|
|
Post by admin on Feb 21, 2024 20:32:20 GMT
I'm thinking: have they got any mugs to buy the land because their timetable is shot if your reading is correct? 1) Peterborough Panthers speedway team informed in 2022 that the 2023 season would sadly have to be their last at the Showground because that area is expected to be under different ownership by the time the 2024 Speedway season begins. 
2) Sale of the land is expected to be approved by Spring 2024, again subject to planning approval.
3) The spades-in-the-ground date is still unclear until the planning committee decision. Plans are at the outline planning stage now, which will be referred to several more stages of detailed back-and-forth, no doubt, before anything can physically go ahead. I think they have tentative bids with several building firms but I am informed these are of course subject to the appropriate planning approval being granted, without that they are worthless. Yes that's always been the case but I've an uneasy feeling that decisions have been made, deals have been done and any planning process, protracted or not, is just cosmetic. edit - or perhaps not looking at my planning portal post below |
|
|
|
Post by admin on Feb 21, 2024 20:48:39 GMT
I think they have tentative bids with several building firms but I am informed these are of course subject to the appropriate planning approval being granted , without that they are worthless. Given that the land has not yet been sold and probably will not be in immediate future seem crass stupidity to destroy income streams at this stage also to at this stage unnecessarily alienate others I'm pretty sure that they've done the sums and if they need an income stream then the DHL deal and/or others will provide what they need in the short or long term? They've made it pretty clear that they are prepared to upset those that they don't consider a threat, including PCC it would seem with quotes like: "We are aware that there is a highly active group of supporters who are keen to continue the speedway operation and are lobbying against the cessation of speedway on the Peterborough Showground. To reiterate, speedway has only ever been run on an event-by-event basis and there is no requirement by the landowner to commit to this continuing." "The landowner (EEAS (AEPG is their promoter) is free to use the land as it wishes and has no obligation to agree with external parties how the land is used." "The land is in no way under the control of Peterborough City Council (PCC) and there is no obligation to hold any specific activities on the site at the behest of PCC, or the local community." |
|
|
|
Post by admin on Feb 21, 2024 22:18:32 GMT
Haven't looked a the planning portal for a while but the last one is quite interesting? Butterfield not too happy? 23/00412/OUT - Application Supporting Document - Applicant response to LPA Position Statement - 12/02/2024 A small selection of: Place and Economy Directorate, Peterborough City Council, Sand Martin House, Bittern Way, Peterborough, PE2 8TY, 13.01.2024 LPA Position Statement
Re: 23/00412/OUT – East of England Showground – Outline permission for up to 650 dwellings with associated open space and infrastructure, with access secured and all other matters (appearance, landscaping, layout and scale) reserved. Including demolition of all buildings
I write to provide Peterborough City Council’s (PCC) current position in its assessment of the above planning application. I note the email correspondence and am grateful for the collaborative approach which has agreed an Extension of Time until 31.03.2024 for the determination of both 23/00412/OUT and 23/00400/OUT.
Background
Policy LP36 of the Peterborough Local Plan to 2036 (LP) outlines support for the redevelopment of
the East of England Showground site, stating that “…residential development of around 650 dwellings” will be supported in principle, “subject to […] an approved masterplan for the Showground”. Policy LP5 outlines that within Urban Extensions, provision for leisure facilities should be made where appropriate. The provisions of policies LP12 and LP30 must also be noted.
Current Position
I have assessed the application against the relevant local policies and national guidance and have considered the responses from consultees received to date. It is now clear that elements of the application require significant amendment to make the proposal acceptable in planning terms. In its current form, due primarily to deficiencies in the level of information submitted, the proposal fails to provide sufficient justification for a departure from the LP.
Conclusion
I have significant concerns that a planning permission based on the information submitted to date may be successfully challenged through Judicial Review on the basis that the decision was/would be unsound. However, I anticipate that with amendments and the submission of additional information, the application has the potential to be made acceptable in planning terms. PCC requires additional information to support the planning application to be submitted to enable a full assessment of the merits of the application.
There will also need to be further discussions on specific topics including, amongst other things, how to achieve a comprehensive masterplan for the site as required by policy LP36
All revised details would be the subject of further rounds of public consultation. In order to avoid overwhelming the local community and consultees with numerous documents, I suggest that once agreement has been reached with regard to the submission of additional information (in addition to the EIA Regulation 25 letter), we take steps to agree what revisions will be required to the Parameter Plans and Design and Access Statement and to plan for discussions about detailed aspects of the proposals.
