Peterborough Panthers 2023

[LagutaRacingFan]

https://www.peterboroughtoday.co.uk/news/people/650-homes-plan-for-east-of-england-showground-gets-the-go-ahead-4942182

Peterborough Speedway is officially dead.

 

[AceBelle]

20 minutes ago, LagutaRacingFan said:

https://www.peterboroughtoday.co.uk/news/people/650-homes-plan-for-east-of-england-showground-gets-the-go-ahead-4942182

Peterborough Speedway is officially dead.

 

Liebour council again enough said !!!

[Bald Bloke]

26 minutes ago, LagutaRacingFan said:

https://www.peterboroughtoday.co.uk/news/people/650-homes-plan-for-east-of-england-showground-gets-the-go-ahead-4942182

Peterborough Speedway is officially dead.

 

Don't they have to provide an alternative site? Or is that going to be another battle?

[Rickyag]

3 minutes ago, Bald Bloke said:

Don't they have to provide an alternative site? Or is that going to be another battle?

No alternative site is provided because Chapman in cahoots with Butterfield said the Peterborough supporters would travel to KL and I am proud to say I will never enter his stadium again.

[SPEEDY69]

15 hours ago, AceBelle said:

Liebour council again enough said !!!

Nothing to do with that - suggest you look into what happened & who was involved.

[ArseBellEnd]

6 minutes ago, SPEEDY69 said:

Nothing to do with that - suggest you look into what happened & who was involved.

@AceBelle never lets the facts get in the way of a ridiculous post 🤡

[AceBelle]

34 minutes ago, ArseBellEnd said:

@AceBelle never lets the facts get in the way of a ridiculous post 🤡

Unlike you're denial of the sayfutinov incident at Sheffield 🤡 and to go and do the pathetic childish profile only 1 🤡 here you!! who think they are something true a 🤡@IainB

Edited Tuesday at 01:22 PM by AceBelle

[AceBelle]

46 minutes ago, SPEEDY69 said:

Nothing to do with that - suggest you look into what happened & who was involved.

Liebour house policy comes into it since they got elected 🙈

[Buck]

Very depressing to read of this latest development which only mirrors the case of Hall Green Stadium in South Birmingham which is now no more. An application to build houses on the stadium side was submitted to Birmingham City Council. The chief Planning Officer recommended approval, but the Planning Committee voted by 9 to 2 to refuse the plans and to retain the stadium.

This was an emphatic decision and should have been the end of it, but no, the Chief Planning Officer re-submitted the application at the next meeting along with a warning that (in his opinion) the Council might be liable for compensation if the application went to appeal, so the Planning Committee gave way, and approved it.

A justifiable complaint about the unfairness of the system produced the response that the Planning Officer was within his rights to take the action that he did - a clear example of the one-sidedness of the planning procedure, and of the way that Councils can change and distort matters that don't go the way that they want.

This is no compensation for all of the Peterborough people who have worked so hard to try to save their club from extinction, and they have my total respect for everything that they have done. The unfairness takes my breath away!

[Crump99]

On 1/13/2025 at 8:47 PM, Bald Bloke said:

Don't they have to provide an alternative site? Or is that going to be another battle?

That was the battle. The Peterborough Local Plan stipulated that if AEPG didn't include Peterborough Speedway within their plan for that parcel of land where the stadium sits then they should provide a like for like replacement on the remaining Showground land or at an off-site location. The first proviso was then of course knackered because PCC had already approved planning for the rest of the EoES. AEPG never had any intention of fulfilling any of their responsibilities regarding an on or off-site location for Peterborough Speedway and Peterborough City Council let them get away with it. Mick Bratley laid it out quite clearly at the appeal meeting that the club was only asking for what the Council's own policy stated. PCC then ignored their own local plan and those sporting safeguards that they themselves had incorporated when they moved from their sensible EoES policy LP31 of 2015. They threw Peterborough Speedway under a bus & will no doubt be clearing up the mess over the next decade along with most of their disastrous decisions. This has nothing to do with the Labour Government, it has everything to do with weak, incompetent, self interested, easily influenced councillors who only see £ signs & not people and community.

