Crump99

I admire the confidence Mick, and I agree that the case is stronger now than it was at closure. I’d just be a little cautious about underestimating PCC. They have experienced planning officers, legal advice, years of involvement with this site and a national policy climate strongly favouring housing delivery. An independent Inspector is obviously important, but independence doesn’t necessarily mean the outcome will go our way. We’ve already seen PCC rely on the argument that the wider benefits of development outweigh the loss, so I don’t think we can assume the planning case is straightforward. The important thing now is to show where removal of the existing safeguards creates weaknesses or contradictions within the Plan itself. I’m sure that Forever Panthers are on the case and don’t need advice from me. I’m certainly more encouraged than I was, but I think confidence in the case and confidence in the eventual outcome are two slightly different things. We are effectively at the last-chance stage now, which probably tells us all we need to know about taking anything for granted.

The Panthers side was in a much weaker position because there was no equivalent organised resistance early enough. Whatever the former owner knew or was told, the public-facing position in 2023 was remarkably passive. There was no serious challenge to the emerging narrative, no visible attempt to build a planning case, and no supporter organisation forcing awkward questions while the important assumptions were becoming embedded. By the time the Panthers campaign began trying to unpick it all in 2024, they were already starting from behind. They also had every reason to expect Peterborough City Council to uphold the site-specific safeguards in its own adopted Local Plan for the East of England Showground’s leisure uses and Peterborough Speedway. So if the suggestion now is that these issues should have been raised earlier, the councillor probably needs to read up on what has actually happened over the last few years.

That was the last time I attended the EoES. That was a terrible speech by Chapman. The only saving grace is that he still had to work with the Showground administration, so that speech and his save speedway inaction throughout 2023 could possibly be explained to some extent. But given his total lack of interest since Oct 23, I’m less tempted to give him the benefit of the doubt!

sorry, wrong thread. If someone can move it to a more appropriate place, that'd be good!

