|
Post by admin on Sept 5, 2023 20:59:12 GMT
Where does 500 come from? I know that that applies to an e-petition 8.1 If a petition contains more than 500 signatures from people who live, work or study in the Peterborough area, it is eligible for debate at a meeting of the Full Council. If the lead petitioner chooses this option the petition will be discussed at the next Councilmeeting. I know that that was on the cards so don't know if it was ditched is still on track?Wasn't aware that there was a number on objections? Not ditched, currently with the council for validation, going on how long it took them to validate the planning applications, get ready to sign it in February 2024. By the way the initial draft got completely butchered by our council ‘advisor’ so it will look nothing like what we both anticipated. Not surprised to be honest. I tried to incorporate every aspect of the LP30 without actually saying planning. Even I read it and thought that they'd never accept that
|
|
|
Post by admin on Sept 5, 2023 22:18:19 GMT
Someone mentioned the National Planning Policy Framework today on the BSF, this deals with heritage sites that are deliberately neglected to enhance new planning applications and for Planning officials not to let the neglect affect the decision. I am informed we need around 500 objections for the council to really take notice, so get complaining if you haven’t already done so. On both applications 🤙 Had time to have a look - interesting stuff! National Planning Policy Framework NPPF The revised National Planning Policy Framework sets out government's planning policies for England and how these are expected to be applied.Conserving and enhancing the historic environment - 196. 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 season/contract. Promoting healthy and safe communities - 99. Existing open space, sports and recreational buildings and land, including playing fields, should not be built on unless: - this seems tougher than LP30? (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. (Historic England)
|
|
bratters
Championship poster.
Posts: 116
|
Post by bratters on Sept 6, 2023 20:25:07 GMT
Interestingly I was advised this evening that if the council ignore the plight of the Panthers by ignoring LP30 and LP36 we could and should appeal to the Government Ombudsman. This needs to go in some objections if anyone is about to submit one.
|
|
|
Post by admin on Sept 6, 2023 22:21:28 GMT
Interestingly I was advised this evening that if the council ignore the plight of the Panthers by ignoring LP30 and LP36 we could and should appeal to the Government Ombudsman. This needs to go in some objections if anyone is about to submit one. Haven't done the 650 yet so will have a look and possibly include that. If they are anything like the Pension Ombudsman though I wouldn't waste the effort of contacting them. I ended up sorting my own pension issues out, doing all of the work myself with zero assistance from the PO who said that I had a case but then had to go to another assessor to see if they'd take the case forward. I never even got a reply - bloody incompetent shambles! They seem to generally have a very narrow band of what they will help with and it usually doesn't seem to include your gripe. You'll waste time languishing in a snails' pace process and end up getting no help and doing it yourself anyway? www.lgo.org.uk/make-a-complaint/fact-sheets/planning-and-building-control/how-your-application-for-planning-permission-is-dealt-with
|
|
|
Post by Bigcatdiary on Sept 7, 2023 8:34:11 GMT
Interestingly I was advised this evening that if the council ignore the plight of the Panthers by ignoring LP30 and LP36 we could and should appeal to the Government Ombudsman. This needs to go in some objections if anyone is about to submit one. Haven't done the 650 yet so will have a look and possibly include that. If they are anything like the Pension Ombudsman though I wouldn't waste the effort of contacting them. I ended up sorting my own pension issues out, doing all of the work myself with zero assistance from the PO who said that I had a case but then had to go to another assessor to see if they'd take the case forward. I never even got a reply - bloody incompetent shambles! They seem to generally have a very narrow band of what they will help with and it usually doesn't seem to include your gripe. You'll waste time languishing in a snails' pace process and end up getting no help and doing it yourself anyway? www.lgo.org.uk/make-a-complaint/fact-sheets/planning-and-building-control/how-your-application-for-planning-permission-is-dealt-withI went through both applications yesterday and again this morning, across both applications the total this morning they stand at 408 public comments, I have looked through a lot and haven’t found any supporting comments yet. I like the Ombudsman quote, I will remember that.
