AEPG's EoES planning applications 2024.

[admin]

AEPG facebook 31/12/23

Thank you to all our followers and supporters in 2023 They must be close to double figures now

- a big year ahead in 2024 for us and Peterborough. did they post that with a straight face

Lots of things to share in January which will be exciting for a large number of people in the city.

- we will update you soon

DUST OF THE GLOVES AND BE PREPARED

[admin]

Dec 13, 2023 23:08:32 GMT admin said:

Oct 6, 2023 20:47:53 GMT admin said:

23/00412/OUT Representation from Consultee (Web) Sport England 06/10/2023 - worth a look

Another corker & I've downloaded this in case it goes AWOL

Sport England objection

AEPG response to Sport England comment 27/11/23

23/00412/OUT Representation from Consultee (Web) Sport England 08/01/2024

Speedway

As set out previously, Sport England does not wish to make detailed comments on this point, and have referred the Council to the governing body, the Speedway Control Bureau, who we understand have raised objection to the application.

Whilst we note the content of the supporting statement in relation to the loss of speedway venue, this does not seem to appropriately address the relevant planning policies in the Local Plan, particularly LP36 and the guidance in the NPPF in respect of the loss of the facility.

This is because no information is provided in respect of replacement facilities in line with policy LP36 of the Local Plan. For information, the previous reference to para 99 of the NPPF should now read Para 103 following the updated publication in December 2023.

As such, our previous comments remain valid in respect of the loss of the facility for speedway.

Many thanks, Stuart Morgans Principal Planning Manager

[admin]

Jan 8, 2024 17:32:26 GMT admin said:

23/00412/OUT Representation from Consultee (Web) Sport England 08/01/2024

Speedway

As set out previously, Sport England does not wish to make detailed comments on this point, and have referred the Council to the governing body, the Speedway Control Bureau, who we understand have raised objection to the application.

Whilst we note the content of the supporting statement in relation to the loss of speedway venue, this does not seem to appropriately address the relevant planning policies in the Local Plan, particularly LP36 and the guidance in the NPPF in respect of the loss of the facility.

This is because no information is provided in respect of replacement facilities in line with policy LP36 of the Local Plan. For information, the previous reference to para 99 of the NPPF should now read Para 103 following the updated publication in December 2023.

As such, our previous comments remain valid in respect of the loss of the facility for speedway.

Many thanks, Stuart Morgans Principal Planning Manager

Gov UK/guidance/national-planning-policy-framework (NPPF)/promoting-healthy-and-safe-communities

Open space and recreation

103. Existing open space, sports and recreational buildings and land, including playing fields, should not be built on unless:

(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.

[admin]

Jan 9, 2024 9:39:03 GMT admin said:

Jan 8, 2024 17:32:26 GMT admin said:

23/00412/OUT Representation from Consultee (Web) Sport England 08/01/2024

Speedway

As set out previously, Sport England does not wish to make detailed comments on this point, and have referred the Council to the governing body, the Speedway Control Bureau, who we understand have raised objection to the application.

Whilst we note the content of the supporting statement in relation to the loss of speedway venue, this does not seem to appropriately address the relevant planning policies in the Local Plan, particularly LP36 and the guidance in the NPPF in respect of the loss of the facility.

This is because no information is provided in respect of replacement facilities in line with policy LP36 of the Local Plan. For information, the previous reference to para 99 of the NPPF should now read Para 103 following the updated publication in December 2023.

As such, our previous comments remain valid in respect of the loss of the facility for speedway.

Many thanks, Stuart Morgans Principal Planning Manager

Gov UK/guidance/national-planning-policy-framework (NPPF)/promoting-healthy-and-safe-communities

Open space and recreation

103. Existing open space, sports and recreational buildings and land, including playing fields, should not be built on unless:

(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.

So basically, my quick reading of this AEPG can't argue a) unless they use LP30 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; - they ignorantly feel, if they take that route, that Chapman's Kings Lynn (funny that ) or Leicester meet the criteria - good luck with that one!

They clearly want to get out of b) which is LP30 m in a nutshell - 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.

c) is clearly the narrative that AEPG have been consistently pushing: (ET 1/9/23) Butterfield added: “We believe the leisure aspect of the Showground will attract a far broader audience compared with the targeted audiences that the events held over the last few years. “We are also providing facilities and services, amenities and activity that is far more focused on the Peterborough community.”

