Crump99

Are you on again?

Mick Bratley was looking at the possibility of that sort of protection should common sense not prevail for Panthers 2024. I don't know what mechanisms he was looking at or if any progress was made but basically yes it was considered.

And more: The first AEPG planning document outlines the construction of up to 650 homes, ie: Land A (part of the current local plan). The Peterborough Local Plan for 2016-2036 says that 650 homes on the Showground is an acceptable number; though building works might take a decade and this is subject to LP36 & LP30 And that's before their 850 AEPG application that appears nowhere, totally confuses the issue and would have a similar timescale at best. The current local plan, which was adopted in 2019, covers development in Peterborough up until 2036. However, national policy is for this to be updated every five years and that review in now underway by PCC. The process would take approximately three years with several public consultations included and that's the only time that we should see that 850 application. I see no reason why Peterborough Speedway cannot continue at the EoES for many seasons, or indeed permanently (now there's a curveball!).

It's a bit mixed. We are told that that AEPG wouldn't negotiate on Panthers 2024 and beyond yet they say that that they have negotiated with the club's owner? Because we're basically a stand-alone operation now at the EoES and the site is now underused and badly maintained, AEPG/EEAS (whoever pays the bills?) are allegedly not prepared to subsidise this existing culture, leisure, tourism and community heritage asset, if they ever did, and allegedly they want to charge a break even rent (which is where the 7k figure came from, although whether accurate, who knows?) for Peterborough Speedway which one assumes is a fantasy figure the club couldn't entertain? AEPG would hope IMO that that then helps them in some way to agree with LP30 k. The facility is demonstrably no longer fit for purpose and the site is not viable to be redeveloped for a new community facility;

Usually though nobody is watching and the resistance is minimal. Everyone is aware of what's going on here though, it's high profile and already getting significant local publicity and people will be watching. If it can be argued that the site and/or speedway is a heritage asset then the NPPF points in my previous post should certainly scupper the AEPG planning application.

As helpfully pointed out by Old Nutter, I think that there are questions to be potentially asked and answered on those issues: The revised National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) sets out government's planning policies for England and how these are expected to be applied. Conserving and enhancing the historic environment - Paragraph196. Where there is evidence of deliberate neglect of, or damage to, a heritage asset, the deteriorated state of the heritage asset should not be taken into account in any decision. - this relates to AEPG claiming that Peterborough Speedway is no longer fit for purpose if it isn't used due to bad faith negotiations, or lack of, and they don't maintain the perfectly working operation that was handed over at the end of the 2023 season/contract? Promoting healthy and safe communities - Paragraph 99. Existing open space, sports and recreational buildings and land, including playing fields, should not be built on unless: - this seems to be the same as LP30 which is just reworded in the Peterborough Local Plan. (a) an assessment has been undertaken which has clearly shown the open space, buildings or land to be surplus to requirements; or (b) the loss resulting from the proposed development would be replaced by equivalent or better provision in terms of quantity and quality in a suitable location; or (c) the development is for alternative sports and recreational provision, the benefits of which clearly outweigh the loss of the current or former use. Definitions of terms used within heritage protection legislation and documents. https://historicengland.org.uk/advice/hpg/hpr-definitions/#cat_E

The BSF is hardly representative though of the majority view in many instances. It's like saying that you saw it on Twitter (X) and/or Facebook.

Yes you'd think so but plans seemingly changed, so if they can change once then they can certainly change twice? I'm reliably informed that allegedly the original plan was that the EoES be closed completely at the end 2021 & that all of the existing buildings, Peterborough Arena included (interesting to note that bit), would be demolished with the entire site then developed for residential housing. I guess that, if true, then that would have been problematic and extremely unpopular, hence the need for a new plan incorporating all of the latest buzzwords and PCC strategies around leisure, health safety and wellbeing, their green & environmental agenda as well their tourism strategy. If PCC buy that, does anyone expect that in 10 years time anything like the AEPG brochure will be the outcome?

I'm just a supporter like yourself trying to do the only thing that we can do. Those are all valid points and I don't know the answer. We just have to hope that someone really is interested in taking the club forward and AEPG come to the table, whether voluntarily or due to outside pressures. PCC and AEPG thought that this would go through on the nod so we can only try to put a spanner in the works, make it difficult and cross our fingers. Whether we'll win I don't know but doing nothing will hand victory to the executioner.

Agreed. The CEO of the EEAS said that he had to deal with numerous complaints from residents relating to speedway; when AEPG allegedly say, as evidence to ignore LP30, that speedway is seasonal and only runs fortnightly for about 6 months of the year. Therefore it would seem that the East of England Agricultural society think that a 10 year construction site will be less disruptive to the local community than a few hours of speedway 15 times for half of the year. That's why these people demand a big salary, you don't get that type of imagination for peanuts.