|
|
|
Post by admin on Sept 7, 2023 10:44:26 GMT
Was having a quick look at the objections and was interested in this one: "On a side note the Dunblane drive entrance was not supposed to be there originally according to the developers of the Southgate builders, and promises made to us before we purchased our house"I asked years ago (to Neil I think that it was) why we don't use the Dunblane drive to ease the exiting congestion on race nights? I was told that it was a big no no. I suspected that the locals had been given assurances that the entrance wouldn't be used. It looks like they didn't expect an entrance in the first place? Developers giving dodgy information and false promises? Surely not
|
|
|
Post by admin on Sept 8, 2023 11:19:35 GMT
Leaflets on how to object will be handed out at the next few meetings. Didn't see any action on that front last night? Disappointing if so or I may have been in the wrong place?
|
|
bratters
Championship poster.
Posts: 116
|
Post by bratters on Sept 8, 2023 19:39:01 GMT
Was having a quick look at the objections and was interested in this one: "On a side note the Dunblane drive entrance was not supposed to be there originally according to the developers of the Southgate builders, and promises made to us before we purchased our house"I asked years ago (to Neil I think that it was) why we don't use the Dunblane drive to ease the exiting congestion on race nights? I was told that it was a big no no. I suspected that the locals had been given assurances that the entrance wouldn't be used. It looks like they didn't expect an entrance in the first place? Developers giving dodgy information and false promises? Surely not You can also put an objection in on AEPGs retrospective planning application which is directly under 850 and 650 planning applications if you had Showground as your search. I put an objection in today. If that gets refused then that cuts of their financial pipeline and without that they are knackered.
|
|
|
Post by admin on Sept 8, 2023 21:20:21 GMT
Someone mentioned the National Planning Policy Framework today on the BSF, this deals with heritage sites that are deliberately neglected to enhance new planning applications and for Planning officials not to let the neglect affect the decision. I am informed we need around 500 objections for the council to really take notice, so get complaining if you haven’t already done so. On both applications 🤙 National Planning Policy FrameworkView AttachmentI thought that my effort was good but if you want to see a joy to behold then read the Old Nutter's objection b0252
|
|
|
Post by Bigcatdiary on Sept 10, 2023 9:30:08 GMT
I thought that my effort was good but if you want to see a joy to behold then read the Old Nutter's objection b0252 It’s absolutely brilliant, I have sent a copy to Mick. Clearly someone who knows his way around planning regulations.
|
|
|
Post by admin on Sept 10, 2023 12:17:29 GMT
I thought that my effort was good but if you want to see a joy to behold then read the Old Nutter's objection b0252 It’s absolutely brilliant, I have sent a copy to Mick. Clearly someone who knows his way around planning regulations. Well to us amateurs it looks good, but whether it all stands up to closer examination and scrutiny is another matter? As Bratters says, we're dealing with professionals here and that's a tough nut to crack on detail. Our best weapon is any form of objection, lobbying etc, and in great a number as possible.
|
|
|
Post by admin on Sept 15, 2023 11:37:09 GMT
Someone else seems to know what they are doing? 16 pages 23/00400/OUT | Outline permission for up to 850 dwellings - look for orton southgate 15/9/23 2.11.3 "The majority of built form (most notably the Speedway Grandstand) on Site would be removed and replaced with residential built form." This is, I believe, a major removal of a much appreciated facility for Peterborough residents and a sound reason to reject the application 4.1.3 & 4.1.4 Again the application clearly going against the adopted local plan. Please stick to that plan. General. Some very flowery and unclear English. Few, if any of the images are legible. A very poor document. "In allocating the site within the PCC Adopted Local Plan it is accepted that development in this location meets the broad requirements of National and Local Policy and is allocated in Policy LP36. As such, this TA confirms the principles of development pursuant to the two outline planning applications and where necessary confirms the effects of development and mitigation that is necessary to ensure development as proposed is acceptable." Hard to see the truth of this when the application is for twice the required number of residences? Is this the slippy 'land A' vs 'land B' split? I do wonder if we may see the land A build then nothing further, maximising profit from the sale?
