected representatives - is it in the best interests of the town? I have to say that, whatever way I look at this, I cannot see how that will be the case."

Good news for Musselburgh Common Good Fund… but East Lothian Council to fund racecourse development (8 February 2006)

Good news to report. It seems that the sale proceeds from the Millhill and Goosegreen Stables sites, which it was feared would be used to fund the development of the all weather track and other facilities, will now be paid into the Musselburgh Common Good Fund.

However, Council chiefs at East Lothian Council have agreed to give the racecourse a massive loan to cover the bulk of the £11m costs of the work. While the Horse Racing Levy Board is making an interest free loan of £2 million toward the development, it now seems that the balance of £9 million is being provided by the Council. The loan facility is in the form of a low interest loan to the Musselburgh Joint Racing Committee (MJRC), supposedly at no cost to East Lothian Council and, one hopes, the people of East Lothian. The loan would be secured. Against what is unclear, but there is a suspicion it could be the Musselburgh Common Good Fund. HOOL is very concerned that the Common Good Fund is exposed to the liabilities of MJRC. And, while it appears that the Council are investigating how to protect their position, HOOL is keen to know what will happen if the development is unsuccessful and MJRC is unable to pay back some, or all, of the loan. Will the Musselburgh Common Good Fund be raided to pay off any out standing debt or will the rate payers of East Lothian have to pay more in Council tax? Moreover, in enterprises like these, the final cost is always greater than first estimated (in 2003 it was estimated the development would cost £5m), now it is £11m (and £12m is quoted in other places); where will any shortfall be paid from?

And, while on the subject of money, why is it that MJRC pay just £5,000 a year to the Musselburgh Common Good Fund for renting the land the racecourse is on? Musselburgh and Inveresk Community Council are of the view that a review of the rent paid to the Common Good Fund for the use of Musselburgh Links is long overdue.

On a related subject, why is it that any profits made by the MJRC are used to make improvement to the Racecourse facilities and none of it goes into the Common Good Fund?  Only after the racecourse has taken what it needs are any of the profits made over to the Fund. Surely, the Common Good fund should automatically get a share of any profits made!

Deadline for objections extended (16 January 2006)

Planning officials at East Lothian Council have agreed an extension to the deadline for representations on the amended AWT application. The deadline is now Saturday February 25th 2006. This extension has been welcomed by HOOL and other campaigners Make the most of this extra time by writing and objecting if you haven’t already done so.

The application is now expected to considered by East Lothian Council at its planning meeting on March 21st. Given the importance of the AWT to Musselburgh residents, the Council Leader has said that this meeting will be held in the Brunton Hall in Musselburgh rather than the Council Chambers in Haddington.

Over 1000 letters of support FOR the proposal have been received by the Council. However, HOOL understands that as many as 700 of these are from people OUTSIDE of Musselburgh. If Musselburgh residents are not careful, it will be the views of outsiders that will win the day; it will be they who decide the future of our Common Land, our heritage and what we leave for future generations. Find out how to object here…

HOOL will announce on this web site the date of the planning meeting as soon as we know it.

New Economic Impact Review - HOOL’s response (15 December 2005)

In the last month or so Musselburgh Racecourse have been quoting some extraordinary ‘facts’ about the impact of the racecourse on the local economy should the AWT track go-ahead. These so called ‘facts’ are based on a recent study by Stevens & Associates “Visitor Trends, Visitation and Economic Impact Review”. Certainly those writing the report had some kind of visitation and it wasn’t from an economist or statistician either.

In response HOOL has commissioned its own analysis of the Stevens & Associates review and produced its own report which it will be passing to those parties opposing the AWT. We thought readers of the HOOL web site might be interested in a few of our findings.  

According to the Stevens & Associates report 40 all weather meetings would mean an extra 40,000 visitors would come to Musselburgh spending an estimated £3.4 million a year. The original Scoping Study figure was between £1.15m and 2.35m. Unfortunately the assumptions behind these changes are not satisfactorily explained in the review. For example, there is an unexplained increase in the projected attendance from 800 in the Scoping Study to 1,000 in the review. HOOL has serious reservations about this figure - the average weekday evening attendance at Wolverhampton AWT is only around 550. Wolverhampton lies within the second largest conurbation in the UK with a population running into millions relatively close by. The same cannot be said of Musselburgh. Wild assumptions are also made about corporate interest and interest from tourists based upon attendance at day meetings, the nature and general ambiance of which will be very different from the winter evening all-weather events.

