|
|
Post by rodders on Jun 4, 2024 20:29:16 GMT
Although we supposedly live in a democracy, money greed and avarice will always win the day! What the average person thinks or wants those in charge do not give a stuff. If the last 8 years (since Brexit and through Covid) has taught us anything then it's that the only democracy is the one where the plebs agree with the wealthy who are themselves unaffected by their incompetent policies and decision making  Now with that off my chest, it's hard to disagree with your statement but I'm sure that there have been cases where money greed and avarice hasn't won the day? Don't ask me to evidence that  The odds are stacked against us but atm I believe that we can get a result of some sort and nothing as yet is off the table? When the BSPL/SCB response to the AEPG Leisure and Community Impact Assessment Report appears then that could hopefully raise the temperature again  Seems to me that our best and only chance is for AEPG to become bankrupt and for those in charge of showground to realise they have backed the wrong horse. We of course do not know to what extent any agreement made with AEPG is binding or how easy it might be to get out of. I have nothing but admiration for consortium but apart from some input from Bratters which many may view as at the least equivocal we do not know exactly what they have achieved. Bloody good show that they are trying. |
|
|
|
Post by admin on Jun 4, 2024 21:18:47 GMT
If the last 8 years (since Brexit and through Covid) has taught us anything then it's that the only democracy is the one where the plebs agree with the wealthy who are themselves unaffected by their incompetent policies and decision making Now with that off my chest, it's hard to disagree with your statement but I'm sure that there have been cases where money greed and avarice hasn't won the day? Don't ask me to evidence that The odds are stacked against us but atm I believe that we can get a result of some sort and nothing as yet is off the table? When the BSPL/SCB response to the AEPG Leisure and Community Impact Assessment Report appears then that could hopefully raise the temperature again Seems to me that our best and only chance is for AEPG to become bankrupt and for those in charge of showground to realise they have backed the wrong horse. We of course do not know to what extent any agreement made with AEPG is binding or how easy it might be to get out of. I have nothing but admiration for consortium but apart from some input from Bratters which many may view as at the least equivocal we do not know exactly what they have achieved. Bloody good show that they are trying. I'm pretty sure that our best chances are AEPG/PCC scrapping the whole project, making AEPG redesign their plans to incorporate Peterborough Speedway or making them finance that like for like speedway stadium either on or off site (that includes fixing the fully operational stadium handed over to them at the end of 2023. That's the cheapest option for them and easiest to negotiate). Yes that's a big ask and logic probably says unlikely (but far from impossible) but anyone settling for less (not aimed at you) might as well kiss goodbye to seeing Peterborough Speedway as we know it ever again. Talk of moving on and Peterborough Speedway setting up elsewhere (even Chapman spoke in 2022 of the numerous difficulties associated with that exercise) is just the direction that Butterfield would like to deflect the selfish cohort to. Hence his obsession with money and pushing everything economic related to the site; always pushing what PCC will allegedly get out of it eventually at some point; and his latest narrative of sporting teams needing to show a profit or die, allowing the new attack line that Peterborough Speedway can't survive as a stand-alone business (or high profile, valued, sporting, culture, leisure, tourism and community facility bringing credit to the city of Peterborough, as we selfish supporters know it!). That attack line may or may not be true but how many top level sporting teams could stand alone without other external support and sponsorship? I guess POSH would be the first casualty. Have they ever been solvent? I hear what you say about the consortium and share your frustration. You've been around long enough to know that speedway communications are usually forthcoming on a need to know basis, which isn't very often in most cases. That's the nature of the business. I'm pretty sure that the consortium are working in the background but this is a poker game and understandably they don't want to show their hand in public. Hopefully the BSPL/SCB comments generate some public interest. |
|
|
|
Post by admin on Jun 5, 2024 9:12:23 GMT
source peterboroughlibdems/council-finances-are-still-looking-shaky 24/1/24 More recent examples of these mistakes would include and by no means the only examples, funding for the Hilton Hotel development, which was sold to councillors as a scheme that was good for Peterborough and a cast iron investment that would reap a good return. The reality was delay upon delay which led to the development grinding to a halt forcing the council to step in and take over the project. Whilst council officers are confident that we will be able to recoup our money in the long term there is still a level of risk that leaves me very uncomfortable. We also had a similar “get rich quick” scheme with the Empower investment, it seems no lessons were learnt from that.