I look forward to working with you over the coming months to achieve a successful outcome
ouch - (Urban Design ( Building for a Healthy Life) Review. Issued 15 December 2023 - as mentioned below, conclusion/next steps 3. Read Butterfield's conclusion  This didn't last long? Cllr Christian Hogg (Liberal Democrats, Fletton and Stanground) added that he hopes “this is a corner turned” between the council and developers as they’ve listened to councillors’ and residents’ concerns and adapted their plans accordingly. (ET 23/1/24) |
|
|
|
Post by Bigcatdiary on Feb 23, 2024 8:37:12 GMT
Given that the land has not yet been sold and probably will not be in immediate future seem crass stupidity to destroy income streams at this stage also to at this stage unnecessarily alienate others I'm pretty sure that they've done the sums and if they need an income stream then the DHL deal and/or others will provide what they need in the short or long term? They've made it pretty clear that they are prepared to upset those that they don't consider a threat, including PCC it would seem with quotes like: "We are aware that there is a highly active group of supporters who are keen to continue the speedway operation and are lobbying against the cessation of speedway on the Peterborough Showground. To reiterate, speedway has only ever been run on an event-by-event basis and there is no requirement by the landowner to commit to this continuing." "The landowner (EEAS (AEPG is their promoter) is free to use the land as it wishes and has no obligation to agree with external parties how the land is used." "The land is in no way under the control of Peterborough City Council (PCC) and there is no obligation to hold any specific activities on the site at the behest of PCC, or the local community." And there is no way to control the many supporters who are livid with AEPG for not at the very least talking to interested parties to talk about speedway continuing at the Showground whilst applications go through the planning applications (this could take years) whilst Peterborough Speedway finds another home (this could take years as well) The PCC has the power to stop any development of the Showground by voting down any application that doesn’t meet either its own local plans or the framework for planning for the country. |
|
|
|
Post by admin on Feb 23, 2024 21:18:02 GMT
I'm pretty sure that they've done the sums and if they need an income stream then the DHL deal and/or others will provide what they need in the short or long term? They've made it pretty clear that they are prepared to upset those that they don't consider a threat, including PCC it would seem with quotes like: "We are aware that there is a highly active group of supporters who are keen to continue the speedway operation and are lobbying against the cessation of speedway on the Peterborough Showground. To reiterate, speedway has only ever been run on an event-by-event basis and there is no requirement by the landowner to commit to this continuing." "The landowner (EEAS (AEPG is their promoter) is free to use the land as it wishes and has no obligation to agree with external parties how the land is used." "The land is in no way under the control of Peterborough City Council (PCC) and there is no obligation to hold any specific activities on the site at the behest of PCC, or the local community." And there is no way to control the many supporters who are livid with AEPG for not at the very least talking to interested parties to talk about speedway continuing at the Showground whilst applications go through the planning applications (this could take years) whilst Peterborough Speedway finds another home (this could take years as well) The PCC has the power to stop any development of the Showground by voting down any application that doesn’t meet either its own local plans or the framework for planning for the country. Butterfield makes no secret of their strategy: it's to get out of any responsibility under LP30. This is a good read & explains why your first was never going to happen - 23/00412/OUT Representation from Consultee (Web) PCC Policy 22/11/2023LP30 – Culture Leisure, Tourism and Community Facilities
Policy LP36 specifically makes reference to the requirements of Policy LP30 and the loss of existing cultural, leisure, tourism and community facilies.
The applicant will need to demonstrate that the proposals meet the requirements of points k-m, in particular with regard to the speedway track.
The applications do propose to make a good, appropriate, level of sport and leisure uses. Normally, the application would not be considered to meet points k-m as they stand, as they do not provide a replacement facility for speedway use, and the speedway track was clearly fit for purpose.
This has been made more complex by the Speedway club having been served notice and asked to vacate the site and remove their safety and lighting infrastructure, therefore no longer meeting point k and in no longer being fit for purpose requiring
the meeting of point l and m.
It is noted that Sport England have provided comments in response to the application.
So as it was always going to be, this is the battle ground: PCC may have the power but do they have the bottle and understanding to appreciate that the first part of k has been engineered without club consultation and the second part could be potentially met? Do Kings Lynn and/or Leicester offer the same provision as the EoES? Not in my book. I'll not be setting foot in either, or anywhere else come to that, so (l) isn't met if PCC don't buy that k is allegedly fully met by default. That brings us back to m which AEPG are trying to avoid at all costs. 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. |
|
bratters
Championship poster.
Posts: 165
|
Post by bratters on Feb 24, 2024 9:26:09 GMT
And there is no way to control the many supporters who are livid with AEPG for not at the very least talking to interested parties to talk about speedway continuing at the Showground whilst applications go through the planning applications (this could take years) whilst Peterborough Speedway finds another home (this could take years as well) The PCC has the power to stop any development of the Showground by voting down any application that doesn’t meet either its own local plans or the framework for planning for the country. Butterfield makes no secret of their strategy: it's to get out of any responsibility under LP30. This is a good read & explains why your first was never going to happen - 23/00412/OUT Representation from Consultee (Web) PCC Policy 22/11/2023LP30 – Culture Leisure, Tourism and Community Facilities
Policy LP36 specifically makes reference to the requirements of Policy LP30 and the loss of existing cultural, leisure, tourism and community facilies.
