Crump99

Hope they are not that negative. If they are then I wish they'd say. I could then just give up and concentrate on an alternative interest.

Exactly! Anyone who thinks that in a decade's time the city of Peterborough will have a concrete development that is better than the Existing Culture, Leisure, Tourism and Community Facility that the EEAS, AEPG & PCC hope to destroy really do need to have a look at themselves. It's no surprise that we keep reading things like: An AEPG spokesperson said: “These are artist impressions, albeit they are based on the AEPG vision of the overall development’s look and feel. Artist impressions, vision, look and feel - usual meaningless dross!

He probably picked up the word from my post and I was just repeating what the EEAS CEO said: "AEPG currently occupy and operate the site under a lease"

I suspect that you're right. I wonder how watertight it is because I doubt that PCC expected so much flak? This was in the local press fact file explaining the project and timeline: Peterborough Panthers speedway team was informed in 2022 (not what Chapman said on the mic?) 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. Sale of the land is expected to be approved by Spring 2024, again subject to planning approval. "Operators so-far have not been named" - they're going to be popular when/if known

Would this muddy the waters? "A planning Article 4 restriction was submitted to the council on Thursday 28/09 by the Parish Council" I assume that that is related to the below objection? Orton Waterville Parish Council OBJECTS to this planning application 23/00400/OUT and 23/00412/OUT, in its current format for the following material observations: Speedway - The proposed loss of the Speedway track and arena is contrary to both the local plan, Paragraphs LP30, LP36 and to Paragraph 99(c) of the National Planning Policy Framework (2021)”. Ashes of the deceased have been scattered within the Speedway arena by a Chaplain over a number of years. It is noted that a similar planning application (Ref R18/0186) was submitted in January 2018 by a Developer for residential dwellings on the site where Coventry Bees Speedway arena is located. The application was rejected by Rugby Borough Council in November 2022 on the grounds “The development would result in the loss of a sporting facility that has both local and national significance and although an alternative sporting provision is proposed there is not a clearly identified need for the alternative sporting provision and therefore it is considered that the proposed benefits of the new facility do not clearly outweigh the loss of the stadium. The proposal would therefore be contrary to Policy HS4(C) of the Local Plan (2019), Policy LF1 of the Brandon and Bretford Neighbourhood Development Plan (2019) and Paragraph 99(c) of the National Planning Policy Framework (2021).

Don't play the last ever game that AEPG, Chapman & some supporters are pushing is my suggestion. With planning up in the air, nothing is going to happen at the EoES for years sufficient to stop Peterborough Speedway running for several seasons at the very least. Also, with a local plan review under way and Peterborough City Council under increasing pressure, the only thing to say farewell to is 2023 and Chapman's tenure as he's made it clear that he does not want to take Panthers forward.

Bratters is the expert regarding the world of shark infested custard. If there's a way then he would know. If AEPG don't want to negotiate though then what do you do? Go direct to the East of England Agricultural Society, keeping PCC updated as well could be a useful strategy. I'm sure that they don't want to be brought in to this and dragged down with their current promoter, AEPG who currently occupy and operate the site under a lease. The EEAS certainly didn't swallow AEPG's alleged exciting plans and fantasy planning applications to get negative press and a 1000+, thus far, objections.

Amen to that. The first part is spot on in my book. I'm certainly not playing that game. I was done for 2023 when Chapman read the AEPG script over the PA. The local paper and AEPG will love the farewell to speedway at the EoES edition and those not involved in the fight will just buy it as the opposition ebbs away If we carry on kicking and screaming a bit without anyone significant happening, being that an MP, PCC decision maker or these alleged people who want to take the club forward breaking ranks then I'll not be holding my breath for the future. I keep seeing that people are working hard behind the scenes, well I know one, so let's hope that they keep the pressure up for those next few pivotal weeks.

I'm sure that they have tried to get out of those elements by submitting to PCC a prepared document which looks at the loss of Peterborough Speedway in the context of Local Plan Policy. I don't believe that document is in the public domain and I've hit a blank trying to get a copy of it. I know the basics and their arguments are pretty weak and have generally been negated by many many excellent objections. AEPG do hold the cards though and unless someone from the club (who will that be because Chapman is demob-happy and allegedly there is nobody else?) calls AEPG's bluff and goes public then they will stick with the non-viable excuse at an unused EoES and it may just stick. PCC will look for a get out and no 2024 would do it IMO.

Positive note and farewell meeting in the same sentence. Well done. You're not Paul Grinnell or on the AEPG payroll are you

Problem is that the long game for Panthers is only 5 or 6 weeks. If that step back to go forward is to take a year out, come back with something unlikely to be as good as part of whatever is left of British Speedway at that time then good luck with that.