[admin]

Jan 7, 2024 23:49:42 GMT admin said:

AEPG facebook 31/12/23

Lots of things to share in January which will be exciting for a large number of people in the city.

- we will update you soon

DUST OF THE GLOVES AND BE PREPARED

Comments turned off and some Panthers fans allegedly unable to access the AEPG Facebook page (and posts deleted), so in the spirit of openness and community consultation, Butterfield wants you to listen but AEPG doesn't want to listen to you? Well at least they are consistent



1) Earlier today our CEO Ashley Butterfield appeared on BBC Radio Cambridgeshire with Kev Lawrence, to talk about the plans and answer ......

2) Our CEO Ashley Butterfield appeared on PCRfm with breakfast presenter Kev Lawrence, where he spoke about the £50m leisure development

will transcribe those when I get time!

[admin]

Graphic taken from YouTube video "EoES the Peterborough Panthers home track" - could be worse. The basics are all there, The fence was knackered anyway allegedly. Bratters said give us the land and we'll build it. Well there's is no need looking at that.Yes they've done their best to visually knock the stuffing out of supporters but if we can build from scratch the we can definitely put that right

[admin]

Pick the bones out of that lot:

There is a bit on the recordings about this being a consultation that is open for a couple of weeks or so? If that's the case then I would expect that we would have heard more from the consortium and/or official sources? Surely it's been open for months and AEPG have been allegedly pretty well tone deaf to the concerns of locals?

Kevin Lawrence meeting with Ashley Butterfield at East of England Showground offices (there were a couple of interviews out there but this is the gist of both (although not verbatim), as well as a recording on the AEPG Facebook page (with closed comments in a spirit of open and transparent discourse!):

KL - here I am standing in front of map of what the Showground could potentially look like in 7 years' time.

AB - after two years of working with the City Council, ward councillors and working with the local community, this is a massive step forward. Everybody has had an opportunity to comment. Traffic, ecology and public services are all well catered for.

KL -if we talk generally, it's houses but so much more? What is the East of England Showground going to become in the next 5 to 10 years if these plans are approved?

AB - the entire site of 164 acres is owned by the East of England Agricultural Society, the overall site and master plan is made up of houses as you say, 1500 houses, 650 in the allocation and then a further approximately 800 coupled in the planning application with 50 acres of amazing leisure facilities.

KL - so its leisure led?

AB - yes, it's a leisure led development. With the addition of a 250 bed hotel. The existing Arena (that is well known and loved within the city he claimed) will be significantly upgraded to make it a world-class facility. Health, fitness, care for the elderly, sports pitches and generally active leisure of varying descriptions). - They had a bit of a discussion about this and other associated items but it was basically just a noise! - Add in a 280 bed care home (C2 supported care) and a technology driven driving range!

KL raised the question regarding getting in and out on this development should it ever be approved. Butterfield said that they had done a huge amount of work on this issue and that traffic assessments suggest that impact will not be great or cause any adverse congestion or impacts in the the area.

KL - as I look at the master plan, and taken from the press release, what about the green and sustainable credentials?

AB - it is really super important that the site is sustainable through the housebuilding, through the drainage system, through the power and the systems that we use. We will not not be using gas anywhere on the sight at all - this applies to the leisure aspect as well - an additional bit of waffle here about that being important to the city and the climate credentials of PCC.

KL - what about the economic impact?

AB - we have currently undertaken and economic impact assessment for the whole development and we believe that this will show an impact that will be substantially positive in both financial terms and in job creation. We will be sharing these once we have the findings of this report. Butterfield also referred to the economic impact assessment by Collisons that lives on the planning Portal.

KL - how will you address the concerns of Julie Stevenson regarding infrastructure, density of housing and not enough roads?

AB - (this was the comedy gold part of the interview) - he said that the proposed development will cause less traffic and congestion than the infrequent events that have taken place at the Showground previously (my wording, but that is the gist of what he said).

KL - what is your answer to many people around the city who are sad to see what's happening at the Showground and have concerns about the effects on local tourism and that it will discourage people from attending the city and therefore have a negative effect on Peterborough?

AB - completely the opposite he said, and then just waffled a bit without challenge.

KL - the SPEEDWAY will clearly have to find a new home? Other events etc have to find a new home, what would you say to those people in Peterborough and elsewhere concerned about that? When the plans were first drawn up and this whole idea initially kicked off, what help did you give the speedway team and how much notice did you give them? What future is there for the speedway team although I understand it's not directly you're problem.

