AEPG's EoES planning applications 2024.

[bratters]

Oct 25, 2024 8:58:51 GMT admin said:

Oct 25, 2024 8:10:43 GMT bratters said:

A ‘call in’ has never been done for any planning application that got refused, ever. I’m not even sure it’s allowed under the constitution of the council and the scrutiny committee, this is why there’s been silence for over a week now, the legal department must be working overtime.

Interesting. That's worth an e-mail.

I wonder if this is taking advantage of an opportune moment? The Council Leader has been struggling with a hip problem and I believe is due for replacement surgery. I wonder if he's on sick leave atm?

AEPG & their council mates clearly didn't expect refusal and I believe that it's full approval or they are off. I'm not surprised that they are throwing the kitchen sink at it and want to delay as much as possible.

Fitgerald (who we assume is one of the four, along with Mahmood) must have been well miffed at being chastised and outfacted by Councillor Harper, while Mahmood would be hoping to delay as much as possible in the hope that the Labour government favourably change planning rules (whether that will apply to future or existing I wouldn't know) as I think that he alluded to at the planning meeting.

You have to ask why two councillors are so heavily invested in these planning applications don’t you.

[admin]

Oct 25, 2024 9:15:10 GMT bratters said:

You have to ask why two councillors are so heavily invested in these planning applications don’t you.

I try not to go there too much.

One thing that did make me shake my head, and I need to listen back, is when one of the committee said, I think, that he was heartened by the developer saying that this would be National/European leading development (or words to that effect?). And he actually bought that guff and would be minded to approve because of it

[Hodgy]

Oct 25, 2024 8:35:57 GMT admin said:

Oct 24, 2024 23:40:02 GMT Hodgy said:

Good to read the positive promotion feedback. Can’t believe ‘Truskfest’ 😆 was 40 years. Think I probably only went one or two times - not my thing but many did. BMF was incredible for several years. The amazing number of bikes and all that chrome shining in the sun was an amazing sight as you approached. Have never been into motor bikes but they put on a great show. Never could understand why Speedway and Bikers have rarely connected. Recall the days when Friday night Speedway was on during BMF Friday’s but not many bikers bothered with the Speedway, even though it was free for them.

Not confident these events and Panthers will ever return. We can but hope.

When I first attended in the 70s there was always lots of bikers in attendance but the majority drifted away over the years. The explanation that I've heard that best explains that IMO is that speedway is a specialist motorcycle sport & bikers generally can't relate to it too much? Their bikes, where they ride etc are more compatible with Moto GP, BSB, WSB & their own shows/events.

Agree, there were more bikers watching the Speedway in the 70’s & 80’s. I think the BMF started to put on more evening entertainment on the Friday night. Bars and live music. When I tell people Speedway is my favourite sport they often assume I am into motor bikes. Which I’m not. As you say it’s a niche sport and they just don’t really go together. You rarely see more than 4 or 5 motor bikes in a Speedway car park.

[davet]

Strange isn't it? When I first went to speedway in the early 60s there was a good contingent of bikers in the crowd, and I have memories of the bikes roaring down Caister Road at the end of the meeting. However, I do think the 60s version of Speedway with unsilenced JAPs and the smell of Castrol R had more universal appeal than the present product.

[admin]

Oct 25, 2024 14:12:14 GMT davet said:

However, I do think the 60s version of Speedway with unsilenced JAPs and the smell of Castrol R had more universal appeal than the present product.

I think that it's much more complicated than that but agree that anyone familiar with the roar of straight through exhausts and strong smell of CastrolR would look down on today's product. When I've not seen speedway for a while (such as this year & if I ever attend another meeting) I do notice the bloody awful sounds of the bikes that sound like a washing machine struggling for life!

Reminds me of the last time that I went to F1 at Silverstone when you could hear the screaming F1 cars from the car park and once inside it was even more profound. Even when you awoke the next morning your ears would still be ringing (could have worn ear plugs I suppose) from the glorious sound. Then they adopted the soulless hybrid engines which even Bernie Ecclestone said that he didn't like due to the lack of noise!

[admin]

Oct 25, 2024 8:10:43 GMT bratters said:

A ‘call in’ has never been done for any planning application that got refused, ever. I’m not even sure it’s allowed under the constitution of the council and the scrutiny committee, this is why there’s been silence for over a week now, the legal department must be working overtime.

PCC Constitution 2.6 Planning and Environmental Protection Committee:

2.6.3 Call in of Decisions Made by the Committee

2.6.3.1 Applications determined by the Planning and Environmental Protection Committee can be called in to the Appeals and Planning Review Committee (see Appeals and Planning Review Committee Terms of Reference for procedure para. 2.1).

2.6.4 Planning Call-In Procedure

2.6.4.1 This paragraph only applies to a determination of planning application decisions made by the Planning and Environmental Protection Committee.