Peterborough councillors have agreed to bid to take ownership of the partially-built £30 million Hilton Garden Inn. Members of Peterborough City Council’s cabinet have voted to submit a £16.7 million credit bid to administrators for the freehold of the nine-storey hotel at Fletton Quays. Councillors say the action is the only way to ensure the local authority does not lose money and achieves a high standard finish to the hotel. The bid for the freehold of the Hilton Garden Inn will be considered by administrators Teneo. The council, which provided a £15 million loan in 2017 for the hotel construction, took the developers Fletton Quays Hotel into administration last October after a period in which no construction work took place.Councillor Amjad Iqbal, the deputy leader, told members that administrators had also received an £11.2 million offer for the hotel from Propiteer and a funder company but that would leave the council with a £5.7 million loss. He added: “Propiteer has recently attempted to negotiate directly with the council to provide an improved offer of £12 million a share in the hotel’s future. "But there is no scope to directly with the council as we don’t asset. Cllr Iqbal added: “To ensure the hotel is completed in a timely manner and that the building is protected, it is recommended that the offer is rejected and that the council submits a bid up to £17 million to secure the hotel.” PT 31/5/24 |
|
|
|
Post by admin on Jun 10, 2024 9:04:18 GMT
The BSPL and SCB submitted a joint further objection on 24/05/24 denouncing much of the section on Speedway in the Leisure and Amenities document that AEPG recently placed on the planning portal. Despite several emails to the planning department asking why they haven’t published it, it has still not appeared, leaving me mightily pissed off. And as Dan Bongino would say, "Cutesie time" is over? Still no sign of this on the PCC Planning Portal and this is the 10th working day since it was sent to James Lloyd I assume, so if it doesn't appear tomorrow latest then it's time for a serious chase up  |
|
bratters
Championship poster.
Posts: 165
|
Post by bratters on Jun 10, 2024 9:31:54 GMT
The BSPL and SCB submitted a joint further objection on 24/05/24 denouncing much of the section on Speedway in the Leisure and Amenities document that AEPG recently placed on the planning portal. Despite several emails to the planning department asking why they haven’t published it, it has still not appeared, leaving me mightily pissed off. And as Dan Bongino would say, "Cutesie time" is over? Still no sign of this on the PCC Planning Portal and this is the 10th working day since it was sent to James Lloyd I assume, so if it doesn't appear tomorrow latest then it's time for a serious chase up It’s being chased today. Again. |
|
|
|
Post by rodders on Jun 10, 2024 19:53:34 GMT
And as Dan Bongino would say, "Cutesie time" is over? Still no sign of this on the PCC Planning Portal and this is the 10th working day since it was sent to James Lloyd I assume, so if it doesn't appear tomorrow latest then it's time for a serious chase up It’s being chased today. Again. A lot of huffing and puffing, but what are we achieving? Sod all it looks like. Seems that we can question and even complain against council, planning committee et al but they escape with impunity. The idea of consultation etc is nothing more than a grotesque charade |
|
|
|
Post by admin on Jun 11, 2024 15:09:30 GMT
It’s being chased today. Again. A lot of huffing and puffing, but what are we achieving? Sod all it looks like. Seems that we can question and even complain against council, planning committee et al but they escape with impunity. The idea of consultation etc is nothing more than a grotesque charade Unfortunately it needed to be said Rodders and we can rely on you to say it |
|
|
|
Post by admin on Jun 13, 2024 9:59:43 GMT
I was going to post that. It made me chuckle as well. I'm buggered if I know how they come to that conclusion from the proposal  There’s probably a contract waiting for them. Although PCC allegedly seem to be struggling a bit registering some objections, I note that a support comment seems to have popped up within 24 hours of being posted? I don't think that we need to think too hard with this one? "We as a local bespoke property (developer/housebuilder) business support AEPG" - "and look forward to seeing this project progress with planning over the coming's months" The rest just reads like the standard AEPG script! |
|
bratters
Championship poster.
