AEPG's EoES planning applications 2024.

[admin]

EESG – Environmental Statement – revised 2024

1.2.4 Land A is a parcel of land 26.20 hectares (64.74 acres) being promoted for residential development and is the subject of an active outline planning application (Reference: 23/00412/OUT) awaiting decision. This outline planning application is compliant with the intention and purpose of Policy LP36 of the Peterborough Local Plan (adopted in July 2019) to provide up to 650 dwellings within a comprehensive masterplan that illustrates how the principle of development can be accommodated.

Is it? I think not

East of England Showground
7.3.6 The East of England Showground is a unique facility with a wide variety of land uses. Any proposal must be supported by a comprehensive master plan for the showground site, and be subject to an assessment of the environmental and traffic impacts on the adjoining residential areas and surrounding road networks, and on the nearby village of Alwalton. Suitable measures will need to be taken to alleviate any adverse impacts.

Policy LP36: East of England Showground

Within the East of England Showground, as defined on the Policies Map, the following uses will be supported in principle, subject to, if the proposal is of a significant scale, an approved masterplan for the Showground:

Facilities directly related to the function of shows on the Showground itself;
Conference facilities (D1 and D2)
Employment related development;
Residential development of around 650 dwellings.

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. A comprehensive master plan in advance of, or alongside, any significant proposals will be required and, if approved by the council in advance, this would become a material consideration in the determination of future planning applications. Such a master plan must demonstrate how the functioning Showground will be retained. The loss of any existing leisure and sports facilities will not be supported unless replacement facilities are provided in accordance with policy LP30.

LP30

Existing Culture, Leisure, Tourism and Community Facilities- 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.

[admin]

British Speedway Promoters Ltd : ACU House : Wood Street : Rugby : CV21 2YX

Sent: 23 May 2024 10:03 - To: [e-mail] - East of England Showground planning application - response (REF No: 23/00412/OUT and No: 23/00400/OUT)

This response should be read in conjunction with our comments of September 2023, all of which remain on the record.

Following the additional reports submitted on April 19 on behalf of AEPG regarding planned redevelopment of the East of England Showground site, resulting in the permanent loss of speedway, British Speedway Promoters’ Ltd (BSP) and the Speedway Control Bureau (SCB) wish to reaffirm our total opposition to the scheme.

Additionally, we wish to make the following comments on the Leisure and Community Impact Assessment Report, as prepared by Collison & Associates Ltd. We refer specifically to Section 2 – Assessment of the Viability of Speedway.

We have no comment to make on the nature of the lease arrangement for Peterborough Speedway to operate at the East of England Showground; however, it is clear that a sport which ran continuously at the venue from 1970 until its closure (with the exception of one season due to Covid) meant that it was fully established and accepted in the city, and well supported.

In addition to Peterborough Panthers meetings, the venue staged numerous national and international events, bringing the world’s top riders to the area.

Consequently, it is even more disappointing that when alternative plans for the site were being formulated, no thought appears to have been given to the possibility of re-locating the Panthers, which we submit contravenes National Planning Policy Framework, which specifically protects sport and recreation facilities where there is a continuing need.

Attention is drawn to the final paragraph of page 11 which states “Anecdotal evidence from British Speedway” which we would respectfully suggest should ring an immediate alarm bell. There is no evidence whatsoever, either on our own website or elsewhere, to suggest that the vast majority of a speedway crowd is not made up of supporters of the home team.

There is an attempt to suggest that because a rally in November 2022 attracted around 350 supporters, this was reflective of the Peterborough fan-base, which is a ludicrous position to take.

Rather than quote ‘anecdotal evidence’ we would ask why the authors of this report have not communicated with ourselves to establish the true position.

The authors have provided no evidence to back up their claims as to the average attendance at the East of England Arena, which has in fact been substantially higher than 1,000 in recent seasons, and the reference to declining attendance in autumn is also a work of fiction, given that meetings which are staged in autumn tend to be important play-off fixtures, hence in autumn 2021 when Peterborough clinched the league title, attendances were in fact at their highest level in years.

Page 12 also quotes “national evidence shows speedway is a declining sport” and goes on to make reference to a Guardian item published in 2019. Many of the arguments which follow have already been disproven in the recent public inquiry into the closure of Brandon Stadium, Coventry, which also quoted the same document, and we urge careful studying of the Coventry case. In particular, the section concerning TV figures is an inaccurate and disingenuous reflection of the position, and also takes no note of the
current very successful arrangement with Eurosport/discovery+ as well as live streaming with the sport recording significantly increased viewing figures over recent years. Material in this section has been largely copied and pasted from other planning reports, which have been disproven elsewhere and accepted as inaccurate by their author.

