Crump99

Amen to that. The first part is spot on in my book. I'm certainly not playing that game. I was done for 2023 when Chapman read the AEPG script over the PA. The local paper and AEPG will love the farewell to speedway at the EoES edition and those not involved in the fight will just buy it as the opposition ebbs away If we carry on kicking and screaming a bit without anyone significant happening, being that an MP, PCC decision maker or these alleged people who want to take the club forward breaking ranks then I'll not be holding my breath for the future. I keep seeing that people are working hard behind the scenes, well I know one, so let's hope that they keep the pressure up for those next few pivotal weeks.

I'm sure that they have tried to get out of those elements by submitting to PCC a prepared document which looks at the loss of Peterborough Speedway in the context of Local Plan Policy. I don't believe that document is in the public domain and I've hit a blank trying to get a copy of it. I know the basics and their arguments are pretty weak and have generally been negated by many many excellent objections. AEPG do hold the cards though and unless someone from the club (who will that be because Chapman is demob-happy and allegedly there is nobody else?) calls AEPG's bluff and goes public then they will stick with the non-viable excuse at an unused EoES and it may just stick. PCC will look for a get out and no 2024 would do it IMO.

Positive note and farewell meeting in the same sentence. Well done. You're not Paul Grinnell or on the AEPG payroll are you

Problem is that the long game for Panthers is only 5 or 6 weeks. If that step back to go forward is to take a year out, come back with something unlikely to be as good as part of whatever is left of British Speedway at that time then good luck with that.

More reality than theory: allegedly AEPG had discussions with Panthers owners and the outcome of such meetings was that the club could not afford a break even rent. Now if, for instance, Rick Frost and his fortunes was in charge and called their bluff, would AEPG say OK, crack on in 2024? I doubt it? They'd just think up another barrier.

Neither am I but I know enough and there is nothing (usual rumours aside) around to justify that post.

Could still confirm until November I believe so the opportunity is still there. Bigger problem is that it requires a new Panthers owner/s and AEPG to come to the table which they allegedly have no desire/intention to do.

Why? Evidence for that?

It's speedway but not Premier League which is the service provided at the EoES so when AEPG try (as they already have allegedly although I don't believe that we've seen their evidence) to argue against LP30 L then Leicester and Kings Lynn are their only options.

Agreed, which is what I put in my objection. Hopefully PCC don't fall for that because that's the argument AEPG have made, or will make, to get them out of: 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

I'm not but I've recently made the mistake of reading Facebook sites.

The 15 & 16 page objections from Orton Southgate make interesting reading. If they in any way know what they are talking about then they've ripped AEPG a new one

Why, for what end? The vast majority seem to have given up so 1 or 1000, what difference does it make?

Don't really get that he was lying. It's what he believes or was told to say but it doesn't bear scrutiny to what's in the public domain so was full of holes unless he knows something that we don't?

But necessary to communicate or they put the rent up you used to say

I do believe that someone had an e-mail exchange so probably that counts?

Firstly, that wasn't the impression given on the centre green in Sept 2022 although it would clearly need a fight throughout 2023 to change those circumstances that we were told were needed to give Panthers a 2024 and beyond. And as I've said, credit for giving us a good deal of enjoyment over the closing weeks be we needed that season long fight which has been lacking and is now being ramped up, possibly too late, by the likes of Mick Bratley. Bratters to his credit, fully appreciates that you don't upset this lot when you're working with them for Panthers so it's not surprising to see the excellent working relationship quote "they have been particularly helpful and accommodating during this busy period" Unless they know something that we don't, what hasn't changed is AEPG's responsibilities under: Policy LP36: East of England Showground: Proposals for development should not have an unacceptable adverse impact on the surrounding uses (especially on occupiers of nearby residential properties), and all development should ensure that the character of the area is maintained. A comprehensive master plan in advance of, or alongside, any significant proposals will be required and, if approved by the council in advance, this would become a material consideration in the determination of future planning applications. Such a master plan must demonstrate how the functioning Showground will be retained. The loss of any existing leisure and sports facilities will not be supported unless replacement facilities are provided in accordance with policy Policy LP30: Culture, Leisure, Tourism and Community Facilities LP30: 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. Now I'm no expert but there are questions to answer for AEPG/PCC in an alleged open and transparent planning process and those answers potentially need to be challenged? With inadequate answers or justification a new club owner could get 3 seasons at least until a new local plan is adopted in 2026 so I'm not fully convinced by that part either; although it would probably require one or both planning applications being turned down or PCC telling AEPG that they have to honour LP36 & LP30. Not forgetting, from Peterborough Today: The Peterborough Local Plan for 2016-2036 says that 650 homes on the Showground is an acceptable number; though building works might take a decade. The fact that Butterfield is quoted as saying: “We are working with the Speedway fans and owners but we understand the disappointment that the speedway is moving from Peterborough.” does raise some alarm bells because surely that decision is yet to be made or go in their favour?