Peterborough Local Plan – Speedway and Showground points from the 1 October Cabinet meeting Having now gone through the relevant parts of the Cabinet meeting transcript, I think the Speedway and East of England Showground issue came out of it in a stronger position than it may have appeared for anyone watching live. Forever Panthers’ Brian Connolly and Mick Bratley both spoke directly to Cabinet, with their arguments centred on Policy LP54 and the protections that should apply before established sports and recreation facilities are permanently lost. Brian Connolly’s point was a simple but important one. He referred to paragraph 104 of the National Planning Policy Framework and argued that existing sports and recreational buildings and land should not be built on unless one of the required tests is satisfied — for example, that the facilities are shown to be surplus to requirements or that equivalent or better replacement provision is secured. He told Cabinet that Forever Panthers had searched the council’s published evidence base and could not find any assessment meeting those tests. He also highlighted what appears to be a contradiction within the emerging Local Plan itself. The Plan recognises national protections for sports and recreation facilities elsewhere, yet LP54 merely requires “significant commercial and leisure facilities” to mitigate the loss of the former Showground. His argument was that **mitigation is not the same thing as equivalent or better replacement**, and that referring to the “former” Showground effectively assumes the loss before the relevant test has been properly answered. His request was not to stop or delay the Local Plan. It was simply to add a requirement to LP54 for a facilities retention and replacement strategy. The interesting part came when Connolly asked why the Showground-specific policy had not been given wording which reflected the national-policy protections and the safeguards in the existing Local Plan. Council leader Shabina Qayyum described that as a **“valid question”** and committed officers to providing a written response. That written reply could be important because PCC will now need to explain why the site-specific wording differs from the protections Forever Panthers says should apply. Mick Bratley approached the issue from a slightly different direction. He challenged the idea that the Showground simply ceased to be viable, pointing to the Society’s published trading figures and saying: **“This is not a business that failed. It stopped.”** He then returned to the same evidence issue — no published surplus-to-requirements assessment and no assessment of what an equivalent or better replacement would require. Bratley also made a very useful connection with another item on the Cabinet agenda — Peterborough’s visitor economy. His point was that a working Showground and Speedway track were themselves part of the visitor economy, bringing people into Peterborough many times each season for more than 50 years. As he put it, it is a strange position to plan for growing the visitor economy while deleting established facilities which already brought visitors into the city. Again, the request was deliberately modest. Forever Panthers were not asking PCC to remove the housing allocation, select a replacement site, spend money or delay the Plan. Bratley asked for one sentence in LP54 requiring the facilities not to be lost unless equivalent or better replacement provision was secured in a comparably accessible location. Councillor Roger Antunes then took the argument further. Speaking with the support of Peterborough Panthers, he referred back to the scrutiny recommendation that members and officers should work collaboratively and use all reasonable endeavours to save the Showground and Speedway facilities. He asked Cabinet to endorse that recommendation and translate it into effective policy and practical officer support. His comparison with Drysides was particularly relevant. PCC had been prepared to devote resources to resolving the consequences of removing employment land from the Local Plan, and Antunes argued that longstanding Showground and Speedway provision should merit the same level of attention. He asked for a fair and reasonable platform rather than special treatment. Cabinet did not agree to change LP54 before Regulation 19, largely on the basis of timing. Qayyum repeatedly said the representations had come late in the process and encouraged Forever Panthers and Speedway supporters to put the arguments into the Regulation 19 consultation, where they would be considered by an independent Planning Inspector. That is not the outcome Forever Panthers wanted, but it is important to look at what PCC actually said in response. PCC Council leader Shabina Qayyum repeatedly made clear that the Speedway case was **not being dismissed**. She acknowledged the importance of the Showground, recognised the value of a significant sporting facility to the city and promised to take certain questions back to officers. She also signposted Forever Panthers very clearly toward the independent examination process. The most interesting technical exchange came later when councillors asked officers whether LP54 and LP22 provided sufficient protection. Officers said LP54 means that some or all of the existing leisure and sports facilities may be lost, but that they must be replaced **“in some form”**, although not necessarily like-for-like. They also stressed that the word “significant” means developers cannot simply replace the Showground with a token leisure facility. That sounds reassuring on the surface, but it also seems to expose the central difference between PCC and Forever Panthers very clearly. PCC’s position appears to be that the loss can be mitigated by significant alternative leisure provision which is not necessarily equivalent to what exists. Forever Panthers’ position is that national planning policy requires the loss of an established sporting facility to pass a stricter test, including equivalent or better replacement unless another specified test is satisfied. That distinction is now clearly on the public record and is exactly the sort of issue which can be tested at examination. There was also an exchange over what would happen if the new Local Plan failed to progress. Qayyum suggested that reverting to the 2019 Local Plan could place Speedway in even greater jeopardy because speculative applications could come forward. Officers confirmed that any such applications would then have to be decided under the **2019 Local Plan**. What that exchange did not address is the obvious point that the 2019 Local Plan also contains the very safeguards which Forever Panthers says have been weakened or lost in the new LP54. That is another issue which may merit closer attention during Regulation 19. So the immediate result is clear enough. PCC approved the Plan for Regulation 19 and LP54 was not changed. However, the meeting was far from pointless. Forever Panthers succeeded in putting the core planning issue formally before Cabinet. The council leader acknowledged that a key question required a written officer response. Antunes pushed the case from sympathy into practical policy and resource questions. Officers publicly explained how they interpret LP54. And PCC repeatedly directed the dispute toward the independent Planning Inspector. In other words, the argument has now moved beyond simply saying that Peterborough Speedway should be saved because supporters want it back. The issue is increasingly being framed around **planning policy, evidence, replacement provision, the treatment of established leisure facilities and whether LP54 properly reflects national policy**. That is a much stronger battleground for Regulation 19 than the one Speedway supporters were facing only a short time ago. AI assisted summary. I have read through, but double check anything that confuses you.