Page 12 also includes a bizarre and frankly irrelevant section relating to meetings being affected by the weather. It is also inaccurate, given that the NDL Final in 2023 was not between Mildenhall and Leicester – it was between Oxford and Leicester. Speedway, like any sport and particularly motorsport, can of course be affected by the weather, but the argument of “forcing paying attendees home without witnessing any matches” ignores the point that attendees would be allowed into the re-staging free of charge (or paying a proportionate admission should a meeting be abandoned during the event). The statement “This risk exists as conditions are only fully known once riders attempt riding the track, with the NDL final being called off after a leading rider suffered an accident” is completely false as the NDL final proceeded in satisfactory conditions, there was an accident in the 12th race out of 15 which was not related to the track being “slippery”, and then in the period whilst the rider was being attended to, heavy rain did move in and it was therefore not possible to continue. The result was then declared according to the provisions of the rulebook based on the races which had taken place. This section appears to have been included to ‘pad out’ the report, and to give the impression that the authors have some knowledge of the sport, because it has absolutely no relevance to the issue under discussion.

The closures of Wolverhampton and Swindon are referred to, and these are also matters which we would take issue with. The argument of speedway shale reaching the greyhound track at Wolverhampton was only made some time after the closure notice had been given, in response to a public backlash. Speedway and greyhound racing do exist in the same stadium elsewhere in the country at venues such as Birmingham and Sheffield. Entain simply took a decision which was hugely unpopular locally in order to further boost their profits.

Swindon Speedway was not in an unviable financial position, and we would be happy to discuss the very specific circumstances of that club and that venue should you wish to take the matter further.

Across pages 13 and 14, Collison & Associates Ltd make reference to the argument that speedway at Peterborough is unnecessary due to the “alternative provision” available at King’s Lynn and Leicester. We say this is totally false. There is no evidence that the closure of one club results in supporters of that team transferring their allegiances elsewhere. It is the equivalent of Manchester United FC being closed down on the basis that supporters could instead visit Liverpool – or, on a lower level, Peterborough Utd being closed down with supporters instead told to go and support Leicester, Northampton or Cambridge. The argument is a total non-starter, and again has been proven to be factually incorrect in the Coventry case.

Reference to Mildenhall Speedway is again irrelevant in this case as this was a club operating in the third tier, the development league, and whilst we do hope to welcome them back into the sport in future, their position should not be equated in any way with that of the loss of a Premiership club such as Peterborough.

In conclusion, the narrative of this report (namely the assertion that speedway is a sport in terminal decline) is rather lazily copied and pasted from previous planning applications which have either not been determined (Arena-Essex) or have been accepted by an Inquiry Inspector to be untrue (Coventry).

We would also like to take issue with recent media comments made by Mr Butterfield of AEPG which are intended to create the impression that speedway at the Showground was never viable, and that the objections to his plans are from a “small cohort” of people, remarkably describing them as “selfish.” He appears upset that the thousands of objections are delaying his bid to get spades into the ground and houses built.

We would suggest that a sport which operated for 53 years (despite Mr Butterfield incredibly stating that “its home was never here”) was quite clearly viable for all concerned, and perhaps the only time when it did not become viable for the owners of the site was when they had removed all other events from the venue. Mr Butterfield should also be aware, as doubtless the members of the planning committee will be, that large sections of the report, and indeed his own statements, are irrelevant as viability is not a material consideration in the National Planning Policy Framework. NPPF instead puts the onus on the developer to prove that the displaced sport/land/activity is “surplus to requirements”, which is not the same as viability, and this exercise clearly has not been undertaken here.

One way in which AEPG could ensure their scheme was compliant with National Planning Policy Framework would be to provide an alternative venue, in the Peterborough area, for the sport which they have evicted, or indeed to modify their own plans to support its retention at the Showground.

However, as things stand, we believe there is no way this proposal should be accepted – or, realistically, even taken to planning committee – whilst the reports are so deficient and so full of falsehoods about our sport.
Regards
Nikki Jameison (BSP OFFICE MANAGER) & Neil Vatcher (SCB CO-ORDINATOR)

[admin]

Comments for Planning Application 23/00412/OUT submitted at 11/09/2024

Public Stance: Customer objects - Comments:

My objections to this development haven't changed in the last 12 months. I do not believe there is a need for 1500 houses. The timescale means 650 houses will be there for a number of years before the required facilities (i.e. school) are built and there
doesn't appear to be plans for a doctors surgery which would be essential.