Our own analysis, which is based on quite optimistic assumptions, suggests the benefits of the AWT to lie between £49,000 and £123,000 per annum! A bit different to £3.4m wouldn’t you say! Moreover the statement in the Review that “AWT racing is not specifically designed as a spectator report. It is primarily for the TV to feed betting shops” (1.25), seriously undermines their estimates further. Of course, the fact that the AWT is really for the betting industry is something that we’ve all suspected in any case.

The Review also contains details of interviews with 22 businesses in Musselburgh and reports support for the economic benefits to business and a favourable reaction to plans to expand the racecourse. In a survey of 114 shops in the High Street and in Fisherrow undertaken by HOOL we found that 52% experienced an increase in business on race days. However, of those experiencing an increase over 90% were fast food outlets, pubs or restaurants. But many of these businesses are closed in the evening (e.g. bakers) and will not benefit from AWT meetings. (One food outlet said it had increased turnover because staff working at the racecourse on race day couldn’t afford the price of food there and came to their shop instead.) And, if the racecourse follows the advice in the Environmental Impact assessment, many racegoers will be picked up by bus at the airport and railway stations and returned there after the last race. This lessens further opportunities for additional business.

There is much more we could say but in short, the new Review is old wine in a new bottle fortified by some heroic assumptions about attendance, spending by racegoers and the numbers of overnight tourists who will actually stay in Musselburgh.

MJRC submit revised plans  (21 November 2005 - updated 14 January 2006)

Musselburgh Joint Racing Committee has submitted a revised planning application to East Lothian Council. In response to questions and comments posed by you, the MJRC has provided additional information to the Environmental Statement. This covers areas such as the floodlighting, traffic, noise, impact on wildlife, access, parking, air quality, the Old course and chemical hazards. You can find details about the issues/concerns raised that East Lothian Council sought extra information on and the sections of the ES that have been updated here.

The application and plans are available for inspection at the Planning Enquiries, East Lothian Council, John Muir House in Haddington, at the Brunton Hall, Musselburgh and, although the Notice to Neighbours doesn’t say so, we assume they will be online at Planning Online. The application number is 05/00661/FUL - this information is important because the addresses given on the Notice to Neighbours are not the ones used when the planning documents are entered into Planning Online. Representations should be sent to the Head Of Environment, East Lothian Council, John Muir House, Haddington, EH41 3HA.

As on previous occasions, it is critically important that you make a representation. Even if you wrote in response to the first application, you will need to write again. If you fail to do this the Council will assume you are happy with the planned changes. The deadline has been extend to the 25 February 2006.

No apology from Musselburgh Joint Racing Committee (21 November 2005)

First we had the statistics and now we have the lies and damn lies. The last few Musselburgh Racecourse race day programmes have included a full page spread seeking support for the proposed racecourse developments. The page contains wholly inaccurate representations about HOOL. This includes spurious statements such as ‘..supporters of HOOL have voiced that they would like to see the racecourse closed down..’ Fact: HOOL has made it clear from the start that since horse-racing and golf have coexisted happily for nearly two hundred years they should be allowed to continue to do so - a position that someone who wants the racecourse closed could not support.

No apology was received from either a personal letter sent to the chair of the committee, Pat O’Brien protesting at the misleading and inaccurate statement which appeared in the racecourse programmes, or to an open letter to Musselburgh Joint Racing Board.

(A message to East Lothian Council and any local Councilor reading this - be aware that any signatures gathered on race days at which the programmes were distributed and presented by the racecourse as support for the proposed developments are null and void because of the inaccuracies in the information given to race goers.)

What can we expect next one wonders? Council and racecourse staff being instructed that they cannot publicly express their personal views on the development maybe? Attempts to rewrite the history of Musselburgh to down play the historic legacy of both the Links and more specifically the Old Course. Whatever it is be sure there will be more ‘spin’ from the racecourse and the supporters on the Council regarding the proposed development in the weeks to come.

Old Course in ‘Top 100 Courses in the World’ listing (31 October 2005)

Golf World, one of the top golfing magazines, has included Musselburgh Old Course in its list of the Top 100 Golf Courses in the World. Coming in at number 93, The Old Course joins other famous courses such as Pebble Beach, St Andrews, Augusta National, Glen Eagles and Loch Lomond. Inclusion in the list is not based just on the merits of the course but also the experience the golfer gets playing the course.  