The applicant will need to demonstrate that the proposals meet the requirements of points k-m, in particular with regard to the speedway track.
The applications do propose to make a good, appropriate, level of sport and leisure uses. Normally, the application would not be considered to meet points k-m as they stand, as they do not provide a replacement facility for speedway use, and the speedway track was clearly fit for purpose.
This has been made more complex by the Speedway club having been served notice and asked to vacate the site and remove their safety and lighting infrastructure, therefore no longer meeting point k and in no longer being fit for purpose requiring
the meeting of point l and m.
It is noted that Sport England have provided comments in response to the application.
So as it was always going to be, this is the battle ground: PCC may have the power but do they have the bottle and understanding to appreciate that the first part of k has been engineered without club consultation and the second part could be potentially met? Do Kings Lynn and/or Leicester offer the same provision as the EoES? Not in my book. I'll not be setting foot in either, or anywhere else come to that, so (l) isn't met if PCC don't buy that k is allegedly fully met by default. That brings us back to m which AEPG are trying to avoid at all costs. 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. I have said from the very outset of this process and will continue to say it, this is a watershed moment for PCC. Do they stick to the Local Plan obligations (which they inserted into the Local Plan specifically to protect the Speedway club) or do they fold and get in bed with a bloke with no history of developing a site of this magnitude and who has admitted to people that he is clearly only here to feather his own nest and doesn’t respect the views of the local residents who will have to put up with 10 years of dust, noise and mess should the applications be approved. With 5300 or more houses being currently built in Great Haddon and more elsewhere in the City, we are likely already meeting government targets for house building over the next few years. 1500 extra houses will put a massive extra strain everywhere in the Orton and Alwalton area, the development isn’t wanted and in my view, as a resident, isn’t needed. |
|
|
|
Post by admin on Feb 24, 2024 14:19:43 GMT
Butterfield makes no secret of their strategy: it's to get out of any responsibility under LP30. This is a good read & explains why your first was never going to happen - 23/00412/OUT Representation from Consultee (Web) PCC Policy 22/11/2023LP30 – Culture Leisure, Tourism and Community Facilities
Policy LP36 specifically makes reference to the requirements of Policy LP30 and the loss of existing cultural, leisure, tourism and community facilies.
The applicant will need to demonstrate that the proposals meet the requirements of points k-m, in particular with regard to the speedway track.
The applications do propose to make a good, appropriate, level of sport and leisure uses. Normally, the application would not be considered to meet points k-m as they stand, as they do not provide a replacement facility for speedway use, and the speedway track was clearly fit for purpose.
This has been made more complex by the Speedway club having been served notice and asked to vacate the site and remove their safety and lighting infrastructure, therefore no longer meeting point k and in no longer being fit for purpose requiring
the meeting of point l and m.
It is noted that Sport England have provided comments in response to the application.
So as it was always going to be, this is the battle ground: PCC may have the power but do they have the bottle and understanding to appreciate that the first part of k has been engineered without club consultation and the second part could be potentially met? Do Kings Lynn and/or Leicester offer the same provision as the EoES? Not in my book. I'll not be setting foot in either, or anywhere else come to that, so (l) isn't met if PCC don't buy that k is allegedly fully met by default. That brings us back to m which AEPG are trying to avoid at all costs. 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. I have said from the very outset of this process and will continue to say it, this is a watershed moment for PCC. Do they stick to the Local Plan obligations (which they inserted into the Local Plan specifically to protect the Speedway club) or do they fold and get in bed with a bloke with no history of developing a site of this magnitude and who has admitted to people that he is clearly only here to feather his own nest and doesn’t respect the views of the local residents who will have to put up with 10 years of dust, noise and mess should the applications be approved. With 5300 or more houses being currently built in Great Haddon and more elsewhere in the City, we are likely already meeting government targets for house building over the next few years. 1500 extra houses will put a massive extra strain everywhere in the Orton and Alwalton area, the development isn’t wanted and in my view, as a resident, isn’t needed. I must add allegedly to "who has admitted to people that he is clearly only here to feather his own nest" - I've not seen any evidence of that although a conversation may or may not have taken place somewhere at some point. Interesting that Great Haddon has popped up into the news. I didn't realise that it was so big. Makes the EoES development look like a not wanted afterthought, which of course it is? Just looking at the description on Peterborough Today, it reads like AEPG did a cut and paste with a bit of editing to fit their narrative: "In July 2018, an outline application was approved on the wider Great Haddon masterplan site for the development of an urban extension comprising up to 5350 residential dwellings, a district centre and two neighbourhood centres, provision for education facilities, sports and recreational facilities and a range of strategic open spaces." Doesn't that sound like this but on a much bigger scale: AB - the entire site of 164 acres is owned by the East of England Agricultural Society, the overall site and master plan is made up of houses as you say, 1500 houses, 650 in the allocation and then a further approximately 800 coupled in the planning application with 50 acres of amazing leisure facilities. There was a response on the planning portal I recall (I may be wrong but will try to find it) asking whether the effects/impacts of Great Haddon had been properly considered alongside the EoES development? |