AB - this site has always been earmarked for development for a very long time? We are supporting all of those events needing to find a new home! We have worked really closely with the speedway team and its owners, opened dialogue and been transparent about the plans for the future and they have known about the situation regarding the site.

AB - our position regarding the speedway stays the same. We admire the passion of the fans, and they most certainly are passionate, but there will be no speedway irrespective of whether or not planning is approved. It's important to make it really clear that AEPG and the EEAS have no obligation to support the Panthers financially, either hosting or finding a new site.

KL what about the local plan and LP 36 and LP 30 (only joking, he didn't actually challenge Butterfield on his statement - in fact the local plan was never mentioned, that I heard, even in the allocation of houses because it only covers the 650).

AB - the really important fact that is not understood is that the speedway is not viable commercially and has been for many years subsidised by the charity, and now AEPG. The speedway is expensive and no longer sustainable


KL - what about the bigger picture of when all of this is likely to happen and what impacts will it have on the wider city?

AB - it will have a huge impact on the wider city. The fiscal impact with 500 to 600 new jobs, multi generational jobs for everybody, as well as the impact on lifestyle and this development being a gateway to Peterborough. This will put Peterborough on the map for positive reasons and bring new industries into the economy and really drive Peterborough as a whole.

KL - green space is very important. There is a large amount of green space on the site. Now I need to maintain all of this green space despite a lot of buildings and associated work going on?

AB - this is private land sale and not technically termed as green space that the public can use at the moment. That will change with the development and removal of these security fences. We are in discussion with local environmental experts/agencies and associated organisations on all of the issues mentioned. Active leisure and community living is so important to us!

KL - so we have entered a period of consultation and you would like to hear thoughts from people who live locally about this plan (it's all out there apparently). What would be your message be to people listening regarding feedback and what people think of your plans? What is the consultation process all about?

AB - it is to speak to us: open dialogue, to really view your thoughts, to discuss, to consider, to review the presentations and information (live on the planning Portal). Everything is there. It's an open book and transparent. The door is always open so please come and speak to us during this consultation.

KL - what about the concerns of residents nearby about all this going happening on their doorstep?

Not sure that AB got that bit as he just went off on a tangent with their favoured narrative about lack of facilities in Peterborough that in his opinion this unwanted development will allegedly provide? Also how, in his opinion, this fits in with the council's health and wellness strategy?

KL did mention the Facebook page but neglected to mention restricted access or comments turned off (not to mention deleted posts).

end

[rodders]

Perhaps I am being naïve, but as far as an aware, the at the time promoter of Speedway paid a rent for the use of Arena. They supplied staff etc and EOES got income from Bar, Food etc. Difficult to see how showground out of pocket. Greed and avarice seem to be the driving factors in this application.

[bratters]

The East of England Showground Services (the company who were set up to run the events for EoEAS) have NEVER made a loss, they made a profit every year since inception, even during Covid. All profits were donated to EoEAS, a charity, so no Corporation Tax was ever paid. AEPGs mantra that the reason for development of the Showground was because of losses, is a total fabrication to satisfy their own needs. It’s essentially rubbish.

[admin]

Jan 17, 2024 22:26:49 GMT rodders said:

Perhaps I am being naïve, but as far as an aware, the at the time promoter of Speedway paid a rent for the use of Arena. They supplied staff etc and EOES got income from Bar, Food etc. Difficult to see how showground out of pocket. Greed and avarice seem to be the driving factors in this application.

Yup, spot on Rodders, although it's a leisure led project which is which is why they are building on a well liked, under used and badly managed existing leisure amenity and destroying one of the city's most successful sporting teams. To be replaced with something significantly inferior for the city of Peterborough; but we'll try to con PCC into believing that our fantasy vision offers something more (after all, following the demise of Swingers, what the area really needs is a technology driven driving range )

Nobody in Peterborough will bother about this place, let alone bringing in people from elsewhere or being a gateway to Peterborough on everyone's lips.

However, if we throw in a few financial reports, claim an increase in PE1 located jobs and tell the cash strapped council that our research has shown that they'll make a mint (along with ourselves allegedly ) then that might just swing it? Four! (sorry, can't get golf out of my head now)

Swingers and golf - it has to be Mario Jirout in heat 1:

[admin]

Jan 18, 2024 7:57:57 GMT bratters said:

The East of England Showground Services (the company who were set up to run the events for EoEAS) have NEVER made a loss, they made a profit every year since inception, even during Covid. All profits were donated to EoEAS, a charity, so no Corporation Tax was ever paid. AEPGs mantra that the reason for development of the Showground was because of losses, is a total fabrication to satisfy their own needs. It’s essentially rubbish.

