Crump99

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!

I know that you're telling the truth here in that the public face of our excellent working relationship was all a front for the reasons that you state & have told me numerous times. I do have a problem with the rest though, especially how Buster's position changed from his positive 2022 centre green speech to still then running a 2023 campaign that was a downer and negative from the off. He then gave AEPG their PR coup of the farewell to the showground meeting which, if my memory serves me right, he felt deserved praise because he didn't need to do it? (happily made a shedful though allegedly) We were facing extinction and if he'd stood up to Butterfield who then threw us out for the reasons you say then I might feel differently. I appreciate that it's hard work and his money he's invested & investing but it was all very unsatisfactory IMHO.

Its what people think but never been laid out as such and certainly not in such a public forum. Don't think that it's ever been explained satisfactorily what went on with Tomalin but he is still around. I take the 5th at that point. Just checked an e-mail from Aug 2023 and it's strange that Butterfield said that when the EEAS CEO told me that: "I believe that AEPG may have had discussions with the current speedway operators as well as the local authority regarding the possibility of relocating to another site, but I am not sure whether this has been progressed." One assumes that he got that wrong

Basically (don't quote me) he said that Chapman had praised AEPG for what they had done for Peterborough Speedway while presiding over an amicable ending. Butterfield was questioned about negotiating with the consortium but said that he could only legally deal with the owner who showed no interest in saving Peterborough Speedway. When Butterfield was asked whether, during his tenure, Buster had spoken to him at any time about an alternative location for the Panthers he said that he hadn't, despite being aware of the development threat.

Seen him in action about 4 times now. Nasty piece of work. Who votes for that clown?

I'm sure that Buster was well impressed by Butterfield throwing him under the bus in a very public meeting. Not the smartest move by Butterfield & Chapman may indeed break cover now and really do something positive for Peterborough and speedway generally?

Would have been a good idea to get a rider & bike or two. Are they doing that?

If you're about and bored then I believe that it's live streamed (Tues 15th from 1.30pm) here https://www.youtube.com/@PboroughCityCouncil/streams

It's actually quite mind boggling that the planning department and case officer thought that they could take this forward given that AEPG have failed on every metric within the NPPF & Peterborough Local Plan. I kept reading agenda pack thinking that Butterfield & co must have given their eviction of Peterborough Speedway some thought and consideration at some point? He and they clearly never did but now they have their self imposed timeline to meet & the EEAS whining (read the planning portal comments) about wanting their money. They have to throw the dice now and can't undo their incompetence. I'm sure that the Peterborough City Council Planning and Environmental Protection Committee are looking forward to looking at and justifying a decision on this mess?

Those links do seem to have a mind of their own so direct to PCC planning is possibly the best option. Yes I'm sure that anyone who read that would be somewhat alarmed, but in my opinion it just takes the stand out of the equation during negotiations in that speedway could be restored without it, although clearly from a supporters standpoint, especially historically for Peterborough, no stand would be an issue. If my memory serves me right, the "AEPG reports said" that to return the stand to working order (before they further vandalised it) would cost about £375,000 although a recommended full 2 year rebuild would cost £4m. I think that the consortium can comfortably achieve restoring the track etc relatively quickly (not the fantasy 5 years given by PCC in the ACV refusal) so best not to confuse the issue at this time. If it comes down to an S106 Agreement for the like for like replacement then we can start at AEPG's own figure of £4m+

This is the Objection of British Speedway’s National Governing Body to the planning applications for the mixed-use development of the East of England Showground (23/00400/OUT & 23/00412/OUT). 07/10/2024

Cracked the 1000 👍 I'm not a big fan of petitions because they usually don't mean a lot but a 4 figure total is certainly better than 3 figures.

👍 Now 13, getting there - need to start the 2 minute clock!

Just done it. Would be good to get the extra 35 supporters needed to push it to 1000.

But will Labour’s plans actually make much difference? Or does it risk making the same mistakes as the previous government? Speak to those inside the industry, and you hear concerns. BBC 26/9/24

Labour wants to build more houses like every government before them, it never happens and they'll be out in 58 months anyway. There are many moving parts to this so it's important to keep the pressure on Peterborough City Council with basic objections. Those with the knowledge will attack with the more pointed, specific objections.

The EoES is brownfield so grey belt doesn't apply.

Yes, important for everyone to note: If you wish to comment on this application you should ensure that your written comments are received by 5 October 2024. Comments received after this date will be taken into consideration only if the application has not already been determined

AEPG plans to be considered by councillors on October 15 If you objected to the East of England development then I guess that you've received an e-mail from planningcontrol@peterborough.gov.uk This has hit the local press today https://www.peterboroughtoday.co.uk/news/people/30-days-more-consultation-as-decision-day-looms-for-east-of-england-showground-development-plans-4772020 Overall they reportedly have changed nothing of significance and Peterborough Speedway is gone, can permanently expire within the city of Peterborough and take its small selfish cohort of speedway fans with it. If you objected then I suggest that you quickly reiterate your position to counter the letters from friends and family that Butterfield is allegedly going to produce. If you haven't objected then give it a go and bump up the numbers. It's simple and painless: Planning Application 23/00412/OUT is where Peterborough Speedway sits. Planning Application 23/00400/OUT is the unagreed part of the development outside of the local plan which means that with the addition of this scheme AEPG can't meet the EoES part of their obligations within LP36 & LP30 Just a reminder of the objections from BSP Ltd/SCB: Sept 2023 http://plandocs.peterborough.gov.uk/PublicDocuments/01321287.pdf May 2024 http://plandocs.peterborough.gov.uk/PublicDocuments/01342678.pdf

Interesting piece in the ET today (Aug 9) about 100 new shared ownership houses (sounds like a dogs dinner?) at something called Haddon Abbott, for Hackney overspill I assume? More importantly it mentions the wider Great Haddon development which is expected to provide 5,350 homes, 9,000 jobs, four schools, three shopping centres and sports facilities. Makes Butterfield's AEPG vision look like an afterthought? It also challenges his claim that Peterborough is crying out for such a development at the EoES. In the unlikely event that it ever gets off the ground, in a decade's time there will be plenty of alternatives.