|
|
|
Post by admin on Feb 28, 2024 23:04:51 GMT
Post from the BSF: - (so what chance of Shailesh Vara (EoES responsibility) or Paul Bristow (responsible for the Peterborough community) raising the EoES debacle at PMQs)  Mr Vara secured a slot in the weekly Prime Minister’s Questions in the House of Commons today (February 28) to highlight the threat to the rural area near the villages of Castor and Ailsworth. Mr Vara said he was opposed to moves by Peterborough City Council to include a site in the new Local Plan that was the subject years ago of successful community action to block plans for a 7,000 homes development.Mr Vara told the Prime Minister: “A few years ago there was a proposal to build nearly 7,000 houses in a beautiful part of my constituency near the villages of Castor and Ailsworth. "It was against the wishes of the local residents. "I worked with the local community and together we were able to stop this development."However, efforts are now being made to include this land in a revised Peterborough Local Plan."Would the Prime Minister agree with me that it is very important that the voice of the local community is heard and that it is unacceptable that developments can take place in this circuitous way, especially when there is other more suitable land available in and around the city of Peterborough. Prime Minister Rishi Sunak replied: “He raises an important issue. "He is right that the local community should always have their voice heard."It is important that local councils bring forward their Local Plan but this must be done in close consultation with local communities because their voices matter."As I understand it the Peterborough Local Plan is still under preparation and there are opportunities to provide comments on the draft plan. "I encourage and commend my honourable friend for continuing to support his local community to make sure their voice is heard.” Afterwards, Mr Vara said: “We have had this fight once before, and it is very disappointing that those in favour of these thousands of houses are determined to press on, despite massive local opposition. “I will be fighting alongside the local residents to ensure this land remains unspoilt and is not included in a revised Local Plan.” peterboroughtoday 28/2/24
That reminds me: anyone heard a peep from Paul Bristow? All he's done is to stand up and whine that he couldn't save his Peterborough bacon by last week voting with the joke party opposite! |
|
bratters
Championship poster.
Posts: 165
|
Post by bratters on Feb 29, 2024 15:18:25 GMT
I have said from the very outset of this process and will continue to say it, this is a watershed moment for PCC. Do they stick to the Local Plan obligations (which they inserted into the Local Plan specifically to protect the Speedway club) or do they fold and get in bed with a bloke with no history of developing a site of this magnitude and who has admitted to people that he is clearly only here to feather his own nest and doesn’t respect the views of the local residents who will have to put up with 10 years of dust, noise and mess should the applications be approved. With 5300 or more houses being currently built in Great Haddon and more elsewhere in the City, we are likely already meeting government targets for house building over the next few years. 1500 extra houses will put a massive extra strain everywhere in the Orton and Alwalton area, the development isn’t wanted and in my view, as a resident, isn’t needed. I must add allegedly to "who has admitted to people that he is clearly only here to feather his own nest" - I've not seen any evidence of that although a conversation may or may not have taken place somewhere at some point. Interesting that Great Haddon has popped up into the news. I didn't realise that it was so big. Makes the EoES development look like a not wanted afterthought, which of course it is? Just looking at the description on Peterborough Today, it reads like AEPG did a cut and paste with a bit of editing to fit their narrative: "In July 2018, an outline application was approved on the wider Great Haddon masterplan site for the development of an urban extension comprising up to 5350 residential dwellings, a district centre and two neighbourhood centres, provision for education facilities, sports and recreational facilities and a range of strategic open spaces." Doesn't that sound like this but on a much bigger scale: AB - the entire site of 164 acres is owned by the East of England Agricultural Society, the overall site and master plan is made up of houses as you say, 1500 houses, 650 in the allocation and then a further approximately 800 coupled in the planning application with 50 acres of amazing leisure facilities. There was a response on the planning portal I recall (I may be wrong but will try to find it) asking whether the effects/impacts of Great Haddon had been properly considered alongside the EoES development? No need to add allegedly, he told me this at the open day, his words were along the lines of “I’ll make millions and have a very good pension for life”. He had no idea who I was at the time, he thought I was an interested resident. He went a little white when I told him I was a former promoter of the club. Clearly at that open day he was very confident of not having any issues getting the job done, by saying what he said to me speaks volumes about his lack of professionalism. Should also add it took eight years before the Great Haddon development got to sink a brick in the ground. |
|
|
|
Post by admin on Mar 1, 2024 10:15:38 GMT
