|
|
Post by admin on Sept 2, 2023 13:17:37 GMT
There are two parts to the planning application. The documents to the two parts are here: planpa.peterborough.gov.uk/online-applications//search.do?action=simple&searchType=Application Search keyword ‘Showground’ You will see the recently published two applications. You can submit your objections or comments for the first part here: planpa.peterborough.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=makeComment&keyVal=RSOMJ0MLIWV00 You can submit your objections or comments for the second part here: planpa.peterborough.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=makeComment&keyVal=RSXWVDML04U00 The planning portal is not the easiest to navigate, but it is important that Speedway supporters overcome this, read the documents and note that there is no provision for Peterborough Speedway in the planning application, in contravention of the City Councils Local Plan and specifically policy LP30. You can find the adopted Peterborough Local Plan here www.peterborough.gov.uk/council/planning-and-development/planning-policies/local-development-planThe section on the Showground and specifically local policies LP30 and LP36 are very relevant. This is a legal document, if this is not adhered to, what is the point of going to the trouble and expense of producing such a document? |
|
|
|
Post by admin on Sept 2, 2023 13:19:03 GMT
I am reliably informed that comments on the AEPG Facebook page and the PCC planning applications are really causing AEPG problems. They don’t like the adverse comments and they are now coming thick and fast. If everyone that uses Facebook can post a adverse comment on their plans and everyone can object to their plans on the PCC council planning applications please do so, it’s helping and really is causing AEPG grief both with their PCC application and the council in general. When complaining please cover the heritage of Peterborough Speedway and the fact that we have 53 years of Peterborough history and of course mention LP30 and LP36. The PCC website isn’t overly easy to find your way around but if you use the links to the PCC application on this website you will go straight to it, then click documents and then additional documents, this will take you to currently 8 pages of comments, clicking on these you will see what people have already said which will help with what to cover. Their is a lot currently going on behind the scenes and no doubt some of your will know who some of them are. We need to keep the pressure on with both AEPG and Peterborough City Council. Your help is needed now Excellent post Dick. Both AEPG and PCC were hoping this would go through on the nod so good to know that they are getting grief now, keep it up people. For those objecting, particularly on Facebook, don't be abusive, stick to the facts and keep the emotion out of it as much as possible. Not all obviously because we know what this means to supporters. These people are troubled by detail and people pulling their fantasy vision apart. There are people who can do that so don't worry if that's not you, just complain and object, it all addsup  |
|
|
|
Post by admin on Sept 2, 2023 13:27:17 GMT
Policy LP36: East of England Showground specifically points to the fact that the loss of any existing leisure and sports facilities will not be supported unless replacement facilities are provided in accordance with policy LP30
Seems pretty clear to me that that was specifically included for Peterborough Speedway!
Policy LP30: Culture, Leisure, Tourism and Community Facilities (just for info)
The council will support the development of new cultural, leisure, tourism and community facilities,especially if:
it will help to improve the range, quality, and distinctiveness of facilities that the city and
surrounding areas have to offer;
it improves access by sustainable transport modes to such facilities; and
it will help to promote the image of Peterborough and attract more visitors.
The above is not what many focus on or take note of (and it's just for information) but it is part of the stick that they will use to beat us with in conjunction with our weapon and their main failing of not meeting the criteria below, and, allegedly, using weak reasoning to justify ignoring LP 30:
Existing Culture, Leisure, Tourism and Community Facilities - the important bit
The loss, via redevelopment, of an existing culture, leisure, tourism or community facility will only be permitted if it is demonstrated that:
k. 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.
But as I say, don't get in to specific detail at this point (unless you are good and know what you're doing), just a general objection of that not being met should mean that they have to wake up and think about it at the very least. Others can pull their argument apart for not meeting that local plan requirement.
|
|
