Crump99

They just print what they are given. Throughout the whole process it has been pretty obvious that Butterfield & AEPG like a one way conversation where they tell you what the situation is without any critical questioning from anyone knows something about the East of England Showground, it's history and Peterborough Speedway etc. To be fair, Butterfield did take some tough questions in his January radio interview. One particularly tough question came from a 12yo, along with others apparently also from schoolchildren

I wouldn't get too excited at the moment. With AEPG making all of the noise for a good while now (and we await their next move) I suspect that we'll just push back against their waffle and vandalism and clarify a few points from the perspective of Peterborough Speedway and its consortium.

If that's the case then I think that they decided some while ago to go that route if necessary? The September AEPG position was reported as: " Sale of the land is expected to be approved by Spring 2024, again subject to planning approval." - one assumes that that was based on that March timeline? 5 weeks later that had changed to: "This includes the area of land the grandstand occupies and as the ownership of the land is predicted to change sometime in 2024, there is no ability to commit to a 2024 Speedway Season."

And reminds one of 23/00400/OUT Representation from Consultee (Web) Open Space Management 22/09/2023 which seemed to suggest a similar outcome and use of existing facilities? (made the ET didn't it although I think that you questioned the reporting). Wish that I'd have saved that original pdf. I didn't expect it to be removed and changed due to it not seemingly fitting the agenda. It also said: " Further to significant Pre App dialogue with the Applicant PCC Open Space Management are disappointed with the current submission of the 2 somewhat underwhelming Applications" Funnily enough that submission went AWOL and returned on 13/10/23 in a much changed and sanitised version!

Yup good suggestion. Time has moved on significantly since the planning applications were posted by AEPG/PCC in 2023. The speedway fraternity was understandably initially up in arms and posted its planning portal objections to this unwanted development. Everyone can still post a further objection with additional comments (probably best to say as such to differentiate from just being viewed as a single source duplicate) now that AEPG's mercenary nature, selling strategy and reasoning has been laid bare, as well as their malicious damage inflicted on Peterborough Speedway and an important part of Peterborough's Culture, Leisure and Tourism industry for 2024 and beyond. And just a reminder:

No idea what Chapman is or isn't doing or how his mind works but when he says: "would be very happy to open talks over the ownership at an appropriate time." - I'd like to know his definition of the appropriate time? This was 31st Oct 2023: " The Peterborough Telegraph understands talks between a six-man consortium committed to saving speedway in Peterborough and Peterborough Panthers owner Keith Chapman are ongoing, but progress has been slow." - slow without a hidden agenda, allegedly The focus has to be the EoES, the local plan and pressure on PCC/AEPG - talk of alternatives just chips away at another element of LP30 and, as has been noted by PCC Policy, AEPG have tried to engineer avoiding responsibility under LP30 : LP30 – Culture Leisure, Tourism and Community Facilities - Policy LP36 specifically makes reference to the requirements of Policy LP30 and the loss of existing cultural, leisure, tourism and community facilities. The applicant will need to demonstrate that the proposals meet the requirements of points k-m, in particular with regard to the speedway track. The applications do propose to make a good, appropriate, level of sport and leisure uses. Normally, the application would not be considered to meet points k-m as they stand, as they do not provide a replacement facility for speedway use, and the speedway track was clearly fit for purpose. This has been made more complex by the Speedway club having been served notice and asked to vacate the site and remove their safety and lighting infrastructure, therefore no longer meeting point k and in no longer being fit for purpose requiring the meeting of point l and m. It is noted that Sport England have provided comments in response to the application. There will be no local resolution if PCC buckle and AEPG win.

And we nearly dropped off the page there. Can't be having that. Need to keep the struggling momentum/interest going. Although it's unlikely, Chapman might do the right thing and offload the club to those actually fighting for its survival?