(what always seems to be missed with schools, doctors, care homes etc is where the bloody hell are the qualified staff going to come from? Are they going to find them and ship them in? They'll need somewhere to live & will put further pressure on existing services. Has an audit been done on that and the cost to the city been calculated?)

The access and surrounding roads will need upgrading to accommodate an estimated extra 3000 vehicles.

(Are they really still going with the two existing access routes? If so, I can't see how this is even getting past first base!)

Peterborough Speedway has been much missed this year. It's not just about the racing, it is a social, family friendly activity too. Having the speedway, Posh ground, swimming pool and live shows would serve the people of Peterborough far better than the proposed golf and yet another hotel. I would also suggest specifically that Local Policy LP30 in the Peterborough Local Plan has not been satisfactorily addressed with regards to the Speedway track

(indeed! If only PCC had stuck to their first thoughts in the Peterborough Preliminary Draft Local Plan (2016 - 2036) that was put forward for consideration by Planning and Environmental Protection Committee on 10 November 2015 (are there any minutes to that meeting? One assumes that there is. It would be interesting to know how LP31 (which could have delivered that gateway to the city leisure and sporting complex) morphed in to houses and LP30?)

Policy LP31: East of England Showground (2015 draft)
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

[admin]

Although he wasn't with us long, Robert Lambert's success at the Danish Speedway GP this evening (14/9/24) is a reminder of our many World & National individual & team successes, bringing publicity and credit to the city. All to be potentially sacrificed for concrete, axe throwing, a golf range & questionable economic benefits in a decade's time that brings nothing comparable to Peterborough? You couldn't make it up! Interesting test for Peterborough City Council as Bratters says? Even they must know of Jason Crump, Ryan Sullivan, Hans Andersen to name but a few. What will Butterfield's vision deliver in a decade's time? I was watching some Cornhole on ESPN last night, I'm surprised that that wasn't on the list

The forum's 2020 Covid banner:

[admin]

Sept 12, 2024 8:54:58 GMT admin said:

Policy LP31: East of England Showground (2015 draft)
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

Whoever sent this one (with a bit of work it could have been me, but wasn't!)

Comments for Planning Application 23/00412/OUT (Comments were submitted at 16/09/2024) Commenter Type: Public - Stance: Customer objects.

Comments: As a resident of one of the neighbouring areas of Peterborough, I am writing to formally object to the proposals submitted within the planning application for the redevelopment of the East of England Showground area.

The proposed plans threaten to eliminate a sport that is internationally recognized and places Peterborough on the global stage.

The speedway track, regarded by many community members as the finest in the UK, is an integral part of our local heritage. The
loss of the track and the Peterborough Panthers would be detrimental not only to the sport of speedway but also to the UK's presence in this sport as a whole.

While I understand the necessity for the land to be commercially viable, there are numerous alternative uses for the area that could achieve this goal. Events such as Truckfest and Tacklefest, although they have seen a decline in recent years, were once
significant attractions for the entire region.

The council should consider the potential of the land in its current state; it could host more shows, music events, and concerts. Additionally, the site could be transformed into a premier sports centre, including facilities for speedway, tennis, football, cricket, and more.Businesses could also establish premises on the site.

Peterborough does not requires more homes, it needs amenities for its residents and visitors, and attractions to support the local economy. In recent years we have seen the decline of the Queensgate shopping centre, the closure of Peterborough Greyhounds, and the deterioration of the high street - without Speedway returning, what is there for your residents to do?

If the council approves the plans for additional housing that is not needed, what will attract people to move to or visit Peterborough?

If any homes are to be built, they should be affordable for first-time buyers, or council supported homes for those most in need; neither of which would mind the occasional speedway noise. It is worth noting that speedway races occur only twice a week and
usually conclude by 10 PM.

Although the attendance at the "farewell to the showground" event hosted by Peterborough Speedway had an exceptional turnout, I acknowledge that this would not be the case for every meeting. With that said, I strongly believe that we took Peterborough speedway for granted and forgot how good we had it, lets not forget we grew up with it always being there, none of us could have imagined it not - I can assure the committee that Speedway fans in Peterborough, and the areas surrounding have remembered now and we will not take it for granted again. This sport has brought joy to generations of families. In my family, I grew up attending the track with my parents, and my father, who is from Crowland, did the same with his parents and brother, this story is common across the region.

