|
|
Post by admin on Jun 19, 2024 14:17:07 GMT
One wonders if AEPG produced a business plan for Axe Throwing, Padel, Golf Driving Range and Zip Wires. They'd point you in the direction of their Economic Impact Assessment which no doubt shows the well evidenced benefits of their Volcano Falls inspired development? I had a quick look but after the question marks raised by the BSPA in the other Collison report I thought that I'm not sure that I can believe a word of this? Plenty of projections and assumptions? Good luck to whoever has to fact check and make sense of that! |
|
bratters
Championship poster.
Posts: 165
|
Post by bratters on Jun 19, 2024 16:49:55 GMT
One wonders if AEPG produced a business plan for Axe Throwing, Padel, Golf Driving Range and Zip Wires. They'd point you in the direction of their Economic Impact Assessment which no doubt shows the well evidenced benefits of their Volcano Falls inspired development? I had a quick look but after the question marks raised by the BSPA in the other Collison report I thought that I'm not sure that I can believe a word of this? Plenty of projections and assumptions? Good luck to whoever has to fact check and make sense of that! Feel for the poor sap in the planning department who’s going to have to review this nonsense. I bet they drew lots before someone went off long term sick. 2024 spades in the ground? Absolutely laughable. |
|
|
|
Post by admin on Jun 20, 2024 15:03:25 GMT
They'd point you in the direction of their Economic Impact Assessment which no doubt shows the well evidenced benefits of their Volcano Falls inspired development? I had a quick look but after the question marks raised by the BSPA in the other Collison report I thought that I'm not sure that I can believe a word of this? Plenty of projections and assumptions? Good luck to whoever has to fact check and make sense of that! Feel for the poor sap in the planning department who’s going to have to review this nonsense. I bet they drew lots before someone went off long term sick. 2024 spades in the ground? Absolutely laughable. Here's an interesting one - (well I thought so  ) (PT 20/6/24) A new dog walking and exercise field planned on the outskirts of Eye in Peterborough has been refused planning permission.Plans has been submitted to change the use of agricultural land at Tanholt Farm to create a “safe and secure” grassland space, with off-road parking that will allow people to exercise their dogs on a per-per-use basis, to be booked online. Only one objection was received. It was from Peterborough Highways services, which raised a number of concerns about: the ownership rights and the design of a suitable turning area at the east end of Tanholt Lane, the visibility splays leaving the property and wanted further clarification on the visibility at the Eyebury Road and Tanholt Road junction. Cadent Gas did not object on the condition that a perimeter fence was installed under the supervision of the National Gas Transmission given that there is a high pressure pipeline that runs centrally through the proposed site. In rejecting the application, the decision notice- written by planning officers- stated: “Insufficient information has been submitted to demonstrate that the proposed development would not result in an adverse highway safety impact. |
|
|
|
Post by admin on Jun 20, 2024 22:04:05 GMT
Another selfish cohort working for the community to get their beloved team back on track:
SaveRyeHouseSpeedway@SaveRyeHouse (9:23 AM · Jun 19, 2024)
RHAG hope to receive support for the reinstatement of speedway at Rye House Stadium from PPC's at the GE in @broxbournebc - A 90 year old stadium that has been unlawfully ripped apart demands support
@catdeakin
@aja_curtis
@_LewisCocking
@nbelfitt
@owenbrett1
@reformukherts
|
|
|
|
Post by admin on Jun 24, 2024 8:59:52 GMT
The irony of this comment in support, made me laugh like a drain. Customer made comments in support I think this will be really beneficial for people in Peterborough as the city doesn't have much for people to do with families, this will be refreshing to see. Another support chuckle today from Hampshire, here's the icing: "this proposed development not only looks great it sets out to bring a financial/ quality of living gain to Peterborough's residents. Many other developments alike only seem interested in their own financial gain " And the cherry on top: "but reading through this developers dossier it appears they actually care for the wider community, nature and infrastructure of Peterborough. " |
|
|
|
Post by rodders on Jun 24, 2024 9:06:05 GMT
The irony of this comment in support, made me laugh like a drain. Customer made comments in support I think this will be really beneficial for people in Peterborough as the city doesn't have much for people to do with families, this will be refreshing to see. Another support chuckle today from Hampshire, here's the icing: "this proposed development not only looks great it sets out to bring a financial/ quality of living gain to Peterborough's residents. Many other developments alike only seem interested in their own financial gain " And the cherry on top: "but reading through this developers dossier it appears they actually care for the wider community, nature and infrastructure of Peterborough. " Are these people idiots or have they as I suspect some relationship with AEPG |
|
|
|
Post by admin on Jun 24, 2024 9:21:00 GMT
Another support chuckle today from Hampshire, here's the icing: "this proposed development not only looks great it sets out to bring a financial/ quality of living gain to Peterborough's residents. Many other developments alike only seem interested in their own financial gain " And the cherry on top: "but reading through this developers dossier it appears they actually care for the wider community, nature and infrastructure of Peterborough. " Are these people idiots or have they as I suspect some relationship with AEPG Unlikely to be idiots but also unlikely that someone from Hampshire would feel the need to read and quote developers documents, whilst commenting that those documents and they also speak for Peterborough residents, without "skin in the game"  I may be wrong and it's just other developers and/or the business world circling the wagons? who knows? As Bratters says though: "Feel for the poor sap in the planning department who’s going to have to review this nonsense"  |