Extraordinary Meeting, Council - Tuesday 29th September, 2026 6.00 pm Having now gone through the 29 September Full Council transcript, I think the debate actually strengthens the case that the Speedway/Showground amendment was much more modest than some councillors suggested. Which makes it even more disappointing that they rejected it (Cllr Antunes proposal to reinstate site safeguards). Although perhaps not too surprising, because it's fair to say that Peterborough City Council has been unsupportive since the existing Local Plan was adopted in 2019, and particularly since the redevelopment applications were submitted in 2023. If you compare the city's approach with pro-Speedway Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council, the contrast is obvious: BCP’s Overview and Scrutiny Board specifically recommended strengthening the Local Plan so that the Poole Stadium site would be retained for community/leisure use “including its existing function as a stadium.” The council leader then confirmed that the leisure use included speedway. Roger Antunes was very clear that he was not asking the council to buy land, build a stadium, choose a replacement site or stop the housing allocation. His amendment was about policy: retain safeguards requiring the Showground and Speedway to be shown as genuinely surplus, or secure equivalent/better replacement provision before permanent loss. More importantly, he was not asking for the Local Plan to be stopped or held up until the East of England Showground situation was resolved. The timetable is clearly the council's priority, and I'm not convinced that all of the councillors in attendance fully grasped that distinction. In his summing-up he put it even more simply. He was asking for the opportunity to assess viability and examine alternative sites in the Local Plan, in broadly the same way councillors were demanding proper alternative provision over Drysides (an employment site). Despite that, the amendment was defeated by 24 votes to 10, with six abstentions. Bear in mind that PCC has 60 councillors. Some of the arguments against Roger's proposal were revealing. Steve Allen said that finding a new Speedway site was for the promoter and was not the business of Peterborough City Council or the Local Plan. That rather misses the point. Nobody was asking PCC to run Speedway. The issue was whether planning policy should continue to protect an established sporting/leisure use from permanent loss without proper replacement provision. Wayne Fitzgerald’s contribution was even more curious. On Drysides he argued strongly that land should not simply be removed from the plan without alternative provision being identified. Yet when he turned to the Showground he said, in effect, “that ship sailed” and Speedway should go and speak to the landowner. It is difficult not to see the inconsistency. The principle he wanted applied to Drysides was precisely the sort of principle Roger was trying to retain for the Showground and Speedway. The other recurring objection was that Roger’s proposal had come too late. Christian Hogg said it should have been brought forward a year or two earlier, and Kevin Tighe said he liked Speedway but felt the process was now too advanced. That raises an obvious question. The redevelopment of the Showground and the threat to Speedway had been known about for years, and the existing Local Plan already contained safeguards. Forever Panthers did not create that delay. So if councillors now say the issue is “too late”, who was responsible for dealing with it during the years when the problem was already known? My reading of the meeting is therefore not that the safeguarding argument was disproved. It was that most councillors either regarded the issue as already lost, treated Speedway as somebody else’s commercial problem, or were unwilling to alter the Local Plan this late in the process. That is rather different from demonstrating that the case for replacement and continued protection was wrong.

It’s been fairly quiet on the Peterborough Speedway front for some time, but the issue has suddenly come back into focus this week because the Proposed Submission version of Peterborough’s new Local Plan removes the previous site-specific safeguards relating to Peterborough Speedway and the wider leisure use of the East of England Showground. Peterborough City Council has held both an Extraordinary Full Council meeting and a Cabinet meeting this week, with strong representation for the Panthers at both. The debate has centred on whether the new Policy LP54 gives sufficient protection to the existing sporting and leisure use, and whether the national planning policy tests on loss and replacement have been properly addressed. Below is a summary of the main Speedway and Showground points from both meetings

Helmets off lads, and no pissing about before, during or after you’ve been introduced.

100%

It's called the Buster Chapman business model? Unless.....!!!