To quote the magazine “Musselburgh is to golf what Mecca is to religion - the very roots of the game are founded on this hallowed turf. As the oldest playing links course in the world it captures a wonderful sense of nostalgia.” The magazine goes on to give a brief history of the course.

Two thoughts for you to go away with. First, one wonders whether the turf be so hallowed after the changes proposed are made to accommodate the racecourse developments? What kind of experience will golfers get playing within a ring of steel poles? If Golf World drew up a  list post the changes to the racecourse and golf course, will Musselburgh still be on it? Second, with the Old Course having such a reputation, surely the focus should be on developing and marketing the golf course to encourage more visitors rather than the racecourse. Doing so would bring benefits 365 days a year to not only local hotels, bed and breakfasts and restaurants but also local shops (and not just those open on a race night) and other businesses. 

East Lothian Council publish Local Plan - Object Now (2 September 2005)

East Lothian Council have recently published the Local Plan 2005 for consultation. The Local Plan sets out detailed policies and specific proposals for the development and use of land in East Lothian. They are intended to guide the council for the next five years.

The Plan notes that tourism is a vital contributor to East Lothian’s economy (2.13), that Musselburgh Links is the oldest surviving golf course in the world (1.21) and that golf and golf-related activities make a substantial contribution to tourism in East Lothian (6.4).

Policy C8 is concerned with Musselburgh Lagoons (you can read it here) - it covers the development of the racecourse, the building of sports pitches and a sports pavilion for use by Queen Margaret University College, a new 9-hole golf course, wildlife interests, access and public recreation. As the final sentence makes clear, many of these facilities will not be generally accessible to the people of Musselburgh. Nor does the Plan seem to take account of the interaction between the proposal for the Racecourse and plans for new housing in Wallyford (1000 houses) and at Pinkie Mains (another 450 houses). Where will all this extra traffic go particularly on race days?

Much is also made in the Plan about any development taking account of their setting and the relationship with the surrounding landscape and buildings (4.2, 4.10, 4.14, 13.9, 13.11). This includes conservation areas, on main gateways to towns (Linkfield Road?) and the views from listed buildings (Albert Terrace?), which should not be restricted or obstructed by development proposals (floodlighting!). The Plan also talks about protecting existing open spaces (11.38).

How does the proposed development of the racecourse “respect the existing character and quality of place”?

Copies of the local plan can be found on the East Lothian Council site here. If you follow the link to ‘Settlement Statements’, click on the link ‘West Sector 1’ to see a map of the proposed developments in Musselburgh. The Plan can also be seen at John Muir House, Court Street Haddington, and East Lothian Council Area Offices and your local East Lothian Council Library.

HOOL strongly encourages you to object to the policy proposal for the Lagoons.  Objections must be submitted in writing on the appropriate form to the Director of Environment at John Muir House, Court Street Haddington EH41 3HA on or before 20th September 2005. Objection forms are also available at all places where the Plan is on deposit and from the web site.

Objections need to include your name and address, the matters to which you object and the grounds on which your objections are being made.

Policy C8 begins by saying “The Council supports the following uses and proposals [for Musselburgh Lagoons]”. Yet the vision of the local plan as a whole is for a planning process that “works towards a shared vision for the area”. I am sorry Councillors, the people of Musselburgh do not share your vision for the lagoons.

When is a Family Day at the races not a Family Day?  (28 August 2005)

Thursday August 25th - A Family Day at Musselburgh Racecourse; when, according to the racecourse web site, “children enjoy the excitement and high pace of a day at the races” . Unfortunately, children from Musselburgh and Edinburgh went back to school on the 22nd August! So much for local families attending or is it just about maximising betting turnover for British Racing and races at Musselburgh?

Using figures from the Horserace Betting Levy Board web site, we have calculated that, so far this year, the racecourse is down by some 8,600 race go-ers on the number predicted in the Environmental Impact Statement. In fact after 17 race days, on only 3 race days have the numbers attending equalled or been greater than predicted!

Community Council ask ELC to explain raid of Common Good assets (8 August 2005)

Musselburgh and Inveresk Community Council have asked East Lothian Council to send a representative to a future meeting to explain the constitution of the town’s Common Good fund and provide detailed accounts on its income and expenditure.