Lets look at Manchester council who recently invested in the sport, building an outstanding track that attracts countless visitors, boosting local businesses and the city's economy as a whole. Manchester's new arena recently hosted the Speedway of Nations, showcasing the sport on the world stage.

Peterborough City Council members should carefully consider whether they want to be responsible for the demise of a local sport with such a rich history. How will they explain to future generations that they chose to build houses instead of preserving a beloved local sporting club?

I urge the council to reject the submitted plans for the redevelopment of the Peterborough Showground site and to support a sport with a dedicated fan base in the region and across not just the UK but the world.

[admin]

A reminder

If you wish to comment on this application you should ensure that your written comments are received by 5 October 2024. Comments received after this date will be taken into consideration only if the application has not already been determined

23/00412/OUT | Outline permission for demolition of all buildings and construction of up to 650 dwellings (where Peterborough Speedway sits).

23/00400/OUT | Outline permission for construction up to 850 dwellings (the additional plan which means that AEPG can't meet LP30 onsite without PCC rejection or submitting revised plans).

[admin]

23/00412/OUT - Representation from Consultee (Web) - Local Highway Authority - 18/09/2024

Planning Application Consultation Response from Peterborough City Council, Local Highway Authority (LHA).

Recommendation: Objection

The 23/00412/OUT site (Land A) is for 650 dwellings, with open space and associated infrastructure.

The 23/00412/OUT site is currently allocated within the Peterborough Local Plan for 650 dwellings, with the following uses supported in principle, subject to a masterplan:
• Facilities directly related to the function of shows on the site
• Conference facilities
• Employment-related development.

The existing site is located within the parish of Alwalton in the west of Peterborough. Currently situated on the site is the East of England Arena and Events Centre, a motorcycle speedway stadium that can hold multi-purpose events, public shows, trade shows and music concerts.

The existing main access is via the main entrance from Joseph Odam Way, which can be reached via the A605. There is a secondary access on the eastern side of the site via Dunblane Drive, which will continue to be used for some Showground-related events and is proposed to be used for buses, cycling, and walking only. No new access is to be provided to the public highway as part of either application.

23/00400/OUT - Representation from Consultee (Web) - Local Highway Authority - 18/09/2024 - similarly objection recommendation.

[rodders]

Sept 18, 2024 15:56:13 GMT admin said:

23/00412/OUT - Representation from Consultee (Web) - Local Highway Authority - 18/09/2024

Planning Application Consultation Response from Peterborough City Council, Local Highway Authority (LHA).

Recommendation: Objection

The 23/00412/OUT site (Land A) is for 650 dwellings, with open space and associated infrastructure.

The 23/00412/OUT site is currently allocated within the Peterborough Local Plan for 650 dwellings, with the following uses supported in principle, subject to a masterplan:
• Facilities directly related to the function of shows on the site
• Conference facilities
• Employment-related development.

The existing site is located within the parish of Alwalton in the west of Peterborough. Currently situated on the site is the East of England Arena and Events Centre, a motorcycle speedway stadium that can hold multi-purpose events, public shows, trade shows and music concerts.

The existing main access is via the main entrance from Joseph Odam Way, which can be reached via the A605. There is a secondary access on the eastern side of the site via Dunblane Drive, which will continue to be used for some Showground-related events and is proposed to be used for buses, cycling, and walking only. No new access is to be provided to the public highway as part of either application.

23/00400/OUT - Representation from Consultee (Web) - Local Highway Authority - 18/09/2024 - similarly objection recommendation.

Probably I am wrong but seems to me objection only refers to access not the development Per se. So if they sort out the access all ok.

[admin]

Sept 18, 2024 17:46:22 GMT rodders said:

Sept 18, 2024 15:56:13 GMT admin said:

23/00412/OUT - Representation from Consultee (Web) - Local Highway Authority - 18/09/2024

Planning Application Consultation Response from Peterborough City Council, Local Highway Authority (LHA).

Recommendation: Objection

The 23/00412/OUT site (Land A) is for 650 dwellings, with open space and associated infrastructure.

