Peterborough Panthers 2023

[Deano]

1 hour ago, Chris said:

AEPG will pull it apart pretty quickly after the farewell meeting. Is there anything that can be done to prevent it from happening though?

Exactly, everyone shouldn't be surprised when this happens.

It happens to a lot where a "forced" change of use is being investigated by the owners.

Fans need to use the Crooked House as an example, to stop it.

Edited September 13, 2023 by Deano

[Deano]

26 minutes ago, Sir Sidney said:

AEPG would be very rash to do that before the planning application is decided. 

 

Maybe, but Coventry Stadium doesn’t have permission and look at that place. There are many more examples.

[Crump99]

1 hour ago, Chris said:

AEPG will pull it apart pretty quickly after the farewell meeting. Is there anything that can be done to prevent it from happening though?

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.

[Hamish McRaker]

Judging by the comments on here concerning Mr Chapman's broadcast during this Monday's match, would it be a surprise if he were to be actually operating the bulldozer destroying the stadium, grinning from ear to ear and happily singing "It's Over"? 

And will anyone attend any Farewell meeting (paying or for free) that is promoted and organised by him?

[Sir Sidney]

52 minutes ago, Deano said:

Maybe, but Coventry Stadium doesn’t have permission and look at that place. There are many more examples.

Maybe so, but Brandon Stadium has not been demolished. 

AEPG presumably want the Council onside, and have included demolition within its planning application. Why would it risk demolishing the grandstand and stadium buildings in advance of the application being determined? It makes no business sense. The Council is already going to get significant flack, quite justifiably, if it allows the demolition without replacement in accordance with its own Local Plan. If AEPG were to demolish it without permission it might well jeopardise the whole application. 

Of course, it wouldn't be unknown for a significant fire to occur - but I suspect the Police would want to get involved if it were suspicious, and that would slow down AEPG even more - and delays cost money.

[False dawn]

1 minute ago, Sir Sidney said:

Maybe so, but Brandon Stadium has not been demolished. 

AEPG presumably want the Council onside, and have included demolition within its planning application. Why would it risk demolishing the grandstand and stadium buildings in advance of the application being determined? It makes no business sense. The Council is already going to get significant flack, quite justifiably, if it allows the demolition without replacement in accordance with its own Local Plan. If AEPG were to demolish it without permission it might well jeopardise the whole application. 

Of course, it wouldn't be unknown for a significant fire to occur - but I suspect the Police would want to get involved if it were suspicious, and that would slow down AEPG even more - and delays cost money.

Could the stand (and other buildings) be dismantled and used on a future, alternative site?

[Sir Sidney]

Just now, False dawn said:

Could the stand (and other buildings) be dismantled and used on a future, alternative site?

No idea I'm afraid. I'm sure there are people close to the club who could answer that, but I would have thought the cost were prohibitive even if it were technically feasible.

[Sir Sidney]

3 hours ago, Sully said:

Councillor Julia Stevenson in reply to Paul Stainton (BBC reporter) on Twitter lamenting the panthers closing. 
 

“If this goes anything like the way of the hydrotherapy pool, the fans can expect to see photos of the beloved facilities smashed to bits in the near future.”

Was she suggesting that this happened before or after planning permission was granted (if indeed it was)? I can quite imaging AEPG wanting to demolish the stadium as soon as they have got permission, if permission is granted

[Crump99]

1 hour ago, Sir Sidney said:

AEPG would be very rash to do that before the planning application is decided. 

 

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!

[Sir Sidney]

2 minutes ago, Crump99 said:

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!

How have you concluded that the Council 'has all but nodded this through ' ?

[Rickyag]

47 minutes ago, Sir Sidney said:

No idea I'm afraid. I'm sure there are people close to the club who could answer that, but I would have thought the cost were prohibitive even if it were technically feasible.

I believe the roof etc are asbestos so I would think nobody would want to reuse but be removed and destroyed by specialists. 

[noaksey]

12 minutes ago, Rickyag said:

I believe the roof etc are asbestos so I would think nobody would want to reuse but be removed and destroyed by specialists. 

The rules surrounding demolition and planning permission are pretty complex, if there is asbestos or anything that could be considered unsafe then pp would be required 

[Crump99]

1 hour ago, Sir Sidney said:

How have you concluded that the Council 'has all but nodded this through ' ?

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.

Edited September 13, 2023 by Crump99

[Chris]

52 minutes ago, Crump99 said:

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!

This happened at Rye House where the new leaseholder changed the stand into a gymnasium and they removed the track without planning permission. The council just nodded the retrospective planning application for the gymnasium through. It was only when people started asking questions and making a nuisance about the track that they told the leaseholder to kindly stop breaking planning laws. The Council were next to useless and they would have built over the track without planning permission if they could have gotten away with it.

[Mick Bratley]

4 hours ago, Chris said:

AEPG will pull it apart pretty quickly after the farewell meeting. Is there anything that can be done to prevent it from happening though?

Yes, in progress.

[Mick Bratley]

2 hours ago, Crump99 said:

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.

I would argue the point about them being ‘professional’ they have no track record of developing anything like the scale of the Showground.

[Mick Bratley]

1 hour ago, False dawn said:

Could the stand (and other buildings) be dismantled and used on a future, alternative site?

The stand, no. The other buildings, yes.

[Crump99]

8 minutes ago, Mick Bratley said:

I would argue the point about them being ‘professional’ they have no track record of developing anything like the scale of the Showground.

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!

[Daniel Smith]

Seems some are being confused as to what planning permission is for. 

Any land owner can remove any buildings that doesn't have any existing use & or listed status without council permission.

Once the season ends the land owner can remove the stand & plough over the track, nothing can stop that.

Only an objection order can prevent the demolition but this has to be in place before the last meeting. Any delay (November onwards) would likely be to late. 

[Hackney]

3 hours ago, Sir Sidney said:

No idea I'm afraid. I'm sure there are people close to the club who could answer that, but I would have thought the cost were prohibitive even if it were technically feasible.

I think I read that there was asbestos in the roof.