Peterborough Panthers 2023

[Sir Sidney]

1 hour ago, scoobydoo said:

Just completed objections online received email confirmations but not showing on list of objections yet , how long does it take to show as some listed for today 5th Sept

There was a total of 514  across both applications when i checked , 296 on one 214 the other then mine to come as not listed but submitted

Interesting to see one objection from the fire service 

It took a few hours for mine to appear 

[Crump99]

22 hours ago, OldNutter said:

There is another document that becomes very relevant in this case called the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).  This government document is the bible as far as far as planning is concerned.  I forms the basis of all plans and lower-level plans like the Local Plan.  There are a couple of useful references in the NPPF.  For example - In paragraph 196 it says:  Where there is evidence of deliberate neglect of, or damage to, a heritage asset, the deteriorated state of the heritage asset should not be taken into account in any decision.  Perhaps the common factor of all the loss of all of the various events, and the effective forcing of the speedway to disappear could be classed as deliberate neglect in order to forward the case for the proposed plans?  It is hardly likely to be a coincidence when viewed with the changes made to the directorships in the operating company now fixed tightly to AEPG.  Closes the "Not viable" argument completely.

Paragraph 99 of the NPPF also makes interesting reading for inculsion n any objections.

Interesting. I'm sure that that is exactly their strategy, hence Bratters possibly trying to get some protection on the site if common sense doesn't prevail and Panthers don't come to tapes in 2024? That really is a useful piece of evidence to potentially use. I'm pretty sure that the AEPG Design and Access statement references the NPPF so it'll be interesting to have another search through. I haven't done my objections yet but it's all adding up

[Crump99]

1 hour ago, thomasthedog said:

Surely there is a local residents group who would be looking to oppose this too?  I know we like to think that most neighbours hate the speedway, but in reality, most who I've ever met would much rather keep their lovely views, access to schools and doctors and reasonable road access and tolerate the speedway even if they aren't keen on it.  

Agreed. The CEO of the EEAS said that he had to deal with numerous complaints from residents relating to speedway; when AEPG allegedly say, as evidence to ignore LP30, that speedway is seasonal and only runs fortnightly for about 6 months of the year. Therefore it would seem that the East of England Agricultural society think that a 10 year construction site will be less disruptive to the local community than a few hours of speedway 15 times for half of the year. That's why these people demand a big salary, you don't get that type of imagination for peanuts.

[Sully]

11 minutes ago, Crump99 said:

Interesting. I'm sure that that is exactly their strategy, hence Bratters possibly trying to get some protection on the site if common sense doesn't prevail and Panthers don't come to tapes in 2024? That really is a useful piece of evidence to potentially use. I'm pretty sure that the AEPG Design and Access statement references the NPPF so it'll be interesting to have another search through. I haven't done my objections yet but it's all adding up

in what circumstance do we think that we could be offered a stay of execution? If the application is turned down, one would assume they’ll go back to the drawing board and re-submit. Would AEPG really be willing to then let the club run for another year or 2 in this situation? Just trying to understand the end game here and what can be done to actually force their hand to continue letting the club run and not just putting the blockers on the development as a whole. 

[Crump99]

1 minute ago, Sully said:

in what circumstance do we think that we could be offered a stay of execution? If the application is turned down, one would assume they’ll go back to the drawing board and re-submit. Would AEPG really be willing to then let the club run for another year or 2 in this situation? Just trying to understand the end game here and what can be done to actually force their hand to continue letting the club run and not just putting the blockers on the development as a whole. 

I'm just a supporter like yourself trying to do the only thing that we can do. Those are all valid points and I don't know the answer. We just have to hope that someone really is interested in taking the club forward and AEPG come to the table, whether voluntarily or due to outside pressures. PCC and AEPG thought that this would go through on the nod so we can only try to put a spanner in the works, make it difficult and cross our fingers. Whether we'll win I don't know but doing nothing will hand victory to the executioner.

[Sully]

15 minutes ago, Crump99 said:

I'm just a supporter like yourself trying to do the only thing that we can do. Those are all valid points and I don't know the answer. We just have to hope that someone really is interested in taking the club forward and AEPG come to the table, whether voluntarily or due to outside pressures. PCC and AEPG thought that this would go through on the nod so we can only try to put a spanner in the works, make it difficult and cross our fingers. Whether we'll win I don't know but doing nothing will hand victory to the executioner.

You would think a dormant site taking in no income wouldn’t be particularly favourable to the existing owners but then I still struggle to understand why they’ve put a stop to all shows at the showground that would generate an income while they are trying to get their plans through. Their expectation that building would start this year was baffling. They can’t be that stupid or naive surely?

[Crump99]

17 hours ago, Sully said:

You would think a dormant site taking in no income wouldn’t be particularly favourable to the existing owners but then I still struggle to understand why they’ve put a stop to all shows at the showground that would generate an income while they are trying to get their plans through. Their expectation that building would start this year was baffling. They can’t be that stupid or naive surely?

Yes you'd think so but plans seemingly changed, so if they can change once then they can certainly change twice?

I'm reliably informed that allegedly the original plan was that the EoES be closed completely at the end 2021 & that all of the existing buildings, Peterborough Arena included (interesting to note that bit), would be demolished with the entire site then developed for residential housing.

I guess that, if true, then that would have been problematic and extremely unpopular, hence the need for a new plan incorporating all of the latest buzzwords and PCC strategies around leisure, health safety and wellbeing, their green & environmental agenda as well their tourism strategy.

If PCC buy that, does anyone expect that in 10 years time anything like the AEPG brochure will be the outcome?