2.6.4.2 If the Planning and Environmental Protection Committee makes a determination as set out in paragraph 2.6.3.1 above, 30% of the Members present at the meeting where the resolution was passed can ask the Chief Executive that it be reported to a special meeting of the Appeals and Planning Review Committee.

2.6.4.3 The right under the paragraph above must be carried out within two working days of the end of the meeting by the submission of a planning call-in notice.

2.6.4.4 Signatories of a planning call-in notice or their group representatives can withdraw a planning call-in notice by notifying the Chief Executive in writing. If the planning call-in notice has been withdrawn, the original Committee decision takes effect

2.6.4.5 The request to call-in a decision must be made in writing or electronically, using the agreed form. The form must:

(a) set out the planning application decision that the Members wish to call in; 23/00412/OUT

(b) give the reasons why the Appeals and Planning Review Committee reconsider the decision. These must include either the incorrect application of procedure during the application process, or the relevant material planning considerations not being taken into account;

(c) be signed and dated by 30% of the Members present at the meeting where the resolution was passed.

2.6.4.6 Determination of whether a request to call-in a decision is valid or not, in accordance with the above criteria, will be determined by the Executive Director Place and Economy, in conjunction with the Monitoring Officer.

2.6.4.7 The procedure of an Appeals and Planning Review Committee will follow the same format as a Planning and Environmental Protection Committee, including the Speaking Scheme. An application that is called-in will be reconsidered by the Appeals and Planning Review Committee in its entirety.

[admin]

Oct 25, 2024 9:16:40 GMT bratters said:

You have to ask why two councillors are so heavily invested in these planning applications don’t you.

As I say. I don't think that it's a good idea to go there but I take the point.

Having listened again, it was strange that Fitzgerald said that they do read the papers and had been deluged with information but then said that the officers approved without thinking 1850 houses was too many?; or 1750 houses?; well the two plans together?; 1500 houses or whatever it is? - sorry I haven't got my calculator! He didn't read that much then?

If you were well versed on the subject then why do you need a calculator? Mind already made up long ago perhaps? Just needed officer approval and they obliged?

Recommendation: 23/00412/OUT

APPROVE subject to the conditions outlined below and completion of a S106 agreement, and resolution of outstanding highways issues to the satisfaction of the Local Highways Authority

• Outline Time limit
• Reserved Matters to be submitted
• Reserved Matters Time Limits
• Accordance with submitted Plans/Documents
• Design Code to support REMs – incorporating updated HIA
• Phasing Plan
• Limit dwelling numbers to 650
• Further archaeological investigation (WSI etc) completed prior to commencement
• Fire hydrants scheme
• Submission of appropriate Construction Environment Management Plan
• Submission of appropriate Construction Transport Management Plan
• Submission of appropriate Landscape and Ecological Management Plan
• Adherence to recommendations/mitigation of Ecological Appraisal
• Submission of an Ecological Design Strategy
• Updated bat surveys
• Details of Surface Water Drainage Scheme to be submitted
• Details of Foul Water Drainage Scheme to be submitted
• Waste Management and Minimisation Plan to be submitted
• REM applications to be supported by a statement outlining how the scheme has incorporated
sustainable materials, the use of renewable or low carbon energy and reused existing resources
• REM Layout to demonstrate incorporation of units compliant with Building Regulations Part M4(3)
• REM applications as a whole to deliver biodiversity net gain
• REM applications to be accompanied by new TA to establish exact mitigation
• Details of lighting scheme submitted with REM
• Noise mitigation with REM
• Details of bin collection points to be submitted as part of each REM application.
• Vehicle tracking details to be submitted as part of reserved matters for Layout
• All dwellings to be compliant with Building Regulations Part M4(2),
• All dwellings to accord with water efficiency standard in Part G of building regulations.
• AIA, AMS, TPP
• Contaminated land conditions as per PCC Pollution control comment
• Roads to be constructed to binder course prior to first use.
• Details of construction, long term management and maintenance arrangements of all non adopted
roads to be submitted.
• Access highway works to be carried out prior to occupation of first dwelling.
• Dunblane Drive access to be for pedestrians, cycles, buses and emergency vehicles only

[admin]

Oct 26, 2024 9:25:37 GMT admin said:

2.6.4.6 Determination of whether a request to call-in a decision is valid or not, in accordance with the above criteria, will be determined by the Executive Director Place and Economy, in conjunction with the Monitoring Officer.

And today's spotted anomaly is?

Executive Director for Place and Economy - Adrian Chapman (source peterborough.gov.uk/council/council-structure?)

