bratters
Championship poster.
Posts: 165
|
Post by bratters on Mar 6, 2024 14:12:03 GMT
I know AEPG had agreement’s in principle with Barratts, Bovis and Wimpey subject to planning approval. But that was pre Covid. The landscape for housing development has changed significantly since then.
|
|
|
|
Post by admin on Mar 6, 2024 19:34:05 GMT
I know AEPG had agreement’s in principle with Barratts, Bovis and Wimpey subject to planning approval. But that was pre Covid. The landscape for housing development has changed significantly since then. Reminds me of when Swingers driving range was closed (assume through lack of use/interest?) and sold for housing I believe around the time of the 2008 financial crash. It's been sitting their unused ever since. Now a a technology driven driving range is a must have and big selling point apparently! In AEPG's response to PCC Policy comment they said: "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." I agree (Peterborough Speedway's attendances bear testament to that), let's tear it all up and start afresh. |
|
|
|
Post by admin on Mar 8, 2024 19:32:57 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? Just checked out the latest post on the AEPG facebook page and do find it somewhat disturbing to find someone with this title liking the posts: "partnership manager at Peterborough City Council and Culture and Leisure Development Manager at Peterborough City Council"With the planning process ongoing and undecided allegedly, you'd imagine that staff, especially with such a title, would be told to steer clear of associated social media? The post may not have been about this topic but it's still not a good look or the first time  |
|
|
|
Post by admin on Mar 11, 2024 16:43:59 GMT
When you're struggling for support, get one of the team just back from the pub (10/03/2024 13:48) to write in  Comments for Planning Application 23/00412/OUT: I have an interest in this planning application as I am a trustee of the East of England Agricultural Society Ltd, a registered charity whose objectives are:
1. To promote agriculture and to such end generally to improve it in all its branches and to encourage skill and industry in it and all trades, crafts and professions connected with it.
2. To promote education and further understanding of agriculture, horticulture and food production amongst the general population.
3.To promote rural life and all aspects of the countryside. The Charity acquired the Showground site in the mid-1960s for the purpose of holding agricultural shows, which it did from 1966 through until 2012, after which time the shows were discontinued as lack of demand made them unprofitable to put on. This is not a local phenomenon. Many local and area agricultural shows, up to and including the Royal Show have been forced to close in recent years for the same reasons. It is a sign of changing times and changing public preferences. a) Who did they acquire it from & how much did they pay? I never have understood that?b) still pushing the well managed but unviable mantra!The Society has attempted to carry on using the showground facilities to stage other large scale events, but the reality is that there is not the demand for such events from people in the local area. c) Peterborough Speedway attendances booming though so could be product & poor management/marketing for these alleged unpopular events? As a Charity, the East of England Agricultural Society has a legal obligation to make the best use if its assets to achieve its charitable objects. Maintaining a loss-making showground, for which there is insufficient local demand, does not fulfil that obligation. The Trustees are therefore obliged to consider other options that will be to the greater long-term benefit of agriculture, rural life and the countryside. d) PCC has legal obligation to the Peterborough Local Plan I believe, specifically LP36 & LP30, and their objective is not to destroy an important part of Peterborough's leisure and culture to finance the EEAS!The showground is not, as some would try to imply, "open countryside". It is a brownfield site and is therefore appropriate for the type of development proposed. The proceeds from the development which are received by the charity will be entirely used for the delivery of an exciting new programme of work which will benefit those with an interest in agriculture, horticulture, food and rural life in and around Peterborough and the East of England. e) That sounds like our jackpot, if it ever happens, will be of great benefit to all of those in the PE1 area? Heard that one before, and of course it would be less the on or off site financing of Peterborough Speedway's new stadium/track if an EoES extension isn't negotiated. I'm sure that PCC can work out which of those two propositions offers the most immediate and tangible positive effect to the city of which they are custodians?I would like to draw particular attention to the board of trustee's ambition to allocate significant funding over the next few years to the provision of educational work by working with other charities and the education sector in and around Peterborough to support food, farming and land based learning. The ambition to fund the delivery of an ambitious programme of educational work is entirely dependent on the sale of the Showground which relates to this planning application.