Seems to be fluent in rubbish!

Interesting that Butterfield and Lawrence never mentioned the local plan, especially LP36 & LP30 which AEPG are doing there best to dodge!

Interesting note on Thurrock Council website (we knew it anyway but always good to see it laid out) : All local planning authorities must prepare a Local Plan that sets out a planning framework for their area. It includes how much development should be permitted and how it should be distributed around the borough. By law, it must be used when deciding future planning applications.

The GOV.UK: National Planning Policy Framework says Local Plans must be reviewed at least every 5 years to check policies and update them if necessary. (Peterborough has already started that process)

[admin]

23/00412/OUT Environmental Statement Review - Stantec - Rev 01 18/01/2024

A massive 63 pages but no doubt worth a look through.

I just had time to look at: section 3 pages 10 to 14 is a good start!

and 17 Environmental Statement Review Summary on page 59 worth a look - some interesting points:

6.16 Assessment of potential effects associated with the operation of the retained
Showground during event periods. - interesting? What events are those? Thought that they were going next week for a bigger car park and paintshop?

12.8 Provide a detailed assessment of the operational effects of the retained
Showground and area during events.

14.19 An assessment of the health effects relating to potential for significant adverse
noise, light, traffic, and air quality effects to future occupants of Land A during
the operation of the existing Showground during events.

14.21 Details regarding the existing social facilities in the surrounding area, their
capacities, and the effect the future residential population could have upon
existing social infrastructure. In addition, details regarding the timeframes for the
phased delivery and operation of the operation of the care village and 2-form
entry primary school proposed for Land B, including details regarding the
anticipated quantum.

3.4 Potential consideration of the cumulative impacts of the Proposed
Developments in-combination with the scheme at Land To The North Of Norman
Cross London.

6.1 Details regarding the anticipated future operation of the retained Showground

10.12 Clarification if the assessment of potential spills assesses the potential for the
Orton Dyke to carry pollutants to the River Nene and associated Nene Washes
SPA.

14.9 Clarification regarding the potential future operation of the existing speedway should Land B be developed but not Land A.

The Stantec report (final page) is the source for this part graphic:

---

23/00412/OUT Building for a Healthy Life review 18/01/2024

16 pages but interesting first highlighted section:

"Whilst there are two applications,

a single Design and Access Statement has been submitted.

The same comments apply to the two applications individually and combined with both applications exhibiting the same design weaknesses.

There are weaknesses with various aspects of design (as detailed in this review), with issues with the degree of access and site permeability on the eastern site.

These issues raise fundamental concerns about the suitability of access into and within the site; and the strength of connectivity to the east.

Regardless of whether the western site were brought forward alongside or after the eastern site; or in isolation, it would be affected by these same issues."

[admin]

Worthy of note with many points raised that could be transposed to our situation - STATEMENT: PLANNING APPEAL DISMISSED 19/1/24

THE Save Coventry Speedway & Stox Campaign Group (SCS) are very pleased to have received notification that the Appeal lodged by Brandon Estates over their failure to secure planning permission has been dismissed.

The Appeal was heard via a Public Inquiry commencing late September 2023, with the closing statements taking place two months later.

Brandon Estates have been seeking to replace the iconic motor sports venue, which they closed after the 2016 season, with a development to provide 124 dwellings accompanied by a 3G football pitch and associated pavilion. (Housing but so much more - sounds familiar)

However the Inspector, Helen Hockenhull, has concluded that the stadium with its established use is not surplus to requirements, and that the ‘benefits’ of the alternative provision do not outweigh the loss of the stadium. (that's the AEPG narrative)

The proposals are therefore in conflict with various sections of National Planning Policy Framework, the Rugby Local Plan, and the Brandon & Bretford Neighbourhood Plan.

She also made specific reference to the national and international significance of the stadium for both speedway and stock car racing.

This fully endorses the views expressed by SCS throughout the process and by the members of Rugby Borough Council’s Planning Committee when the application was rejected in November 2022.

The Inspector also agreed with our point that ‘need’ and ‘viability’ are in fact distinct matters, and she has taken the view there is a realistic prospect of viability being improved should a phased approach be taken to the reinstatement of the stadium.