The 23/00412/OUT site is currently allocated within the Peterborough Local Plan for 650 dwellings, with the following uses supported in principle, subject to a masterplan:
• Facilities directly related to the function of shows on the site
• Conference facilities
• Employment-related development.

The existing site is located within the parish of Alwalton in the west of Peterborough. Currently situated on the site is the East of England Arena and Events Centre, a motorcycle speedway stadium that can hold multi-purpose events, public shows, trade shows and music concerts.

The existing main access is via the main entrance from Joseph Odam Way, which can be reached via the A605. There is a secondary access on the eastern side of the site via Dunblane Drive, which will continue to be used for some Showground-related events and is proposed to be used for buses, cycling, and walking only. No new access is to be provided to the public highway as part of either application.

23/00400/OUT - Representation from Consultee (Web) - Local Highway Authority - 18/09/2024 - similarly objection recommendation.

Probably I am wrong but seems to me objection only refers to access not the development Per se. So if they sort out the access all ok.

I'd say that you're correct. Like all consultees they only comment on their area of expertise and make recommendations on corrections. That's time and money for AEPG who are running against the clock and bank manager (if they exist these days).

It's a 20 page document and AEPG have been asked to deal with the points below (which may or may not sort it as you say?):

• Address the Transport Assessment and Travel Plan comments attached.
• Provide detailed drawings including swept path analysis (as required) of all proposed
accesses (as detailed below)

This could be quite a battle ground outwith Peterborough Speedway because the locals can't be happy with a decade and more of travel/traffic misery? It's still a mystery how the developers get away with "No new access is to be provided to the public highway as part of either application."

[admin]

Sept 18, 2024 8:59:38 GMT admin said:

A reminder

If you wish to comment on this application you should ensure that your written comments are received by 5 October 2024. Comments received after this date will be taken into consideration only if the application has not already been determined

23/00412/OUT | Outline permission for demolition of all buildings and construction of up to 650 dwellings (where Peterborough Speedway sits).

23/00400/OUT | Outline permission for construction up to 850 dwellings (the additional plan which means that AEPG can't meet LP30 onsite without PCC rejection or submitting revised plans).

[admin]

Sept 18, 2024 22:27:00 GMT admin said:

Sept 18, 2024 17:46:22 GMT rodders said:

Probably I am wrong but seems to me objection only refers to access not the development Per se. So if they sort out the access all ok.

I'd say that you're correct. Like all consultees they only comment on their area of expertise and make recommendations on corrections. That's time and money for AEPG who are running against the clock and bank manager (if they exist these days).

It's a 20 page document and AEPG have been asked to deal with the points below (which may or may not sort it as you say?):

• Address the Transport Assessment and Travel Plan comments attached.
• Provide detailed drawings including swept path analysis (as required) of all proposed
accesses (as detailed below)

This could be quite a battle ground outwith Peterborough Speedway because the locals can't be happy with a decade and more of travel/traffic misery? It's still a mystery how the developers get away with "No new access is to be provided to the public highway as part of either application."

And right on cue a related customer objection appears today (23/00412/OUT-Public Comment-18/09/2024:

The claim that a single access point via Joseph Odem Way for the 1,500 houses, leisure facilities, hotel, and care home is acceptable is ridiculous.

It is unreasonable to assert that no additional infrastructure for the transport system will be needed.

The description of the secondary, limited access point via Dunblane Drive is alarmingly vague and appears to have been intentionally presented this way to facilitate easier future alterations by the developer.

It is also troubling that AEPG has presented the development as two separate planning applications (particularly for Peterborough Speedway), with all infrastructure loaded onto Phase 2, leaving Phase 1 consisting only of housing. I have major concerns that if Phase 2 does not proceed as planned, residents in the Ortons will be left with an inadequate transport system while AEPG profits with minimal investment.

I urge Peterborough City Council to adopt a strategy similar to the Haddon development, where developers were required and made financially liable to integrate transportation links from the outset. Without this essential infrastructure being incorporated from the beginning, I strongly oppose the current plan.

[admin]

Something made me sit up a bit today - spot what's missing:

East of England Showground Viability Assessment February 2024:

1.2 Background and Context - 1.2.1 The EESG Site is 66.87 hectares (165 acres) of enclosed grassland and buildings owned by the East of England Agricultural Society. In 2012, the annual East of England Agricultural Show ceased to operate due to non-viability.