I must add allegedly to "who has admitted to people that he is clearly only here to feather his own nest" - I've not seen any evidence of that although a conversation may or may not have taken place somewhere at some point. Interesting that Great Haddon has popped up into the news. I didn't realise that it was so big. Makes the EoES development look like a not wanted afterthought, which of course it is? Just looking at the description on Peterborough Today, it reads like AEPG did a cut and paste with a bit of editing to fit their narrative: "In July 2018, an outline application was approved on the wider Great Haddon masterplan site for the development of an urban extension comprising up to 5350 residential dwellings, a district centre and two neighbourhood centres, provision for education facilities, sports and recreational facilities and a range of strategic open spaces." Doesn't that sound like this but on a much bigger scale: AB - the entire site of 164 acres is owned by the East of England Agricultural Society, the overall site and master plan is made up of houses as you say, 1500 houses, 650 in the allocation and then a further approximately 800 coupled in the planning application with 50 acres of amazing leisure facilities. There was a response on the planning portal I recall (I may be wrong but will try to find it) asking whether the effects/impacts of Great Haddon had been properly considered alongside the EoES development? No need to add allegedly, he told me this at the open day, his words were along the lines of “I’ll make millions and have a very good pension for life”. He had no idea who I was at the time, he thought I was an interested resident. He went a little white when I told him I was a former promoter of the club. Clearly at that open day he was very confident of not having any issues getting the job done, by saying what he said to me speaks volumes about his lack of professionalism. Should also add it took eight years before the Great Haddon development got to sink a brick in the ground. As long as you've nailed your colours to the mast on that again then that's fine (I remembered that detail but happier with that clarification). That timeline for Great Haddon is interesting and Butterfield/AEPG could have handled this so much better, got Peterborough Speedway and its supporters onside before a possible amicable split in 2 or 3 years (probably better time frame as Chapman alluded to in 2022) hence when the stand is really apparently planned to be decommissioned/demolished (assuming that they get planning?). My mate hands over his Speedway Stars when read and I've just got to the Jan 27 issue covering the Coventry planning decision and some of the similarities reported are quite evident. I shall pick out some bits if I can link them to something else. |
|
|
|
Post by rodders on Mar 1, 2024 12:37:26 GMT
One hopes Butterfield and gang come a cropper big time
|
|
|
|
Post by chrise on Mar 1, 2024 19:14:11 GMT
One hopes Butterfield and gang come a cropper big time I have no experience of this guy. However by what I have read about him he seems a complete CHANCER. Let's hope he loses his shirt in this outrage. |
|
bratters
Championship poster.
Posts: 165
|
Post by bratters on Mar 2, 2024 0:09:24 GMT
What annoys me most about Butterfield is his comment that it was a shame the Speedway club hadn’t found another venue, completely sidestepping the fact that it was him and his company who should be finding the club another venue if The Peterborough Local Plan is diligently followed. If it isn’t followed then a whole bunch of council tax payers money has been wasted and the plan won’t be worth the paper it’s written on.
|
|
|
|
Post by admin on Mar 2, 2024 11:24:16 GMT
What annoys me most about Butterfield is his comment that it was a shame the Speedway club hadn’t found another venue, completely sidestepping the fact that it was him and his company who should be finding the club another venue if The Peterborough Local Plan is diligently followed. If it isn’t followed then a whole bunch of council tax payers money has been wasted and the plan won’t be worth the paper it’s written on. For me it's the fact that we ever got here in the first place and that's down to PCC. They question AEPG on their lack of consultation but who really realised what was going on with the local plan and the EoES? We are where we are though so it is indeed down to PCC to stick to the plan and justify their decisions. They may have slipped the plan through on the nod but people are watching now and they know it. I'm not sure that PCC is too rattled yet but looking at some of the AEPG responses I think that they and Butterfield are. At the end of the day though, AEPG are only in the picture due to bad decisions made by PCC.
Place and Economy Directorate (13/1/24 re Re: 23/00412/OUT – East of England Showground): I have significant concerns that a planning permission based on the information submitted to date may be successfully challenged through Judicial Review on the basis that the decision was/would be unsound. However, I anticipate that with amendments and the submission of additional information, the application has the potential to be made acceptable in planning terms. PCC requires additional information to support the planning application to be submitted to enable a full assessment of the merits of the application. Asset Earning Power Group (AEPG) Ltd (12/2/24): I need to understand your concern for a successful challenge at judicial review on the basis a decision to grant our applications might be unsound. The basis for a judicial review is if a decision is made unlawfully (beyond our ability to control) or a misinterpretation of policy (applications are compliant with the allocation of land and policy for development plus the offer additional development within the allocation to enhance experiential placemaking), rather than the decision itself. Please provide more detail as to why you have this concern. The site is allocated, and application 23/00412/OUT is policy compliant, and application 23/00400/OUT brings significant fiscal benefit in addition to providing land to meet future housing needs as per the current local plan review and recent call for sites (sites 2120 & 2073). AEPG maintains the information provided is sufficient in detail and suitable in content for the applications to be determined without significant change or additional information. (Talking Points (P Oakes) SS 27/1/24): Following the refusal of planning at Brandon Stadium, Coventry - the fight to re-introduce motor sports will now take on a different direction. Brandon Estates still own the site but it is now a white elephant. They cannot build houses although they do have the option of either a costly Judicial Review or they could let the stadium continue to rot or be vandalised (decommissioned is the local term) while the site and track quickly become overgrown? Sounds familiar doesn't it? |
|
|
|
Post by rodders on Mar 2, 2024 13:43:35 GMT
No doubt in my mind that AEPG and Butterfield are only in it for the money. Naivety by those who own the showground that they should of got into to bed with such people.
