Peterborough Panthers 2023

[OldNutter]

The case might be lousy and the whole fantasy built on borrowed money, but remember the whole team are probably very clever and they and their mates know that the whole system is biassed in favour of their sort.  They will use all the tricks and dodgy maths to persuade the PCC that their plan will work.  They will claim that all the difficulties will be ironed out in the later stages of the planning and then claim that the council let them get that far so should let them go further.  Splitting the build in two is the first stage - makes each one smaller and easier to do the dodgy maths.  During the build stages they will plead difficulties and get the costly fantasy bits cancelled while they carry on with the money-making concrete laying.  Do not forget, these first people will not actually lay a single brick.  They are just the ones who plan to make loads of money getting the plans for the big building firms to move in.

We had a big build round here covering the past 8-10 years.  The original plans had a 25% social housing build clause into them.  About half way through the build, the consortium found that the affordable houses were not affordable enough and couldn't sell them so they submitted a new plan to reduce the non-affordable affordable house clause with a reduced quota by a half.  That meant that because the total they had built matched the original plan number, they did not have to build any more non-affordable affordable houses.  By  the way,  the builders only build houses that they are sure to sell, so with the market crashing at the moment, the rate of building will be painfully slow.  If they really wanted to incorporate the speedway into the plan, they would probably not need to touch either track or grandstand for the next 10 years and we could carry on enjoying our sport in between the rounds of golf and body building  if we can  afford them - not.

[Crump99]

20 minutes ago, OldNutter said:

 the rate of building will be painfully slow.  If they really wanted to incorporate the speedway into the plan, they would probably not need to touch either track or grandstand for the next 10 years and we could carry on enjoying our sport in between the rounds of golf and body building  if we can  afford them - not.

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.

[bigcatdiary]

I am reliably informed that the comments on the AEPG Facebook page and the PCC planning applications website are causing problems for the company as pretty much all the comments are objections to the application.

A few are thinking the Facebook page will shortly be removed due to the flak they are currently getting so any help from other supporters will be greatly appreciated, it’s important because a lot is going on behind the scenes and it’s in no way a foregone conclusion that this application will be approved and even if it is it will take quite a few years to get off the ground.

Please mention in any comments the 53 year history and heritage of Peterborough Speedway and the fact that this planning application fails the PCC local plans LP30 and LP36.

PCC LP30 refers to the fact that the loss of any existing leisure and sports facilities will not be supported unless replacement facilities are provided in accordance with policy LP30.

PCC LP36 refers to the fact that no plans will be approved for more than 650 dwellings on the Showground, AEPG current plans are for 1500 dwellings.

The aim is to continue at the Showground which will give the club time to relocate if necessary without any break in speedway, at the moment AEPG won’t even agree to a meeting or talk about the likelihood at all past 2023.

[Crump99]

On 8/29/2023 at 11:14 PM, Mick Bratley said:

There are two parts to the planning application.

The documents to the two parts are here: https://planpa.peterborough.gov.uk/online-applications//search.do?action=simple&searchType=Application

Search keyword ‘Showground’ You will see the recently published two applications.

You can submit your objections or comments for the first part here: https://planpa.peterborough.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=makeComment&keyVal=RSOMJ0MLIWV00

You can submit your objections or comments for the second part here:
https://planpa.peterborough.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=makeComment&keyVal=RSXWVDML04U00

The planning portal is not the easiest to navigate, but it is important that Speedway supporters overcome this, read the documents and note that there is no provision for Peterborough Speedway in the planning application, in contravention of the City Councils Local Plan and specifically policy LP30. You can find the adopted Peterborough Local Plan here https://www.peterborough.gov.uk/council/planning-and-development/planning-policies/local-development-plan

The section on the Showground and specifically local policies LP30 and LP36 are very relevant. This is a legal document, if this is not adhered to, what is the point of going to the trouble and expense of producing such a document?

Objections and or comments are welcomed from supporters of all clubs from the U.K. and around the world. The Peterborough City Council need to know and understand the 53 year heritage of Peterborough Panthers. 

 

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

[Mick Bratley]

4 hours ago, Crump99 said:

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

30 days after submission.

[Mick Bratley]

AEPG are getting pelters on their Facebook page. Feel free to join in, anyone.

[Mick Bratley]

PLEASE TAKE TIME OUT TO COMMENT/OBJECT TO AEPGs PLANNING APPLICATION TO MAKE PETERBOROUGH PANTHERS EXTINCT

To do this go to the councils planning portal here: https://planpa.peterborough.gov.uk/online-applications//search.do?action=simple&searchType=Application

Planning simple search ‘Showground’

You will see the two applications references are: 23/00400/OUT and 23/00412OUT click on either or both

Click on documents

Click on associated documents 

You will then see the comments/objections that have been already left there are 25 to a page. Go down the different page numbers to eventually find the planning application detail.

To make a comment/objection go back to the page where the associated documents link was and click the comments link.

Leave your comments/objections and press submit.

Anyone anywhere in the world can comment/object.

PLEASE TAKE TIMEOUT TO DO THIS WE NEED PETERBOROUGH CITY COUNCIL TO UNDERSTAND THE STRENGTH OF OPPOSITION TO KILLING OUR CLUB. DO IT!!!!