Posts: 165
|
Post by bratters on Jun 13, 2024 10:57:48 GMT
“We’ll consider giving you a contract if you put a supporting comment on the PCC planning portal”
Desperate. Nothing but a snake oil salesman.
|
|
|
|
Post by rodders on Jun 13, 2024 14:53:31 GMT
“We’ll consider giving you a contract if you put a supporting comment on the PCC planning portal” Desperate. Nothing but a snake oil salesman. Can we have an update on what the "consortium" are doing and what has been achieved, do they think realistically that they will achieve anything? Not being in the inner circle it seems we are pissing in the wind. |
|
|
|
Post by admin on Jun 13, 2024 15:22:38 GMT
“We’ll consider giving you a contract if you put a supporting comment on the PCC planning portal”Desperate. Nothing but a snake oil salesman. "This development is key to driving much needed growth in Peterborough not just from a housing perspective but also the much-needed leisure provisions that have been lacking across Peterborough and the region for many years." Isn't that just what Butterfield would say (or has said) in one of his softball radio interviews? Delusional as well: "This development will ensure the city is put on the UK map with one of the country's leading leisure led residential developments.  I prefer the objection from an adjoining neighbour: "AEPG proudly promotes that this center will be designed by leisure attractions specialist Greenspan, the creator of Volcano Falls in Milton Keynes. However, it is clear that this development is not about creating outdoor activities and traditional sports facilities for the residents of Peterborough. Instead, it is a theme park largely aimed at external paying visitors. This proves that the original plans submitted are already obsolete, with no leisure facilities for the community being included or any consideration of the road system requirements to serve such a venture. Please therefore reject this plan.And finally, interesting that outgoing MP Paul Bristow is calling himself the local candidate (has done bugger all for Peterborough Speedway) because the Labour guy is from Milton Keynes. Sounds like Andrew Pakes is trying to get away from Volcano Falls so doesn't want a new one on his doorstep, even if slightly out of his constituency? |
|
|
|
Post by admin on Jun 14, 2024 13:41:28 GMT
I prefer the objection from an adjoining neighbour: "AEPG proudly promotes that this center will be designed by leisure attractions specialist Greenspan, the creator of Volcano Falls in Milton Keynes. However, it is clear that this development is not about creating outdoor activities and traditional sports facilities for the residents of Peterborough. Instead, it is a theme park largely aimed at external paying visitors. This proves that the original plans submitted are already obsolete, with no leisure facilities for the community being included or any consideration of the road system requirements to serve such a venture. Please therefore reject this plan.And finally, interesting that outgoing MP Paul Bristow is calling himself the local candidate (has done bugger all for Peterborough Speedway) because the Labour guy is from Milton Keynes. Sounds like Andrew Pakes is trying to get away from Volcano Falls so doesn't want a new one on his doorstep, even if slightly out of his constituency? I thought that this was a wonderful self contained leisure led development with everything on-site? Interesting comments from AEPG about how residents would be able to get away, why would anyone want to: "In addition to the on-site provision, the East of England Showground is within One mile of Ferry Meadows Country Park, and the Ormiston Bushfield Academy open greenspace, and the recreational walk from Orton Meadows to Thorpe Meadows along the River Nene to the Embankment. We believe this area-wide green infrastructure, which is designed to accommodate public access to natural greenspace, has the capacity to support our proposals to mitigate any potential impact to the Castor Flood Meadows SSSI."Is that the Embanknent that they want to build the football ground on? Bang goes that greenspace! |
|
|
|
Post by admin on Jun 14, 2024 14:06:22 GMT
“We’ll consider giving you a contract if you put a supporting comment on the PCC planning portal” Desperate. Nothing but a snake oil salesman. Can we have an update on what the "consortium" are doing and what has been achieved, do they think realistically that they will achieve anything? Not being in the inner circle it seems we are pissing in the wind. I don't think that you're going to get a response Rodders, although I believe that some PR of some description will be forthcoming in the not too distant future. Hopefully that gives some clarification around such issues? It's stalemate though isn't it until AEPG/Butterield blink and his rant the other week shows that he's still in no mood for compromise and thinks that he's winning. All we can do is keep the pressure on to make it very uncomfortable for those proposing and supporting this unwanted project. His selfish cohort rant suggests that it's having an effect. That was very poor and unbecoming of a competent CEO. Meanwhile the planning portal has received a raft of useful information from significant opposing organisations to make the next rant not too far away! (I'll post them here (or an edited version if long) when I've had a read).  |
|
|
|
Post by admin on Jun 14, 2024 20:12:00 GMT
