Crump99

Add to that that they have watched Buster Chapman seemingly take one of their Premier clubs down without a fight while profiting from that club's demise, in terms of infrastructure and riders for his other lot. I make no comment on him & AEPG! Added to that, he's allowed to hang on to the licence with no interest in the Peterborough Speedway survival fight. He seems happy to run down the clock to finish Panthers and the BSPL appear happy that he does that as a member of their flock? It is indeed hard to take them seriously!

Well we're told that the aim is to get Panthers back on track in 2025? The first shots of 2024 fight have already been fired. The supporters, the consortium and sponsors need to stay strong, keep interested and stick with it despite disgracefully there being no EoES track action during the 2024 season. The 2023 PL thread is no longer appropriate to keep Panthers plight on the front foot & I'm sure that someone would object to this thread being housed in that section AEPG on manoeuvres: AEPG facebook 31/12/23 - Thank you to all our followers and supporters in 2023 - a big year ahead in 2024 for us and Peterborough. - Lots of things to share in January which will be exciting for a large number of people in the city. - - we will update you soon. Sport England knocking back AEPG's weak response to their objection to what Butterfield & Co are doing to Peterborough Speedway: 23/00412/OUT Representation from Consultee (Web) Sport England 08/01/2024 Speedway As set out previously, Sport England does not wish to make detailed comments on this point, and have referred the Council to the governing body, the Speedway Control Bureau, who we understand have raised objection to the application. Whilst we note the content of the supporting statement in relation to the loss of speedway venue, this does not seem to appropriately address the relevant planning policies in the Local Plan, particularly LP36 and the guidance in the NPPF in respect of the loss of the facility. This is because no information is provided in respect of replacement facilities in line with policy LP36 of the Local Plan. For information, the previous reference to para 99 of the NPPF should now read Para 103 following the updated publication in December 2023. As such, our previous comments remain valid in respect of the loss of the facility for speedway. Many thanks, Sport England Principal Planning Manager

There's been a boost in the battle to save speedway in Peterborough The fight to keep speedway in Peterborough has received a major boost – from a planning decision to stop developers building on Coventry Stadium. https://www.peterboroughtoday.co.uk/sport/other-sport/theres-been-a-boost-in-the-battle-to-save-speedway-in-peterborough-4488599

Just a touch. Bratters and co are well aware of the challenges they face both now and in the future. They have to remain positive and see what happens when AEPG play their next card. They do appear to hold the aces and Chapman allowed the fat lady to fully test her vocal chords in 2023 and is still clinging on in 2024 to assist both her and AEPG but she has yet to burst in to song!

I bow to your knowledge if that's the case. It doesn't make sense to me. I don't know how actual accounts are less worthy as evidence than the real fictional future financial benefits as drawn up by consultants contracted to the land promoters. If the save the speedway campaign e-mailed/contacted all of those events thrown out by AEPG (possibly including some others who might be interested) & asked if they would return in future to a well run and open Showground? Then by using those past accounts (or what those events paid previously) then it should be easy enough to come up with a future figure.

My understanding is that financial accounts show that the venue as a whole is, and has been, viable (even during Covid?). I'm sure that those details will be delivered and debated at a more appropriate time. Those events mentioned will be disappointed no doubt but will soon move on, as they have, but I'm sure that they'd return if the EoES was open to them and others again. They have no skin in the game though and their very existence isn't under threat so there is no reason why they would want to join the campaign group. The EEAS/AEPG want this done (Butterfield said last week that he wants to start tomorrow) and whether they are prepared to sacrifice time and money sitting and waiting is very much open to question? Flogging a dead horse might seem pointless but we're further down the line than Coventry, in terms of evidence and preparedness, and look at that outcome after years. I'm sure that Brandon Estates thought that they'd just bide their time and claim the prize?

The EoES is multi-use facility though and it should have been developed as such with the retention of Peterborough Speedway; as per first draft of the new Peterborough Local Plan in 2015/16. In 2022 the landowners (EEAS) initially said they had no problem with the speedway running. It's AEPG who have all but closed the events venue, isolated Peterborough Speedway and pushed the unviable, lack of use narrative (you've bought) while trying to con PCC that their so called leisure led concrete jungle offers the city and region more than an effectively managed events venue, speedway track and Arena venue.

Not sure either but will have a look. Anything like that is always interesting though and education which can be saved in the file anyway so thanks for that

Can anyone decipher this in plain English in terms of Peterborough Speedway? (not what you think it means, only if you actually know) We urgently need evidence, which we will submit, in two areas to assist our Asset of Community Value application. 1) whether Peterborough Speedway is or has in the recent past being used to further social wellbeing or the social interests of the local community which is not an ancillary use. 2) whether it is realistic to think that such a use if current may continue in the future or if it was in the recent past may occur at a time in the next five years.

Hopefully someone spills the beans at their planning appeal.

That's what AEPG want you to think but the basics are all still there and putting that right is easier and cheaper than starting from scratch. Don't fall for it. Read Save Coventry Speedway if you want a positive update. Much of that ruling can be applied to our situation and Butterfield and Co will have more than that incoming in 2024.