[BluPanther]

So sad to see...

Edited yesterday at 02:36 PM by BluPanther

[Hackney]

So is there a plan B ?

Makes me laugh that you can still join the supporters club or the forever fund and raise money to sponsor young Betty who's bike packed up most weeks when he came out for a practice 😁

[Trees]

On 1/14/2025 at 9:27 PM, Crump99 said:

That was the battle. The Peterborough Local Plan stipulated that if AEPG didn't include Peterborough Speedway within their plan for that parcel of land where the stadium sits then they should provide a like for like replacement on the remaining Showground land or at an off-site location. The first proviso was then of course knackered because PCC had already approved planning for the rest of the EoES. AEPG never had any intention of fulfilling any of their responsibilities regarding an on or off-site location for Peterborough Speedway and Peterborough City Council let them get away with it. Mick Bratley laid it out quite clearly at the appeal meeting that the club was only asking for what the Council's own policy stated. PCC then ignored their own local plan and those sporting safeguards that they themselves had incorporated when they moved from their sensible EoES policy LP31 of 2015. They threw Peterborough Speedway under a bus & will no doubt be clearing up the mess over the next decade along with most of their disastrous decisions. This has nothing to do with the Labour Government, it has everything to do with weak, incompetent, self interested, easily influenced councillors who only see £ signs & not people and community.

It's the people and community they should be serving, vote them off, too late though, sickening!

[MattB]

On 1/14/2025 at 9:35 PM, BluPanther said:

So sad to see...

Sad to see.  Even though Wolves were invariably beaten there before we even started, it produced some great racing.

The epic runoff between Ryan Sullivan and Mikael Karlsson in 96 was an all time classic - probably the best race I've seen live

[eric i]

What happened to Policy LP36 of the Peterborough Local Plan,The development plans include a golf driving range, gym and small all weather football pitch. These facilities (if they ever get built) are in no way close in nature or size of the showground.

Why is there no word from the BSPA?

Edited yesterday at 01:20 PM by eric i

[Colinspeedway]

Policy LP30: Culture, Leisure, Tourism and Community Facilities.

 

This policy reads: Existing Culture, Leisure, Tourism and Community Facilities

The loss, via redevelopment, of an existing culture, leisure, tourism or community facility will only be permitted if it is demonstrated that:

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.

Edited yesterday at 02:58 PM by Colinspeedway

[Crump99]

9 hours ago, eric i said:

What happened to Policy LP36 of the Peterborough Local Plan,The development plans include a golf driving range, gym and small all weather football pitch. These facilities (if they ever get built) are in no way close in nature or size of the showground.

Why is there no word from the BSPA?

As I said Peterborough City Council ignored its own local plan and the NPPF after a hastily arranged and very suspect appeals meeting. With the Chair shutting down any contentious discussion and then there was virtually no debate (compare that to the October meeting) at the end as everyone (or enough yes voters) funnily enough seemed to have made their mind up!

The Planning and Environmental Protection Committee in October correctly refused the planning application for the following reasons (from the meeting minutes):

21.2 23/00412/OUT (where Peterborough Speedway sits) – EAST OF ENGLAND SHOWGROUND, OUNDLE ROAD, ALWALTON, PETERBOROUGH, PE2 6XE - The Planning and Environmental Protection Committee considered the report and representations. A motion was proposed and seconded to REFUSE the application. The Committee RESOLVED (For 6, Against 3, Abstention 1) to REFUSE the planning permission for the reasons set out below.