 Application Reference: 23/00412/OUT - Sport England Reference: PA/23/E/PE/65528 (23/5/24)Sport England have been consulted on this application twice previously, where we have commented by emails dated 6th October 2023 and 8th January 2024.In our response of 6th October 2023 we provided various comments in respect of the proposed new playing field provision. In respect of the loss of the speedway venue, we advised we were not in a position to provide a detailed response, such that the Council should consult with the National Governing Body for this sport, signposting the Council to the Speedway Control Bureau. We understood that Speedway Control Bureau and British Speedway had raised an objection to the loss of the speedway facility.Our response of 8th January commented on a rebuttal submission provided by the applicant. In respect of the loss of the speedway venue, we re-affirmed our position that we did not wish to comment in detail, but reiterated our advice to consult with the Speedway Control Bureau who had raised objection. We commented that the rebuttal statement did not seem to address the relevant planning policies. The applicant has now provided additional information, including a Leisure and Community Impact Assessment Report prepared by Collison & Associates dated December 2023. Our understanding is that the purpose of this document is to address the loss of the speedway venue and to demonstrate the benefits of the alternative sports provision.Sport England are unable to provide detailed comments on the sections that relate to the loss of the speedway venue, and will defer to the National Governing Body in respect of their analysis of the case presented. We understand that they have written to you today commenting and objecting to the additional information presented.Nonetheless, we would comment that the Council should consider the evidence presented carefully, taking into account the advice provided by the Speedway Control Bureau when assessing whether the proposal can be concluded to meet with para 103 of the NPPF. NPPF - Open space and recreation: AEPG have clearly focused on the "or" here and in LP30 & think that if they can convince PCC of meeting one of the items then they win the prize 103. Existing open space, sports and recreational buildings and land, including playing fields, should not be built on unless:
a) an assessment has been undertaken which has clearly shown the open space, buildings or land to be surplus to requirements; or
b) the loss resulting from the proposed development would be replaced by equivalent or better provision in terms of quantity and quality in a suitable location; or
c) the development is for alternative sports and recreational provision, the benefits of which clearly outweigh the loss of the current or former use.Specifically, in relation to para 103a) it is notable that the applicant makes reference to a recent appeal case at Brandon Stadium in Coventry (APP/E3715/W/23/3322013 - LINK)The applicant provides their commentary in respect of the main issues identified by the Inspector, and in respect of whether the stadium is surplus to requirements having regard to national and local planning policies, their commentary focusses on the economic viability of the facility. However, we would reference para 28 of the Inspectors Report which states: “The appellant argues that the need for a facility cannot be separated from the issue of viability. I disagree. Whilst they are related, they are in my view distinct matters. Whilst there may be a need for a particular facility, its does not mean it is viable. I address viability separately in this decision.” In paragraph 33, the Inspector addresses the issue of the number of motorsports venues declining nationally with a number of tracks under threat. She concludes the paragraph with “This does not indicate a sport in severe decline, rather it reinforces the need for existing stadiums to be retained”.As such, whilst Sport England does not wish to comment in detail on the applicant’s submission (the Speedway Control Bureau comments on this), we would urge the Council to carefully consider in light of the Inspectors approach to need and viability when assessing this application.The next few paragraphs deal with the other leisure led claims by AEPG - IT THEN ENDS:Although Sport England is not in a position to provide a detailed response on this occasion in respect of the loss of the speedway facility, the recognised National Governing Body is the Speedway Control Bureau, and their views should be sought in respect of the evidence presented regarding the loss of this facility. We understand that they have written to you today commenting and objecting to the additional information presented.In respect of assessing the benefits of the proposed new sports facilities and weighing this against the loss, Sport England have explained that it is difficult to comment further in the absence of up to date Playing Pitch and Built Sports Facilities strategies, both of which are proposed to be replaced shortly. Given the above, the Council should have regard to Sport England’s comments, and also have regard to the comments and objections of the Speedway Control Bureau in reaching their assessment as to whether the Council considers the proposal would meet with para 103 of the NPPF. |
|
|
|
Post by admin on Jun 14, 2024 21:36:13 GMT