Thereafter, the remaining activities at the EESG site have comprised a range of non-agricultural related commercial events and exhibitions booked on an annual basis, such as Truckfest, PlantWorx, and MCN Festival of Motorcycling. However, these also proved to be commercially unviable due to a steady decline in participation and rising costs to facilitate.

[bratters]

Sept 19, 2024 10:27:13 GMT admin said:

Something made me sit up a bit today - spot what's missing:

East of England Showground Viability Assessment February 2024:

1.2 Background and Context - 1.2.1 The EESG Site is 66.87 hectares (165 acres) of enclosed grassland and buildings owned by the East of England Agricultural Society. In 2012, the annual East of England Agricultural Show ceased to operate due to non-viability.

Thereafter, the remaining activities at the EESG site have comprised a range of non-agricultural related commercial events and exhibitions booked on an annual basis, such as Truckfest, PlantWorx, and MCN Festival of Motorcycling. However, these also proved to be commercially unviable due to a steady decline in participation and rising costs to facilitate.

Again absolute nonsense and their accounts prove it. How do costs rise when all you do is hand over a key.

[admin]

Sept 19, 2024 12:02:07 GMT bratters said:

Sept 19, 2024 10:27:13 GMT admin said:

Something made me sit up a bit today - spot what's missing:

East of England Showground Viability Assessment February 2024:

1.2 Background and Context - 1.2.1 The EESG Site is 66.87 hectares (165 acres) of enclosed grassland and buildings owned by the East of England Agricultural Society. In 2012, the annual East of England Agricultural Show ceased to operate due to non-viability.

Thereafter, the remaining activities at the EESG site have comprised a range of non-agricultural related commercial events and exhibitions booked on an annual basis, such as Truckfest, PlantWorx, and MCN Festival of Motorcycling. However, these also proved to be commercially unviable due to a steady decline in participation and rising costs to facilitate.

Again absolute nonsense and their accounts prove it. How do costs rise when all you do is hand over a key.

I was thinking that they neglected to mention Peterborough Speedway which has been the primary user of the site for many many years, and certainly during the period cited. Whether it is viable or not in Butterfield's world I no longer care, others can argue the toss on that. It's not always about money but that's all AEPG have: as the EEAS whine about needing their cash and PCC get bombarded with these alleged economic & health benefits which may or may not materialise over the next decade?

[rodders]

Sept 20, 2024 9:55:06 GMT admin said:

Sept 19, 2024 12:02:07 GMT bratters said:

Again absolute nonsense and their accounts prove it. How do costs rise when all you do is hand over a key.

I was thinking that they neglected to mention Peterborough Speedway which has been the primary user of the site for many many years, and certainly during the period cited. Whether it is viable or not in Butterfield's world I no longer care, others can argue the toss on that. It's not always about money but that's all AEPG have: as the EEAS whine about needing their cash and PCC get bombarded with these alleged economic & health benefits which may or may not materialise over the next decade?

It most probably is total nonsense!!! However how are we processing , using and dealing with such nonsense to make progress towards a Panthers return? What we hear is and are mostly platitudes.

[admin]

Oct 5 approaching

A reminder

If you wish to comment on these applications you should ensure that your written comments are received by 5 October 2024. Comments received after this date will be taken into consideration only if the application has not already been determined

23/00412/OUT | Outline permission for demolition of all buildings and construction of up to 650 dwellings (where Peterborough Speedway sits).

23/00400/OUT | Outline permission for construction up to 850 dwellings (the additional plan which means that AEPG can't meet LP30 onsite without PCC rejection or submitting revised plans).

[admin]

Not speedway related but PCC finance and decision making related:

Peterborough City Council confirms it is in dispute with Posh football stadium owners in bid to recover £220,000

The council says a payment of £233,000 (yearly payments that formed part of the deal agreed in 2021 by London Road Peterborough Properties Ltd to purchase the stadium) was due in March this year but only some £32,000 has been paid meaning the amount now due is about £221,000

Posh owner Darragh MacAnthony said: “I don’t comment on ongoing contract disputes but remain committed to reaching an agreement with all parties re the stadium and the stadium company. It will all get sorted.

“This has nothing to do with the football club as it has a long term lease which is always up to date per its lease.”

News of the dispute comes as the cash-strapped council begins a six week Shape the City consultation with residents as it tries to bridge a feared £24.3 million funding gap for the 24/25 financial year. - shouldn't keep making such bad decisions then?

---

Another consultation that nobody knows about!

Knock it down, build more houses/flats on London Road and relocate to the EoES - simples?

