An assessment of the Musselburgh Racecourse Scoping Study on the Potential for an All-Weather Track
Overview
1. The management of the Racecourse commissioned a Scoping Study into “the impact and implications of developing a floodlit all weather track (AWT) at Musselburgh Racecourse”. This study, which is in addition to the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) submitted with the planning application, was delivered in November 2003 and updated in April 2005. The Scoping Study is intended to identify issues that will require further study if the development goes ahead. The racecourse management has said that the cost of the development is £12m, but a detailed budget is not yet in the public domain.
2. On the basis of the information in the Scoping Study there must be major doubts over the viability of a floodlit AWT (All Weather Track) at Musselburgh and the benefits it would bring to the town. The references to developing and co-locating other leisure activities with the race course suggest that an AWT may not be viable with out further substantial investment which would bring irreversible changes to the character of the race course, the Links and Musselburgh.
3. The approval of an AWT at Sedgefield makes it unlikely that there will be sufficient demand to justify an additional course in both the North of England and Scotland. The possibility that the Office of Fair Trading may rule that the British Horseracing Board (BHB) may no longer organise the racing calendar, leaving tracks to compete for events, further weakens the position of Musselburgh to compete for extra business with an AWT.
4. The current benefits to the local area are grossly overstated. The figures of £3.0m to £3.3 benefits per year cited by the racecourse management appear to be based on national averages or other racecourses and not based on a survey of actual spending at Musselburgh. A more likely figure lies in the range of £150,000 to £330,000 per year.
[A member of HOOL contacted Wolverhampton all weather racetrack and asked if there has been any benefits to the local economy in that area. The spokesman’s response: “All weather racing is strictly for the betting shops - and don’t let anyone else tell you otherwise.”]
5. The quantification of existing benefits to the town is not backed by any detailed study or statistics. The Study does not prove that the current “benefits” it identifies really flow to Musselburgh. The report concedes that to achieve the benefits it forecasts there will need to be an increase in the provision of hotels, bars, restaurants and “other facilities” in Musselburgh. This means that the forecast figure of benefits rising to between £4.3 and £5.8 million if an AWT is built is also highly unreliable, with a more realistic figure lying between £207,000 and £565,000 per year.
6. As a scoping study, report does not contain a wide range of data specific to Musselburgh. It contains no costings or budget for the proposal. There is insufficient information to permit a cost benefit analysis of the proposal and thus an estimate of the likely benefit to the town. The Study does not contain a risk assessment. Nor does it contain a rigorous analysis of the market for a floodlit AWT, identify a truly unique selling point for the town or analyse the comparative advantage of Musselburgh as a location for an AWT.
7. The Scoping Study was not intended to be a detailed assessment of the development proposals. As a result, the study and the associated information in the planning application do not contain sufficient information to justify either the financial investment or the intrusion and loss of amenity to the community proposed under the proposals.
8. The EIA refers to the need to divert the East Lothian trunk gas main and power lines. It is also possible that contaminated soil from the old gasworks site may have to be moved. These could both prove costly at the construction stage, but as a detailed budget is not available and construction issues are not considered in the Scoping Study, it is not possible to assess whether they have been included in the £12m estimate or whether their additional costs could further reduce the viability of the proposals.
9. The apparent economic weakness of the proposals must mean that there is a real danger the proposed investment in an AWT could prove nugatory. This would result in expenditure by the Musselburgh Joint Racing Committee, which would have to be met by East Lothian Council creating the possibility of an additional demand on council tax. Coupled with the changes in the character and access to the Links and the impact on the golf course, the end result could be detrimental to Musselburgh, rather than beneficial.
10. In short, the Racecourse may have more detailed data, studies and costings, but on the basis of the published information, we are all, councillors, residents of Musselburgh and East Lothian Council Tax payers, being asked to buy a pig-in-a-poke.
[Top of Page]
|