The Community Council is concerned about plans by the Council to sell of Common Good assets, namely stables at Goosegreen and Millhill in Musselburgh, to help fund the proposed all weather track. The Council hope the sale will raise £1.5m towards the £12m development.

On behalf of local objectors, the Community Council has written to the Court of Sessions to oppose the sale. It also believes the sale is premature given that planning consent has not yet been granted. HOOL agrees. Both the Community Council and HOOL believe that money from Common Good assets should benefit the Musselburgh Community and not the racecourse.

Council’s QC responds to HOOLS claim of breech of Interdict (3 August 2005)

HOOL has received a response from East Lothian Council solicitor, Keith MacConnachie, to the letter pointing out that an 1889 interdict is in force which prohibits interference to the playing of golf over the Links or any part of the Links. The intedicts prohibits the laying or making of a footpath on the Links. East Lothian Council consulted Mr Colin Tyre QC on the matter. In his opinion the the construction of the path did not constitute a breach of the 1889 Interdict nor would the Interdict have significant implications for the Planning Application.

It seems therefore there is a difference of legal opinion between HOOL and the Council regarding the status of the the Interdict. HOOL is taking further legal advice and considering its position in the light of the divergent legal opinion before instructing its solicitor.

The letter from Keith MacConnachie, the Council Solicitor, concludes

“Finally, I would advice that I have express authority to state that should any party seek to raise Interdict Proceedings against the Council in relation to the proposed Racecourse Development or indeed any action for breach of Interdict that the Council will defend such proceedings and would certainly be looking for an award of expenses following an outcome favourable to the Council”.

As well as adopting scare tactics it seems the Council are now representing the Racecourse in legal and other matters when it comes to the Planning Application.  This is confirmed by a recent email HOOL has seen which indicates that the Council is now acting as the agent for the application; previously it was an external consultant (C-MIST). 

Public meeting resoundly rejects all-weather track (29 July 2005)

Musselburgh says NO to all weather track

More than 300 people turned up at the public meeting about the proposed racecourse developments at the Brunton Hall on the evening of the 13th July.

The meeting, which contrary to rumours was not organised by HOOL but by Musselburgh and Inveresk Community Council, was attended by a cross section of local residents, golfers and protestors. All the issues identified by HOOL were raised: the floodlighting; parking; additional traffic; impact on the Old Course; loss of woodland; and impact on the local wildlife were raised. One speaker raised a new concern, namely where all the cars would go on race day when the 1200 new homes planned for Pinkie were built.

Speakers included former councillor George Wanless and veteran sports writer and golfer, Jimmy Frame. “This land belongs to us not a narrow minded lot of racegoers” said one individual. 

HOOL were extremely pleased at the turn out particularly given that people only had a week’s notice of the meeting and it took place at the start of the school holidays when many people are away. General Manager Bill Farnsworth has repeatedly said there is a vocal minority in the town who are against the the proposals. Well he can’t say that any more.

Bill Farnsworth was unable to convince anyone present of the economic benefits to the town. Only one person was in favour of the proposals and we understand she was a female employee of the racecourse.

“The sad thing is”, commented the East Lothian Courier, “that he seemed to have been let down by his team of experts… it appeared insufficient ‘homework’ had been done to enable him to answer confidently and above all convincingly the many questions that were raised”.

As a result of the meeting we understand that John Caldwell, chair of the Community Council, will now be writing to East Lothian Council to oppose the planning application. “I heard no evidence that it will produce any benefit for Musselburgh… The only things I could see that were positive were positives for the racecourse”, Mr Caldwell said.

A big thank you to everyone who turned out for the meeting.

Reports on the meeting can be found on the following web sites...

The Scotsman/Evening News (Saturday 16 Jul 2005)

East Lothian Courier (Friday July 22, 2005)

HOOL makes legal moves (24th June 2005)

A letter has been sent to East Lothian Council pointing out that an 1889 interdict is in force which prohibits interference to the playing of golf over the Links or any part of the Links. The intedicts prohibits the laying or making of a footpath on the Links.

After studying the minutes of the former Musselburgh Town Council, Andrew Watt, a member of the Old Musselburgh Club, a course member at the Links and a committee member of HOOL, went searching for the court interdict. Andrew obtained permission from the Honourable Company of Edinburgh Golfers to look through the records in the National Library. It was here he found the interdict granted by the Court of Session in 1889.

Morton Fraser Solicitors, acting on behalf of Andrew and HOOL, said this week “It would appear that some recent developments are in breach of the interdict and the proposed development to the racecourse would appear to be in contravention of the terms of this interdict”.