 @britishspeedway.co.uk additional comments to September 2023's submission for 23/00412/OUT & 23/00400/OUT (23/5/24) This response should be read in conjunction with our comments of September 2023, all of which remain on the record.Following the additional reports submitted on April 19 on behalf of AEPG regarding planned redevelopment of the East of England Showground site, resulting in the permanent loss of speedway, British Speedway Promoters’ Ltd (BSP) and the Speedway Control Bureau (SCB) wish to reaffirm our total opposition to the scheme.Additionally, we wish to make the following comments on the Leisure and Community Impact Assessment Report, as prepared by Collison & Associates Ltd.We refer specifically to Section 2 – Assessment of the Viability of Speedway. We have no comment to make on the nature of the lease arrangement for Peterborough Speedway to operate at the East of England Showground; however, it is clear that a sport which ran continuously at the venue from 1970 until its closure (with the exception of one season due to Covid) meant that it was fully established and accepted in the city, and well supported.
In addition to Peterborough Panthers meetings, the venue staged numerous national and international events, bringing the world’s top riders to the area. Consequently, it is even more disappointing that when alternative plans for the site were being formulated, no thought appears to have been given to the possibility of re-locating the Panthers, which we submit contravenes National Planning Policy Framework, which specifically protects sport and recreation facilities where there is a continuing need.Attention is drawn to the final paragraph of page 11 which states “Anecdotal evidence from British Speedway” which we would respectfully suggest should ring an immediate alarm bell.There is no evidence whatsoever, either on our own website or elsewhere, to suggest that the vast majority of a speedway crowd is not made up of supporters of the home team. There is an attempt to suggest that because a rally in November 2022 attracted around 350 supporters, this was reflective of the Peterborough fan-base, which is a ludicrous position to take.
Rather than quote ‘anecdotal evidence’ we would ask why the authors of this report have not communicated with ourselves to establish the true position. The authors have provided no evidence to back up their claims as to the average attendance at the East of England Arena, which has in fact been substantially higher than 1,000 in recent seasons, and the reference to declining attendance in autumn is also a work of fiction, given that meetings which are staged in autumn tend to be important play-off fixtures, hence in autumn 2021 when Peterborough clinched the league title, attendances were in fact at their highest level in years. Page 12 also quotes “national evidence shows speedway is a declining sport” and goes on to make reference to a Guardian item published in 2019. Many of the arguments which follow have already been disproven in the recent public inquiry into the closure of Brandon Stadium, Coventry, which also quoted the same document, and we urge careful studying of the Coventry case. In particular, the section concerning TV figures is an inaccurate and disingenuous reflection of the position, and also takes no note of the current very successful arrangement with Eurosport/discovery+ as well as live streaming with the sport recording significantly increased viewing figures over recent years. Material in this section has been largely copied and pasted from other planning reports, which have been disproven elsewhere and accepted as inaccurate by their author.Page 12 also includes a bizarre and frankly irrelevant section relating to meetings being affected by the weather. It is also inaccurate, given that the NDL Final in 2023 was not between Mildenhall and Leicester – it was between Oxford and Leicester. Speedway, like any sport and particularly motorsport, can of course be affected by the weather, but the argument of “forcing paying attendees home without witnessing any matches” ignores the point that attendees would be allowed into the re-staging free of charge (or paying a proportionate admission should a meeting be abandoned during the event). The statement “This risk exists as conditions are only fully known once riders attempt riding the track, with the NDL final being called off after a leading rider suffered an accident” is completely false as the NDL final proceeded in satisfactory conditions, there was an accident in the 12th race out of 15 which was not related to the track being “slippery”, and then in the period whilst the rider was being attended to, heavy rain did move in and it was therefore not possible to continue. The result was then declared according to the provisions of the rulebook based on the races which had taken place. This section appears to have been included to ‘pad out’ the report, and to give the impression that the authors have some knowledge of the sport, because it has absolutely no relevance to the issue under discussion.The closures of Wolverhampton and Swindon are referred to, and these are also matters which we would take issue with. The argument of speedway shale reaching the greyhound track at Wolverhampton was only made some time after the closure notice had been given, in response to a public backlash. Speedway and greyhound racing do exist in the same stadium elsewhere in the country at venues such as Birmingham and Sheffield. Entain simply took a decision which was hugely unpopular locally in order to further boost their profits. Swindon Speedway was not in an unviable financial position, and we would be happy to discuss the very specific circumstances of that club and that venue should you wish to take the matter further. Across pages 13 and 14, Collison & Associates Ltd make reference to the argument that speedway at Peterborough is unnecessary due to the “alternative provision” available at King’s Lynn and Leicester. We say this is totally false. There is no evidence that the closure of one club results in supporters of that team transferring their allegiances