Who was named at the base of the notification of meeting e-mails that those who commented received:

Adrian Chapman, Executive Director: Place And Economy, Address: East Of England Showground Oundle Road Alwalton

One assumes that he and his team have been advising throughout and were instrumental in the approve recommendation

Also the monitoring officer (Legal and Governance) is, according to their structure chart, missing the Head of Legal who is appointed but not in post until Dec? So who's giving legal advice to them both or is it going to drag on to New Year?

There's other interesting things but must crack on with other stuff

[bratters]

I think that is just highlighting the planning application your objection refers to. He definitely does not work there.

[admin]

Oct 31, 2024 19:09:50 GMT bratters said:

I think that is just highlighting the planning application your objection refers to. He definitely does not work there.

ok ta! It's just a badly laid out public sector letter (well 23/00400/OUT that is, as 23/00412/OUT just correctly gives his name & title). I should have known better.

[bratters]

Yes it’s very poor.

[admin]

Nov 1, 2024 10:07:47 GMT bratters said:

Yes it’s very poor.

So is this:

The four are Councillor Wayne Fitzgerald (Con), Cllr Asim Mahmood (Lab), Cllr Jason McNally (Lab) and Cllr Scott Warren (Con)

Decision to refuse approval for 650 homes on East of England Showground to be reviewed - PT 1/11/24

[admin]

Nov 1, 2024 18:02:00 GMT admin said:

Nov 1, 2024 10:07:47 GMT bratters said:

Yes it’s very poor.

So is this:

The four are Councillor Wayne Fitzgerald (Con), Cllr Asim Mahmood (Lab), Cllr Jason McNally (Lab) and Cllr Scott Warren (Con)

Decision to refuse approval for 650 homes on East of England Showground to be reviewed - PT 1/11/24

A message to councillors, states that officers had sought external legal advice and had confirmed that the call in request met the necessary criteria. - which is?

It adds: “The Executive Director considers that the finely balanced nature of the decision, the complexity of the issues, and the number of signatories to the call in, warrants reconsideration of the application by the Appeals and Planning Review Committee.

The second application for 650 homes was rejected by a vote of six in favour of refusal, three against, and one abstention - how is that close?

If the request is determined to be valid, an extraordinary meeting of the council’s appeals and planning review committee is then held to reconsider the application in its entirety.

It is understood the call-in was made on the basis that that the planning committee’s decision was wrong and did not conform to council policy. - that's vague to say the least. Councillor Harper was quite clear that that the planning application didn't conform, amongst numerous other issues, hence the rejection!

[admin]

Planning and Environmental Protection Committee - Tuesday 15th October, 2024 1.30 pm

Agenda reports pack (Public Document Pack) 38 speedway references:

History of the EESG site - In the mid-1960s, approx. 260 acres of land was purchased by a group which would eventually become the East of England Agricultural Society (EEAS). The first ‘East of England Show’ took place in the early 1970s, with construction of the Grandstand intended to serve as a focal point, along with a range of supporting ancillary buildings and facilities. Founded in 1970, the Peterborough Panthers speedway team utilised the Grandstand and the land which it overlooked to host race meetings until 2023.

Orton Waterville Parish Council (28.09.2023) “…insufficient consultation with both the Parish Council and local residents […] evident that the feedback given by residents has been ignored […] serious concerns that no additional access into and out of the new development is planned […] No construction management plan has been provided […] Peterborough City Council as the responsible Planning Authority must apply Conditions to any approvals to ensure adequate infrastructure/facilities are available to service the needs of the incoming residents to new dwellings, with particular reference to the primary school”. Other comments re loss of speedway, phasing, health and education provision noted.

British Speedway (23.05.2024) “…British Speedway Promoters’ Ltd (BSP) and the Speedway Control Bureau (SCB) wish to reaffirm our total opposition to the scheme”.

Sport England (23.05.2024): “…In respect of the loss of the speedway venue, we advised we were not in a position to provide a detailed response […] The extent to which the proposal aligns with local needs is difficult to assess any further in the absence of an up to date PPS. We have previously advised that the case for the 3G AGP is unproven and a more appropriate approach may be to refine the proposals to include a mix of on-site new playing field provision with off-site contributions to support other priority projects […] we would accept that capacity within the existing public pools is likely to still be an issue […] Sport England would be interested if further details of a community use proposal for the swimming pool could be provided.