We await the response of lawyers for East Lothian Council with interest.

You can read more on this item on the Scotsman newspaper web site.

Local children say No to Lagoon development (17th June 2005)

P5 pupils from Campie Primary School, a local Musselburgh school, have done their bit by highlighting the proposal for the Lagoons and their potential impact on the area. In order to publicise the issues, they contacted the local newspaper, the Musselburgh News, and asked for their letters to be published.

“The lagoons is a place you can have at fun and relax”, wrote one pupil. “You can go canoeing and have a picnic and go to the bird hide and watch the birds... it is also home to lots of animals... the council are just getting money from this wild place.” “I hope you can save the lagoons from being destroyed” wrote another. Out of the mouths of babes...

Latest application and plans released (June 14 2005)

Musselburgh Joint Racing Committee has submitted a revised planning application to East Lothian Council setting out the proposed developments for the racecourse.

The application and plans are available for inspection at the Planning Enquiries, East Lothian Council, John Muir House in Haddington, at the Brunton Hall, Musselburgh and, although the Notice to Neighbours doesn’t say so, we assume online at Planning Online. The application number is 05/00661/FUL - this information is important because the addresses given on the Notice to Neighbours are not the ones used when the planning documents are entered into Planning Online e.g. instead of Linkfield Road you need to search using Millhill. Representations should be sent to the Head Of Environment, East Lothian Council, John Muir House, Haddington, EH41 3HA.

A letter accompanying the Notice to Neighbours states “The application also identifies the extension of the number of race events, which are currently up to a 27 per year ( a possible 23 fixture in the future) with a further 60 'all weather' fixtures, to give a total of 83 fixtures per year. These additional 'all weather' track fixtures would be in the late afternoon/ evening, during the period October to March and require the use of floodlighting."

There is an Environmental Impact Assessment available which can be seen at Brunton Hall or the Council buildings in Haddington. The full version costs £85, payable to Musselburgh Racecourse. Digital versions are £15.00, again payable to Musselburgh Racecourse. Both can be brought from ELC at Sinclair McGill Building in Lodge Stree, Haddington. Call Ashley on 01620 827773 to get copies. It is also on the planning web site but it is unclear whether you have to pay to get a copy.

More details as we have them...

It is important that you make a representation. Even if you wrote in response to the first application, you will need to write again. Representations about the withdrawn application will NOT be considered with the current application 05/00661. (A little lesson.)

Economic analysis of AWT commissioned by HOOL (May 23 2005)

HOOL has commissioned an assessment of the Musselburgh Racecourse Scoping Study on the Potential for an All-Weather Track. The Scoping Study was commissioned by the management of the Racecourse. You can read the assessment yourself here. The conclusion: ”we are all, councillors, residents of Musselburgh and East Lothian Council Tax payers, being asked to buy a pig-in-a-poke.”

New planning application delayed (May 6 2005)

The revised application was due to be submitted today (6th May) but racecourse manager, Bill Farnsworth, has reported that advisors were still finalising the environment impact study. The revised application is now expected to be submitted to East Lothian Council by the end of May.

Racecourse holds open day (April 29th 2005)

Musselburgh Racecourse invited local residents to view the amended plans which were put on display during the Friday race meeting. 200 people took the opportunity to look at the plans. Not bad given that it was a Friday afternoon. The amended application seems to show very few changes other than the pylons for the floodlighting. Instead of cantilever pylons, straight lighting columns will be used. The application also now proposes to place the floodlights alongside the existing lampposts on the Linkfield Road side of the track. However, each pylon will be 25m high, hold 10 lamps, each lamp being 2000 watts.

The requirement for resubmitting the plans was a golden opportunity for Musselburgh Joint Racing to listen to the concerns of local residents. This opportunity has been lost. Bill Farnsworth, General Manager of the Racecourse told the Musselburgh News “We have never stated there would be major changes, although redesigning the floodlighting system is a significant one”. Local residents strongly disagree.  

New planning application to be presented May 6th (March 28 2005)

HOOL has learnt that plans for the development of Musselburgh racecourse will be resubmitted to East Lothian Council on May 6th 2005.

First application withdrawn by East Lothian Council (March 14 2005)

The application has been withdrawn. It has been rejected by East Lothian Council planning officials because of concerns about the environmental impact.

Last Modified:16/10/07