Youhave2minutes Posted October 19 Report Share Posted October 19 (edited) 9 minutes ago, Mick Bratley said: The Grandstand was fine after our last meeting. Four months later a commissioned report by the land promoters stated it was to be condemned and would take over £1m to rectify. The thing is, if you pay good money for a report to be commissioned, it will generally say what you want it to. Personally I don’t think there is anything wrong with the Grandstand and it could be serviceable almost immediately, when the parts removed are replaced. It’s not exactly made of wood, cardboard or straw. That sounds promising, just keeping our fingers crossed. If all goes well will there be a different landlord this time. Edited October 19 by Youhave2minutes Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mick Bratley Posted October 20 Report Share Posted October 20 17 hours ago, Youhave2minutes said: That sounds promising, just keeping our fingers crossed. If all goes well will there be a different landlord this time. That’s too far ahead, I can’t answer that right now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crump99 Posted October 21 Report Share Posted October 21 On 10/19/2024 at 10:18 PM, Mick Bratley said: The Grandstand was fine after our last meeting. Four months later a commissioned report by the land promoters stated it was to be condemned and would take over £1m to rectify. The thing is, if you pay good money for a report to be commissioned, it will generally say what you want it to. It was actually worse than that because the report preferably recommended demolition and replacement of the grandstand at an alleged cost of near £4m: so if AEPG do wish to move us then that's the starting point in negotiations for the cost of a like for like replacement. Be careful of what you wish for when commissioning a report! As you say, the grandstand is concrete with a metal framework which doesn't look like a heath and safety hazard despite AEPG's vandalism of earlier in the year. I'm sure that it could be made serviceable (assuming we can find the seats, or some seats) reasonably quickly and for a reasonable cost. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Youhave2minutes Posted October 21 Report Share Posted October 21 6 minutes ago, Crump99 said: It was actually worse than that because the report preferably recommended demolition and replacement of the grandstand at an alleged cost of near £4m: so if AEPG do wish to move us then that's the starting point in negotiations for the cost of a like for like replacement. Be careful of what you wish for when commissioning a report! As you say, the grandstand is concrete with a metal framework which doesn't look like a heath and safety hazard despite AEPG's vandalism of earlier in the year. I'm sure that it could be made serviceable (assuming we can find the seats, or some seats) reasonably quickly and for a reasonable cost. They are vultures Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rearingtogo Posted October 21 Report Share Posted October 21 How childish was that Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scoobydoo Posted Monday at 07:51 PM Report Share Posted Monday at 07:51 PM (edited) What did happen to the track lights in the end ? It seems as though they didn't go to Workington as was rumoured at one stage, Were they sold for scrap ?, If so hope MT kept the bulbs he allegedly had to pay for !! Edited Monday at 07:53 PM by scoobydoo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeW436 Posted Wednesday at 11:34 AM Report Share Posted Wednesday at 11:34 AM https://www.peterboroughtoday.co.uk/news/people/new-call-to-think-again-about-refusal-of-650-homes-on-east-of-england-showground-4835504 AEPG are like a sh*t that won’t flush. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigcatdiary Posted Thursday at 09:26 AM Report Share Posted Thursday at 09:26 AM On 10/21/2024 at 8:51 PM, scoobydoo said: What did happen to the track lights in the end ? It seems as though they didn't go to Workington as was rumoured at one stage, Were they sold for scrap ?, If so hope MT kept the bulbs he allegedly had to pay for !! Most equipment removed from the Showground by the owner went to Kings Lynn as far as I know. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Youhave2minutes Posted Thursday at 09:33 AM Report Share Posted Thursday at 09:33 AM 6 minutes ago, bigcatdiary said: Most equipment removed from the Showground by the owner went to Kings Lynn as far as I know. It can go back then Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crump99 Posted Thursday at 08:13 PM Report Share Posted Thursday at 08:13 PM (edited) On 10/23/2024 at 12:34 PM, JoeW436 said: https://www.peterboroughtoday.co.uk/news/people/new-call-to-think-again-about-refusal-of-650-homes-on-east-of-england-showground-4835504 AEPG are like a sh*t that won’t flush. After last week they're stuck in the u-bend with a few councillors who bought in to their guff are trying recover them on a pretty weak argument, compared to the planning committee chair's summing up. Good to see some support today from previous events' organisers https://www.peterboroughtoday.co.uk/news/politics/council/truskfest-would-be-the-first-in-the-queue-to-return-to-peterboroughs-showground-if-development-plans-fail-to-materialise-4836976 That backs up Councillor Harper's view on viability and ineptness of the EEAS in their use and running of the East of England Showground, The call in is a problem but with one more flush AEPG will be gone! Edited Thursday at 08:15 PM by Crump99 2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mick Bratley Posted Friday at 08:14 AM Report Share Posted Friday at 08:14 AM A ‘call in’ on a planning application refusal has never happened before, ever. I’m not even sure it’s within the councils constitution and the scrutiny committees remit to even do it. Looks like the legal department will have been working overtime for the last ten days. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scoobydoo Posted Friday at 09:41 AM Report Share Posted Friday at 09:41 AM Whats the possible timescale now then with the "call in", take it Santa Claus will be back resting up after another hectic nights work long before the second committee sit and decide again if it comes to that , that is ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crump99 Posted Friday at 09:55 AM Report Share Posted Friday at 09:55 AM 1 hour ago, Mick Bratley said: A ‘call in’ on a planning application refusal has never happened before, ever. I’m not even sure it’s within the councils constitution and the scrutiny committees remit to even do it. Looks like the legal department will have been working overtime for the last ten days. Surely far easier to produce new plans and build around the speedway as Councillor Fitzgerald whimsically suggested? And although he said that he reads the papers, he clearly didn't read the PCC Open Spaces objection in September (added to the planning portal in error I assume before it had been run by AEPG) which suggested exactly that, with image of speedway track, ring road and hatched beautifully manicured centre green!! I guess the case officer only commented on the revised version that was somehow slipped in without a mention of speedway anywhere within it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1 valve Posted Friday at 10:03 AM Report Share Posted Friday at 10:03 AM 1 hour ago, Mick Bratley said: A ‘call in’ on a planning application refusal has never happened before, ever. I’m not even sure it’s within the councils constitution and the scrutiny committees remit to even do it. Looks like the legal department will have been working overtime for the last ten days. It would be a surprise if PCC do not have a protocol in place for a councillor call-in on planning decisions as this is a standard protocol for all local government and a step in the appeal process up to Secretary of State for planning disputes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mick Bratley Posted 20 hours ago Report Share Posted 20 hours ago On 10/25/2024 at 11:03 AM, 1 valve said: It would be a surprise if PCC do not have a protocol in place for a councillor call-in on planning decisions as this is a standard protocol for all local government and a step in the appeal process up to Secretary of State for planning disputes. The developers are not keen on appealing to the Secretary of State a) they’re skint and b) they pretty much know they’ll likely lose because of the Coventry precedent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arch Stanton Posted 3 hours ago Report Share Posted 3 hours ago 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TTT Posted 2 hours ago Report Share Posted 2 hours ago 50 minutes ago, Arch Stanton said: This is why I'm cheering on Ipswich whilst the Panthers aren't on track. Ritchie's supporting our fight to reach our goal so it's only fair that we support Ipswich's fight to reach their goal (PREM Title) 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rickyag Posted 1 hour ago Report Share Posted 1 hour ago 55 minutes ago, TTT said: This is why I'm cheering on Ipswich whilst the Panthers aren't on track. Ritchie's supporting our fight to reach our goal so it's only fair that we support Ipswich's fight to reach their goal (PREM Title) Richie has done more than Keith Chapman, Dale Allitt and Rob Lyon in showing supporting the Panthers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Racin Jason 72 Posted 19 minutes ago Report Share Posted 19 minutes ago 2 hours ago, Arch Stanton said: Signed 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.