[rodders]

I understand that on local radio today there was a feature re EOES in which AEPG were again adamant that there was no place for Speedway in their plans.

[Bigcatdiary]

Sept 23, 2024 10:58:46 GMT rodders said:

I understand that on local radio today there was a feature re EOES in which AEPG were again adamant that there was no place for Speedway in their plans.

To be fair to AEPG they have said nothing else since they kicked us off the Showground.

[admin]

Sept 23, 2024 10:58:46 GMT rodders said:

I understand that on local radio today there was a feature re EOES in which AEPG were again adamant that there was no place for Speedway in their plans.

What was it on Rodders?

Anyone got a link?

What would you expect them to say? Butterfield's has said nothing else for the best part of a year now and has to stick to that or their plans are stuffed as they currently stand and AEPG would have to do as BSP Ltd suggested:

Mr Butterfield should also be aware, as doubtless the members of the planning committee will be, that large sections of the report, and indeed his own statements, are irrelevant as viability is not a material consideration in the National Planning Policy Framework. NPPF instead puts the onus on the developer to prove that the displaced sport/land/activity is “surplus to requirements”, which is not the same as viability, and this exercise clearly has not been undertaken here.

One way in which AEPG could ensure their scheme was compliant with National Planning Policy Framework would be to provide an alternative venue, in the Peterborough area, for the sport which they have evicted, or indeed to modify their own plans to support its retention at the Showground.

[rodders]

Sept 23, 2024 13:03:35 GMT admin said:

Sept 23, 2024 10:58:46 GMT rodders said:

I understand that on local radio today there was a feature re EOES in which AEPG were again adamant that there was no place for Speedway in their plans.

What was it on Rodders?

Anyone got a link?

What would you expect them to say? Butterfield's has said nothing else for the best part of a year now and has to stick to that or their plans are stuffed as they currently stand and AEPG would have to do as BSP Ltd suggested:

Mr Butterfield should also be aware, as doubtless the members of the planning committee will be, that large sections of the report, and indeed his own statements, are irrelevant as viability is not a material consideration in the National Planning Policy Framework. NPPF instead puts the onus on the developer to prove that the displaced sport/land/activity is “surplus to requirements”, which is not the same as viability, and this exercise clearly has not been undertaken here.

One way in which AEPG could ensure their scheme was compliant with National Planning Policy Framework would be to provide an alternative venue, in the Peterborough area, for the sport which they have evicted, or indeed to modify their own plans to support its retention at the Showground.

I think think this was on BBC Radio Cambridge sort of overheard it from someone else's car radio when parking in Tesco. Think they said they were to contact Carl Johnson for a comment.

[admin]

Sept 23, 2024 14:19:51 GMT rodders said:

Sept 23, 2024 13:03:35 GMT admin said:

What was it on Rodders?

Anyone got a link?

What would you expect them to say? Butterfield's has said nothing else for the best part of a year now and has to stick to that or their plans are stuffed as they currently stand and AEPG would have to do as BSP Ltd suggested:

Mr Butterfield should also be aware, as doubtless the members of the planning committee will be, that large sections of the report, and indeed his own statements, are irrelevant as viability is not a material consideration in the National Planning Policy Framework. NPPF instead puts the onus on the developer to prove that the displaced sport/land/activity is “surplus to requirements”, which is not the same as viability, and this exercise clearly has not been undertaken here.

One way in which AEPG could ensure their scheme was compliant with National Planning Policy Framework would be to provide an alternative venue, in the Peterborough area, for the sport which they have evicted, or indeed to modify their own plans to support its retention at the Showground.

I think think this was on BBC Radio Cambridge sort of overheard it from someone else's car radio when parking in Tesco. Think they said they were to contact Carl Johnson for a comment.

OK, ta, never listen myself apart from Posh. Can't see anything on the BBC website & I'm not registering to listen. Also, nothing on the AEPG website and they usually like to self promote, so it was either the very boring usual guff or the planning meeting is just window dressing anyway?

Considering that Johnson was once reported as being the consortium's spokesman, would make a change to hear something from him if you heard right.

Something of interest that I mentioned before was the Sam Carling MP visit to the AEPG office in August to hear the propaganda. If I was local & he was my MP I'd be e-mailing him to get his thoughts and see what he actually knows, especially considering that Shailesh Vara wanted Peterborough Speedway reinstated at the EoES & had a letter read out in front of the Peterborough City Council Planning Committee during the first DHL meeting!