|
|
|
Post by rodders on Sept 15, 2023 16:17:58 GMT
I think we must guard against what I think will be a very real attempt after final meeting to destroy the track, grandstand etc in fact the whole infrastructure of Speedway. These people are ruthless, and stand to lose a fortune if they do not get their way
|
|
|
Post by admin on Sept 15, 2023 16:28:52 GMT
Someone else seems to know what they are doing? 16 pages 23/00400/OUT | Outline permission for up to 850 dwellings - look for orton southgate 15/9/23 2.11.3 "The majority of built form (most notably the Speedway Grandstand) on Site would be removed and replaced with residential built form." This is, I believe, a major removal of a much appreciated facility for Peterborough residents and a sound reason to reject the application 4.1.3 & 4.1.4 Again the application clearly going against the adopted local plan. Please stick to that plan. General. Some very flowery and unclear English. Few, if any of the images are legible. A very poor document. "In allocating the site within the PCC Adopted Local Plan it is accepted that development in this location meets the broad requirements of National and Local Policy and is allocated in Policy LP36. As such, this TA confirms the principles of development pursuant to the two outline planning applications and where necessary confirms the effects of development and mitigation that is necessary to ensure development as proposed is acceptable." Hard to see the truth of this when the application is for twice the required number of residences? Is this the slippy 'land A' vs 'land B' split? I do wonder if we may see the land A build then nothing further, maximising profit from the sale? Think that they have copied the same in to: Comments for Planning Application 23/00412/OUT although it's sadly only 15 pages - look for orton southgate 15/9/23 b0252 1.3.20 The author is poor with English. 6 acronyms without expansion. Table 1.1 PCC Archaeologist (15/06/2023). I note AEPG do not state they will carry out such evaluative trenching. Of note: "The illustrative master plan (Figures 1.7 and 1.8) is the culmination of an extensive design development process over 30 months," yet local residents are given 30 days in which to review and comment. Poor show PCC. Section 1.6 is particularly vacuous. No evidence is shown of such work, nor alternatives mentioned. 2.7.2 "The site-wide principles for the green infrastructure within the Proposed Development as stated in the Design & Access Statement include the following:" "Integrate the development into Orton." I see no sign of any integration at all in this or any other submitted document. Rather an isolated site expecting to sponge on local facilities at the expense of Peterborough residents. I exclude phase two (should it be implemented) with the residence for older citizens. 4.2.4 It would make sense for a Construction traffic Management Plan to be provided for Land A. Why has this not been done, considering the disruption of local residents which would result? 4.2.7 "The quantum of construction vehicles during the peak construction period is likely to be of negligible significance for both Land A, Land B and cumulatively when compared against the existing traffic flows on the local road network." I find this statement very hard to believe. Ten years of construction traffic 'not significant'? b0252 I must stop. Give it a read and "Find" using keywords ("local" is a good one)
|
|
|
Post by admin on Sept 15, 2023 16:59:28 GMT
If that person from Orton Southgate knows what they are doing, and it looks like they do, then that intervention could cause AEPG/PCC some grief b0212
|
|
|
Post by admin on Sept 16, 2023 9:27:54 GMT
|
|
bratters
Championship poster.
