Peterborough Panthers 2023

[Crump99]

12 minutes ago, SPEEDY69 said:

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

Indeed. Hopefully the consortium and locally councillors are looking hard at both the call-in request (which PCC will not make public - I asked to see this form: "The request to call-in a decision must be made in writing or electronically, using the agreed form" but the request was refused and I was told that they'd summarise it for the meeting's public pack!) matched against the Council’s constitution, and any pre-meeting or meeting shenanigans?

Note that there has been nothing in the local press since Tuesday to celebrate this great victory for AEPG/PCC when Butterfield said: “We will provide a full analysis after this has sunk in."

I bet you will. We await that analysis.

[Chris]

The only way it all comes out will be to go to Judicial Review.

Will cost a lot of money though and do the consortium have those funds and commitment to fight this?

[Hackney]

1 hour ago, Chris said:

The only way it all comes out will be to go to Judicial Review.

Will cost a lot of money though and do the consortium have those funds and commitment to fight this?

Don't panic we have a quiz night and bingo night planned which should cover the cost of a top solicitor, more chance of that because Mr Purple won't be stumping up any time soon although he claimed he was going to be our saviour💩

[Crump99]

7 hours ago, Chris said:

The only way it all comes out will be to go to Judicial Review.

Will cost a lot of money though and do the consortium have those funds and commitment to fight this?

That's the million dollar question unless the local councillors can find significant problem with the internal processes & call it out within Peterborough City Council?

I don't know enough about Judicial Review so don't know what could be achieved in terms of outcome. I have read though that it's 30k+ for starters & if we lost then we'd probably also be liable for PCC costs as well?

You can't see them going for that without some certainty but likewise you can't see anyone sourcing, financing, building a new stadium in the future either.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited 20 hours ago by Crump99

[Colinspeedway]

8 hours ago, Chris said:

The only way it all comes out will be to go to Judicial Review.

Will cost a lot of money though and do the consortium have those funds and commitment to fight this?

If the decision was to go down the judicial review path there would need to be strong evidence that decisions had been made not in line with the local policies. Therefore it would be useful for a Town Planner to work on this. 

[Crump99]

10 hours ago, Colinspeedway said:

If the decision was to go down the judicial review path there would need to be strong evidence that decisions had been made not in line with the local policies. Therefore it would be useful for a Town Planner to work on this. 

I don't know enough to comment on the last bit but I'd hope that local councillors are all over this and not just making a noise about being unhappy about 1500 houses & questionable infrastructure/facilities being dumped on their doorstep?

Isn't the real problem that decisions were made and agreed 6-3-1 by the experienced Planning and Environmental Protection Committee in October, totally in line with local & national policies: IMO the real question is was the justification for the call in and hastily arranged unsavoury appeal meeting sufficient to overturn that original democratic committee decision?

It's quite hilarious that Cllr Mahmood said “I fully understand the emotions around the potential loss of the Showground but our decisions must be robust, in line with material facts and we must have confidence in our decision-making process.” - he was the instigator of this sham because he and his buddy Fitzgerald both got chastised by the Chair, Councillor Harper, (who had his request to speak at the appeal meeting denied for a yet to be confirmed reason) and Fitgerald's proposal to approve the application in October was rejected based on all of those material facts being considered and debated.

 

 

 

 

[Colinspeedway]

11 minutes ago, Crump99 said:

I don't know enough to comment on the last bit but I'd hope that local councillors are all over this and not just making a noise about being unhappy about 1500 houses & questionable infrastructure/facilities being dumped on their doorstep?

Isn't the real problem that decisions were made and agreed 6-3-1 by the experienced Planning and Environmental Protection Committee in October, totally in line with local & national policies: IMO the real question is was the justification for the call in and hastily arranged unsavoury appeal meeting sufficient to overturn that original democratic committee decision?

It's quite hilarious that Cllr Mahmood said “I fully understand the emotions around the potential loss of the Showground but our decisions must be robust, in line with material facts and we must have confidence in our decision-making process.” - he was the instigator of this sham because he and his buddy Fitzgerald both got chastised by the Chair, Councillor Harper, (who had his request to speak at the appeal meeting denied for a yet to be confirmed reason) and Fitgerald's proposal to approve the application in October was rejected based on all of those material facts being considered and debated.

 

 

 

 

The problem is councillors aren't really experts in planning policy so that's why a town planner is needed to build the case, present the policy based argument and know the system inside out. 

One of the reasons given for the callin was a "lack of planning reasons" and "outdated policies".

[Colinspeedway]

5 hours ago, Colinspeedway said:

The problem is councillors aren't really experts in planning policy so that's why a town planner is needed to build the case, present the policy based argument and know the system inside out. 

One of the reasons given for the callin was a "lack of planning reasons" and "outdated policies".

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://peterborough.moderngov.co.uk/documents/s54236/23.00412.OUT%20-%20committee%20report.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwiirMe_7v-KAxXVT0EAHc3wMo0QFnoECBoQAQ&usg=AOvVaw3fe1-nI93_WmfOwsvG6cLz

This document explains the reasons for the call in changes in policy since the first committee vote and that "legal advice" was sought prior.