- sounds a bit like panic and NOP (not our problem)?I would like to draw particular attention to borospeedway.proboards.com/post/42727 |
|
bratters
Championship poster.
Posts: 165
|
Post by bratters on Mar 11, 2024 23:52:11 GMT
Once again, The EoES has never lost money, this information is freely available on Companies House website.
Do these people think that Peterborough people don’t have internet access. Jeez.
|
|
bratters
Championship poster.
Posts: 165
|
Post by bratters on Mar 11, 2024 23:56:39 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). Yes, it is a legal document. |
|
|
|
Post by admin on Mar 12, 2024 21:05:34 GMT
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). Yes, it is a legal document. Which makes that last submission on the planning portal look even more desperate. |
|
|
|
Post by admin on Mar 17, 2024 10:54:04 GMT
Comments from Grantham regarding Planning Application 23/00400/OUT 14/3/24:With a young family it will be nice to have some exciting things to do without having to travel to Cambridge or Nottingham. This area needs more to do so I hope this happens.  - it needs an effectively managed Showground, events centre and high profile sporting team (Peterborough Speedway in this case), that's what it's lacking and is threatened by this unwanted vision. By the time anything worthwhile surfaces, should any part of this development ever see the light of day, that young family will not be so young and will have have other interests that will more than likely be served from nicer cities elsewhere anyway? In the unlikely event that you do want to visit Peterborough, Great Haddon seems to offer the same and more so I wouldn't bother with this afterthought 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)
They seem to be on maneuvers, brace yourself Bratters, and anyone else still fighting the good fight  Comments from Alconbury (remind me what's at Alconbury) regarding Planning Application 23/00400/OUT 14/3/24:Really exciting to see this sort of investment in Peterborough. It will be great to have these activities on my door step. We know more housing is needed and rather than just box bashing to have something that looks like a great place to live and brings long term jobs is all really positive. 
|
|
|
|
Post by admin on Mar 18, 2024 20:38:39 GMT
He loves a cause and/or picture op MP calls for Peterborough City Council to back residents in dispute over use of Werrington Fields (peterboroughtoday 7/2/24) Peterborough MP Paul Bristow has backed residents in Werrington concerned at plans to fence off publicly accessible fields for use by a school. Now Mr Bristow has called on Peterborough City Council to think again and ensure that the Werrington Fields near Ken Stimpson Academy are not closed entirely to residents. His demand comes after the council announced last month that it needed to safeguard pupils who use the fields for play and would be progressing with plans to fence off the Fields. Although the EoES isn't officially his responsibility, the well-being of Peterborough citizens is. Which includes the benefits to them and profile to the city that Peterborough Speedway brings? At least Shailesh Vara has made a comment (not surprisingly to no effect) but we've not seen a peep from Bristow. He'll be out in 10 months anyway so he's running out of time to show where he sits! Nowhere to be seen on the Peterborough Speedway situation but our outgoing MP has found his latest bandwagon: "Peterborough United delighted by engagement from Conservative Party as conversations about new stadium put back on the table by city MP Paul Bristow" "As part of Peterborough MP Paul Bristow’s promises and aspirations for Peterborough- that he has launched in the past week- the MP spoke of his desire to work with Posh to deliver a new ground.""Mr Bristow also promised to deliver a new Regional Pool and bus station in the next five years."Big problem is that he's only going to be in post for just over 5 months longer! |
|
|
|
Post by admin on Mar 18, 2024 22:56:35 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. Well brace yourself. I still maintain that AEPG will be making a move very soon as per their original timetable. They've got Panthers out and wrecked the place so will chance their arm pretty quickly IMO. There has been a significant friends and family documents in support dump on 23/00400/OUT today (18/3/24), Stoubridge seems very popular :  Should be in smile for today really but a few funny quotes: "I firmly believe the community projects supporting this development also adds significant benefits across multiple community platforms." - translator please ". We cannot keep Peterborough on the list of worst places to live without supporting developments like this that will have a transformational impact on the City." - "We cannot keep Peterborough on the list of worst places to