Policy conflict
Proposed quantum of development represents over-development of the site and conflicts with LP30, LP36, LP35.7, LP11 and Local Plan in general
Conflict with NPPF paragraphs 99, 102 and 196
Loss of speedway – negative impacts on community and leisure
Speedway track is an asset of community value ??
Applicant has made the Speedway use unviable
Loss of showground – national significance, sports, leisure, tourism facility. A precious commodity that once gone is gone forever

Principle
Negative impact on charities, clubs organisations
Loss of jobs, income, economic benefits of showground/speedway
Minimal detail in application
Hotels in vicinity already, requirement for another unproven
The land was given to the people of Peterborough to be used as a showground. Site was gifted on the condition that it was never developed this should be honoured or returned
Application fails to consider health and wellbeing
No leisure impact assessment
Existing site is already utilised for the social, mental and physical wellbeing of the larger Peterborough – there are insufficient facilities in Peterborough as is
Replacement leisure offering inadequate when compared to showground
Too many Reserved Matters left out of application
Out of town focus (leisure, bars etc.) = questionable sustainability

Other
Other university cities have lots to offer re facilities
Phasing of development questioned – leisure elements will be overlooked
Provision of EV charging points unclear
Leisure Village will require significant investment. It is interesting to see whether it will be forthcoming, in the current economic climate
No detail re Milton Land
Ashes scattered in centre of Speedway track
Both applications should be submitted as one, not separately.
650 dwellings could work, but across a wider part of the site
Loss of regional level facilities from this site does not benefit the City in the medium to long term
Negative impact on property values – officer note, this is not a material planning consideration

The proposed development is supported by an illustrative masterplan (ref. C5266 00_100 Rev G), which may be used as a visual aid to establish whether the proposed quantum of development can be accommodated on the application site but would not be included on a list of approved plans. It must be noted that the supporting illustrative masterplan does not demonstrate that a functioning Showground will be retained. Further, the Grandstand which supported the operation of the Peterborough Panthers Speedway team is proposed to be removed and no replacement facilities are proposed within the application site. As such, the application is considered to depart from the PLP. Notwithstanding the above, it is expected that leisure, retail, social, cultural, health and community facilities to serve the development will be provided on land B as part of the wider EESG redevelopment as part of application 23/00400/OUT

Removal of the Grandstand – the loss of Peterborough Panthers Speedway
The overwhelming majority of objections received in relation to the proposed development reference the loss of facilities for the Peterborough Panthers Speedway team (PPS).

The strength of objection and the passion for the team is evident throughout the comments received to date, with correspondence received from individuals understood to be based overseas (including Norway, Denmark and Australia) referenced on the file.

The loss of any leisure facility is regrettable. The loss of a facility which provides for a niche interest which engenders the support of a wide cross section of society and creates a community of like-minded individuals perhaps more so.

The application is supported by a ‘Leisure and Community Impact Assessment Report’ (Collison & Associated Ltd – December 2023) which sets out the challenging environment in which the sport of Speedway operates, along with a breakdown of the situation facing the PPS team.

In summary:
• The PPS team/ Peterborough Speedway Limited (PSL) operated from the location under license, not a tenancy agreement

• PSL operated under an agreement with the landowner which represented the equivalent of a subsidy of c. £50,000 per annum

• At the end of the 2023 season, PSL removed the “shale track, fencing and safety fencing and transferred these assets to King’s Lynn Speedway”

• A 2023 inspection reported that The Grandstand requires at least a £475,000 investment to meet current health and safety guidelines for insurance purposes, along with further investment to create a noise-attenuating earth bund and replacement of all the removed operational elements

The submitted report concludes that operating Speedway at the EESG is not financially viable and does not accord with the charitable objectives of the EEAS. Whilst this position is understood, a PINS appeal decision concerning a proposed re-development of Brandon Stadium identified that need and viability are two distinct and separate matters. In contrast with the aforementioned Brandon Stadium PINS report, none of the representations submitted to date have outlined a commitment to meeting the financial outlay to reinstate the Speedway track.

Acknowledging the comments from British Speedway in opposition to assertions of the sport of Speedway being in terminal decline, the application does not include clear evidence that the buildings/land are surplus to requirements, instead relying upon viability concerns. Accordingly, it is considered that the proposed development does not meet criterion (a) of paragraph 103 of the NPPF

Policy LP30 of the PLP sets out that:
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 (emphasis added)
• (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 (emphasis added)
• (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.

The proposed development does not make provision for either facility (Showground or Speedway) in a suitable on or off-site location. As such, criterion (m) is not met.

The Showground use is considered to benefit from a national catchment area, given the scale and nature of the events which took place across the site prior to 2023. The submitted ‘Showground Viability Assessment Report’ identifies nine showgrounds within a two-hour drive of the application site, the closest being Rutland Showground (approx. 150 acres) located approx. 23 miles from the application site. On balance, given the characteristics of the service provided by the facility, it is considered that an alternative provision exists within reasonable proximity and criterion (l) is met.

The Speedway use is considered to benefit from a smaller, more regional, but nonetheless substantial catchment area, given the attendance figures provided in the ‘Leisure and Community Impact Assessment Report’ and an analysis of the representations received to date.

It is understood that the nearest alternative provision (i.e. Premiership level racing) would be based at Kings Lynn, approx. one hour drive from the application site.