As I have said before the present situation was inevitable and successive promotions have failed to get a grip on it.
|
|
|
|
Post by admin on Mar 2, 2024 18:31:18 GMT
No doubt in my mind that AEPG and Butterfield are only in it for the money. Naivety by those who own the showground that they should of got into to bed with such people. As I have said before the present situation was inevitable and successive promotions have failed to get a grip on it. The EEAS is just as bad as AEPG at the end of the day. They knew what they had there and chose the wrong direction: From the Design and Access Statement:
"The Showground site was offered to Peterborough City Council to allocate for housing and employment uses, to meet the needs of the city as it continues to grow. The Peterborough Local Plan was subsequently adopted by the Council in July 2019 with an allocation development at the Showground site.
With the adoption of the Council’s Local Plan coinciding with our own plan to move to a new rural home, there is now an opportunity to deliver something special at the Showground site: not just new homes for Peterborough but a new, unique part of the city with its own sense of place and character, building on the rich legacy of the Society’s five decades there." They didn't expect any issues and they had to eventually break cover and show their true colours, hence the joint letter of Nov 2003 which can be found on AEPG Facebook page. You'll not be able to comment of course  And it was allegedly one of the EEAS bosses who gave Chapman a tight deadline to clear the site of his stuff when, for all of their other failings, AEPG had been reasonable in that respect and had not put the pressure on I agree about missed opportunities and we can go round in circles on that but we are where we are unfortunately, but better to come to the party later rather than never. Another interesting couple of points from Peter Oakes' Talking Points (SS 26/1) on your second point that were made following that Coventry planning decision/refusal:
"The directors of British Speedway Limited must now ensure that the momentum isn't allowed to be lost. For too long, action against the closure of venues has been reactive rather than proactive. That can now change. And should change"
"As soon as there is even a whisper that a stadium might be lost then they should formulate an action plan"Just think if they'd taken proactive action when Chapman took over. He was aware of the situation and even commented on the club's longevity at the time. That begs the question of what did Rathbone, Watson and Johnson know? |
|
|
|
Post by admin on Mar 3, 2024 23:31:12 GMT
With 5300 or more houses being currently built in Great Haddon and more elsewhere in the City, we are likely already meeting government targets for house building over the next few years. 1500 extra houses will put a massive extra strain everywhere in the Orton and Alwalton area, the development isn’t wanted and in my view, as a resident, isn’t needed. Think that that's picked up in 23/00412/OUT Representation from Consultee (Web) PCC Policy 22/11/2023: Policy LP3 sets out the scale and location of future development within the district. The greater provision of new dwellings is planned within the urban extensions (59%) and includes the showground site. The latest Housing Monitoring Report published in September 2023, shows that between 1 April 2016 and 31 March 2023 a total of 7,146 net dwellings were completed. This is an average of 1,021 dwellings per year which is above the annual requirement set out in the Local Plan.To meet the Local Plan target, a total of 12,294 (net) dwellings are required to be built between 1 April 2023 and 31 March 2036. The Housing Monitoring report shows a total of 9,182 dwellings have the benefit of planning permission and 5,417 dwellings are estimated for delivery from Local Plan site allocations without planning permission at 31 March 2023. This means that there is more than sufficient supply to meet the Local Plan target.The latest Five-Year Land Supply report shows that the council can demonstrate 5.37-year supply, and the latest Housing Delivery Test results is 145%. Therefore, no need for additional dwellings to meet the Local Plan housing target.Summary The showground site is allocated in the adopted Local Plan; however, the proposed combined total 1,500 dwellings is significantly higher than that set out in the Local Plan.Although the indicative dwelling figure of 650 is not a set policy target, the figure was based on the requirements to accommodate showground facilities and to take into account the transport implications. If a higher figure is proposed this should be based on a design led solution as set out as part of the master plan taking into account, all local plan policies and national policy. The application for Land A is for 650 dwellings and therefore in accordance with the housing figure set out in Policy LP35, however, this application does not demonstrate how the showground facilities will be retained, and therefore, does not meet the requirements of policies LP5 and LP36.Whilst the application for Land B includes the provision of some showground facilities, it is not clear how the showground facilities can be sufficiently retained.The proposed dwelling total of 850 dwellings is higher than that set out in the Local Plan. This raises also concerns about the transport impacts of this scheme, and the comments from National Highways (dated 25/10/2023) are noted. Therefore, the case officer will need to consider and balance the information provided as part of the applications. And just to balance that up: Applicant's (AEPG) full response to PCC Policy comment (05/12/2023)"At the outset, it is important to detail that the current adopted Local Plan was formally adopted by Peterborough City Council (PCC) in July 2019, pre-covid.