Edited September 6, 2023 by Crump99

[Hackney]

4 hours ago, Flappy said:

The leaflets going round last night appeared to cause a positive stir.  Anyone got a picture of one they could share 

I tried but it's too big.

[Mick Bratley]

5 hours ago, Flappy said:

The leaflets going round last night appeared to cause a positive stir.  Anyone got a picture of one they could share 

They caused a stir alright. AEPG are clearly rattled and thought these applications were going to be waved through. They need to get in a room with the current owner, future potential owners, the CEO of EoEAS and the council. AEPG could also do themselves a favour by holding a public meeting and this time not cuss and swear at the attendees.

[Mick Bratley]

38 minutes ago, Hackney said:

I tried but it's too big.

Here’s where to go and how to make a comment:

To read and comment/object on AEPGs Showground planning applications, the following is how to do it. 

Search Google ‘Peterborough City Council Planning Applications’

Search the planning register ‘Showground’

You will see the two applications references are: 23/00400/OUT and 23/00412OUT click on either and/or both 

Click on documents

Click on associated documents 

You will then see the comments/objections that have been already left there are 25 to a page. Go down the different page numbers to eventually find the planning application detail.

To make a comment/objection go back to the page where the associated documents link was and click the comments link.

Leave your comments/objections and press submit. 

Anyone can comment/object. You can comment on both applications. Please take time out to make a comment.

 

[Fromafar]

In previous case regarding getting planning permissions,think you will find the Companies prefer to get the site redundant too strengthen their case.IMO

[SPEEDY69]

2 hours ago, Sully said:

You would think a dormant site taking in no income wouldn’t be particularly favourable to the existing owners but then I still struggle to understand why they’ve put a stop to all shows at the showground that would generate an income while they are trying to get their plans through. Their expectation that building would start this year was baffling. They can’t be that stupid or naive surely?

 

6 minutes ago, Fromafar said:

In previous case regarding getting planning permissions,think you will find the Companies prefer to get the site redundant too strengthen their case.IMO

Yes, as happened at Coventry which has been deliberately left to rot for about 7 years now. 

[GeneralMelchett]

7 minutes ago, SPEEDY69 said:

 

Yes, as happened at Coventry which has been deliberately left to rot for about 7 years now. 

yes and Lakeside (Arena Essex) since winter 2018!

[scoobydoo]

Looks like Ritchie Worrall's season maybe over as it seems hes allegedly failed a drugs/alcohol test at Plymouth tonight

Edited September 5, 2023 by scoobydoo

[Bald Bloke]

16 hours ago, scoobydoo said:

Looks like Ritchie Worrall's season maybe over as it seems hes allegedly failed a drugs/alcohol test at Plymouth tonight

Well If he has it will be.. Maybe 6 months if it was a med mix up, if not i guess its 2 years?

Edited September 6, 2023 by Bald Bloke

[Crump99]

15 hours ago, Fromafar said:

In previous case regarding getting planning permissions,think you will find the Companies prefer to get the site redundant too strengthen their case.IMO

As helpfully pointed out by Old Nutter, I think that there are questions to be potentially asked and answered on those issues:

The revised National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) sets out government's planning policies for England and how these are expected to be applied.

Conserving and enhancing the historic environment - Paragraph196. Where there is evidence of deliberate neglect of, or damage to, a heritage asset, the deteriorated state of the heritage asset should not be taken into account in any decision. - this relates to AEPG claiming that Peterborough Speedway is no longer fit for purpose if it isn't used due to bad faith negotiations, or lack of, and they don't maintain the perfectly working operation that was handed over at the end of the 2023 season/contract?

Promoting healthy and safe communities - Paragraph 99. Existing open space, sports and recreational buildings and land, including playing fields, should not be built on unless: - this seems to be the same as LP30 which is just reworded in the Peterborough Local Plan.

(a) an assessment has been undertaken which has clearly shown the open space, buildings or land to be surplus to requirements; or

(b) the loss resulting from the proposed development would be replaced by equivalent or better provision in terms of quantity and quality in a suitable location; or

(c) the development is for alternative sports and recreational provision, the benefits of which clearly outweigh the loss of the current or former use.

Definitions of terms used within heritage protection legislation and documents. https://historicengland.org.uk/advice/hpg/hpr-definitions/#cat_E

 

Edited September 6, 2023 by Crump99

[Chris]

15 hours ago, Fromafar said:

In previous case regarding getting planning permissions,think you will find the Companies prefer to get the site redundant too strengthen their case.IMO

Wouldn't be a surprise if they took the stand down and all the associated buildings within a short time of the last meeting taking place. They'll then let the area turn into an overgrown jungle until they get planning permission eventually. A disgrace but have seen this all before.

[Crump99]

21 minutes ago, Chris said:

Wouldn't be a surprise if they took the stand down and all the associated buildings within a short time of the last meeting taking place. They'll then let the area turn into an overgrown jungle until they get planning permission eventually. A disgrace but have seen this all before.

Usually though nobody is watching and the resistance is minimal. Everyone is aware of what's going on here though, it's high profile and already getting significant local publicity and people will be watching.

If it can be argued that the site and/or speedway is a heritage asset then the NPPF points in my previous post should certainly scupper the AEPG planning application.

 

Edited September 6, 2023 by Crump99

[Flappy]

Next step will be them offering use of the showground at an extortionate amount per meeting. Can see it a mile off 

[StarBoy]

11 minutes ago, Flappy said:

Next step will be them offering use of the showground at an extortionate amount per meeting. Can see it a mile off 

They already have, haven't they? Seen it quoted in this thread somewhere of £7k rent per meeting.