However, this objective measurement does not account for the more subjective, emotional ties generated from supporting a particular team – allegiances cannot always be readily transferred from one outfit to another. On the one hand, alternative provision of Speedway racing is available within a c.40 mile journey. On the other, the Peterborough Panthers Speedway team would be lost entirely, with no alternative provision.

Given the absence of an assessment which demonstrates that the Speedway component of the application site is surplus to requirements and noting the Sport England Assessing Needs and Opportunities Guide (ANOG), this element of the proposed development is considered to conflict with both LP30(l) and paragraph 103 of the NPPF

The proposed development does not accord with the criteria set out in LP36 as the proposal fails to demonstrate how a functioning Showground (including the Speedway element) will be retained. The proposed development does not accord with LP30 or Paragraph 103 of the NPPF as none of the three criteria of either have been fully addressed.

And after reading that for the first time I think that those four responsible for the call in should resign

And here's the AEPG gamble:

However, noting the challenging financial context and the charitable objectives of the EEAS, the loss of this part of the wider EESG site and the Grandstand (Speedway) is not considered to give rise to adverse impacts (considered by whom?) which, in principle, would outweigh the benefits of the provision of 650 homes (where 30% would be Affordable Housing units), subject to all other material considerations being addressed. The remainder of this report will provide an assessment of those material considerations.

[admin]

Nov 1, 2024 22:13:31 GMT admin said:

Nov 1, 2024 18:02:00 GMT admin said:

So is this:

The four are Councillor Wayne Fitzgerald (Con), Cllr Asim Mahmood (Lab), Cllr Jason McNally (Lab) and Cllr Scott Warren (Con)

Decision to refuse approval for 650 homes on East of England Showground to be reviewed - PT 1/11/24

A message to councillors, states that officers had sought external legal advice and had confirmed that the call in request met the necessary criteria. - which is?

It adds: “The Executive Director considers that the finely balanced nature of the decision, the complexity of the issues, and the number of signatories to the call in, warrants reconsideration of the application by the Appeals and Planning Review Committee.

The second application for 650 homes was rejected by a vote of six in favour of refusal, three against, and one abstention - how is that close?

If the request is determined to be valid, an extraordinary meeting of the council’s appeals and planning review committee is then held to reconsider the application in its entirety.

It is understood the call-in was made on the basis that that the planning committee’s decision was wrong and did not conform to council policy. - that's vague to say the least. Councillor Harper was quite clear that that the planning application didn't conform, amongst numerous other issues, hence the rejection!

Political View: How much bigger do we want Peterborough to get? full article at ET 1/11/24 by Nick Sandford

Peterborough has seen vast amounts of growth in housing and population over the past 50 years. There was an initial surge under the Peterborough Development Corporation in the 1970s and early 80s, funded by vast amounts of financial support from central government. But in my time as a councillor from the mid 1990s onwards, we saw further spurts of growth and I remember the arguments at the time: that it would bring big financial and other benefits for the City.

Unfortunately, in recent years the pots of government funding seem to have dried up, but the drive for growth has continued. Yet educational attainment in Peterborough is lagging considerably behind that of comparable cities and key indicators of public health continue to be very bad indeed.

I recently read the City Council consultation on new strategic priorities for the City. One of the key objectives is "Economy and inclusive growth". It talks about the need for more housing and in particular affordable housing; and we do have a homeless problem in the city which needs to be addressed.

- which is only 255 in the approved Land B of the EoES and 195 in unapproved Land A which is unlikely to scratch the surface? (my words, not his)

So I think we need to have a debate in Peterborough about how much further growth is needed and what sort of growth it should be.

We have seen vast amounts of new housing built but still have a housing crisis, so maybe we are not building the types of home that are really needed? There is room for some more housing on existing new housing developments (eg Great Haddon and Hampton) but the current controversy over proposed housing on the East of England showground shows that other new housing sites may be controversial.

[Hodgy]

Nov 4, 2024 11:02:21 GMT admin said:

Nov 1, 2024 22:13:31 GMT admin said:

A message to councillors, states that officers had sought external legal advice and had confirmed that the call in request met the necessary criteria. - which is?

It adds: “The Executive Director considers that the finely balanced nature of the decision, the complexity of the issues, and the number of signatories to the call in, warrants reconsideration of the application by the Appeals and Planning Review Committee.

The second application for 650 homes was rejected by a vote of six in favour of refusal, three against, and one abstention - how is that close?

If the request is determined to be valid, an extraordinary meeting of the council’s appeals and planning review committee is then held to reconsider the application in its entirety.

It is understood the call-in was made on the basis that that the planning committee’s decision was wrong and did not conform to council policy. - that's vague to say the least. Councillor Harper was quite clear that that the planning application didn't conform, amongst numerous other issues, hence the rejection!