elsewhere. It is the equivalent of Manchester United FC being closed down on the basis that supporters could instead visit Liverpool – or, on a lower level, Peterborough Utd being closed down with supporters instead told to go and support Leicester, Northampton or Cambridge. The argument is a total non-starter, and again has been proven to be factually incorrect in the Coventry case. Reference to Mildenhall Speedway is again irrelevant in this case as this was a club operating in the third tier, the development league, and whilst we do hope to welcome them back into the sport in future, their position should not be equated in any way with that of the loss of a Premiership club such as Peterborough. In conclusion, the narrative of this report (namely the assertion that speedway is a sport in terminal decline) is rather lazily copied and pasted from previous planning applications which have either not been determined (Arena-Essex) or have been accepted by an Inquiry Inspector to be untrue (Coventry). We would also like to take issue with recent media comments made by Mr Butterfield of AEPG which are intended to create the impression that speedway at the Showground was never viable, and that the objections to his plans are from a “small cohort” of people, remarkably describing them as “selfish.” He appears upset that the thousands of objections are delaying his bid to get spades into the ground and houses built. We would suggest that a sport which operated for 53 years (despite Mr Butterfield incredibly stating that “its home was never here”) was quite clearly viable for all concerned, and perhaps the only time when it did not become viable for the owners of the site was when they had removed all other events from the venue. Mr Butterfield should also be aware, as doubtless the members of the planning committee will be, that large sections of the report, and indeed his own statements, are irrelevant as viability is not a material consideration in the National Planning Policy Framework. NPPF instead puts the onus on the developer to prove that the displaced sport/land/activity is “surplus to requirements”, which is not the same as viability, and this exercise clearly has not been undertaken here.One way in which AEPG could ensure their scheme was compliant with National Planning Policy Framework would be to provide an alternative venue, in the Peterborough area, for the sport which they have evicted, or indeed to modify their own plans to support its retention at the Showground.However, as things stand, we believe there is no way this proposal should be accepted – or, realistically, even taken to planning committee – whilst the reports are so deficient and so full of falsehoods about our sport. Nikki Jameison (BSP OFFICE MANAGER) Neil Vatcher (SCB CO-ORDINATOR) |
|
|
|
Post by admin on Jun 15, 2024 15:48:28 GMT
Across pages 13 and 14, Collison & Associates Ltd make reference to the argument that speedway at Peterborough is unnecessary due to the “alternative provision” available at King’s Lynn and Leicester. We say this is totally false. There is no evidence that the closure of one club results in supporters of that team transferring their allegiances elsewhere. It is the equivalent of Manchester United FC being closed down on the basis that supporters could instead visit Liverpool – or, on a lower level, Peterborough Utd being closed down with supporters instead told to go and support Leicester, Northampton or Cambridge. The argument is a total non-starter, and again has been proven to be factually incorrect in the Coventry case. Reference to Mildenhall Speedway is again irrelevant in this case as this was a club operating in the third tier, the development league, and whilst we do hope to welcome them back into the sport in future, their position should not be equated in any way with that of the loss of a Premiership club such as Peterborough. Disappointed in this bit which missed a trick. The tribal nature argument is one thing but what about the reasons for that? Take the tribal element out of it and football is football at the end of the day, wherever you go and you'll get a nice seat and it's 11 v 11 on uniform grass pitch. Now transpose that to Peterborough Speedway and elsewhere. What other local speedway provides a similar customer experience in terms of track action & other facilities? I can't think of one and it certainly isn't Kings Lynn. I think the last time I visited the place was when Michael Jepsen Jensen ripped them a new one for the Panthers win? To be fair though, I might have been once since but it's always unmemorable so no surprise that I can't remember. Probably a better example would be if our nearest neighbour was Arena Essex and that was suggested as the “alternative provision” - what's the first thing that springs to mind? Only those who suffered an evening or two there will get the point. But if you're confused then just check in with Bigcatdiary |
|
|
|
Post by admin on Jun 17, 2024 9:02:54 GMT
Some light reading which have taken a week to appear on the Planning Portal for some reason  They were not there Friday or Saturday when I looked so were only added today 29/4! Looks like the gloves are off from page 10 of the Leisure and Community Impact Assessment. Indeed and it was good to see the BSP/SCB rebuttal appear on May 23 with their final summing up being: "One way in which AEPG could ensure their scheme was compliant with National Planning Policy Framework would be to provide an alternative venue, in the Peterborough area, for the sport which they have evicted, or indeed to modify their own plans to support its retention at the Showground.