The NPPF isn’t a statute in itself, but it is a material consideration in planning decisions and carries real weight. Local Plans sit underneath it, and the Local Plan is legally binding policy once adopted. In Peterborough’s case, Speedway/Showground protection exists in both national policy and the adopted Local Plan, which is a very different position to somewhere like Coventry. Coventry’s situation was complicated because of the long period without activity, gaps in their local policy wording, and the way the stadium and land were allowed to deteriorate while decisions dragged on. It wasn’t a simple case of “the NPPF was ignored” – it was a mix of timing, inactivity and local circumstances. It’s true that the draft new Local Plan is expected to remove the Speedway/Showground protections, but the current plan remains legally binding until a new one is formally adopted. A draft plan doesn’t override anything. Even if the new plan proposes removing the protections, that isn’t automatic — it still has to go through consultation, objections and an independent Planning Inspector, who can (and often does) reinstate policies if the council can’t justify removing them. And even looking ahead to 2026, it’s not a hard deadline. Protections don’t suddenly disappear — the existing Local Plan remains in force until the new one is actually adopted, and the examination process can run well beyond 2026. So the current policies remain usable for far longer than the headline dates suggest. Whether anything ends up in court is impossible to predict, but the core point remains: the protections exist, they carry weight, and they haven’t disappeared simply because the landowner or a headline prefers another outcome.

Just to add some clarity to the article, because the coverage doesn’t really reflect what was actually said. Forever Panthers haven’t “given up” on the Showground or accepted that Speedway has no future there. The company simply reported that the current landowner has indicated they don’t plan to reopen the site for events — but that is not the final word, and it’s certainly not the end of the conversation. The important point missing from the article is this: 👉 Speedway and the Showground remain protected under national and local planning policies. This isn’t something that can just be ignored or written off. Forever Panthers are still actively exploring all options, including those policy protections, and they’re engaging with the council, partners and the wider community. That’s the reality behind the press release. So while “looking for a new home” makes a neat headline, it leaves out the actual context: the fight isn’t over, the policy protections still exist, and the Showground hasn’t suddenly become an impossible venue. Fans should stay encouraged — the release was positive, measured and focused on solutions, even if the reporting didn’t quite capture that. Just to be clear, the press release and the coverage aren’t quite aligned. Anyone familiar with Speedway — including people like Peter Oakes, who understands both the club and the sport (and I’m pretty sure that Paul Grinnell was named on the first copy) — would know that the situation is more nuanced than “Panthers looking for a new home.” The intention was to update supporters honestly without closing the door on the Showground, especially given the planning policy protections that still apply.

Most certainly.

Fresh hope for talks over Speedway returning to Showground https://www.peterboroughtoday.co.uk/news/people/peterborough-panthers-speedway-looking-to-reopen-talks-over-showground-return-5377739

What next is a good question and one that I'm sure that Forever Panthers will be watching very closely. This, from Peterborough Today - "In particular, there was huge opposition to the fact the development would mean the end of more than 50 years of speedway racing at the Peterborough Panthers track. However, the refusal does not automatically mean a return to the venue for speedway." - is a step up from Butterfield saying that speedway will not return irrespective of planning. That was just bullying, and with the EEAS allegedly fallen out with AEPG, I suspect that decision is now out of his hands? Unfortunately no quick fix though it would appear.

The East of England Showground development is now in limbo after a key legal agreement (Section 106) was not signed by EEAS/AEPG, missing yet another crucial deadline. As a result, the proposals will return to the Planning and Environmental Protection Committee on October 21st, with both applications expected to face a recommendation for rejection. The future of the site remains uncertain. For speedway supporters, there is still a potential way back – but if this latest twist plays out as reported, it should be seen as a battle won rather than the end of the war. As Bratters’ post highlights, this is a moment to take heart – but not to let our guard down. There are still plenty of concerns and questions in the article, and history shows we can’t trust this lot further than we can throw them.

https://www.peterboroughtoday.co.uk/news/people/uncertainty-over-future-of-1500-homes-and-leisure-village-plans-for-east-of-england-showground-as-deadline-is-missed-5320099

Peterborough has a large Polish population and Mick Bratley went to the city Polish club and gave away free tickets for Panthers at the Showground. He reported that one person took up the offer, so good luck with that?