Posts: 116
|
Post by bratters on Sept 16, 2023 21:12:15 GMT
I’d happily buy that person a drink.
|
|
|
Post by admin on Sept 17, 2023 10:17:22 GMT
I’d happily buy that person a drink. I've no idea where the process goes from here? Assuming that the objection period ends Sept 27 or just after, what do they do then? It's a shame that we can't get whoever compiled that planning applications examination to attend the meeting of the Planning and Environmental Protection Committee on Tuesday 17th October, 2023 1.30 pmThe agenda will be displayed in the week before the meeting. Proposed venue: Bourges/Viersen Room - Town Hall. View directions Contact: Daniel Kalley; Senior Democratic Services Officer, Email, daniel.kalley@peterborough.gov.uk, Tel: 01733 296334 Email: daniel.kalley@peterborough.gov.uk
Interesting from previous minutes that it says The Planning Environment Protection Committee considered the report and representations. My councillor told me that it would be up to people to make representations to local councillors so for anyone in Peterborough it could be useful to politely contact the Orton councillors to raise your objection, possibly referencing the Orton Southgate objection and/or yours if you made one. The MINUTES OF THE PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION COMMITTEE MEETING HELD AT 1:30PM, ON TUESDAY, 21 MARCH 2023, COUNCIL CHAMBER, TOWN HALL, PETERBOROUGH - are quite interesting: Especially around 21/01002/OUT - LAND AT HORSEY BRIDGE WHITTLESEY ROAD STANGROUND PETERBOROUGH The Planning Environment Protection Committee considered the report and representations. A motion was proposed and seconded to go against the officer recommendation and REFUSE the application.The Committee RESOLVED (6 For, 2 Against, 1 Abstention) to REFUSE the application. At this point the Committee took a 10-minute break. REASON FOR THE DECISION:1. The applicant had failed to demonstrate that there was insufficient land within the city centre, elsewhere in the urban area (within General Employment Areas and Business Parks) or within urban extensions that was suitable for the proposed development leading to inappropriate development within the countryside, contrary to Policy LP2 and LP4 of the Adopted Peterborough Local Plan (2019).2. The applicant had failed to demonstrate that the visual and landscape impact of the proposed development would not cause harm to the Peterborough Fens landscape character area including to its special character, local distinctiveness, features of historical importance, and important views and vistas, contrary to Policy LP27 of the Adopted Peterborough Local Plan (2019)
A few interesting snippets in a follow up PT article "Following the cancellation of the review of the refusal decision, Mr Facer said: “We will not give up on this application – we will now review our options. He said: "We might consider submitting a new planning application, or promoting the site as a development option through the new Local Plan review and we might appeal to the Secretary of State against the council’s decision to refuse permission for the application. (which was a point made by OldNutter on the BSF). "However, the issue is complicated because the site is not allocated for industrial uses in the council’s current Local Plan, which sets out where development is allowed to take place until 2036. But a review of the Local Plan is under way, which means councillors could approve the development proposals if they wished." "Mr ***** said: “We will not be giving up on this application. "There is too much money invested. "So far we have invested more than £200,000 in professional advice and archaeological works at the site." "The next step is to wait for the formal refusal notice, see what the actual grounds are for refusal and then decide what to do from there." "The council announced last December it was going to review the Local Plan, at point that was dismissed by the planning committee, but it does give us a course of action. "We can promote the site to be included in the new Local Plan, bearing in mind that the site in general was allocated in the previous Local Plan as a rail freight hub."
|
|
bratters
Championship poster.
Posts: 116
|
Post by bratters on Sept 17, 2023 18:25:48 GMT
Any appeal to planning that is refused is gonna cost a lot of money, I would be very satisfied to empty Ashley Butternuts pockets.
|
|
|
Post by admin on Sept 18, 2023 14:20:53 GMT
Peterborough Civic Society Peterborough - Public - Stance: Customer objects (Comments were submitted at 17/09/2023) b0252
Although didn't mention Peterborough Speedway so didn't offer support or help our cause. Don't agree with their understanding of LP30 or the fact that they have totally ignored Peterborough Speedway
Arena, leisure and conference facilities
The loss of previously existing uses of the Showground are regrettable and appear contrary to Local Plan policy LP30.
