Crump99

Could do a top 10 list it is that good

Oh yes, thanks for that. I hadn't gone down that far. There are more than a few odd lines in that whole piece. As for " Peterborough Panthers speedway team informed in 2022 that the 2023 season would sadly have to be their last in the Showground grandstand, as that area is expected to be under different ownership by the time the 2024 Speedway season begins." - listen to Chapman's 2022 centre green statement. He clearly wasn't told that? I can't be bothered with the rest, it's embarrassing. If PCC fall for that guff and think that concreting over one of the city's premier culture, leisure, tourism & community facilities with a vision with more holes than a colander then council isn't fit for purpose. As for "We are working with PCC to make sure this development positively impacts the local people’s health and wellbeing.” - that's comedy gold

It is very helpful though for those yet to make or struggling with an objection. I'm going put it into a word doc and have a real good look at that, there are some gems in there!

And the big sell continues https://www.peterboroughtoday.co.uk/news/factfile-east-of-england-showground-redevelopment-plans-explained-4275569 Should be helpful with registering your objection on the PCC website planning portal.

It has to be the EoES for the few more years that Buster said was possible in Sept 2022. That will both save the track and stand, stabilise the club and give new owners time to plan for a future elsewhere, if need be that is should PCC capitulate and agree to the pointless 10 year concrete jungle which benefits nobody. I think that it's the EoES or the end irrespective at this moment in time. The whole process is just following the regular pattern with such developments. The difference here compared to most tracks that disappear is that we have the ammunition to make it very difficult and our opposition public as we have some clever people who can hold AEPG and PCC to account. That's what they don't want. Their PR on the radio & press has been pretty poor and the last thing that they want is strong public opposition or close examination of their rationale. I was told by someone who knows (no names no pack drill) that these things go through on the nod, until I pointed out some of the contentious issues and that changed the tone pretty quickly.

Yup, that will be part of their argument. They really haven't thought it through or consulted anyone with that intelligence and understanding. It's a community facility for the city of Peterborough and such facilities and operations rarely make a profit and need additional funding. The EoES could be a multi function entertainment complex incorporating Peterborough Speedway (and Bratters gave some examples of how in his first radio appearance) and used all year round for the benefit of the whole city. Somehow a 10 year concrete vision at the expense of one of the city's major Culture, Leisure, Tourism and Community facilities won the day, funny old word innit!

Oh I see, ta. Wish I hadn't asked now

Although I'm not suggesting it, it would be cheaper to pay AEPG the unreasonable fortune that they would take for a new lease for the use of an existing speedway track that's in perfect working order and can be used for several more years. Possibly 3 at least to 2026 when the revised and updated local plan is expected to be agreed. Must say that I wasn't hopeful but when I read " It is thought that if the entire development is approved, construction will take a decade to complete" that really put some wind in the sails. Bratters on the radio quoting other local projects where nothing happened for years was also very telling. I thought that Swingers golf range packed up for developers to build houses on but that was about 2008 and it's still a grass car park of sorts.

You've lost me! What am I missing?

Only because that's the message being pumped out for that last 6 months. A significant number of fans are now realising that it's not a done deal and that a promotion can't negotiate with those who don't wish to negotiate or make unreasonable demands. The gloves are off now and there is something to fight for.

Actually they don't if they haven't negotiated in good faith and are trying to try to get out of their responsibilities within the local plan and LP30. That interestingly came up on Bratters interview on BBC Radio Cambs after the PCC spokesman said that added infrastructure costs were the responsibility of the developer as stated in the local plan. Surprisingly the presenter was interested by that and said that they need to look at whether the same applies to LP30? Fengate is the talking horse for that new track, as it has been for 20 years. Whether that was ever reality, or how far it got depends on who you speak to. At the end of the day though, LP30 specifies a like for like replacement either at the EoES or elsewhere. If AEPG wish to kick us out then that cost is down to them and their opposition to LP30 when it ever appears needs to be challenged. I agree that we have come to the party late but initially the club said that it would need a change of circumstances and one assumes that they tried their best and only finally conceded defeat for the reason in the first sentence. As Bratters said, we couldn't do much until AEPG played their hand, which they now have, and the response has been good but it needs to be kept going and ramped up. A 10 year vision of developers and the usual artists' impression of a development that the Peterborough public don't want and destroys an existing culture, leisure, tourism & community facility is good ammunition for the fight we potentially face unless common sense prevails.