live": well you're trying your best to consolidate that position "These people like me are more likely to spend/stay in the local areas at hotels/shops/ restaurants etc." - of course you will Funnily enough, Peterborough Speedway and an efficiently managed and run Showground would deliver that and more for the locals and occasional visitors from Dudley "Let's use more land not currently in use to provide unique and much needed schemes like this development." - it was in use and unique along with a world famous speedway circuit and team that brought more to the city of Peterborough than this unwanted development will ever bring. Why is it not in use "this development is key to helping change Peterborough for the better." "I support this application as it will bring more needed jobs and prosperity to a city very much on the up. Facilities including more access to open green spaces, health and wellbeing will be of major benefit to the communities of Peterborough." - that's in full because it's pretty much the theme through all and no different to what Butterfield has been pushing for months!"This development hits multiple key areas addressing house needs including access to more multicultural and multigenerational leisure activities that at this time the Peterborough is either losing or is unable to ever provide." can't believe that they wrote that with a straight face from Wales "The Showground site provides everything that Peterborough needs" well it used to and could have been retained and enhanced. Great Haddon looks to provide the same and more than this unwanted development  And finally from Stoubridge: "The newly proposed leisure facilities will bring much needed provision to Peterborough that will be accessible to all communities as well as visitors like myself." if you say so |
|
|
|
Post by admin on Mar 19, 2024 10:39:35 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. Well brace yourself. I still maintain that AEPG will be making a move very soon as per their original timetable. They've got Panthers out and wrecked the place so will chance their arm pretty quickly IMO. There has been a significant friends and family documents in support dump on 23/00400/OUT today (18/3/24), Stoubridge seems very popular : Should be in smile for today really but a few funny quotes: "I firmly believe the community projects supporting this development also adds significant benefits across multiple community platforms." - translator please ". We cannot keep Peterborough on the list of worst places to live without supporting developments like this that will have a transformational impact on the City." - "We cannot keep Peterborough on the list of worst places to live": well you're trying your best to consolidate that position "These people like me are more likely to spend/stay in the local areas at hotels/shops/ restaurants etc." - of course you will Funnily enough, Peterborough Speedway and an efficiently managed and run Showground would deliver that and more for the locals and occasional visitors from Dudley "Let's use more land not currently in use to provide unique and much needed schemes like this development." - it was in use and unique along with a world famous speedway circuit and team that brought more to the city of Peterborough than this unwanted development will ever bring. Why is it not in use "this development is key to helping change Peterborough for the better." "I support this application as it will bring more needed jobs and prosperity to a city very much on the up. Facilities including more access to open green spaces, health and wellbeing will be of major benefit to the communities of Peterborough." - that's in full because it's pretty much the theme through all and no different to what Butterfield has been pushing for months!"This development hits multiple key areas addressing house needs including access to more multicultural and multigenerational leisure activities that at this time the Peterborough is either losing or is unable to ever provide." can't believe that they wrote that with a straight face from Wales "The Showground site provides everything that Peterborough needs" well it used to and could have been retained and enhanced. Great Haddon looks to provide the same and more than this unwanted development And finally from Stoubridge: "The newly proposed leisure facilities will bring much needed provision to Peterborough that will be accessible to all communities as well as visitors like myself." if you say so The dump seems bigger today? Don't know how I missed this yesterday  Didn't Butterfield complain about (or at least question) objections coming from a single address? 4 doubles and a treble/quad here. I can't be bothered to go through them again because they are all saying the same nonsense in a what looks like a coordinated move; no doubt with a purpose |
|
bratters
Championship poster.