However, as things stand, we believe there is no way this proposal should be accepted – or, realistically, even taken to planning committee – whilst the reports are so deficient and so full of falsehoods about our sport."I'm pretty sure that AEPG will be working with Collisons et al on a response to that? Unless AEPG/Collisons can convincingly say that the data/detail within the report is accurate and well sourced then there has to be serious question marks over their four alleged key reports? I wouldn't want to be the case officer/PCC fact checking that lot, and others! |
|
|
|
Post by admin on Jun 17, 2024 21:01:13 GMT
Looks like the gloves are off from page 10 of the Leisure and Community Impact Assessment. Indeed and it was good to see the BSP/SCB rebuttal appear on May 23 with their final summing up being: "One way in which AEPG could ensure their scheme was compliant with National Planning Policy Framework would be to provide an alternative venue, in the Peterborough area, for the sport which they have evicted, or indeed to modify their own plans to support its retention at the Showground.
However, as things stand, we believe there is no way this proposal should be accepted – or, realistically, even taken to planning committee – whilst the reports are so deficient and so full of falsehoods about our sport."I'm pretty sure that AEPG will be working with Collisons et al on a response to that? Unless AEPG/Collisons can convincingly say that the data/detail within the report is accurate and well sourced then there has to be serious question marks over their four alleged key reports? I wouldn't want to be the case officer/PCC fact checking that lot, and others! Gloves off again in the morning: Carl Johnson is being interviewed live on the BBC Radio Cambridgeshire Breakfast Show with Dotty McLeod at 7:10am. There will also be a recorded interview with David Rowe who is the press officer for the BSPL/SCB. Ashley Butterfield the Land Promoter for the East of England Agriculture Society will be interviewed on the same programme at 8:10am.Nothing on AEPG FB so we await "Did you catch our Founder and CEO Ashley Butterfield on the radio this morning?" and their recording of that part of the programme to see if he can keep calm and civil? |
|
|
|
Post by admin on Jun 18, 2024 8:00:06 GMT
Can we have an update on what the "consortium" are doing and what has been achieved, do they think realistically that they will achieve anything? Not being in the inner circle it seems we are pissing in the wind. Hopefully recordings of the two BBC Radio Cambs interviews this morning appear at some point: Johnson's was too early for me but I did catch Butterfield & that even made me squirm as the presenter really kept him on the topic of Peterborough Speedway. He really didn't want to go there and started waffling immediately about money. As most of his data comes from Collisons I'd keep quiet about that
And to address your point Rodders.The quick fix is a putting the damage right at the EoES allowing Panthers to return to the track (nobody seems to ask Butterfield why he wrecked the track, pits, lights etc?), or more importantly why he unnecessarily wrecked the Grandstand. I wish that Butterfield was pressed more on that. We say our focus is a return to the EoES, which is doable but obviously expensive and beset with problems now because AEPG have put the speedway out of commission because they think that it's job done as they think that they've met LP30 k. The facility is demonstrably no longer fit for purpose. The conversation always seems to be something from scratch elsewhere (even if elsewhere at the EoES) which would be years off at best. Our two positions in terms of the future are inconsistent IMHO. |
|
bratters
Championship poster.