It's not recognised by PCC so is not evidence for anyone in any respect. Apparently a PCC e-petition will be forthcoming and that will be recognised, be important and hopefully do some damage.

AEPG have prepared a document about the loss of the speedway site as it relates to the Local Plan and that has been given to the Council apparently. Mick and I have seem their summary which isn't that good or impossible to argue against. I can't say more than that. I guess that their full document will appear publically at some point? The local paper today conveniently fails to mention AEPG & PCC's responsibility under LP30 so perhaps best to keep banging that drum and then deal with how AEPG think they've dodged it.

You're heartless, you know I'm suffering Should be a laugh, I'll give it a go as soon as I can!

I seem to recall some planning applications being turned down on the basis of the local plan not being adhered to. It might be worth an e-mail to planning services to ask how many planning applications were rejected because of the local plan and the specific reason, copying it plenty of appropriate contacts so that the e-mail isn't ignored - could even do it as a FOI request - it's a simple enough ask and shouldn't be too onerous for them but does wake them up to our situation.

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 Seems pretty clear to me that that was specifically included for Peterborough Speedway! Policy LP30: Culture, Leisure, Tourism and Community Facilities The council will support the development of new cultural, leisure, tourism and community facilities, especially if: it will help to improve the range, quality, and distinctiveness of facilities that the city and surrounding areas have to offer; it improves access by sustainable transport modes to such facilities; and it will help to promote the image of Peterborough and attract more visitors. The above is not what many focus on or take note of (and it's just for information) but it is part of the stick that they will use to beat us with in conjunction with our weapon and their main failing of not meeting the criteria below, and, allegedly, using weak reasoning to justify ignoring LP 30: 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.

Unfortunately the future of Peterborough Speedway is tied up in a planning application when they ideally they would be two completely separate things. As I say, without looking at the documents yet (and I may think something different when I look, although unlikely) LP30 is all that we have to work with and that's where the focus probably needs to be, unless Mick knows different. It's hard to know what to say specifically without seeing AEPG's reasoning but I wouldn't given them any ammunition, so a general comment about LP30 and the loss to the city of Peterborough of an existing culture, leisure, tourism and community facility would at least register an objection at this early stage.

That wasn't Laguta though (or not the real one that we know of). That was an ill prepared disgrace to the sport. If that's the limit of his attitude and professionalism then he should retire now. Class riders, with a few exceptions unfortunately, are on it all of the time and have personal pride. Last night's sham of a no1 had none of those qualities.

Haven't looked myself yet but that's a good point. If people are going to object then it has to be consistent, targetted and factual. Any emotive guff is very nice and would be noted but otherwise ignored.

You can give up on British Speedway if you wish but don't mix that up with Peterborough Speedway's plight which isn't inevitable, even if it seems like it at the moment and the messages from management are constantly negative (unusual that because historically that charge is what's aimed at the fans). We have a stadium and if and when we move then who funds that is open to question. Part of AEPG's argument for ousting us will, allegedly, be that Panthers are poorly supported, so good to see that you disagree with that. Just remember that when asked, if you have any fight left in you for Peterborough Speedway at that point

With the club's future still in the balance despite the outward messages then there is everything to ride for. We need publicity, good crowds and success on track. It's all come too late I agree but Laguta/Tarasenko and the other lads should fulfil two of those criteria and we need the crowds to turn up to fulfil the third.

House!

Extremely useful that in these final few fixtures and not just for the obvious reason.

Don't know anything about this or whether it could help but will look at ACVs generally so thanks for that. As a Leeds fan I'm interested anyway

Depends who the promoter is, how much they've got and whether they they can offset those costs in some way such as Frost allegedly said that he did with the Readypower publicity/marketing budget? We've always been a cash cow as you know, and this is on an entirely differently level but would save the track and facilities and be extremely useful ammunition going forward. If they'll not negotiate though then we're stuffed but that'll be useful info when we get sight of their planning application.