The full decision document can be viewed from the following link: www.rugby.gov.uk/documents/d/guest/3322013-appeal-deicison

Clearly the conclusion of the Inspector is warmly welcomed by SCS and is the outcome we have been striving for ever since the matter was taken to Appeal.

We would like to thank everyone for their support, including Richard Humphreys KC and the Council’s own legal team led by Hugh Richards KC.

We are especially grateful to all those who contributed to the GoFundMe last summer, which has proved hugely important and enabled us to participate fully in the Appeal as the Rule 6 party.

Naturally there are a great number of matters arising from this decision for us to consider once the relevant paperwork has been reviewed, and we will update everyone further when we can.

Our dream has always been to get speedway and stock car racing back to their rightful place at Brandon, and following this decision that dream is still very much alive.

savecoventryspeedway.com/news

[admin]

Jan 17, 2024 22:26:49 GMT rodders said:

Perhaps I am being naïve, but as far as an aware, the at the time promoter of Speedway paid a rent for the use of Arena. They supplied staff etc and EOES got income from Bar, Food etc. Difficult to see how showground out of pocket. Greed and avarice seem to be the driving factors in this application.

Same with all such cowboy developments - you'll like this one:

[admin]

Jan 18, 2024 7:57:57 GMT bratters said:

The East of England Showground Services (the company who were set up to run the events for EoEAS) have NEVER made a loss, they made a profit every year since inception, even during Covid. All profits were donated to EoEAS, a charity, so no Corporation Tax was ever paid. AEPGs mantra that the reason for development of the Showground was because of losses, is a total fabrication to satisfy their own needs. It’s essentially rubbish.

Also interesting to look back at the first draft of the new Peterborough Local Plan, which will set out how the city will grow and change over the next 20 years. This document is available for public consultation between XX January and XX February 2016. We welcome your comments and views on this important document, it is your chance to make a real difference and help make Peterborough and the surrounding villages a great place to live, work and visit. The Preface sets out how you can get involved.

There is no LP 36 or mention of houses that I can see? The EoES was LP31 and a very different beast which is probably why nobody was that concerned?

East of England Showground

5.168 The East of England Showground is a unique facility with a wide variety of land uses. Further development relating to sporting, recreational events and other appropriate uses will be supported, in principle. Any proposal will be subject to an assessment of the environmental and traffic impacts on the adjoining residential areas and on the nearby village of Alwalton, and suitable measures will need to be taken to alleviate any adverse impacts.

5.169 The proposed policy below is broadly a carry over of policy SA18 in the current adopted development plan.

Policy LP31: East of England Showground

Within the East of England Showground, as shown on the Policies Map, planning permission will be granted for development for sport, leisure and other uses which would be appropriate to the existing Showground and which would not impair its continued use for that purpose. Proposals for development should not have an unacceptable adverse impact on the surrounding uses (especially on occupiers of nearby residential properties), and all development should ensure that the character of the area is maintained.

Policy LP30: Culture, Leisure and Tourism- was a different beast as well!

The Council will support the development of new cultural, leisure and tourism 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;

it will help to promote the image of Peterborough and attract more visitors;

As part of the overall spatial policy for the intensification and regeneration of the city centre, there will be a particular focus on the provision of new and improved cultural, leisure and tourism facilities here, and such proposals, where applicable, should:

make the most of the existing facilities and assets such as the river frontage and the embankment, protecting this for future events and uses such as festivals and concerts;

aim to promote a regionally/nationally flexible multi-use venue which can host a range of activities and large-scale events, including concerts; sports, arts and theatre events; a sport village/centre of excellence; leisure pool complex etc. to attract many visitors;

aim to improve the evening and night time economy, offering a wide range of activities that are socially inclusive and meet the needs of different communities and different age groups, and that also take into account issues of community safety; aim to support the development of the University, such as shared sports facilities or libraries; and. assist in the creation and enhancement of water navigation facilities;

In exceptional circumstances when there is no appropriate city centre site, due to the nature and scale of the proposed development, other locations will be considered in accordance with a sequential approach to site selection outlined in Policy LP12.

Planning permission will only be granted for a scheme which would result in the loss of an existing
cultural, leisure or tourism facility if it can be demonstrated that the use is no longer viable, or
an appropriate alternative is to be provided, which is at least equivalent to that lost in terms of
quantity and quality and is in a sustainable location to best meet the needs of users

[admin]

Particularly irritated by this bit as it's exactly what PCC should have done with the EoES - what bozo decided that 650-1500 houses, a hotel and car park would be a useful addition

"aim to promote a regionally/nationally flexible multi-use venue which can host a range of activities and large-scale events, including concerts; sports, arts and theatre events; a sport village/centre of excellence; leisure pool complex etc. to attract many visitors;"

[admin]

Good to see us back on the front foot - it's going to be a tough year!