Since that time, there has been a significant change in Government policies as well as consumer trends and social leisure requirements.
Furthermore, as detailed in the Planning applications, the EESG has been operating at a financial loss for circa 10 years and the ongoing leisure use on site is no longer sustainable."And yet Peterborough Speedway was thriving despite Chapman's ownership and crowds since Covid have been impressive so that doesn't stand up too well? |
|
bratters
Championship poster.
Posts: 165
|
Post by bratters on Mar 5, 2024 0:22:42 GMT
No doubt in my mind that AEPG and Butterfield are only in it for the money. Naivety by those who own the showground that they should of got into to bed with such people. As I have said before the present situation was inevitable and successive promotions have failed to get a grip on it. The EEAS is just as bad as AEPG at the end of the day. They knew what they had there and chose the wrong direction: From the Design and Access Statement:
"The Showground site was offered to Peterborough City Council to allocate for housing and employment uses, to meet the needs of the city as it continues to grow. The Peterborough Local Plan was subsequently adopted by the Council in July 2019 with an allocation development at the Showground site.
With the adoption of the Council’s Local Plan coinciding with our own plan to move to a new rural home, there is now an opportunity to deliver something special at the Showground site: not just new homes for Peterborough but a new, unique part of the city with its own sense of place and character, building on the rich legacy of the Society’s five decades there." They didn't expect any issues and they had to eventually break cover and show their true colours, hence the joint letter of Nov 2003 which can be found on AEPG Facebook page. You'll not be able to comment of course And it was allegedly one of the EEAS bosses who gave Chapman a tight deadline to clear the site of his stuff when, for all of their other failings, AEPG had been reasonable in that respect and had not put the pressure on I agree about missed opportunities and we can go round in circles on that but we are where we are unfortunately, but better to come to the party later rather than never. Another interesting couple of points from Peter Oakes' Talking Points (SS 26/1) on your second point that were made following that Coventry planning decision/refusal:
"The directors of British Speedway Limited must now ensure that the momentum isn't allowed to be lost. For too long, action against the closure of venues has been reactive rather than proactive. That can now change. And should change"
"As soon as there is even a whisper that a stadium might be lost then they should formulate an action plan"Just think if they'd taken proactive action when Chapman took over. He was aware of the situation and even commented on the club's longevity at the time. That begs the question of what did Rathbone, Watson and Johnson know? Again, no need for allegedly, I was in close attendance at the last home meeting but one when AEPGs Asset Manager instructed the promotion that they had to clear the site and if they didn’t AEPG would employ contractors to do it and send the club the bill. If I had owned the club, I would have closed down the Limited Company that owns the club at one minute past the final race of the season and told AEPG to go ahead and knock themselves out with their contractors. |
|
bratters
Championship poster.
Posts: 165
|
Post by bratters on Mar 5, 2024 0:34:08 GMT
With 5300 or more houses being currently built in Great Haddon and more elsewhere in the City, we are likely already meeting government targets for house building over the next few years. 1500 extra houses will put a massive extra strain everywhere in the Orton and Alwalton area, the development isn’t wanted and in my view, as a resident, isn’t needed.
This is a complete lie. The EESG has never made a financial loss. NEVER. Even in the Covid year it made a small profit. This information is freely available on Companies House website. |
|
|
|
Post by admin on Mar 5, 2024 21:30:33 GMT
Furthermore, as detailed in the Planning applications, the EESG has been operating at a financial loss for circa 10 years and the ongoing leisure use on site is no longer sustainable."
