Crump99

Labour wants to build more houses like every government before them, it never happens and they'll be out in 58 months anyway. There are many moving parts to this so it's important to keep the pressure on Peterborough City Council with basic objections. Those with the knowledge will attack with the more pointed, specific objections.

The EoES is brownfield so grey belt doesn't apply.

Yes, important for everyone to note: If you wish to comment on this application you should ensure that your written comments are received by 5 October 2024. Comments received after this date will be taken into consideration only if the application has not already been determined

AEPG plans to be considered by councillors on October 15 If you objected to the East of England development then I guess that you've received an e-mail from planningcontrol@peterborough.gov.uk This has hit the local press today https://www.peterboroughtoday.co.uk/news/people/30-days-more-consultation-as-decision-day-looms-for-east-of-england-showground-development-plans-4772020 Overall they reportedly have changed nothing of significance and Peterborough Speedway is gone, can permanently expire within the city of Peterborough and take its small selfish cohort of speedway fans with it. If you objected then I suggest that you quickly reiterate your position to counter the letters from friends and family that Butterfield is allegedly going to produce. If you haven't objected then give it a go and bump up the numbers. It's simple and painless: Planning Application 23/00412/OUT is where Peterborough Speedway sits. Planning Application 23/00400/OUT is the unagreed part of the development outside of the local plan which means that with the addition of this scheme AEPG can't meet the EoES part of their obligations within LP36 & LP30 Just a reminder of the objections from BSP Ltd/SCB: Sept 2023 http://plandocs.peterborough.gov.uk/PublicDocuments/01321287.pdf May 2024 http://plandocs.peterborough.gov.uk/PublicDocuments/01342678.pdf

Interesting piece in the ET today (Aug 9) about 100 new shared ownership houses (sounds like a dogs dinner?) at something called Haddon Abbott, for Hackney overspill I assume? More importantly it mentions the wider Great Haddon development which is expected to provide 5,350 homes, 9,000 jobs, four schools, three shopping centres and sports facilities. Makes Butterfield's AEPG vision look like an afterthought? It also challenges his claim that Peterborough is crying out for such a development at the EoES. In the unlikely event that it ever gets off the ground, in a decade's time there will be plenty of alternatives.

What does some form mean? Any Panthers operation away from the EoES will just be the cherry on top for AEPG and nobody is going to put right the wreckage of the EoES for a short lease (even if Butterfield sees the light that he shows no interest in opening his eyes to). AEPG can't rewrite history or the planning process, despite the Labour government, and enough people are staying, and will stay interested regardless, to make it uncomfortable for them.

AEPG want/wanted the site clear of commercial operations & they want Peterborough Speedway gone (as it has for 2024) and forgotten about so that they can argue that they've met at least one element of LP30 in the Peterborough Local Plan (2016-2036 Adopted 24 July 2019) before this all goes to the Peterborough City Council’s Planning Committee: 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; or - (Sport England acknowledged that Panthers not running has complicated the issue). 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 - Funnily enough AEPG's commissioned site reports provider (Kings Lynn based) suggests that Panthers owner's preferred operation provides an equal customer experience to the EoES and the Panthers faithful can go there If Panthers were to return in 2025 then the AEPG plans are toast and I can't see them doing a re-write? Butterfield has 100,000 people supporting his unwanted vision!

Given that AEPG have totally vandalised the operational speedway circuit/stadium handed over to them in Oct 2023, then that agreement would have to be in place now. There would need to be serious work ongoing now to rectify the damage (track, lights, pits, fence, electrics, stand etc). Where is the money coming from for that lot? With only 12 weeks of British Summer Time left it's still stalemate waiting for Butterfield to blink first, which he shows no signs of doing as he builds his case behind the scenes. Unless the the consortium is working on their pulling a rabbit out of the hat trick then you can forget 2025. You might see Peterborough Speedway of some sort at some future point if people stay interested but it's going to be a long slog!

In July 2021 the EEAS appointed AEPG as promoters of the site for this redevelopment, and transferred East of England Showground Services Limited (SGS Ltd) to AEPG. (source: Showground Viability Assessment Report).

I only posted the brownfield bit which was the question and is both true and potentially, but not definitely, problematic. He's just one of Butterfield's 100,000 who, in this case, seems more concerned about the BACS transfer. I left out of the rest of the post. Otherwise, fine words we know but I hope we have the evidence because it's no good making a point without the receipts, as Dan Bongino would say! You can read the stuff on the planning portal to see that there that there is evidence to refute (I'm not saying that it's correct or accurate) those claims. The question is will PCC buy it and what influence will Labour's Pakes & the strange boy wonder from NW Cambs have on proceedings. if any?

Comments for Planning Application 23/00412/OUT: from a trustee of the East of England Agricultural Society Ltd: "The showground is not, as some would try to imply, "open countryside". It is a brownfield site"

Let's hope that 5% of those turn up at Orton Wistow Primary School hall on Wednesday July 17 at 6pm? I suspect that this is just a Greens/AEPG trap to say that there isn't significant opposition to the development.

I left the stadium after Chapman's shocking public address and didn't return again. Chapman said in his end of season 2022 announcement that he could see a few more years at the EoES so why would the club have been trackless for 2024? Something changed with his and AEPG's position and he seemingly played along and rolled over and had his tummy tickled, making no effort on the face of it to save the club. He even gave AEPG their end of season PR coup. Anyone who supported that really needs to have a word with themselves!

Of course it all sounds logical but that doesn't mean that you have to give up and accept it. It's a weak one sided argument from Butterfield who's obviously feeling the heat as friends and family plead for the planning process to be speeded up and the EEAS whine that they need the money. If AEPG can't navigate their way out of their local plan and NPPF responsibilities then they are going to have to find new land (on or off site) and dip their hands in their pockets to pay for it. Or as the BSPA say, it shouldn't even get that far? The Save Peterborough Speedway consortium may stand alone but it doesn't take much to hang this planning process up. AEPG know that and the last thing that they need is more delay and timetable slippage!