There's been a boost in the battle to save speedway in Peterborough - ​The fight to keep speedway in Peterborough has received a major boost – from a planning decision to stop developers building on Coventry Stadium.

borospeedway.proboards.com/post/42738

[admin]

Jan 16, 2024 23:59:58 GMT admin said:

KL - what about the economic impact?

AB - we have currently undertaken and economic impact assessment for the whole development and we believe that this will show an impact that will be substantially positive in both financial terms and in job creation. We will be sharing these once we have the findings of this report. Butterfield also referred to the economic impact assessment by Collisons that lives on the planning Portal.

KL - how will you address the concerns of Julie Stevenson regarding infrastructure, density of housing and not enough roads?

AB - (this was the comedy gold part of the interview) - he said that the proposed development will cause less traffic and congestion than the infrequent events that have taken place at the Showground previously (my wording, but that is the gist of what he said).

KL - what is your answer to many people around the city who are sad to see what's happening at the Showground and have concerns about the effects on local tourism and that it will discourage people from attending the city and therefore have a negative effect on Peterborough?

AB - completely the opposite he said, and then just waffled a bit without challenge.

KL - what about the bigger picture of when all of this is likely to happen and what impacts will it have on the wider city?

AB - it will have a huge impact on the wider city. The fiscal impact with 500 to 600 new jobs, multi generational jobs for everybody, as well as the impact on lifestyle and this development being a gateway to Peterborough. This will put Peterborough on the map for positive reasons and bring new industries into the economy and really drive Peterborough as a whole.

Opinion: Council finances are still looking shaky and elections around the corner - Welcome back !

- www.peterboroughtoday.co.uk/news/politics/opinion-council-finances-are-still-looking-shaky-and-elections-around-the-corner-welcome-back 19/1/24

With the holiday season firmly behind us, we tend to look forward to the opportunities that the New Year has to offer, writes Cllr Christian Hogg - Leader of the Liberal Democrats Group.

In the political world of Peterborough City Council, we are currently focused on working on delivering a balanced budget.

Meanwhile, back in Peterborough, the advice from government is cancelled out by the same government department telling us that our reserves are too low and need to be increased. Our hard-working officers nevertheless have continued to work hard at transforming the way the Council works. The previous Conservative administration has now gone after over two decades in control, but their mistakes are still costing this city.

More recent examples of these mistakes would include and by no means the only examples, funding for the Hilton Hotel development, which was sold to councillors as a scheme that was good for Peterborough and a cast iron investment that would reap a good return. The reality was delay upon delay which led to the development grinding to a halt forcing the council to step in and take over the project. Whilst council officers are confident that we will be able to recoup our money in the long term there is still a level of risk that leaves me very uncomfortable. We also had a similar “get rich quick” scheme with the Empower investment, it seems no lessons were learnt from that.

[rodders]

I believe it to be delusional to think Speedway will ever return to EoES!!! I hope I am wrong!!!!. However IMO clinging to this hope merely delays any progress towards a new home or scuppers it all together. Do not see how it is not realised that whoever owns the showground are not under any obligation to lease part of it to Speedway regardless of any planning permission.

[Hodgy]

Jan 27, 2024 14:31:30 GMT rodders said:

I believe it to be delusional to think Speedway will ever return to EoES!!! I hope I am wrong!!!!. However IMO clinging to this hope merely delays any progress towards a new home or scuppers it all together. Do not see how it is not realised that whoever owns the showground are not under any obligation to lease part of it to Speedway regardless of any planning permission.

Sadly agree Rodders. It’s been coming for a long time but somehow we continued well beyond my expectations.

[admin]

Jan 27, 2024 14:31:30 GMT rodders said:

I believe it to be delusional to think Speedway will ever return to EoES!!! I hope I am wrong!!!!. However IMO clinging to this hope merely delays any progress towards a new home or scuppers it all together. Do not see how it is not realised that whoever owns the showground are not under any obligation to lease part of it to Speedway regardless of any planning permission.