True but to get this far will have cost and I'm sure that they were well aware of what taking it further would cost. PCC never expect anyone to challenge their decisions and this is no different. I seem to recall liabilities in the event of a challenge being brought up at the appeals meeting. PCC haven't got a pot to pee in and they've just backed down on a challenge by a developer regarding a planning refusal. Panthers Forever can only challenge the process and not the decision but these council people are only human and it was done in such haste that I'd be pretty sure that they've cocked up somewhere. Whether that would be enough to bring the whole thing crashing down I don't know, but Bratters said all along that AEPG would have to speak to them at some point, and assuming the the EEAS don't throw them under a bus then he still may be right about that?

https://www.peterboroughtoday.co.uk/news/people/peterborough-city-council-urged-to-rethink-decisions-for-1500-homes-and-leisure-development-of-showground-5217002 AI Generated content. Check important info as it can make mistakes: **What does a “pre-action protocol letter” mean?** The article mentions that solicitors for Forever Panthers have submitted a *pre-action protocol letter* to the council — and that’s actually quite a big deal. It’s the formal legal warning shot before taking a council to court through judicial review. It doesn’t mean the case has started yet, but it puts Peterborough City Council on notice that their decision (likely the approval of the 650-home plan or the way the call-in was handled) may be unlawful. The letter gives the council a short window — usually two weeks — to respond, explain themselves, or fix the problem. If not, the group can then ask the High Court to intervene. It’s about whether the decision-making process was legal and fair, not just whether the outcome was unpopular. In short: the legal wheels are turning now, and the pressure is officially on.

Agreed. They'll just say that the whole development is dependent on both planning applications being fully approved (as we know, hence the dodgy appeal & second go approval for the speedway land), so if AEPG need an extension for the 850 part then PCC will just agree it inline with the July deadline for 650 homes.

Yes thanks. I did see that when it was uploaded on Jan 3. As you said, it really needs a trained eye to see whether there was enough in it to justify the hastily arranged extraordinary meeting, let alone overturning the initial planning rejection? I think that will be down to the local councillors because Peterborough Speedway's representatives have had enough fighting the planning system and additionally the totally unhelpful, self interested PCC as well?

I don't know enough to comment on the last bit but I'd hope that local councillors are all over this and not just making a noise about being unhappy about 1500 houses & questionable infrastructure/facilities being dumped on their doorstep? Isn't the real problem that decisions were made and agreed 6-3-1 by the experienced Planning and Environmental Protection Committee in October, totally in line with local & national policies: IMO the real question is was the justification for the call in and hastily arranged unsavoury appeal meeting sufficient to overturn that original democratic committee decision? It's quite hilarious that Cllr Mahmood said “I fully understand the emotions around the potential loss of the Showground but our decisions must be robust, in line with material facts and we must have confidence in our decision-making process.” - he was the instigator of this sham because he and his buddy Fitzgerald both got chastised by the Chair, Councillor Harper, (who had his request to speak at the appeal meeting denied for a yet to be confirmed reason) and Fitgerald's proposal to approve the application in October was rejected based on all of those material facts being considered and debated.

That's the million dollar question unless the local councillors can find significant problem with the internal processes & call it out within Peterborough City Council? I don't know enough about Judicial Review so don't know what could be achieved in terms of outcome. I have read though that it's 30k+ for starters & if we lost then we'd probably also be liable for PCC costs as well? You can't see them going for that without some certainty but likewise you can't see anyone sourcing, financing, building a new stadium in the future either.

Indeed. Hopefully the consortium and locally councillors are looking hard at both the call-in request (which PCC will not make public - I asked to see this form: "The request to call-in a decision must be made in writing or electronically, using the agreed form" but the request was refused and I was told that they'd summarise it for the meeting's public pack!) matched against the Council’s constitution, and any pre-meeting or meeting shenanigans? Note that there has been nothing in the local press since Tuesday to celebrate this great victory for AEPG/PCC when Butterfield said: “We will provide a full analysis after this has sunk in." I bet you will. We await that analysis.