REASONS FOR DECISION
By virtue of the loss of the showground and speedway track, together with a quantum of dwellings which cumulatively would significantly exceed the allocated 650 dwellings on the showground site, the proposed development was contrary to Policies LP30 and LP36 and para 103 of the NPPF, and there were no other material considerations, including the NPPF “tilted balance” that carried such weight as to outweigh the conflict with the Development Plan.

That decision should never have been overturned and the Chair, Councillor Harper, who made that decision was denied the opportunity to make representations at the planning appeal meeting by way of some sort of conflict of interest I'm led to believe? His Facebook post said that he'd been denied attendance for some reason that he didn't know? You would have thought that he'd be aware of conflict rules or would have had that communicated to him.?

I don't really see how that differs from Councillor Fitzgerald who was the main AEPG/PCC mouthpiece at the October meeting: despite declaring in the minutes that when Leader of the Council he had been involved in the development of both EoES planning applications being considered as a liaison between the Council and the applicant. Isn't that a massive conflict, despite his alleged open mind?

To rub salt in the wounds, Fitzgerald was then in the rouge four councillors who instigated the call in.

To be fair to the BSPA, I think that they did as much as they could, apart from letting Chapman anywhere near our club in the first place. Absence of club and an AWOL uninterested owner was definitely a hindrance during Panthers fight for survival and factor at the appeals meeting particularly.

Edited 21 hours ago by Crump99

[Crump99]

On 1/16/2025 at 7:49 AM, Trees said:

It's the people and community they should be serving, vote them off, too late though, sickening!

It does look bad but I wouldn't be surprised if PCC have cocked up somewhere (it's the only thing that they are good at) so if people keep digging for the evidence then who knows what the will find?

But yes, anyone who can should certainly vote out these four NIMBY councillors: Cllr Mahmood (allegedly the main troublemaker I'm led to believe?), who jointly ‘called-in the refusal with the previously mentioned Cllr Wayne Fitzgerald (Con), Cllr Jason McNally (Lab) and Cllr Scott Warren (Con).

The tragic part is that one of those abstained or voted to reject the application in the important vote. The two Tories had declared their intention to vote to approve, as did Mahmood so it's not rocket science to work out who needs to be ousted asap.

As for the PCC reasoning: “The Executive Director considers that the finely balanced nature of the decision"

The important recorded decision to reject was 6-3-1 which isn't finally balanced at all. Fitzgerald's initial proposal to accept was closer at 5-4-1 but that's not even recorded in the minutes which shows that it carries little weight and yet they got an appeal & the decision overturned on the back of that failed proposal.

That's local democracy for you 😒

 

[mikebv]

Get hold of Private Eye and let them loose on the story.....

They love council decision making, and highlight plenty of "questions" around why decisions got made, after initially a completely different decision was announced..

Rotten Borough's is the title .

 

 

[SPEEDY69]

47 minutes ago, Crump99 said:

It does look bad but I wouldn't be surprised if PCC have cocked up somewhere (it's the only thing that they are good at) so if people keep digging for the evidence then who knows what the will find?

But yes, anyone who can should certainly vote out these four NIMBY councillors: Cllr Mahmood (allegedly the main troublemaker I'm led to believe?), who jointly ‘called-in the refusal with the previously mentioned Cllr Wayne Fitzgerald (Con), Cllr Jason McNally (Lab) and Cllr Scott Warren (Con).

The tragic part is that one of those abstained or voted to reject the application in the important vote. The two Tories had declared their intention to vote to approve, as did Mahmood so it's not rocket science to work out who needs to be ousted asap.

As for the PCC reasoning: “The Executive Director considers that the finely balanced nature of the decision"

The important recorded decision to reject was 6-3-1 which isn't finally balanced at all. Fitzgerald's initial proposal to accept was closer at 5-4-1 but that's not even recorded in the minutes which shows that it carries little weight and yet they got an appeal & the decision overturned on the back of that failed proposal.

That's local democracy for you 😒

 

The appeal meeting has much more justification to be appealed than the original rejection.