We know Rodders, you've said it several times before. Until planning is approved then there is always hope, however slim. Giving up on that option would indeed finish the club, and my understanding is that the consortium know that. What you say is fair enough but if AEPG don't want to entertain Peterborough Speedway in any way then we need to rely on the local plan. The way that AEPG keep trying to distance themselves from LP36 & LP30 and any obligation towards Peterborough Speedway indicates to me at least that they know that this is a problem for them.

Also shows how mercenary and greedy they are because what they could pay us to go quietly (assuming that land is found of course) is small beer compared to what they are going to trouser from the project.

And talking of an alternative site, I was clearing out my car today and came across a July 2022 programme and a paragraph in Greer's Gossip which read "I'm sure that you have all seen the news ( www.bbc.com/sport/speedway/61897733 ) - as someone who has been at the club for so long, I am pleased to see that the management team are already working hard PCC to find a new home for Panthers, will will keep you informed. I must have missed the update?

Wish I'd bothered to read the programmes!

And from the EEAS CEO in Aug 2023 "I believe that AEPG may have had discussions with the current speedway operators as well as the local authority regarding the possibility of relocating to another site, but I am not sure whether this has been progressed."

So if those discussions did take place then one wonders why?

[admin]

Post from the BSF: - (so what chance of Shailesh Vara (EoES responsibility) or Paul Bristow (responsible for the Peterborough community) raising the EoES debacle at PMQs)

[admin]

OLIVER HOLT: Ordinary heroes who stood in front of the bulldozers to save a cathedral of sport

In sport, not all heroes wear football boots. Not all heroes take seven wickets in the second innings of their Test debut or come from two sets down to win the Australian Open men's final or date Taylor Swift and break one of Jerry Rice's most famous NFL records on the way to another appearance in the Super Bowl.

Sometimes, heroes live near Coventry. Sometimes, as the sad light of a January afternoon in the Midlands fades to dusk, they find themselves standing in the shadow of the derelict stadium they have spent much of the last seven years of their lives fighting to save against all the odds.

The Coventry Stadium, just outside the village of Brandon, was once home to the Coventry Bees speedway team. The greats of the sport, men like Ole Olsen, called it their home track and it attracted 30,000 spectators for its biggest meetings. Opened in 1928, it was one of the favoured venues for British stock car racing, too.

That all ended on November 5, 2016, when the stadium staged its last stock car meeting and its new owners, property developers Brandon Estates, closed the stadium and released plans for 137 homes to be constructed on the site even though it is land designated for sporting use.

All sorts of indignities have been visited upon it since. Vandals have set fires in the grandstand. Some buildings are charred beyond recognition. Sections of the roof are blackened by the flames that threatened to engulf it. Every wall, interior and exterior, is defaced by graffiti.

Signs outside say 'Dangerous Buildings: No Entry'. Not that anyone has taken any notice. They have been defaced by graffiti, too.

Travellers have set up camp here seven times in the last six years. They, and others, have stripped the grandstand of anything they consider of any value. All the windows are broken. A puppy was found abandoned in a cupboard and taken to a rescue centre.

It seemed as if it were only a matter of time until the developers got their way. The more the stadium was allowed to decay, the more often it was attacked, the deeper its ruin, the more thorough its desecration, the more likely it seemed that the developers would win, almost by default.

But the men who stood in front of the ruins of the stadium last week, wandering through a car park overgrown with weeds and grass, refused to give up. They point-blank refused to give up. They fought and they fought. They formed the Save Coventry Speedway and Stox Campaign Group(SCS) and devoted all they had to saving the stadium.

I'm a stadium nerd. Sports stadiums like the Coventry Stadium live and breathe, as far as I'm concerned. You might think they're mute but they tell stories and they hold memories and they bind families through the generations and they are part of our cultural heritage and they should be protected with way more care than they are.

Our sports stadia should be heritage sites. They have as much cultural value as a concert hall or a theatre. For large sections of the population, they are our concert halls and theatres and our cathedrals, too.

And yet places like the Baseball Ground in Derby and Maine Road in Manchester and the Boleyn Ground in east London and The Dell in Southampton and the Vetch Field in Swansea are allowed to be swallowed up and obliterated. Only Highbury, Arsenal's former home, has been given the respect and the protection it deserved.

And so sometimes it takes men like Jeff Davies and Dave Rowe to stand up for the cathedrals of British sport instead and place themselves in front of the bulldozers. Jeff was Coventry Bees' club photographer for 34 years, he came here as a child, he saw the joy it brought close up and he refused to let it go.