Political View: How much bigger do we want Peterborough to get? full article at ET 1/11/24 by Nick Sandford

Peterborough has seen vast amounts of growth in housing and population over the past 50 years. There was an initial surge under the Peterborough Development Corporation in the 1970s and early 80s, funded by vast amounts of financial support from central government. But in my time as a councillor from the mid 1990s onwards, we saw further spurts of growth and I remember the arguments at the time: that it would bring big financial and other benefits for the City.

Unfortunately, in recent years the pots of government funding seem to have dried up, but the drive for growth has continued. Yet educational attainment in Peterborough is lagging considerably behind that of comparable cities and key indicators of public health continue to be very bad indeed.

I recently read the City Council consultation on new strategic priorities for the City. One of the key objectives is "Economy and inclusive growth". It talks about the need for more housing and in particular affordable housing; and we do have a homeless problem in the city which needs to be addressed.

- which is only 255 in the approved Land B of the EoES and 195 in unapproved Land A which is unlikely to scratch the surface? (my words, not his)

So I think we need to have a debate in Peterborough about how much further growth is needed and what sort of growth it should be.

We have seen vast amounts of new housing built but still have a housing crisis, so maybe we are not building the types of home that are really needed? There is room for some more housing on existing new housing developments (eg Great Haddon and Hampton) but the current controversy over proposed housing on the East of England showground shows that other new housing sites may be controversial.

Hampton! Where do you start. Played football across the road at Focus for a few years. Not a house in sight. Several attempts to build at the now Hampton declined due to soft ground. They put a huge heavily weighted structure in a totally remote centre of the open land, in order to identify potential subsidence. That is now a very big shopping centre and the biggest housing project in the country.

I travel a lot and never fail to be amazed at how many new build estates have cropped up during recent years. Towns, Cities & Villages.

[admin]

Oct 25, 2024 14:12:14 GMT davet said:

Strange isn't it? When I first went to speedway in the early 60s there was a good contingent of bikers in the crowd, and I have memories of the bikes roaring down Caister Road at the end of the meeting. However, I do think the 60s version of Speedway with unsilenced JAPs and the smell of Castrol R had more universal appeal than the present product.

I was just doing some editing from the British Speedway’s National Governing Body's planning objection response and came across this:

47. Several ideas are being looked into, such as Solar power panels to be fitted to pit roofs for a renewable energy source. Another current initiative is the use of e-bikes for practise to reduce the environmental impact in terms of emissions and noise.

Hopefully that's where they stay? That'd kill off most of the remaining support.

Bit like F1. I'd splash the cash and make the effort to watch F1 despite the soulless hybrid engines. I wouldn't cross the road to watch Formula E for free!

They could refurbish the stand at the EoES and put solar panels on the roof. That'd please PCC with the Net Zero ambitions?

[admin]

6 Conclusion and Planning Balance (Public reports pack from Oct 15th meeting)

The application must be considered with reference to s.38 (6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 and determined in accordance with the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The provisions of the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations 2017 also apply to the assessment and determination of this application.

All of the environmental effects identified in the ES have been found to be within acceptable limits or capable of satisfactory mitigation (to be secured by conditions or Section 106 obligations).

PCC cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites. Accordingly, in this instance the ‘tilted balance’ is engaged and Paragraph 11 of the NPPF states that “permission should be granted unless the adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when considered against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole”.

In this instance the provision of 195 units of Affordable Housing is a significant benefit, along with the provision of market housing within a setting that has the capacity to incorporate green spaces with substantial biodiversity value. On balance, the potential detrimental impacts upon the highway network can be cost effectively mitigated to an acceptable degree.

Whilst the proposed development conflicts with policies LP30, LP36 and paragraph 103 of the NPPF, it does accord with all other relevant Local Plan policies. This conflict with policy is considered to be outweighed by other material considerations, including the application of the NPPF “Tilted Balance” which concludes that the adverse impacts of granting planning permission would not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits.

[admin]

23/00412/OUT

Councillor Chris Harper, the committee chairman, who moved the vote to refuse the application, said: “The application was seen as for too many houses and the loss of the speedway and Showground was too much.

"There was nothing in the application to really replace that and if we’re going to lose those sorts of things we need to find somewhere else for them to be and of a similar value or better.

"This application was purely housing and nothing else. There was not enough in there to approve the decision.

Cllr Harper added: “What I would like to see is that it forces people to the table. It was mentioned by speedway that it didn’t feel it had a proper chance to consult and work with the owners of the Showground.

"Hopefully they will come together and maybe they’ll come up with a plan for an alternative that is as good as if not better better and maybe we can move forward. But that is for them to decide.”