It's grim but it's not gone until they get planning approved. Putting that unnecessary vandalism right under the right conditions (hopefully PCC make AEPG pay as part of any agreement) has got to be preferable to starting afresh elsewhere. With AEPG, their friends and family dumping support comments on the PCC planning portal we could do with anyone who hasn't objected, or who knows someone who hasn't, objecting to both planning applications. Doesn't have to be anything detailed, just read some of the others submissions (click Documents and View associated documents, and note that they only show address & no other detail) and write a sentence or two. It's just a numbers game and there are plenty of detailed objections already on there: Here are the two links that will take you straight to the two planning applications that have been submitted for developing the Peterborough Showground to make comments and/or objections. You can comment on both applications. https://planpa.peterborough.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=makeComment&keyVal=RSOMJ0MLIWV00 https://planpa.peterborough.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=makeComment&keyVal=RSXWVDML04U00

Without knowing the detail of what really went wrong, I say that his only mistake was not paying closer attention to the history of who he was dealing with and not getting a contract in writing and signed first before playing the social media game.

Simple equation isn't it!

It depends what the dream and objective is? The reality is that nothing is off the table until planning is approved, or not, and explained/justified in terms of the local plan. I wouldn't throw in the towel quite yet. Getting speedway folk enthused and interested has always been like pulling teeth so no doubt the majority share your view, especially given that there in no local speedway coverage now or no outward communications from the club or alleged club saving consortium and its spokesman. Tomalin is just one of many in the bigger picture although he was/is a big sponsor who would be needed going forward. Chapman's continued ownership is a major problem but if AEPG think, for whatever reason, that he belongs to them then good luck with that! He'll do whatever is best for him and his pension fund irrespective of what they think.

I think that any outcome or timeline is possible, so until AEPG make their next planning move then it's difficult to know where we are or the direction of travel. PCC have to follow the local plan and publically justify their decisions after plenty of publicity and opposition to the planning proposals. It's not a standard nod through as it would normally be. Although Chapman is getting all of the flak, and quite rightly so since his 2022 speech, I think that anyone in the "inner sanctum" (copyright Rodders) over the last 3 years has questions to answer. What did the supporters club do in 2023? They didn't do anything, played along to Chapman's agenda, came to the party too late and have all but given up the fight, not that it ever really started for them. Yes it looks bad but don't give up yet! Where's your invisible mate anyway? Never has anyone done so little but had so much alleged impact!

And play close attention to all relevant aspects within the local plan as well as the submissions by major players on the PCC planning portal. It's funny that AEPG say that they and the EEAS have no future obligation to support Peterborough Speedway financially, however, they are keen to say LP36 & 30 doesn't specifically mention speedway. As the only permanent/annual regular sporting and leisure user for 49 years when the local plan was adopted, what else does LP30 allude to? Also by wrecking the speedway infrastructure & stand they are trying to engineer a position where LP30 doesn't apply, as noted by PCC Policy : LP30 – Culture Leisure, Tourism and Community Facilities Policy LP36 specifically makes reference to the requirements of Policy LP30 and the loss of existing cultural, leisure, tourism and community facilities: The applicant will need to demonstrate that the proposals meet the requirements of points k-m, in particular with regard to the speedway track. The applications do propose to make a good, appropriate, level of sport and leisure uses. Normally, the application would not be considered to meet points k-m as they stand, as they do not provide a replacement facility for speedway use, and the speedway track was clearly fit for purpose. This has been made more complex by the Speedway club having been served notice and asked to vacate the site and remove their safety and lighting infrastructure, therefore no longer meeting point k and in no longer being fit for purpose requiring the meeting of point l and m. It is noted that Sport England have provided comments in response to the application.

Perhaps they could do a follow up piece listing those efforts so that we can all enjoy the efforts that Chapman made behind the scenes? I saw bugger all out in the open in public!

Starting Bloody hell, been in a box for 6 months? There's a battle going on to ensure that that isn't a permanent situation. Focus on that rather than the direction Butterfield and Chapman tried to engineer!