He was just in a safe environment where he could spout ignorant cobblers with nobody to call him out (a fellow money grabber at the end said "that's what people do" ie object and fight for their sport in this case). Those are the type of meetings and consultations that he likes to attend.

Oh yes, I missed that myself I was more irritated that he could only come up with one success for one of the city's most successful sporting teams. It did appear in the environment section rather that sport or business so we can give him a bit of slack I guess?

The consortium fighting to save Peterborough Panthers Speedway Club has challenged development agents AEPG to prove their claims made in a Peterborough Bondholder's network meeting that their plans to redevelop the site is supported by 50,000 / 100,000 people. In the same meeting, he branded speedway fans fighting for their club a “selfish, small cohort.” The 2022 title-winning speedway club and their race track have been removed from the East of England showground- their home since 1970- to make way for a multi-million pound 1,500 homes and leisure-village complex; consisting of two separate planning application of 650 and 850 homes. Over 2000 objections to the plans to create a new leisure village on the East of England Showground have been submitted.

I'm sure that if AEPG show us their report showing that the displaced sport/land/activity is “surplus to requirements”, as per the NPPF which puts the onus on the developer to prove their case, then we could point them towards the data and agree a meeting date.

Ashley Butterfield (AEPG) got grilled on the radio today. Listen to the 3 interviews (David Rowe, Carl Johnson & Butterfield) from BBC Radio Cambridgeshire this morning: Promoters of British Speedway have voiced their objections to the plans for the East of England Showground. Developers AEPG want to build thousand of homes and leisure facilities on the site but it says there’s no place for a Speedway track - From: Dotty McLeod (BBC Radio Cambridgeshire): Should Speedway Return To The Showground?

You probably need to listen to this again? Particularly at 1min when he says "I do believe that there are a few more years here yet" If AEPG were willing to negotiate at that point, which they were seemingly no longer willing to do afterwards, we could have potentially got a longer extension and/or an amicable negotiated split of benefit to the club, if we had someone at the helm really interested in the clubs long term future and the work associated with that proposition. Credit for getting a full forgettable 2023 season but we're in the same place now anyway and have arguably wasted a season not taking the fight to PCC/AEPG.

The evidence was there at the start though that this was never anything else other than a mountain. Butterfield's intransigence was there throughout 2023 and Chapman played along wonderfully. Buster gets stick for that but it's well known that you have to play along with the landlords wishes if you want an easy life when running at the EoES. With the shackles off though, Chapman has shown bugger all interest in saving Peterborough Speedway can't really complain about the stick that he now gets, he brought it upon himself. Bratters has said from the start that Butterfield is going to have to talk/negotiate with Peterborough Speedway and I think that he's right. Butterfield thought that he could just brush aside one of Peterborough's highest profile long established sporting leisure and community assets but he misjudged that badly. Great summing up by the BSPA: "One way in which AEPG could ensure their scheme was compliant with National Planning Policy Framework would be to provide an alternative venue, in the Peterborough area, for the sport which they have evicted, or indeed to modify their own plans to support its retention at the Showground. However, as things stand, we believe there is no way this proposal should be accepted – or, realistically, even taken to planning committee – whilst the reports are so deficient and so full of falsehoods about our sport." If you or anyone else wins the Euro Lottery then starting from scratch elsewhere would be great, however, until that time, the EoES is our fight with the facts and evidence (which is significant) that we have. That's not a dig but just an explanation of where supporter's energy needs to be directed, despite the disappointing stalemate and lack of any significant progress!

Hopefully before people suggest new from scratch (not aimed at you because you're only to replying to a post) they also explain why giving up on an existing set up and stadium when there is a battle to be had (with good evidence and support on our side) is a good idea? Who is going to find that new land and pay for that new construction etc (if it was easy and quick then it would already be in process)? Chapman stood on the centre green and spoke of the problems associated with such an exercise. Why give up and go it alone at this time? If that's not the final nail then you'll not see Peterborough Speedway again before the Labour Party has made the sport fully electric. Butterfield would love us to go away because there are many obstacles and costs in his way and he knows it. The alleged small cohort of Peterborough Speedway supporters need to stay strong and focussed. We may not win, and the new from scratch brigade would argue that it's wasted time, but that's the only way that you'll see Peterborough Speedway again in the short or longer term is to stick with the current strategy.

Not forgetting another excellent submission by SPORT ENGLAND who are also playing a superb supporting role http://plandocs.peterborough.gov.uk/PublicDocuments/01342680.pdf

Only in terms of what the owners have said. I've no idea what's going on at Arlington but doubt it's the same scenario as AEPG's fantasy at the EoES.

I'd put Peterborough City Council high up the list as well because they produced a revised/adopted local plan that led to the current mess. Who was consulted on this and how was that consultation communicated. I never heard anything about it, did anyone else? It does sound like an AEPG consultation so is very much in keeping with this unpopular project, The PCC Peterborough Preliminary Draft Local Plan of January 2016 said: Policy LP31: East of England Showground - Within the East of England Showground, as shown on the Policies Map, planning permission will be granted for development for sport, leisure and other uses which would be appropriate to the existing Showground and which would not impair its continued use for that purpose. Proposals for development should not have an unacceptable adverse impact on the surrounding uses (especially on occupiers of nearby residential properties), and all development should ensure that the character of the area is maintained. Who would argue with that? How did that get to 650 houses and LP36 & LP30 (which is basically supposed to be the safety net for anything disadvantaged by the omission of LP31).