More reality than theory: allegedly AEPG had discussions with Panthers owners and the outcome of such meetings was that the club could not afford a break even rent. Now if, for instance, Rick Frost and his fortunes was in charge and called their bluff, would AEPG say OK, crack on in 2024? I doubt it? They'd just think up another barrier.

Neither am I but I know enough and there is nothing (usual rumours aside) around to justify that post.

Could still confirm until November I believe so the opportunity is still there. Bigger problem is that it requires a new Panthers owner/s and AEPG to come to the table which they allegedly have no desire/intention to do.

Why? Evidence for that?

It's speedway but not Premier League which is the service provided at the EoES so when AEPG try (as they already have allegedly although I don't believe that we've seen their evidence) to argue against LP30 L then Leicester and Kings Lynn are their only options.

Agreed, which is what I put in my objection. Hopefully PCC don't fall for that because that's the argument AEPG have made, or will make, to get them out of: 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

I'm not but I've recently made the mistake of reading Facebook sites.

The 15 & 16 page objections from Orton Southgate make interesting reading. If they in any way know what they are talking about then they've ripped AEPG a new one

Why, for what end? The vast majority seem to have given up so 1 or 1000, what difference does it make?

Don't really get that he was lying. It's what he believes or was told to say but it doesn't bear scrutiny to what's in the public domain so was full of holes unless he knows something that we don't?

But necessary to communicate or they put the rent up you used to say

I do believe that someone had an e-mail exchange so probably that counts?

Firstly, that wasn't the impression given on the centre green in Sept 2022 although it would clearly need a fight throughout 2023 to change those circumstances that we were told were needed to give Panthers a 2024 and beyond. And as I've said, credit for giving us a good deal of enjoyment over the closing weeks be we needed that season long fight which has been lacking and is now being ramped up, possibly too late, by the likes of Mick Bratley. Bratters to his credit, fully appreciates that you don't upset this lot when you're working with them for Panthers so it's not surprising to see the excellent working relationship quote "they have been particularly helpful and accommodating during this busy period" Unless they know something that we don't, what hasn't changed is AEPG's responsibilities under: Policy LP36: East of England Showground: 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. A comprehensive master plan in advance of, or alongside, any significant proposals will be required and, if approved by the council in advance, this would become a material consideration in the determination of future planning applications. Such a master plan must demonstrate how the functioning Showground will be retained. The loss of any existing leisure and sports facilities will not be supported unless replacement facilities are provided in accordance with policy Policy LP30: Culture, Leisure, Tourism and Community Facilities LP30: The loss, via redevelopment, of an existing culture, leisure, tourism or community facility will only be permitted if it is demonstrated that: 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 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; or m. The proposal includes the provision of a new facility of a similar nature and of a similar or greater size in a suitable on or off-site location. Now I'm no expert but there are questions to answer for AEPG/PCC in an alleged open and transparent planning process and those answers potentially need to be challenged? With inadequate answers or justification a new club owner could get 3 seasons at least until a new local plan is adopted in 2026 so I'm not fully convinced by that part either; although it would probably require one or both planning applications being turned down or PCC telling AEPG that they have to honour LP36 & LP30. Not forgetting, from Peterborough Today: 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. The fact that Butterfield is quoted as saying: “We are working with the Speedway fans and owners but we understand the disappointment that the speedway is moving from Peterborough.” does raise some alarm bells because surely that decision is yet to be made or go in their favour?

Thanks. I'm just doing my objection to Planning – Application Comments on 23/00412/OUT | Outline permission for up to 650 dwellings (and I encourage everyone else to do the same because the numbers are less than the 850 dwellings objections for some reason) so I'm still fighting but will not be attending the final two requiems that for me sum up the Chapman 2023 purple effort. Perhaps I'm doing him an injustice and he may open up when not under the alleged watchful eye of AEPG (reminds me of the interesting Youtube videos about North Korea I've been watching recently, the fully escorted holiday's are very eye opening if you haven't seen them) but the impression given is that slippers and rocking chair are waiting at the corner of the pits? As for not upsetting the landlords, my mind went back to all of those years ago when Andrew Mercer arrived and had the usual purge on cars within the EoES. I think season tickets were in at that time but he threw them out? The disabled took the brunt as per usual as they were thrown out. It all got very personal and public with, if my memory serves me right, Jim Lynch threatening to take the landlords to court. That even made the local paper I seem to recall? Oh how times have changed.