Posts: 165
|
Post by bratters on Mar 20, 2024 13:32:18 GMT
Pretty pathetic. Looking desperate to me. Probably running out of cash. The biggest surprise is that Ashley has so many friends. I would hope that the City Council and Planning Department will be wised up to this obvious sham.
|
|
|
|
Post by admin on Mar 20, 2024 21:32:06 GMT
Pretty pathetic. Looking desperate to me. Probably running out of cash. The biggest surprise is that Ashley has so many friends. I would hope that the City Council and Planning Department will be wised up to this obvious sham. Still putting them on the front foot somewhat. Might be worth another push our end to remind anyone who hasn't objected, or someone that they know who hasn't objected, to do so on both planning applications. I see that there is a quiz on Friday. That's an excellent opportunity for such a reminder and to kickstart the 2024 campaign. When Butterfield spoke to Peterborough Citizens he did say that he'd received 20 or 30 Valentines cards, although by the looks of it, the schoolkids present who were asking tough questions just used them to ask about affordable housing |
|
|
|
Post by Hodgy on Mar 22, 2024 1:21:35 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by admin on Mar 22, 2024 20:12:47 GMT
Can't beat that. Doesn't appear to be any stand-alone video so if people haven't got a Facebook account then they are stuffed I guess. For those who haven't, it's just a video of the speedway track and stand following 6 months of AEPG wrecking both to try to rid themselves of that pesky opposition from Peterborough Panthers Speedway Supporters while trying to extricate themselves from LP36 & LP30 comments for those interested:   |
|
|
|
Post by admin on Mar 22, 2024 21:16:31 GMT
Pretty pathetic. Looking desperate to me. Probably running out of cash. The biggest surprise is that Ashley has so many friends. I would hope that the City Council and Planning Department will be wised up to this obvious sham. Brace yourself. They are on serious maneuvers this week: With 23/00400/OUT clearly their main concern because they've banged in 29 support comments, some just to make up the numbers and others clearly nudged and using all of the jargon! Also one confused public customer who objects but then writes "I support this application" (to be fair, I seem to recall that Ostrich did the same but in reverse?) |
|
|
|
Post by admin on Mar 25, 2024 20:48:27 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by admin on Mar 30, 2024 21:11:18 GMT
I know AEPG had agreement’s in principle with Barratts, Bovis and Wimpey subject to planning approval. But that was pre Covid. The landscape for housing development has changed significantly since then. Keep your eye on Allison Homes, which has its headquarters in Cygnet Road, Hampton - bit too close for comfort Their recruitment process is about as interesting as a speedway close season but it keeps making the Evening Telegraph for some reason Peterborough-based developer Allison Homes names new finance chief - Company sets sights on new growth! (3rd such appointment/article I seem to recall?) ET 29th Mar 2024 (added to that it's by our mate Paul Grinnell who has penned several stories about the EoES proposals and Peterborough Speedway). Probably reading too much in to it but we can only go with scraps at the moment! |
|
|
|
Post by admin on Apr 2, 2024 17:07:21 GMT
3 more comments making a noise on each planning application so, once again, if you or someone that you know hasn't objected to both then get to it  |
|
|
|
Post by admin on Apr 8, 2024 15:23:03 GMT
Good to see one of the city's sporting teams bringing credit and positive publicity to Peterborough over the weekend whilst improving community spirit and making Peterborough a happier place today.
It's a shame that Peterborough Speedway has been denied the chance to bring the summer version of those benefits and community spirit!
In the unlikely event that AEPG's alleged leisure led development ever gets off the ground, if you believe that it'll offer anything to match the benefit to Peterborough and good times associated with Posh and Panthers then I have swampland in Florida to sell you!
|
|
|
|
Post by admin on Apr 10, 2024 16:00:22 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by admin on Apr 11, 2024 14:40:20 GMT
I don't think that PCC gets a free ride here. AEPG have only been given the job due to PCC making the wrong choices when the EEAS decided to cash in with the land sale (still don't know how they got it or how much they paid?). interesting piece in AEPG response to Statutory Consultee: PCC Public Health: A/B8 Sport and Recreation
Please refer to the separate AEPG responses to Sport England and PCC Open Space Manager with
regard to provision of sport, open space, and recreation, and second paragraph at A1 Health and
Wellbeing Strategy.
With regard to contributions to offsite strategic sport provision, the pre-
application response from the PCC Planning Service did not request the development make
provision for additional strategic offsite sport capacity so it is not included in this application.
