Crump99

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.