Thanks. I'm just doing my objection to Planning – Application Comments on 23/00412/OUT | Outline permission for up to 650 dwellings (and I encourage everyone else to do the same because the numbers are less than the 850 dwellings objections for some reason) so I'm still fighting but will not be attending the final two requiems that for me sum up the Chapman 2023 purple effort. Perhaps I'm doing him an injustice and he may open up when not under the alleged watchful eye of AEPG (reminds me of the interesting Youtube videos about North Korea I've been watching recently, the fully escorted holiday's are very eye opening if you haven't seen them) but the impression given is that slippers and rocking chair are waiting at the corner of the pits? As for not upsetting the landlords, my mind went back to all of those years ago when Andrew Mercer arrived and had the usual purge on cars within the EoES. I think season tickets were in at that time but he threw them out? The disabled took the brunt as per usual as they were thrown out. It all got very personal and public with, if my memory serves me right, Jim Lynch threatening to take the landlords to court. That even made the local paper I seem to recall? Oh how times have changed.

Well a few days on to reflect and my view hasn't changed.

I thought that it was you who told me that we were dealing with professionals They are very good at getting others to produce a nice glossy brochure saying all of the right things before pulling the wool over local eyes as they get people to fall for it!

Firstly someone on the planning committee (I didn't know when I asked the question), told me in April that it'll go through on the nod (which was just an off the cuff instant reaction to what happens in most council meetings I suspect, planning or not). And to be clear, that one line discussion was all we had Secondly, AEPG have allegedly already provided PCC with a paper about the loss of Peterborough Speedway in terms of the local plan. I don't believe that that is in the public domain which isn't really transparent if it can't be challenged. Thirdly, Butterfield's quote: “We are working with the Speedway fans and owners but we understand the disappointment that the speedway is moving from Peterborough.” - well it's not according to the local plan and without planning approval, so that indicates that he thinks PCC have caved on LP36 & LP 30 and both applications will be nodded through? I may be reading too much in to it but a lot of little bits of information soon paint a big picture.

Thought I'd google and see what comes up? Whether this applies in 2023 I don't know but it's interesting: What happens if planning permission is ignored? If you do require planning permission but you proceed without it, you will have committed a planning breach. In the event of a planning breach, you will need to submit a retrospective application to the local council. If this is successful, you will not need to take any further action. My concern is that my local council has all but nodded this through (didn't expect any opposition though) and the planning committee is just a front and tick box exercise for approval. Consider that the planning application was verified on the August Bank Holiday, as well as being told this week that the case officer dealing with this application is on annual leave at the moment and he will reply to you on his return doesn't exactly fill one with confidence!

Basically you would imagine that Peterborough City Council would be the first port of call but the fact at a councillor, and someone on our side, is saying that really does beg the question of where indeed do you go? These people are profit orientated professional wreckers of things and with a weak council who've fallen for the vision and brochure, it probably needs equivalent professionals now to answer your question but who knows any or can afford such advice? Anyone sending in an objection could link to LP30 and being "fit for purpose" when the planning application went in but I'm clutching at straws. Urgency is the key though because if AEPG are thinking that then they need to know that there will be consequences, and not the ones that they want.

Just been reading another article in Peterborough Today and I must say that I thought that I've read something like that before https://www.peterboroughtoday.co.uk/news/politics/council/council-backed-house-building-company-medesham-homes-that-owns-pleasure-fair-meadow-car-park-is-not-really-fit-for-purpose-and-could-close-4288262

If you send a question then think what the answer would be. Do not send anything with an easy get out. These people waffle and use generalities so be careful what you ask. Think I've got a corker so it'll be binned or be unable to be answered because of an ongoing (allegedly) planning case.