[Sully]

11 minutes ago, Mick Bratley said:

PLEASE TAKE TIME OUT TO COMMENT/OBJECT TO AEPGs PLANNING APPLICATION TO MAKE PETERBOROUGH PANTHERS EXTINCT

To do this go to the councils planning portal here: https://planpa.peterborough.gov.uk/online-applications//search.do?action=simple&searchType=Application

Planning simple search ‘Showground’

You will see the two applications references are: 23/00400/OUT and 23/00412OUT click on either or both

Click on documents

Click on associated documents 

You will then see the comments/objections that have been already left there are 25 to a page. Go down the different page numbers to eventually find the planning application detail.

To make a comment/objection go back to the page where the associated documents link was and click the comments link.

Leave your comments/objections and press submit.

Anyone anywhere in the world can comment/object.

PLEASE TAKE TIMEOUT TO DO THIS WE NEED PETERBOROUGH CITY COUNCIL TO UNDERSTAND THE STRENGTH OF OPPOSITION TO KILLING OUR CLUB. DO IT!!!!

Would be nice if these instructions could be included the programme for each of the remaining meetings. Need as many eyes on this as possible as I would imagine the majority of people who go each week won’t be active members of the BSF. Somewhat disappointed that the existing custodians of the club don’t seem prepared to make any noise publicly regarding objecting to the eviction. 

[Crump99]

45 minutes ago, Mick Bratley said:

30 days after submission.

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.

[Mick Bratley]

20 minutes ago, Crump99 said:

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.

30 days from August 28th when it was published.

[thomasthedog]

Possibly won't achieve much other than being another thorn in AEPG's side, but I note you can leave reviews on their Facebook page - apparently they haven't bothered switching reviews off yet, but most likely will do soon.  May as well let them know our thoughts via reviews too

Link to their FB reviews page

[Mick Bratley]

As at lunchtime on Monday 4th September there has been almost 300 comments/objections to AEPGs planning applications, which will force the closure of Peterborough Speedway, there is not a single positive comment.

This is great, but we need more people to comment/object.

MAKE YOUR COMMENTS NOW BY THE FOLLOWING WAY
 
Google Search ‘Peterborough City Council Planning Applications’
 
Search the planning register ‘Showground’
 
You will see the two applications references are: 23/00400/OUT and 23/00412OUT click on either and/or both
 
Click on documents
 
Click on associated documents 
 
You will then see the comments/objections that have been already left there are 25 to a page. Go down the different page numbers to eventually find the planning application detail.
 
To make a comment/objection go back to the page where the associated documents link was and click the comments link.
 
Leave your comments/objections and press submit.
 
Anyone can comment/object. You can comment on both applications.

[Littleze]

On 9/1/2023 at 8:08 PM, Mick Bratley said:

I particularly enjoyed his terminology of ‘competitive socialising’ I mean wtaf of a bullrubbish phrase is that. The bloke, as I have said from day one, is a chancer and fantasist.

He could make it as a Speedway promoter then

[eric i]

On 8/29/2023 at 6:11 PM, Crump99 said:

Policy LP36: East of England Showground specifically points to the fact that the loss of any existing leisure and sports facilities will not be supported unless replacement facilities are provided in accordance with policy LP30

Existing Culture, Leisure, Tourism and Community Facilities - the important bit

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.

But as I say, don't get in to specific detail at this point (unless you are good and know what you're doing), just a general objection of that not being met should mean that they have to wake up and think about it at the very least.

 

 

I can't see how a golf driving range, an all weather football pitch and gym is of similar nature or size to the showground. I think the developer will be trying to argue point K, its no longer viable.

[rusky]

I have submitted my objections to both applications, but it set me thinking. Should we in some way be getting other showground users involved too ? The obvious one is Truckfest as its their flagship event, and I believe one of the premier events world wide of this type. Also the camping & caravan show..... I'm sure there are many others too. If we could show its truly multi purpose then there would be more objections and a greater chance of success ?

[Crump99]

6 minutes ago, eric i said:

I can't see how a golf driving range, an all weather football pitch and gym is of similar nature or size to the showground. I think the developer will be trying to argue point K, its no longer viable.

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.

[Mick Bratley]

31 minutes ago, rusky said:

I have submitted my objections to both applications, but it set me thinking. Should we in some way be getting other showground users involved too ? The obvious one is Truckfest as its their flagship event, and I believe one of the premier events world wide of this type. Also the camping & caravan show..... I'm sure there are many others too. If we could show its truly multi purpose then there would be more objections and a greater chance of success ?

Feel free to let anyone know they can object!

[OldNutter]

There is another document that becomes very relevant in this case called the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).  This government document is the bible as far as far as planning is concerned.  I forms the basis of all plans and lower-level plans like the Local Plan.  There are a couple of useful references in the NPPF.  For example - In paragraph 196 it says:  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.  Perhaps the common factor of all the loss of all of the various events, and the effective forcing of the speedway to disappear could be classed as deliberate neglect in order to forward the case for the proposed plans?  It is hardly likely to be a coincidence when viewed with the changes made to the directorships in the operating company now fixed tightly to AEPG.  Closes the "Not viable" argument completely.

Paragraph 99 of the NPPF also makes interesting reading for inculsion n any objections.

[JoeW436]

Is the 14th of September likely to be the rearranged Kings Lynn match? 

[Flappy]

The leaflets going round last night appeared to cause a positive stir.  Anyone got a picture of one they could share