Ty Proctor 👍🏻🤣

As I said Peterborough City Council ignored it own local plan and the NPPF after a hastily arranged and very suspect appeals meeting. With the Chair shutting down any contentious discussion and then there was virtually no debate (compare that to the October meeting) at the end as everyone (or enough yes voters) funnily enough seemed to have made their mind up! The Planning and Environmental Protection Committee in October correctly refused the planning application for the following reasons (from the meeting minutes): 21.2 23/00412/OUT (where Peterborough Speedway sits) – EAST OF ENGLAND SHOWGROUND, OUNDLE ROAD, ALWALTON, PETERBOROUGH, PE2 6XE - The Planning and Environmental Protection Committee considered the report and representations. A motion was proposed and seconded to REFUSE the application. The Committee RESOLVED (For 6, Against 3, Abstention 1) to REFUSE the planning permission for the reasons set out below. REASONS FOR DECISION By virtue of the loss of the showground and speedway track, together with a quantum of dwellings which cumulatively would significantly exceed the allocated 650 dwellings on the showground site, the proposed development was contrary to Policies LP30 and LP36 and para 103 of the NPPF, and there were no other material considerations, including the NPPF “tilted balance” that carried such weight as to outweigh the conflict with the Development Plan. That decision should never have been overturned and the Chair, Councillor Harper, who made that decision was denied the opportunity to make representations at the planning appeal meeting by way of some sort of conflict of interest I'm led to believe?  I don't really see how that differs from Councillor Fitzgerald who was the main AEPG/PCC mouthpiece at the October meeting, despite declaring in the minutes that when Leader of the Council he had been involved in the development of both EoES planning applications being considered as a liaison between the Council and the applicant. Isn't that a conflict? To rub salt in the wounds, Fitzgerald was then in the rouge four councillors who instigated the call in. To be fair to the BSPA, I think that they did as much as they could, apart from letting Chapman anywhere near our club in the first place. Absence of club and an AWOL uninterested owner was definitely a hindrance during Panthers fight for survival and factor at the appeals meeting particularly.

He isn't good enough for the Premiership.

Where did anybody say that any riders had been cleared by the BSPA?

Really don't know what you're struggling with. Riders are signed by clubs, and once contracts are signed and a press release is made to confirm the signing, they are added to the club's list of signed riders. Once a club has signed 7 riders, they have to be submitted to BSP Ltd, and ratified as a legal 1-7.

Assuming Kildemand is 6.00 [the inference to be drawn from the Berwick announcement], then 7.40.