However, the retention and development of the Arena building and conference facilities, supplemented with additional leisure, hotel and commercial buildings to form a co-ordinated grouping in the centre of the site could be argued to meet the requirements of the Local Plan Policy LP30 which permits replacement of lost community facilities with new facilities and LP36 for new facilities to be directly related to the function of shows on the Showground itself, conference facilities, and employment related development.
The development of community and leisure facilities are linked to the 850 housing units in application 23/00400/OUT rather than 650 housing units in application 23/00412/OUT so there will be no such facilities, including the primary school, if the former application is not permitted. Again, we do not think this is acceptable and the two applications should not be considered separately.
Conclusion
While the Civic Society does not oppose plans for 1500 homes on the Showground site, we object to the current proposals on the grounds that the two planning applications 23/00412/OUT and 23/00400/OUT cannot reasonably be considered as a single application as residential development alone without the infrastructure and community, leisure, and retail facilities is untenable. We are also concerned that education and healthcare provision and consideration of transport and traffic issues are not adequately addressed. Also, the masterplan does not cover the whole Showground site.
|
|
|
Post by rodders on Sept 18, 2023 16:24:40 GMT
To suggest that alternative facilities exist nearby is clearly ridiculous. Like saying if Arsenal FC was no more alternative facilities at Spurs. Or the more local if Posh were no more it does ny really matter as fans could go to Cambridge or Scunthorpe. Just shows developers have not got or more likely do not give toss. Peterborough Speedway is not a Tennis Court, Putting Green or Swimming |Pool.
|
|
|
Post by admin on Sept 18, 2023 20:25:09 GMT
To suggest that alternative facilities exist nearby is clearly ridiculous. Like saying if Arsenal FC was no more alternative facilities at Spurs. Or the more local if Posh were no more it does ny really matter as fans could go to Cambridge or Scunthorpe. Just shows developers have not got or more likely do not give toss. Peterborough Speedway is not a Tennis Court, Putting Green or Swimming |Pool. That's what AEPG will claim. They have allegedly already told PCC that Peterborough Speedway supporters can travel to alternative speedway stadiums nearby. One assumes that means Leicester (never been and never heard a good word said about the on track action), and Kings Lynn, which is rather unfortunate considering our owner and the Stars' owner is one and the same!
|
|
|
Post by rodders on Sept 18, 2023 20:58:19 GMT
To suggest that alternative facilities exist nearby is clearly ridiculous. Like saying if Arsenal FC was no more alternative facilities at Spurs. Or the more local if Posh were no more it does ny really matter as fans could go to Cambridge or Scunthorpe. Just shows developers have not got or more likely do not give toss. Peterborough Speedway is not a Tennis Court, Putting Green or Swimming |Pool. That's what AEPG will claim. They have allegedly already told PCC that Peterborough Speedway supporters can travel to alternative speedway stadiums nearby. One assumes that means Leicester (never been and never heard a good word said about the on track action), and Kings Lynn, which is rather unfortunate considering our owner and the Stars' owner is one and the same! They fail to understand that supporters go to watch Panthers not Speedway as such
|
|
|
Post by admin on Sept 18, 2023 22:09:22 GMT
That's what AEPG will claim. They have allegedly already told PCC that Peterborough Speedway supporters can travel to alternative speedway stadiums nearby. One assumes that means Leicester (never been and never heard a good word said about the on track action), and Kings Lynn, which is rather unfortunate considering our owner and the Stars' owner is one and the same! They fail to understand that supporters go to watch Panthers not Speedway as such AEPG's ignorance of the technical aspects of our sport and supporter mentality isn't really the problem, it's Peterborough City Council being similarly oblivious to that detail and agreeing with that ignorance.
|
|
bratters
Championship poster.
Posts: 116
|
Post by bratters on Sept 19, 2023 6:57:58 GMT
|
|