Posts: 165
|
Post by bratters on Jun 18, 2024 14:08:02 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by admin on Jun 18, 2024 14:35:13 GMT
peterboroughtoday 18/6/24Bosses of Peterborough’s Showground have called on speedway groups to produce a full business case to show how the sport would fund a venue at the site. go forth and....... AEPG created the problem & now they are just trying to deflect, confuse and try to look smart & competent!Showground promoters AEPG say that without a comprehensive business plan it is impossible to comment on demands from the British Speedway Promoters and Speedway Control Bureau that room should be found for a track at the Showground or at an alternative site in the city. There is a track at the EoES despite their best efforts to totally knacker it!Speedway fans are angry that the top title-winning Peterborough Panthers speedway club and race track have been removed from the Showground to make way for a multi-million pound 1,500 homes and leisure-village complex. Prompted by Bratters' FB post I also did a Google search - just get AEPG to fix the unnecessary damage they have inflicted on on of Peterborough's most successful sporting teams: The Showground is owned by the charity the East of England Agricultural Society (EEAS), which no longer needs the land and has appointed AEPG to promote and oversee the development of the site. In a new submission to Peterborough City Council, speedway officials are urging the local authority to reject the plans for the development claiming they do not comply with the government’s National Planning Policy Framework. But they add: “One way in which AEPG could ensure their scheme was compliant would be to provide an alternative venue, in the Peterborough area, for the sport which they have evicted, or indeed to modify their own plans to support its retention at the Showground.“However, as things stand, we believe there is no way this proposal should be accepted.” The officials say they dispute AEPG claims that the Peterborough club is not viable, that its support is not home-based and that it is a sport in decline. An APEG spokesperson said: Then just some waffle about a business plan and the other guff spouted at the Peterborough Bondholders meeting!"We still await a business plan from the consortium which we requested on 20 May 2024." - could be waiting a while mate!“It is essential for the landowner (a registered charity) to ensure any activity is compliant with Charities Commission regulations, which dictate all activity must be in line with charitable aims. "The charity must not fund, or be liable to fund losses or subsidies, on any standalone activity outside of its charitable aims and objectives.” Don't quite get that? So hasn't the EEAS realised in 53 years that Peterborough Speedway doesn't meet that criteria? Also with the agricultural show finishing over a decade ago one could ask which aims and activities were compliant? - (from Wikipedia) The East of England Arena and Events Centre hosts an array of various events throughout the year, including music and comedy events, exhibitions, trade fairs, vehicle shows, weddings and festivals.
|
|
|
|
Post by admin on Jun 18, 2024 15:36:55 GMT
50m to 675m Isn't that up to 50m allocated, but to be agreed, within the local plan? That alone creates the problem but by chancing 675m Butterfield has most certainly unnecessarily backed himself and AEPG into a corner! |
|
bratters
Championship poster.
Posts: 165
|
Post by bratters on Jun 18, 2024 20:26:50 GMT
50m to 675m Isn't that up to 50m allocated, but to be agreed, within the local plan? That alone creates the problem but by chancing 675m Butterfield has most certainly unnecessarily backed himself and AEPG into a corner! Don’t forget the jobs being created went from 500 to 1000 in just two weeks. He’s not really a numbers man is he? Incidentally, the planning process does not require the Speedway club to provide a business plan, the onus is on the developers to provide proof of surplus to requirements - which of course he can’t do. There will be no business plan sent to him. |
|
|
|
Post by rodders on Jun 18, 2024 21:18:35 GMT
Total cobblers !!! Seems Butterflied thinks Speedway should produce a business plan not for Speedway but for Butterfield to keep Speedway. Butterfield should be forced to return stadium to its previous state.
|
|
bratters
Championship poster.
Posts: 165
|
Post by bratters on Jun 19, 2024 9:11:34 GMT
One wonders if AEPG produced a business plan for Axe Throwing, Padel, Golf Driving Range and Zip Wires.
|
|
