Crump99

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.

I thought that they could renew if they wished but due to lack of activity now at the EoES (well events if not a garage) the cost to the club of a new agreement would be financially unrealistic/unacceptable. It's a shame that PCC can't do some of the site maintenance that AEPG will no longer do. It can't be too onerous and would keep Peterborough people in work.

Seems to have been the strategy since Chapman made his statement last year about 2023 at the end of last season. Credit to Panthers management for getting an extension to an extension but it's hard to think that going quietly wasn't part of the deal? Maybe that's unfair but the club and supporters club have been mute all season, apart from some of the statements Johnson put put out which often included a reference to raising the white flag so to speak! The EoES crowd has never been great (Mick Horton was making use it or lose it noises 20 years ago) and that would have been known by all concerned with what's going on with the proposed development at the Showground. In speedway terms our crowds have seemingly improved and held up well considering what has or hasn't happened over the last four seasons; so that's a stick they'll use to beat us with so best to leave it alone or explain the detail more closely. At the end of the day, It's an important community facility being potentially being replaced by bricks & concrete and a vision of better culture, leisure and entertainment facilities for the city. I'm not sure that the locals want it and will the city benefit that much? There is plenty of unused land elsewhere to plant concrete on, and, if they are keeping the Arena, then why PCC didn't plan a real city community leisure and entertainment complex incorporating Peterborough Speedway is a mystery. They could have partnered with the Nene Park Trust, which is only a stones throw away, to meet their conservation/environment objectives and make the site an all year round facility, another stick! rant over.

Only had a very quick skim of that, I'm sure that all of that was considered when the Peterborough local plan was drawn up and adopted in 2019, hence the inclusion of LP30 and it's protection of Peterborough speedway as an existing culture, leisure, tourism and community facility. The developers are bound to put in supporting information, along with any planning application, to counteract the specifics of LP30. If and when their submission is verified by PCC and moves in to the public domain, it's then that the club will need an immediate and urgent big response from the fans. Primarily local supporters/residents will carry more weight but I guess the more the merrier. It'll also need the supporters club and their members to get onboard and help anyone (although should be leading in all honesty) who organises action as a show of club support (much like Save The Bees do).

As it stands, without an immediate and successful negotiation/agreement against our October 31 2023 (I believe is the date) demise then this will be the last ever away meeting of Peterborough Panthers. And as was reported on Aug 7: " It’s now likely the club will cease racing altogether" - think about that Buster reportedly has not given up though and I know that some people are working hard behind the scenes so we're on life support but still fighting, and where there is life there's hope for 2024 and beyond.

Doesn't fill the criteria: "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;"

In terms of a pointless second leg still pending, yes they are!

Well done. That's what the Design and Access Statement says: "This application is on behalf of Asset Earning Power Residential (AEPR) which is a wholly owned subsidiary of Asset Earning Power Group (AEPG) and is in partnership with the landowner East of England Agricultural Society (EEAS)." It also says: "The allocation of this site, the East of England Showground, for leisure, employment, and residential development as an urban extension to the city, has informed how this masterplan complies with the objectives of the local plan" - as I can't see LP 30 mentioned in text or addressed (it only appears in their LP36 graphic) then how does it comply with the local plan? They seemed to have missed that, or being from Glasgow they didn't realise that we lived there?

Not a can of worm because Holdergate and associated is common knowledge and it didn't end well. Despite the public messaging one assumes that Rathbone didn't particularly want to sell up at Peterborough and he hasn't been involved since anywhere, that I know of, so you need to ask why? Or perhaps you don't? That's as far as I go on unconfirmed messages but it it all seems logical? And to answer your point above, allegedly there were other day to day issues which upset (not too difficult) the powers that be. Anyone else is welcome to clarify or dispel these things. Just to be clear, I have no problem with Rathbone and would be more than happy for him to be in charge of Peterborough Speedway.

No probs! They've been in touch with Can't Pay? We'll Take It Away! allegedly & Paul Bohill and Steve Pinner are having a word.

Just seen that. It's interesting that it says "The Showground land is set to be turned into a major housing and leisure development, with work set to begin next year" when they haven't got planning permission yet, that I'm are of anyway, as well as other similar local developments being refused or delayed due to supply chain and associated issues. Just done a quick scan (it is late and I'm tired ) of "The Design and Access Statement prepared by IDP Architects, Landscape Architects and Urban Designers which is said to be part of a suite of documents for two parallel planning applications to develop the East of England Showground" , and using the limit of my search skills, I can find that speedway gets 6 insignificant mentions in the document (two of which are labels for pictures). More interestingly is that although LP30 is shown on page 29 I don't think that they've grasped its significance or mentioned how the loss of an existing culture , leisure, tourism and community facility (ie Peterborough Speedway) is to be addressed because their application supposedly fails without that clarification and associated action. - I may just have missed it or read it wrong so if we can get someone brighter than me on the case