SUPPORTERS and campaigners hoping to bring a speedway stadium back to life in Thurrock have submitted a detailed and evidentially-backed series of objections to a planning application to create a huge Data Centre on the site of the motorsports stadium in West Thurrock.

The objections contain a number of legal and procedural precedents which they argue must be recognised by Thurrock Council when it determines the application by Global Infrastructure UK for the comprehensive redevelopment of the site including demolition of existing buildings and structures to deliver a data centre campus.

Arena Essex closed in 2018 after its owners, London Strategic Land Partners Limited, closed the site in advance of submitting plans for up to 2,500 new homes. Ultimately that scheme was withdrawn and the company sold on the land in July 2023 for £47 million.

During the past seven years speedway and motorsport fans had been hopeful that a new development on the site might see them retain a home for their sports.

Those hopes appeared dashed when Global Infrastructure put forward its plans last month – with no reference to provision of a new sporting venue.

But a battle that is now seven years in the making, is not being given up easily by speedway followers who believe they have a solid legal case – and say the council cannot just ignore precedent and previous promises.

The campaigners have formed a company to promote their ideals and keep the speedway Hammers flag flying. Teams representing the much-loved name infrequently take part in challenge matches at other stadia and passion for the borough to once again have its own team remains high.

Thurrock Hammers Limited Company has now submitted its outline objections in summary format – together with a detailed presentation backing their case.

The initial summary objections have now been published on the council's planning portal and are also detailed below.

Inappropriate Development in the Green Belt Policy Conflict: CSSP4, PMD6

The site lies within the Green Belt, and the proposed data centre constitutes inappropriate development that would harm the openness and character of the area. National and local policies and local Appeal Decisions stress the importance of preserving the Green Belt for leisure and recreation. The 2025 proposal does not justify the scale and nature of the development in this sensitive location.

Misapplication of Grey Belt Classification Policy Conflict: NPPF Paragraph 155, CSSP4, PMD6

The application relies heavily on the reclassification of the site as grey belt to justify development in the Green Belt. However, the western part of the site, including the lake and vegetated area, does not meet the definition of Previously Developed Land (PDL). The proposal fails to demonstrate that the development would not fundamentally undermine the purposes of the Green Belt.

Conflict with Policy PMD5: Open Spaces and Recreational Facilities Policy Conflict: PMD5

Policy PMD5 requires that any development resulting in the loss of recreational facilities must provide equivalent or improved alternatives. The 2025 application does not secure such provision, nor does it demonstrate that the loss of the Speedway facility is outweighed by improvements elsewhere.

Conflict with Policy CSTP9: Well-being and Sports Policy Conflict: CSTP9

The development fails to safeguard existing leisure and sports facilities and does not provide appropriate alternative provision. CSTP9 emphasises the importance of such facilities for community wellbeing and regeneration. This application fails to recognise the role of Speedway in promoting health, inclusion, and local identity, none of which are addressed in the 2025 proposal.

Loss of Recreational and Sports Facility and Failure to Comply with NPPF Paragraph 104 (Sports and Recreation) Policy Conflict: PMD5, CSTP9, NPPF Paragraph 104

The proposed development fails to reprovide for the loss of the Speedway facility, a significant community and sporting asset. This contradicts local and national planning policies that require replacement for lost recreational facilities. NPPF Paragraph 104 (Sports and Recreation): The proposal does not meet any of the three criteria under NPPF Paragraph 104 for building on existing sports and recreational land. There is no proper assessment showing the land is surplus to requirements, no equivalent or better replacement provision, and no alternative recreational use proposed that outweighs the loss.

Failure to Apply the Coventry Stadium Appeal Decision of 19 January 2024

The Coventry Stadium Appeal Decision provides a precedent for objecting to the loss of sports and recreational facilities. The proposal fails to meet the precedents set. Key points include: The appeal decision concluded that the stadium was not surplus to requirements and that the proposed development did not provide adequate replacement facilities. The current application fails to meet similar criteria. The decision emphasised the importance of community support. The current application does not demonstrate community support.

Inadequate Justification for Loss of Motorsport Heritage Policy Conflict: CSTP23, CSTP9, NPPF Paragraph 104

The application dismisses the Speedway facility as 'surplus to requirements' without exploring alternatives for retention or relocation. This contradicts national policy which requires clear evidence before allowing the loss of sports and recreational land. The recreational space proposed is not like-for-like in character compared to Speedway use which undermines the attempt to justify the loss of sports facilities.

Lack of Community Benefit and Failure to Meet Local Needs Policy Conflict: CSTP9, PMD16

The proposed development does not address the needs of the local community or provide sufficient community benefits. The 2025 application lacks any meaningful community engagement or compensatory measures.

Community Substitution for Loss of Motorsport Use: The public open space in the west of the site is positioned as a beneficial replacement for the former Arena Essex Raceway. This is a flawed equivalence. The Speedway venue was a formal, social, spectator-driven sports venue with local, regional and international significance. A nature trail around a lake is not functionally or culturally comparable.

Misleading Interpretation of Community Engagement Policy Conflict: CSTP9, PMD16

While the application claims extensive community consultation, it fails to reflect the strong and ongoing public support for retaining Speedway, as evidenced by thousands of petition signatures and the Council's own 2023 resolution. The consultation process appears to have ignored or downplayed this feedback. Omissions have undermined the integrity of the consultation process and breach the principles of transparency and inclusivity required under the Localism Act 2011 and Thurrock Council's own Statement of Community Involvement.

Misrepresentation of Public Feedback. The document claims to have analysed 262 responses, but ignores the dominant themes expressed by the public

Speedway Restoration: Up to 91% of respondents called for the reinstatement of the speedway track.

103 respondents cited legal or policy reasons why the application should be refused.

91 respondents endorsed the Thurrock Hammers' consultation response in Question 1 but its content is not summarised or acknowledged.

These omissions distort the true nature of public sentiment and fail to meet the stated objective of the consultation: to "demonstrate how feedback has been incorporated in the proposals, and to explain why not, if it has not been".

Lack of Transparency in Feedback Incorporation: The applicant's response to the overwhelming public support for speedway restoration is a blanket dismissal: "There is no proposal to restore or reinstate the speedway as part of development proposals. The land is required for development purposes."

This contradicts the commitment to consider and respond to community feedback and fails to provide a substantive justification for rejecting the most frequently raised concern.

Overstated Economic Benefits Without Local Guarantees Policy Conflict: CSSP2, CSTP6, CSTP9

The economic benefits cited such as job creation and GVA uplift are not tied to local employment guarantees or training programmes. Without enforceable commitments, these benefits may not materialise for the local community.

Precedent of Aveley Football Club Not Followed Policy Conflict: PMD5, CSTP9, PMD16

The proposal does not take into account the Decision and the Aveley Mill Road Ground Planning conditions. In the case of Aveley Football Club, in accordance with national and local policies Thurrock Council required the provision of replacement facilities before granting planning permission for redevelopment. The same principle should apply here.

The 2025 application does not include any such provision for Speedway, despite its greater historical and community significance. For these reasons the Application should be refused.

All the documents submitted in connection with the application can be viewed via this link.