PCC Planning Service probably expected competent developers to know what they are doing, respect the local community and the city's culture while adhering to the Peterborough Local Plan? It's not rocket science. |
|
|
|
Post by admin on Apr 11, 2024 21:51:26 GMT
Good to see that I nudged our mate, Old Nutter, from Biggleswade who posted on the BSF re PCC Policy plandocs.peterborough.gov.uk/PublicDocuments/01326357.pdf
That document on the PCC planning portal that gives the AEPG rebuttal of the speedway at the EoES is very telling. plandocs.peterborough.gov.uk/PublicDocuments/01327798.pdf
The obvious anger in the tone of it shows how much Butterfield is hurting and how much the fact that he had no idea at all about anything to do with speedway was in his mind all along.
The fact that he didn't even understand the position of speedway in the sporting hierarchy of the country is an obvious open personal failure on his part. It shows that he has had no intention at all of even considering speedway as a part of his thinking when he used the standard proforma approach to the development planning structure.
That exposed level of incompetence has become personal now.
In that document he has exposed the extent to which he was intent on only considering the bog-standard development type carbon copy that has succeeded when used by others in the past down south. That hollow personal crusade approach makes it very clear that the sort of activities that have made the EoES so valued by the community were never going to line his pockets to the extent he thinks he needs to survive. That makes him simultaneously both dangerous and vulnerable.
The AEPG approach is to make a significant point in the low number of times a section of the EoES would be used for speedway.
On it's own that simplistic outsider understanding is obvious in every part of the Butterfield plan.
No separate proper spectator sport can ever hope to get close to making a profit without becoming a part of a shared multi-use volume occupancy. Even the new Spurs stadium has been designed to take in American Football, Women's Football and huge pop concerts plus more.
The lack of speedway in Peterborough is solely down to one misguided outsider.
Any multi-use sport facility of the kind that anyone with a single brain-cell would contemplate to future-proof the continued community value of the EoES would have to be designed to accommodate a wide range of sports, both inside and outside. The areas under the grandstands could be able to house gym-type sporting facilities, squash, badminton, martial arts and so-on. The centre green could be used for grass type sports like local school football and hockey championships and so on.
Add that to the fact that the local plan only approved 650-ish houses by including the LP30 sections because it was making sure that there were proper large spaces to carry on the EoES legacy of events rather than the Butterfield concrete jungle of houses, the hotel/pub that no brewery will ever want to take on and daft posh-boy pseudo-sports concrete shells, mean this ill-conceived pile of dross should be consigned to hanging on a piece of string in the smallest room so it is at least doing something useful.
pick the bones out of that  A version of that has now been posted on the PCC Planning Portal as additional comments to his original objection. Just a reminder that everyone can make additional comments if they wish: |
|
|
|
Post by admin on Apr 13, 2024 20:38:33 GMT
Pretty pathetic. Looking desperate to me. Probably running out of cash. The biggest surprise is that Ashley has so many friends. I would hope that the City Council and Planning Department will be wised up to this obvious sham. The good news is that PCC itself doesn't seem to be in as bad a financial state as we thought? They don't need to buckle regarding AEPG's alleged financial benefits of their vision and PCC could therefore also afford to take AEPG on if necessary? It’s also been shouted loudly by those who wish to run the city down that we are bankrupt and that it is all down to the Conservatives. This is simply not true. Whilst we may owe some £462 million the actual figure at the time of writing, remember too that this debt has accumulated over several decades including the time when the council was Labour controlled. However, we still have much more in assets that we owe to creditors and we can continue to service the debt from ongoing revenue income, thus we are legally solvent. - By cllr Wayne Fitzgerald PT 12/4/24 |
|
|
|
Post by admin on Apr 14, 2024 16:00:12 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.
Ward Councillor Peter Hiller added that Peterborough was already exceeding by some margin the number of houses that were required to be built over the next five years.
Whereas the AEPG planning portal response to PCC Policy said that the scheme on Land B provides for additional housing on a wider area of land which would provide additional local housing at a time where there is a national housing shortage.
|
|
- it needs an effectively managed Showground, events centre and high profile sporting team (Peterborough Speedway in this case), that's what it's lacking and is threatened by this unwanted vision.