He estimates that since the developers took possession of the stadium on January 1, 2017, he has made 240 visits to it to document its treatment in pictures and to try to protect it from interlopers. He and Dave and other members of the committee have ploughed their own money into the campaign to save it.

'I was brought here as a baby by my family,' Jeff says, 'and I have been coming here ever since. You think of riders you watched over the years as a kid growing up. Riders like Ole Olsen, world champions racing for the club, Greg Hancock in the late 90s. The ashes of one of our greatest riders, Nigel Boocock, are interred beneath the track.

'A stadium is like music. It brings back memories. When you listen to music, it takes you back in time and that's what it does for me. I am an old man now but I would love to see the stadium reinstated and brought back to life for speedway and stock cars for the young kids of today to enjoy it in the way I did.'

Dave mentions music, too. In the same way Everton play Z-Cars every time the team runs out at Goodison Park, each meeting at Brandon began with Rimsky Korsakov's The Flight of the Bumblebee blasting out from the sound system at the stadium. Each meeting ended with Andy Williams singing May Each Day.

So Jeff and Dave, who is the British Speedway Press Officer, and Dave Carter, a planning consultant whose expertise has been invaluable, and the other members of the nine-strong SCS committee have never given up. And to their delight, others have flocked to the cause.

When they needed to raise £20,000 to pay for a barrister to represent them on the latest stage of the legal struggles against the developers, more than 500 supporters raised the money in less than a week.

And earlier this month, after Rugby Borough Council, to its everlasting credit, refused to buckle in the face of pressure from the developers, Brandon Estates suffered its most significant defeat yet when its appeal over its failure to secure planning permission to build homes on the site was dismissed by government planning inspector Helen Hockenhull.

In her written judgement, Ms Hockenhull said: 'Whilst speedway has declined to the extent that it is now a minority sport, I do not consider it is dying. The same is true for stock car racing. There is demand for Coventry Stadium demonstrated by SCS [campaigners] and supporters in the racing community.'

So Jeff and Dave and the SCS committee and the wider speedway community and the stock car fraternity are all winning. They have not won yet but Brandon Estates and their owners appear to have been defeated in their plans to demolish the stadium. It is hoped that they will sell up. There is no shortage of people interested in buying the stadium back.

And so, there is at least hope. If there were to be a sale in the next six months, and even if spectators could only be housed along the back straight to begin with, while damage to the grandstand is assessed and repairs are carried out, Jeff and Dave think speedway could even be back at the Coventry Stadium by March 2025.

It is still a dream. The owners may refuse to sell. Big obstacles litter the way forward. But otherwise ordinary men like Jeff Davies and Dave Rowe share at least a few things with Jannik Sinner and Travis Kelce and Tom Hartley. They are made of the right stuff, the stuff that makes sporting dreams come true.



dailymail/sport//OLIVER-HOLT-Ordinary-heroes-stood-bulldozers-save-cathedral-sport 29/1/24

[admin]

Jan 31, 2024 17:39:19 GMT admin said:

Post from the BSF: - (so what chance of Shailesh Vara (EoES responsibility) or Paul Bristow (responsible for the Peterborough community) raising the EoES debacle at PMQs)

[admin]

from MINUTES OF THE PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION COMMITTEE HELD AT THE TOWN HALL, PETERBOROUGH ON 11 NOVEMBER 2015

7. Peterborough Preliminary Draft Local Plan - The Committee received a report which sought the Committee’s comments on the
Preliminary Draft Local Plan before it was submitted to Cabinet on 14 December 2015 for approval for the purpose of public consultation in January 2016.

The Principal Strategic Planning Officer provided an overview of the report and raised the following points: a) The document would combine and replace the previous Core Strategy, Site Allocations, Planning Policies and City Centre DPD’s.

b) There had previously been discussion regarding the lack of available employment land.

c) The report reflected the preliminary draft Local Plan, with public consultation due to take place between January and February 2016.

The Committee queried how the final decision on site allocations was reached. The Principal Strategic Planning Officer advised that the process consisted of several stages. Officers would rule out any obviously inappropriate sites, following submissions.

Discussion would then be had with other relevant departments to form a recommendation to Committee.

The Principal Strategic Planning Officer explained that, as Peterborough had not met its previously high targets in terms of housing supply, an additional 20% buffer had been applied to the five year housing supply target. This meant that, under the National Planning Policy Framework, an application made outside the site allocations boundary could not be used as an automatic reason for refusal.
RESOLVED:
The Committee noted the report