Interesting. I'm sure that that is exactly their strategy, hence Bratters possibly trying to get some protection on the site if common sense doesn't prevail and Panthers don't come to tapes in 2024? That really is a useful piece of evidence to potentially use. I'm pretty sure that the AEPG Design and Access statement references the NPPF so it'll be interesting to have another search through. I haven't done my objections yet but it's all adding up

Following on from that previous comment, fair play to the real Laguta who turned up for this. Those two rides were special and full credit to him for getting up injured and winning the re-run at a canter. Shame that I doubt that we'll see him again this season but that's speedway.

Don't buy the hype. This is not cut and dried, only in the world of AEPG and the EEAS who want their legacy to be 10 year building site and the more than likely resultant concrete jungle that will be nothing like the AEPG brochure! Speedway supporters, both local and far & wide need to keep on and ramp up the pressure on AEPG & PCC. Yes we may lose at some future date but you can be pretty confident that they both don't want the negative publicity that they are getting, and the PPC planning committee certainly don't want to have to justify a decision in favour of the developers as it relates to their own Peterborough Local Plan (adopted 2019, specifically Policy LP36: East of England Showground - The loss of any existing leisure and sports facilities will not be supported unless replacement facilities are provided in accordance with policy LP30.) - AEPG will try to convince PCC that they don't need to adhere to LP30 but, from what we know, their argument can be argued against.

Yes, although we have yet to see their full reasoning, it does appear that that will be one of their main points but even that can be argued against and I'm just working on my objection as we speak.

What is/was the submission date because I can't see such a date on the PCC website, only that the application was validated on Mon 14 Aug 2023.

When is the specific cut off date for objections/comments on the PCC website?

Yes, anyone with sense knows that. It's just a case of keep banging that drum to wake PCC up to that, although they no doubt know but hope that nobody will call them out. Funny that a golf driving range is on their wish list. Swingers golf driving range (of Mario Jirout fame) was closed and sold for development prior to the 2008 crash, if my memory serves me right, and it's still a grass field which could have been a driving range for the past 15 years. If that doesn't ring alarm bells and concern PCC then they really need to have a word with themselves.

I did that yesterday in a search for someone. It's quite an eye opener isn't it?

This is a good one “Peterborough has a huge lack of active health, lifestyle and entertainment facilities”, Ashley added. - so we're knocking down and building on a premier city site that could be quickly be turned in to an active health, lifestyle and entertainment complex (incorporating Peterborough Speedway and the “world class arena and centre.” ) for the benefit of the whole city and positive legacy of the East of England Agricultural Society.

Good question. I think a lot of people are struggling with that and it's a right dogs' dinner overall with the speedway being mixed up with the planning application. The important thing is to object and if you're outside the city I would probably just keep it simple saying that you object to the loss of one of Peterborough's major culture, leisure, tourism and community facilities and want to know why the plans do not detail a like for like replacement for Peterborough Speedway, either on or off site, as required in LP30 of the local plan. Others locally can probably add more detail but that should do Try to put it in your own words though.

Could do a top 10 list it is that good

Oh yes, thanks for that. I hadn't gone down that far. There are more than a few odd lines in that whole piece. As for " Peterborough Panthers speedway team informed in 2022 that the 2023 season would sadly have to be their last in the Showground grandstand, as that area is expected to be under different ownership by the time the 2024 Speedway season begins." - listen to Chapman's 2022 centre green statement. He clearly wasn't told that? I can't be bothered with the rest, it's embarrassing. If PCC fall for that guff and think that concreting over one of the city's premier culture, leisure, tourism & community facilities with a vision with more holes than a colander then council isn't fit for purpose. As for "We are working with PCC to make sure this development positively impacts the local people’s health and wellbeing.” - that's comedy gold

It is very helpful though for those yet to make or struggling with an objection. I'm going put it into a word doc and have a real good look at that, there are some gems in there!

And the big sell continues https://www.peterboroughtoday.co.uk/news/factfile-east-of-england-showground-redevelopment-plans-explained-4275569 Should be helpful with registering your objection on the PCC website planning portal.

It has to be the EoES for the few more years that Buster said was possible in Sept 2022. That will both save the track and stand, stabilise the club and give new owners time to plan for a future elsewhere, if need be that is should PCC capitulate and agree to the pointless 10 year concrete jungle which benefits nobody. I think that it's the EoES or the end irrespective at this moment in time. The whole process is just following the regular pattern with such developments. The difference here compared to most tracks that disappear is that we have the ammunition to make it very difficult and our opposition public as we have some clever people who can hold AEPG and PCC to account. That's what they don't want. Their PR on the radio & press has been pretty poor and the last thing that they want is strong public opposition or close examination of their rationale. I was told by someone who knows (no names no pack drill) that these things go through on the nod, until I pointed out some of the contentious issues and that changed the tone pretty quickly.