Jump to content
British Speedway Forum

Peterborough Panthers 2023


Flappy

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Crump99 said:

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

I shall be doing exactly that. Reiterating that nothing has changed.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have only had a quick look at the main change but it is clear that AEPG have decided to try to completely ignore the existence of the speedway.  The main relevant section that they have blanked is in the most importrant document in the system - The National Planning Policy Framework.  When we object to the application we are advised that the main thread should be in relation to the NPPF.  The document is here: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/669a25e9a3c2a28abb50d2b4/NPPF_December_2023.pdf

For us, the main area of interest is around Section 16 starting at paragraph 195 onwards where it deals with heritage assets.  There can be both designated heritage assets and non-designated heritage assets and the speedway can be assumed to be one of these.  I seem to remember the councillors trying to get designation for it along the way. Para 207 onwards is very important  and we should find words to raise against the loss of a very long held speedway facility as a result of this proposed development.  There are some words about not being allowed to destroy an asset to avoid it. This is the section of the NPPF that resulted in that section in the Local Plan about providing a new facility, so is important in the end-fight.  We have got good support from the SCB etc that we can use to strengthen the heritage nature of the speeday and link it to the NPPF.

I will be away for a couple of weeks, but when I get back I will have anothher go at my official objection.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, OldNutter said:

I will be away for a couple of weeks, but when I get back I will have another go at my official objection.

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

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was about a 30% chance of survival under a Conservative government. It's now 100% no chance under Labour.

Quota is out the window, with the now Greybelt added as certain home building ground, Peterborough Panthers at the Showground is over.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Daniel, quota has nevr been any part of the argument so whether there is one or not is something we do not need to worry about.  We have to argue within the planning system and make sure that the council planners are making the developers abide by the rules.  Numbers of objectors are significant but it will be much tf they are showing that the rules that protect the speedway are met.  Ideally we need to prove that the track etc are perfectly possible within the showground and tha fact that the proposd development is way over what was approved in the local plan and that there is enough space to accomodate the original number of houses and it is well within the bounds of the local plan with the speedway still there.  If that means that AEPG must rebuild what they have vandalised in an attempt to prove that it is not viable, then so be it.

If there are people who  want the council to retainthe whole of the showground, so much the better, but we need to concentrate on why the speedway MUST be saved for the future whether the original numbers of houses get built or not.  Ideally the track should be part of a larger sports site to improve viability.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, OldNutter said:

Daniel, quota has nevr been any part of the argument so whether there is one or not is something we do not need to worry about.  We have to argue within the planning system and make sure that the council planners are making the developers abide by the rules.  Numbers of objectors are significant but it will be much tf they are showing that the rules that protect the speedway are met.  Ideally we need to prove that the track etc are perfectly possible within the showground and tha fact that the proposd development is way over what was approved in the local plan and that there is enough space to accomodate the original number of houses and it is well within the bounds of the local plan with the speedway still there.  If that means that AEPG must rebuild what they have vandalised in an attempt to prove that it is not viable, then so be it.

If there are people who  want the council to retainthe whole of the showground, so much the better, but we need to concentrate on why the speedway MUST be saved for the future whether the original numbers of houses get built or not.  Ideally the track should be part of a larger sports site to improve viability.

It seems you still have the planning mindset from a Conservative government. Council regulations & requirements are null & void.

Labour has made it loud & clear that any council that blocks a developers plan they will review & grant themselves.

The Showground is now under the banner of Grey Belt, wasteland, derelict.

Grey belt development: Creating a new category called “grey belt”, which would prioritise development in “grey and ugly areas of the green belt”. Labour stated that “wastelands and old car parks located on the green belt” should not receive “the same protections in national policy as rolling hills and nature spots in the green belt”. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Crump99 said:

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

Nope, it's now greyfield under Labour definition. Either way, it'll have houses on it. 90% certain under this government. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, noaksey said:

Aren't brownfield sites Labour's no 1 target area?

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.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, scoobydoo said:

So the Government will be pushing for houses to be built on Coventry and Lakeside's derelict land and just think how many they could fit on Rockingham . 

Coventry is grey belt i think and so the government expect 50% of those houses to be affordable  which will hopefully make such a small development unattractive, also not forgetting that the development was rejected by a government appointed inspector not just the council.

Edited by Toady
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/7/2024 at 2:58 PM, Daniel Smith said:

It seems you still have the planning mindset from a Conservative government. Council regulations & requirements are null & void.

Labour has made it loud & clear that any council that blocks a developers plan they will review & grant themselves

 

I have had many insults over the years, but that one hurt.   When the Labour Party effectively began the Green Belt in 1947  it was an attempt to make sure that the slums built by the Victorian factory owners would never be built again and tried to make sure that the workers would have worthwhile areas to live in.  Anyone who listened to the proceedings of the Grenfell Tower enquiry and the new Government responses to the sort of repeats of the rip-off builders would realise that this government  will not allow  rip-off bojit and floggit developers and builders to repeat the minimum cost slums of the Victorians that  destroyed the infrastructure of the country making big fortunes doing it.  The new planning rules are going to be designed to try to move the new housing developments to be built where the locals want them and want them to be well designed to be worthwhile places to live - Local Plans are also to be strengthened.  So I found a copy and studied the new labour Government 2024 version of the NPPF that is presently out for consultation.

Guess what - even if the new modified 2024 document is accepted without any changes it will be too late to affect these two slum development proposals and the paragraphs I quoted from the Heritage section of the old Conservative document are not up for change anyway.  Speedway has always been the epitome of working class sport and having a long lived heritage track within the local  housing would be music to the ears of the 1945 Atlee Labour Government,  so we should still fight this slum development and try reading the proper facts rather than rely on horrendously biassed dying newspapers.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/6/2024 at 5:50 PM, Sir Sidney said:

I shall be doing exactly that. Reiterating that nothing has changed.

Likewise but very tiresome to have to keep objecting on the same basis just because the they've re-arranged the furniture within the application but nothing which fundamentally changes it - why can't they continue to count the previous objections.......

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, SPEEDY69 said:

Likewise but very tiresome to have to keep objecting on the same basis just because the they've re-arranged the furniture within the application but nothing which fundamentally changes it - why can't they continue to count the previous objections.......

They still count/include previous objections, this is just a further opportunity to object.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/6/2024 at 6:35 PM, OldNutter said:

I have only had a quick look at the main change but it is clear that AEPG have decided to try to completely ignore the existence of the speedway.  The main relevant section that they have blanked is in the most importrant document in the system - The National Planning Policy Framework.  When we object to the application we are advised that the main thread should be in relation to the NPPF.  The document is here: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/669a25e9a3c2a28abb50d2b4/NPPF_December_2023.pdf

For us, the main area of interest is around Section 16 starting at paragraph 195 onwards where it deals with heritage assets.  There can be both designated heritage assets and non-designated heritage assets and the speedway can be assumed to be one of these.  I seem to remember the councillors trying to get designation for it along the way. Para 207 onwards is very important  and we should find words to raise against the loss of a very long held speedway facility as a result of this proposed development.  There are some words about not being allowed to destroy an asset to avoid it. This is the section of the NPPF that resulted in that section in the Local Plan about providing a new facility, so is important in the end-fight.  We have got good support from the SCB etc that we can use to strengthen the heritage nature of the speeday and link it to the NPPF.

I will be away for a couple of weeks, but when I get back I will have anothher go at my official objection.

Is the speedway on the national or local list of heritage assets? If not I don't think it's a relevant argument 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Privacy Policy