Residents vow to push on with fight against East of England Showground development plans PT 6/11/24

Campaigners have vowed to continue their fight to block plans to build 650 homes on the East of England Showground.

Residents living near the 164-acre Showground say they have been left disappointed by Peterborough City Council chiefs’ decision to accept a call for a review of the planning committee’s decision on October 15 to reject the homes plans.

“The Executive Director considers that the finely balanced nature of the decision, the complexity of the issues, and the number of signatories to the call in, warrants reconsideration of the application by the Appeals and Planning Review Committee.

The four councillors – Councillor Wayne Fitzgerald (Con), Cllr Asim Mahmood (Lab), Cllr Jason McNally (Lab) and Cllr Scott Warren (Con) – called-in the 650 homes refusal saying the decision was wrong and went against council policy.

But householders say they are ready to restate their concerns to a new set of councillors who are expected to reconsider the 650-homes plan in a couple of weeks.

It is thought the review will be heard by the council’s Appeals and Planning Review Committee on November 19 but that date has not yet been confirmed.

Hundreds of speedway fans are also expected to continue their fight against the homes plans.

- as suggested by Councillor Fitzgerald

[admin]

Local Plan update September 2024

In light of the new Government's proposed revisions to the National Planning Policy Framework, published in July 2024, and the anticipated updates to housing figures, we have decided to pause the consultation on the Draft Local Plan, scheduled for September and October 2024, until February 2025. This will allow the necessary time to incorporate any changes to national policy, review site selection work and will ensure the evidence base is up to date.

www.peterborough.gov.uk/council/planning-and-development/planning-policies/local-plan-review#local-plan-update-september------3-0

[admin]

It is thought the review will be heard by the council’s Appeals and Planning Review Committee on November 19 but that date has not yet been confirmed.

Hundreds of speedway fans are also expected to continue their fight against the homes plans.

Part 3, Delegations Section 2 – Regulatory Committee Functions (democracy.peterborough.gov.uk)

2.1 Appeals and Planning Review Committee (Issue August 2022 Version 036)

2.1 APPEALS AND PLANNING REVIEW COMMITTEE

2.1.1 It is advised that Members undertake relevant training within the past three years in order to hold a seat on this committee.

Terms of Reference

2.1.2 To review appeals procedures for the Council’s various services (excluding appeals procedures which are determined by statute) and, where change is recommended, formulate proposals to the Executive or Council.

2.1.3 To hear and determine appeals about all the Council’s services, other than employee appeals and those for which there are separate, statutory appeals procedures, and to set up panels for this purpose.

Planning Reviews

2.1.4 To determine any planning matter that has been referred to the Committee following the implementation of the planning call-in procedure.

2.1.5 The Committee shall adopt the Planning Speaking Scheme at its meetings and shall follow the same procedure as the Planning and Environmental Protection Committee.

2.1.6 All Members of the Committee (and substitutes) shall have received appropriate training before being involved in the determination of a planning matter.

Appeals Panel

2.1.7 The Committee has set up a panel to hear appeals about Council Services. The panel will consist of three members drawn from the Committee. For this purpose, officers may draw upon members with training relevant to the subject matter of the appeal in
order to ensure sufficient members are available to conduct the hearing, and to avoid involving any member who was involved in the original decision which is the subject of the appeal. Panel members should not be a representative of the Ward of the appellant. The quorum shall be three members. Political balance applies to the panel.

[admin]

A councillor (Asim Mahmood) has explained why he wants a review of the rejection of a 650 homes plan for the East of England Showground (PT Nov 9 2024)

Planners said the loss of the speedway track and the Showground did not outweigh any benefits from the development. However, the land is earmarked for housing in the council’s own Local Plan, which guides where development can take place.

Jeez, do we have to go through it all again? It's getting tiresome

What's worse than being a PCC councillor who approved a decision to eradicate Peterborough Speedway?

A PCC councillor who calls in the decision that saved it!

And just in case you didn't know, here they are:

Cllr Mahmood, who jointly ‘called-in the refusal with Cllr Wayne Fitzgerald (Con), Cllr Jason McNally (Lab) and Cllr Scott Warren (Con), said:

“The reasons why I decided to call this application in with others as I felt that not all material considerations were taken into account.

“I felt the recommendations would not be sufficient if challenged at an appeal process.

“I feel that on balance the harm in this case is significantly outweighed by the potential success of this development.

“I fully understand the emotions around the potential loss of the Showground but our decisions must be robust, in line with material facts and we must have confidence in our decision-making process.”

I don't believe that you do understand in the slightest. That's just the standard quote to give the appearance of empathy.

Are you a Peterborian? How often have you been to the Showground for the events and attended Peterborough Speedway?

Councillor Chris Harper, the committee chairman, is a Peterborian, has attended EoES events, listed a host of them and explained his logical reasoning perfectly clearly. Unlike the call in which is just trawling the whole planning process hoping to catch something in the net to match their gripe.

