Sir Sidney Posted September 6 Report Share Posted September 6 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. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldNutter Posted September 6 Report Share Posted September 6 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. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crump99 Posted September 6 Report Share Posted September 6 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 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel Smith Posted September 6 Report Share Posted September 6 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldNutter Posted September 7 Report Share Posted September 7 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel Smith Posted September 7 Report Share Posted September 7 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”. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crump99 Posted September 7 Report Share Posted September 7 (edited) The EoES is brownfield so grey belt doesn't apply. Edited September 7 by Crump99 error 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
noaksey Posted September 7 Report Share Posted September 7 1 hour ago, Crump99 said: The EoES is brownfield so grey belt doesn't apply. Aren't brownfield sites Labour's no 1 target area? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel Smith Posted September 7 Report Share Posted September 7 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crump99 Posted September 8 Report Share Posted September 8 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. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scoobydoo Posted September 8 Report Share Posted September 8 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 . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
old bob at herne bay Posted September 8 Report Share Posted September 8 With "The Undertaker" in control every site will have houses on it. We need somewhere to rehouse the illegal immigrants on our beaches down here in Kent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toady Posted September 8 Report Share Posted September 8 (edited) 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 September 8 by Toady Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldNutter Posted September 8 Report Share Posted September 8 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. 3 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SPEEDY69 Posted September 9 Report Share Posted September 9 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....... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mick Bratley Posted September 9 Report Share Posted September 9 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. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mick Bratley Posted Friday at 12:12 PM Report Share Posted Friday at 12:12 PM We would be eternally grateful if you could register your support in the quest to preserve Speedway in the City of Peterborough. It will literally take you two minutes. https://tinyurl.com/bdfjn6hr 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colinspeedway Posted yesterday at 07:33 PM Report Share Posted yesterday at 07:33 PM 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colinspeedway Posted yesterday at 07:34 PM Report Share Posted yesterday at 07:34 PM https://www.peterboroughtoday.co.uk/news/politics/peterborough-council-rejects-proposal-to-make-panthers-speedway-track-an-asset-of-community-value-4774704 Disappointing news. Was the ACV submitted with assistance from a town planner and submitted with a full business plan of the running of speedway? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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.