Not sure what's going on either? That is basically a rehash of the Sept local rag article: Fact file: Plans go live to redevelop East of England Showground I think that they are going to go early with planning because those alleged building partners are not going to invest without certainty. It's the usual AEPG strategy of saying that they are consulting when basically they're preaching and trying to demoralise the opposition. And as for long time coming and the club have known and been informed? Well in 2022 (so many years ago) the situation was: A club statement said they had the "firm intention" of "continuing in 2023 and beyond". The Panthers statement, issued on Wednesday, said: "Representatives of the club will be pursuing meetings with members of Peterborough City Council and arena operators AEPG as a matter of urgency. "We wish to formulate a plan to ensure the speedway team remains an integral part of the growth and redevelopment of Peterborough. In fact, 4 months after that article Chapman said there was no reason that we couldn't have more seasons at the EoES (you can still catch his centre green speech), but then his club imploded, the Tomalin deal fell through and Peterborough Speedway was on life support with Chapman clinging on with his egg timer, and even now with everything wrecked he's clinging on! Funny old world innit.

First shots in 2024 from AEPG https://borospeedway.proboards.com/post/42703 (will just post the text if this breaks the linking to competing boards rule, although with a handful of members and few visitors it's hardly competing)

PCC are unfortunately part of the problem. They are responsible for the mess so I don't have much confidence in them to fight this too hard in the current climate? But they might surprise, who knows? From the AEPG DAS "The Showground site was offered to Peterborough City Council to allocate for housing and employment uses, to meet the needs of the city as it continues to grow. The Peterborough Local Plan was subsequently adopted by the Council in July 2019 with an allocation development at the Showground site." They knew that, if approved, Peterborough Speedway would be lost in that location, hence LP36 and 30. That's where the battle ground is and rejection must come. I suspect it'll be rejected on several other issues as well initially when AEPG play their first 2024 hand!

23/00412/OUT Representation from Consultee (Web) Sport England 08/01/2024 Speedway As set out previously, Sport England does not wish to make detailed comments on this point, and have referred the Council to the governing body, the Speedway Control Bureau, who we understand have raised objection to the application. Whilst we note the content of the supporting statement in relation to the loss of speedway venue, this does not seem to appropriately address the relevant planning policies in the Local Plan, particularly LP36 and the guidance in the NPPF in respect of the loss of the facility. This is because no information is provided in respect of replacement facilities in line with policy LP36 of the Local Plan. For information, the previous reference to para 99 of the NPPF should now read Para 103 following the updated publication in December 2023. As such, our previous comments remain valid in respect of the loss of the facility for speedway. Many thanks, Stuart Morgans Principal Planning Manager

Rumour is that allegedly his last meeting would cover that with change anyway if it came to pass?

Not when it's on the council's radar and part of the local plan, that's also currently under review. This is not a bit of random land that nobody cares about. AEPG are not going to get that luxury and they want the job done. They are not in in for the long game and already have their timetable in the public domain.

Interesting question and one to leave on the back burner really. I don't know is the answer and whether the consortium have discussed this on their call, who knows? I'd guess that if Peterborough doesn't happen locally in some form in 2025 then that really would be it. What I do know is that the focus has to be on that return to the EoES because that is the only objective that will get a result. Any plan b can only be considered in terms of the Peterborough Local Plan, PCC doing their job and AEPG fulfilling the requirements of LP36 & 30. It's also worth noting that when PCC turned down Butterfield's retrospective DHL planning application that was recommended to be approved they went elsewhere in the local plan to find the criteria to turn it down, so if the will is there?

It wouldn't be a plan B though. It would be plan A and play right into AEPG's hands as they'll refer to "l. The service provided by the facility is met by alternative provision that exists within reasonable proximity: what is deemed as reasonable proximity will depend on the nature of the facility and its associated catchment area" from LP30, which would be game over if agreed. I'd be pretty sure that they've already evidenced that using Leicester and Kings Lynn as their ignorant examples.

That is true but their application will probably fail because they are keeping the speedway out and not adhering to the local plan. If PCC hold firm and AEPG can't wriggle out LP 30 then they are going to have to negotiate with Chapman's representatives at some point one assumes?

Although you've already replied to the planning applications (at least I think that you have) you can add additional comments if you think any of that is relevant to those AEPG documents or may make PCC think, in our favour that is!

Depends what way you look at it. If you look at the overall picture then it's helpful to the consortium with their objectives. If you've only got pound signs in front of your eyes and no hidden agenda then the statement clearly favours you although it can't be a surprise to the consortium that dealing with this owner is going to be anything but straightforward.

And that messaging basically continues and is still sold which is the disappointing thing, just read the latest BBC items. It's another white flag on the EoES. The main positive of that statement was that it replaced farewell to the EoES as the main news item. It's still a bad look but not half as bad as it was.

As I said, more questions than answers. However, Bratters and co know what they are trying to achieve and I'm sure that the statement serves their purpose, even though it's far from perfect looking from the outside? It keeps Peterborough Speedway on the front page and gives the screw another turn.

It shouldn't be beyond the wit of man to to draw up a contract handing the club over to the consortium as it is now with clauses about future potential eventualities. The consortium would have stronger negotiating power and Chapman would have a better chance of that future pension dividend. If there is no hidden agenda then that certainly is a strange agenda to be following as his first choice.