[admin]

Sept 23, 2024 10:34:23 GMT admin said:

Not speedway related but PCC finance and decision making related:

Peterborough City Council confirms it is in dispute with Posh football stadium owners in bid to recover £220,000

The council says a payment of £233,000 (yearly payments that formed part of the deal agreed in 2021 by London Road Peterborough Properties Ltd to purchase the stadium) was due in March this year but only some £32,000 has been paid meaning the amount now due is about £221,000

Posh owner Darragh MacAnthony said: “I don’t comment on ongoing contract disputes but remain committed to reaching an agreement with all parties re the stadium and the stadium company. It will all get sorted.

“This has nothing to do with the football club as it has a long term lease which is always up to date per its lease.”

News of the dispute comes as the cash-strapped council begins a six week Shape the City consultation with residents as it tries to bridge a feared £24.3 million funding gap for the 24/25 financial year. - shouldn't keep making such bad decisions then?

---

Another consultation that nobody knows about!

Knock it down, build more houses/flats on London Road and relocate to the EoES - simples?

At this week’s Cabinet meeting we agreed to launch a consultation – Shaping Our City – on a revised set of priorities for the council.

Included is creating more and better paid jobs, enabling more homes, creating a safer, cleaner and more vibrant city centre and achieving financial sustainability. This is as well as helping our residents stay healthy, independent and active, developing an inclusive and diverse workforce and providing the best support possible for vulnerable children and young people. In addition, we will also beoffering the best opportunities for young people in care and leaving care.

The consultation is a chance to have your say on our draft priorities and to also learn more about our financial position and the difficult choices we must make each year to set a balanced budget – something we legally have to do.

You can have your say in a number of ways. Eight public meetings are being held across the city, or you can complete a survey on our website. You can also take part in our social media polls by joining the Shaping Our City Facebook group.

[admin]

Sept 18, 2024 8:59:38 GMT admin said:

A reminder

If you wish to comment on this application you should ensure that your written comments are received by 5 October 2024. Comments received after this date will be taken into consideration only if the application has not already been determined

23/00412/OUT | Outline permission for demolition of all buildings and construction of up to 650 dwellings (where Peterborough Speedway sits).

23/00400/OUT | Outline permission for construction up to 850 dwellings (the additional plan which means that AEPG can't meet LP30 onsite without PCC rejection or submitting revised plans).

Get them in. A few piling in now, and if you've got some spare time, here's a corker plandocs.peterborough.gov.uk/PublicDocuments/01351213.pdf

[admin]

Sept 23, 2024 10:58:46 GMT rodders said:

I understand that on local radio today there was a feature re EOES in which AEPG were again adamant that there was no place for Speedway in their plans.

Probably based on this (full article): www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cd7xd377el0o

A developer said it was with a "heavy heart" that plans to build homes at a former showground would "never" involve the reintroduction of a speedway track. - more like said through gritted teeth!

Ashley Butterfield said the project would bring "massively needed things for Peterborough" including new sports pitches.

Carl Johnson, a former promoter of the Peterborough Panthers and part of the consortium, said: "We're fighting to keep the sport in the city." - He insisted the Panthers had the finances in place to reinstate the track and grandstand, which has been disused since last year with seats and fences removed.

The site is being redeveloped at a cost of £50m BBC - The development of the Showground is expected to cost £675 million ET - so which is it or do we make it up like in the key documents?

And the most disgusting quote in the article: Peterborough Phantoms, the city's ice hockey team have lent their support! - of course not influenced at all by their main sponsors who have what appears to be virtually the same business model as AEPG, and both no doubt partake in the CEO amateur golf tour? Or, we very much look forward to engaging further through our Cultura Foundation (whatever that is?), which will be based within the proposed new development at the East of England Showground said Butterfield.

"This is a great opportunity to develop what is now wasteland and a derelict site" - of course it is, you've engineered that

He added that the speedway track, which has been decommissioned, would cost "multiple millions of pounds to put back together". - based on what evidence? Complete new rebuild of the stand was allegedly about £4m which is, wait for it, the cost of the golf? (I'll try to check and dig those figures out tomorrow).

The speedway consortium said it would be able to reinstate the track and grandstand within eight weeks of moving back in.

And the cherry on the top has to be this? The nerve:

Mr Butterfield said: "I don't think AEPG are killing off [speedway] – we are facilitating development and promoting the land for development."