This is a complete lie. The EESG has never made a financial loss. NEVER. Even in the Covid year it made a small profit. This information is freely available on Companies House website. Their whole strategy is their truth on viability; that their concrete jungle will be of more value to the city and local community than a well managed Showground used all year round incorporating Peterborough Speedway; that what they are providing isn't available elsewhere? Well that's open to question and the AEPG so called leisure led scheme isn't going to provide much, if anything, that will not be available at Great Haddon? Item 5.5 09.01368.OUT Great Haddon FINAL l: Development of an urban extension comprising up to 5350 residential dwellings; a District Centre (with up to 9200 square metres (99031 sq.ft) retail floor space) and two Neighbourhood Centres (with up to 2300 square metres (24758 sq.ft) retail floor space) comprising district/neighbourhood retail (A1-A5); community and health (C2, D1); leisure(D2); residential (C3) and commercial (B1) uses. Provision for education facilities (sites for three primary and one secondary school); sports and recreational facilities; a range of strategic open spaces including new landscaping, woodland and allotments; and cemetery provision. Associated highway infrastructure (including pedestrian, bridleway and cycle routes), public transport infrastructure and car parking for all uses. Utilities and renewable energy infrastructure; foul and surface water drainage networks (including suds and lakes) |
|
|
|
Post by admin on Mar 5, 2024 22:23:04 GMT
Their whole strategy is their truth on viability; that their concrete jungle will be of more value to the city and local community than a well managed Showground used all year round incorporating Peterborough Speedway; that what they are providing isn't available elsewhere? Well that's open to question and the AEPG so called leisure led scheme isn't going to provide much, if anything, that will not be available at Great Haddon? AEPG IMO are a bunch of shysters!!! Greed and avarice is IMO their motive . However it is axiomatic that in the long term Panthers future if there is one is not at Showground. If I had a pound! |
|
|
|
Post by admin on Mar 5, 2024 22:33:51 GMT
What annoys me most about Butterfield is his comment that it was a shame the Speedway club hadn’t found another venue, completely sidestepping the fact that it was him and his company who should be finding the club another venue if The Peterborough Local Plan is diligently followed. If it isn’t followed then a whole bunch of council tax payers money has been wasted and the plan won’t be worth the paper it’s written on. I'd assume that this still stands: From the PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION COMMITTEE, AGENDA ITEM No. 7, 10 November 2015, PETERBOROUGH PRELIMINARY DRAFT LOCAL PLAN: 9. IMPLICATIONS - 9.1 The Preliminary Draft Local Plan will have implications for all sectors of the community throughout the Local Authority area. Legal Implications - The Council must follow due Regulations in preparing the Local Plan. Eventually, once the final document is adopted in 2018 (assume 2019 as it was?), the council has a legal duty to determine planning applications in accordance with the plan. Financial Implications - There are no immediate financial implications flowing from the approval of the Preliminary Draft version of the Local Plan simply because this is not the ‘final’ plan. However, Members should be aware of two future financial implications: (a) The council owns land that may be identified for future development and there could be financial implications on the value of that land. To be clear, all council owned land will be assessed and treated like all other proposed areas for development. (b) There could be indirect financial implications arising from the development of sites (e.g. provision of infrastructure and services for the new residents, Community Infrastructure Levy monies and s106 arrangements, and increased business rates, council tax or other receipts). |
|
|
|
Post by admin on Mar 5, 2024 23:08:53 GMT
AEPG IMO are a bunch of shysters!!! Greed and avarice is IMO their motive . However it is axiomatic that in the long term Panthers future if there is one is not at Showground. If I had a pound! Having said that. I think that being a shyster comes with the territory but they do appear to be very proficient in that regard. Until planning is approved then nothing is off the table but Bratters seems to be fighting a lone battle with consortium, sponsors and supporters all seemingly AWOL. Bratters' lone battle is not going to be enough! We're in the slow lane now though, waiting for others to move and the process to restart. It's going to a long frustrating year when nothing much will happen and what's left of the speedway infrastructure will just degrade further to a Brandon situation: their situation is that yes the stadium can be restored but they'd want a 20 or 30 year lease to recoup their money. You can transpose that to the EoES but we need to see off the planning first or get AEPG to compromise. |
|
bratters
Championship poster.
Posts: 165
|
Post by bratters on Mar 6, 2024 9:24:00 GMT
Interestingly I had a conversation yesterday with someone high up in a well known national housing developer’s organisation who had been in discussions with AEPG to purchase a parcel of land to build houses on. His comments were that AEPG were being ‘ridiculous and greedy’ with how much they wanted for the parcel of land and that they wouldn’t be entertaining their prices. He said AEPG would have to lower their prices significantly to get any buyers at all.
|
|
|
|
Post by admin on Mar 6, 2024 11:18:07 GMT
Interestingly I had a conversation yesterday with someone high up in a well known national housing developer’s organisation who had been in discussions with AEPG to purchase a parcel of land to build houses on. His comments were that AEPG were being ‘ridiculous and greedy’ with how much they wanted for the parcel of land and that they wouldn’t be entertaining their prices. He said AEPG would have to lower their prices significantly to get any buyers at all. Pretty standard business. Aim high and then negotiate to a sensible figure. There must be a general figure that such land goes for locally? However, AEPG claim that any sale is dependent on planning approval so unless they know something that we don't then they'll have plenty of opportunity to see the light and negotiate to a sensible figure (if they are indeed aiming far too high) or return from whence they came! Reminds me of when Panthers were talking about signing Billy Hamill but the promotion said that he was talking telephone numbers. The deal never did go through. Tungate more recently also springs to mind allegedly. Brandon Estates paid £2.7m for the stadium and car park in 2015. That's a lot for a white elephant! If that doesn't wake prospective developers up to steering clear then nothing will? The ET article on Allison Homes East (A Peterborough-based homes builder has appointed a new engineering chief to help drive the company’s growth in the region) made me sit up yesterday because AEPG have either got firms on board in principle or are looking for mugs? The company is Hampton based. A bit too close for comfort perhaps? |
|
