Crump99

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.

Indeed. Hopefully the consortium and locally councillors are looking hard at both the call-in request (which PCC will not make public - I asked to see this form: "The request to call-in a decision must be made in writing or electronically, using the agreed form" but the request was refused and I was told that they'd summarise it for the meeting's public pack!) matched against the Council’s constitution, and any pre-meeting or meeting shenanigans? Note that there has been nothing in the local press since Tuesday to celebrate this great victory for AEPG/PCC when Butterfield said: “We will provide a full analysis after this has sunk in." I bet you will. We await that analysis.

It does look bad but I wouldn't be surprised if PCC have cocked up somewhere (it's the only thing that they are good at) so if people keep digging for the evidence then who knows what the will find? But yes, anyone who can should certainly vote out these four NIMBY councillors: Cllr Mahmood (allegedly the main troublemaker I'm led to believe?), who jointly ‘called-in the refusal with the previously mentioned Cllr Wayne Fitzgerald (Con), Cllr Jason McNally (Lab) and Cllr Scott Warren (Con). The tragic part is that one of those abstained or voted to reject the application in the important vote. The two Tories had declared their intention to vote to approve, as did Mahmood so it's not rocket science to work out who needs to be ousted asap. As for the PCC reasoning: “The Executive Director considers that the finely balanced nature of the decision" The important recorded decision to reject was 6-3-1 which isn't finally balanced at all. Fitzgerald's initial proposal to accept was closer at 5-4-1 but that's not even recorded in the minutes which shows that it carries little weight and yet they got an appeal & the decision overturned on the back of that failed proposal. That's local democracy for you 😒

As I said Peterborough City Council ignored its 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? His Facebook post said that he'd been denied attendance for some reason that he didn't know? You would have thought that he'd be aware of conflict rules or would have had that communicated to him.? 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 massive conflict, despite his alleged open mind? 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.

That was the battle. The Peterborough Local Plan stipulated that if AEPG didn't include Peterborough Speedway within their plan for that parcel of land where the stadium sits then they should provide a like for like replacement on the remaining Showground land or at an off-site location. The first proviso was then of course knackered because PCC had already approved planning for the rest of the EoES. AEPG never had any intention of fulfilling any of their responsibilities regarding an on or off-site location for Peterborough Speedway and Peterborough City Council let them get away with it. Mick Bratley laid it out quite clearly at the appeal meeting that the club was only asking for what the Council's own policy stated. PCC then ignored their own local plan and those sporting safeguards that they themselves had incorporated when they moved from their sensible EoES policy LP31 of 2015. They threw Peterborough Speedway under a bus & will no doubt be clearing up the mess over the next decade along with most of their disastrous decisions. This has nothing to do with the Labour Government, it has everything to do with weak, incompetent, self interested, easily influenced councillors who only see £ signs & not people and community.

That should have been the next step step if AEPG wanted to fight the planning rejection, which I'm not sure that they would have. They would have walked or come up with revised plans. For some reason though Mahmood is fighting their case, along with Fitzgerald who is also clearly on their side. Added to that they roped in a couple of nobodies, one of whom opposed the application. If it gets turned down again they'd have to be very inventive to come up with a reason to appeal a second time.

Refusal for homes is to be reviewed A final decision on controversial plans to build 650 homes on a section of the East of England Showground that was home to speedway racing for 50 years is expected next year, it has been revealed. Peterborough City Council says its appeals committee is unlikely to meet until January to review the decision made on October 15 by the local authority’s planning committee to refuse permission for the homes. https://www.peterboroughtoday.co.uk/news/people/decision-on-650-homes-plan-for-speedway-land-at-east-of-england-showground-expected-in-new-year-4888020

Signed and good effort up to now with 1115 responses thus far 👏

Surely far easier to produce new plans and build around the speedway as Councillor Fitzgerald whimsically suggested? And although he said that he reads the papers, he clearly didn't read the PCC Open Spaces objection in September (added to the planning portal in error I assume before it had been run by AEPG) which suggested exactly that, with image of speedway track, ring road and hatched beautifully manicured centre green!! I guess the case officer only commented on the revised version that was somehow slipped in without a mention of speedway anywhere within it.

After last week they're stuck in the u-bend with a few councillors who bought in to their guff are trying recover them on a pretty weak argument, compared to the planning committee chair's summing up. Good to see some support today from previous events' organisers https://www.peterboroughtoday.co.uk/news/politics/council/truskfest-would-be-the-first-in-the-queue-to-return-to-peterboroughs-showground-if-development-plans-fail-to-materialise-4836976 That backs up Councillor Harper's view on viability and ineptness of the EEAS in their use and running of the East of England Showground, The call in is a problem but with one more flush AEPG will be gone!

It was actually worse than that because the report preferably recommended demolition and replacement of the grandstand at an alleged cost of near £4m: so if AEPG do wish to move us then that's the starting point in negotiations for the cost of a like for like replacement. Be careful of what you wish for when commissioning a report! As you say, the grandstand is concrete with a metal framework which doesn't look like a heath and safety hazard despite AEPG's vandalism of earlier in the year. I'm sure that it could be made serviceable (assuming we can find the seats, or some seats) reasonably quickly and for a reasonable cost.

Didn't Jim Lynch threaten to take him to court when Mercer had one of his regular power hour moments about number of vehicles inside the EoES? I can't recall whether it was season ticket holders, disabled supporters or just riders, staff, sponsors etc? Pathetic & entertaining all the same

Peterborough Prime was number 50 in the 56 support letters dumped on the PCC planning portal by AEPG so if that X account really does represent PP then yes he did indeed possibly have skin in the game: Oh dear, how sad, never mind - despite their worthy profile!