"There was nothing in the application to really replace that and if we’re going to lose those sorts of things we need to find somewhere else for them to be and of a similar value or better.

"This application was purely housing and nothing else. There was not enough in there to approve the decision.

I really can't be bothered to lay out LP30 & NPPF103 and the rest of the argument yet again, it's getting tiresome preaching to those with their head in the sand while they're wearing the AEPG supplied ear plugs!

[admin]

"It means the council’s Appeals and Planning Review Committee will review the decision in the near future. It is thought the meeting could take place on November 19 although this has still to be confirmed."

"Residents living near the 164-acre Showground say they have been left disappointed by Peterborough City Council chiefs’ decision to accept a call for a review of the planning committee’s decision on October 15 to reject the homes plans."

And the residents are not the only ones. This committee have met once a year since lockdown (2020) and not since Mar 2023 with no meet this year and it's pretty incompetent to try to shoehorn in such an important meeting in a week with the next meeting scheduled for 3/3/25

[admin]

Nov 11, 2024 23:02:51 GMT admin said:

"It means the council’s Appeals and Planning Review Committee will review the decision in the near future. It is thought the meeting could take place on November 19 although this has still to be confirmed."

"Residents living near the 164-acre Showground say they have been left disappointed by Peterborough City Council chiefs’ decision to accept a call for a review of the planning committee’s decision on October 15 to reject the homes plans."

And the residents are not the only ones. This committee have met once a year since lockdown (2020) and not since Mar 2023 with no meet this year and it's pretty incompetent to try to shoehorn in such an important meeting in a week with the next meeting scheduled for 3/3/25

No date yet for review hearing (PT 18/11/24)

Campaigners have voiced surprise after councillors secured a review of a decision to reject plans for 650 homes on the East of England Showground.

Members of the Showground Plans Under Residents Review group (SPURR) say the move to call-in the decision seems to be based on ‘conjecture’ about what might happen if the developer appealed against the refusal.

SPURR says the refusal of AEPG’s plans came during a six hour meeting of Peterborough City Council’s planning committee on October 15 and was based on ‘solid information and facts.’

But the group’s officials say they have ‘confidence in the democratic process’ and have vowed to attend a future Appeals Committee meeting to ensure residents’ concerns are heard.

The move to call-in the refusal as made by Cllr Asim Mahmood (Lab), Cllr Wayne Fitzgerald (Con), Cllr Jason McNally (Lab) and Cllr Scott Warren (Con).

Cllr Mahmood told the Peterborough Telegraph: “The reasons why I decided to call this application in with others as I felt that not all material considerations were taken into account.

“I felt the recommendations would not be sufficient if challenged at an appeal process.

“I feel that on balance the harm in this case is significantly outweighed by the potential success of this development.

“I fully understand the emotions around the potential loss of the Showground but our decisions must be robust, in line with material facts and we must have confidence in our decision-making process.”

The call-in was validated by council officers after taking external legal advice and means the outline planning application will be reconsidered by the Appeals and Planning Review Committee in the near future.

Orton Waterville Councillor Nicola Day, and SPURR representative, said: “SPURR are fully prepared to be present at the committee meeting to voice local residents’ concerns about the development and how it will adversely affect Peterborough as a whole.

“Councillors who first voted to reject the development based their decision on solid information and facts, rather than on conjecture over what might happen if the decision is taken to a higher level.”

A council spokesperson said: “We haven't set a date yet for the Appeals Committee as a new report needs to be drafted containing everything the Committee will need, which takes time.”

[admin]

The move to call-in the refusal as made by Cllr Asim Mahmood (Lab), Cllr Wayne Fitzgerald (Con), Cllr Jason McNally (Lab) and Cllr Scott Warren (Con). - remember those names in any future elections if they are in your patch!

Cllr Mahmood told the Peterborough Telegraph: “The reasons why I decided to call this application in with others as I felt that not all material considerations were taken into account.

“I felt the recommendations would not be sufficient if challenged at an appeal process.

“I feel that on balance the harm in this case is significantly outweighed by the potential success of this development.

“I fully understand the emotions around the potential loss of the Showground but our decisions must be robust, in line with material facts and we must have confidence in our decision-making process.”

Mahmood reminds one of Gordon Brown: "I agree with Nick" - or Wayne in this case whose pride must have been seriously dented by the "dilly dally" rebuke from chair, as well as Councillor Chris Harper, the committee chairman, pointing out the facts to Fitzgerald. I may be wrong (but as a betting man I'd risk a tenner) that Fitzgerald is the ring leader with Mahmood close behind with similar thinking as was made clear at the meeting. I guess that the other two were the other no voters who were weak willed and got roped in to the call-in quartet?