|
|
|
Post by Bigcatdiary on Jun 24, 2024 13:11:29 GMT
Are these people idiots or have they as I suspect some relationship with AEPG Unlikely to be idiots but also unlikely that someone from Hampshire would feel the need to read and quote developers documents, whilst commenting that those documents and they also speak for Peterborough residents, without "skin in the game" I may be wrong and it's just other developers and/or the business world circling the wagons? who knows? As Bratters says though: "Feel for the poor sap in the planning department who’s going to have to review this nonsense" I am with Bratters on this one, if it’s so obvious to us it’s surely going to be flagged up by the planning officials when they weed all through it. It’s obviously Butterfield and his friends and family trying to somewhat balance the books bearing in mind the deluge of opposition submissions. |
|
|
|
Post by admin on Jun 24, 2024 14:15:56 GMT
Unlikely to be idiots but also unlikely that someone from Hampshire would feel the need to read and quote developers documents, whilst commenting that those documents and they also speak for Peterborough residents, without "skin in the game" I may be wrong and it's just other developers and/or the business world circling the wagons? who knows? As Bratters says though: "Feel for the poor sap in the planning department who’s going to have to review this nonsense" I am with Bratters on this one, if it’s so obvious to us it’s surely going to be flagged up by the planning officials when they weed all through it. It’s obviously Butterfield and his friends and family trying to somewhat balance the books bearing in mind the deluge of opposition submissions. Worse to come I fear so be prepared. Any golfing buddies running businesses and charities will obviously offer their support and in Butterfield's world that support therefore includes everyone associated with those businesses and charities, hence his 100,000 figure. Maybe I've got that wrong, and unfortunately I can't find atm where he said that they were looking at ways to produce their alleged data/support, but I'm looking forward to analysing the output! |
|
bratters
Championship poster.
Posts: 165
|
Post by bratters on Jun 25, 2024 13:58:02 GMT
I am with Bratters on this one, if it’s so obvious to us it’s surely going to be flagged up by the planning officials when they weed all through it. It’s obviously Butterfield and his friends and family trying to somewhat balance the books bearing in mind the deluge of opposition submissions. Worse to come I fear so be prepared. Any golfing buddies running businesses and charities will obviously offer their support and in Butterfield's world that support therefore includes everyone associated with those businesses and charities, hence his 100,000 figure. Maybe I've got that wrong, and unfortunately I can't find atm where he said that they were looking at ways to produce their alleged data/support, but I'm looking forward to analysing the output! Re 100k support. Hold my beer. . . . |
|
|
|
Post by admin on Jun 25, 2024 15:33:54 GMT
Unlikely to be idiots but also unlikely that someone from Hampshire would feel the need to read and quote developers documents, whilst commenting that those documents and they also speak for Peterborough residents, without "skin in the game" I may be wrong and it's just other developers and/or the business world circling the wagons? who knows? As Bratters says though: "Feel for the poor sap in the planning department who’s going to have to review this nonsense" I am with Bratters on this one, if it’s so obvious to us it’s surely going to be flagged up by the planning officials when they weed all through it. It’s obviously Butterfield and his friends and family trying to somewhat balance the books bearing in mind the deluge of opposition submissions. It does seem strange that someone from a residential address in Hampshire (3 hr 23 min (139.3 mi) via M25) is so concerned about an unwanted development in Peterborough that he or she will more than likely never ever visit, unless a contract is on hold? Or have no idea of the history of the site and the negatives of this monstrosity? Funnily enough the associated property has, if I've read it right, had some recent construction work done after planning by an architectural design consultancy, which possibly helps to explain the style and content of the portal post? Either the director or other staff member lives there and agreed to post the support comment, or the company provided the text? Yes I am hot, bored an irritable at the moment and this is what I decided to do |
|
|
|
Post by rodders on Jun 25, 2024 16:23:21 GMT
I am with Bratters on this one, if it’s so obvious to us it’s surely going to be flagged up by the planning officials when they weed all through it. It’s obviously Butterfield and his friends and family trying to somewhat balance the books bearing in mind the deluge of opposition submissions. It does seem strange that someone from a residential address in Hampshire (3 hr 23 min (139.3 mi) via M25) is so concerned about an unwanted development in Peterborough that he or she will more than likely never ever visit, unless a contract is on hold? Or have no idea of the history of the site and the negatives of this monstrosity? Funnily enough the associated property has, if I've read it right, had some recent construction work done after planning by an architectural design consultancy, which possibly helps to explain the style and content of the portal post? Either the director or other staff member lives there and agreed to post the support comment, or the company provided the text? Yes I am hot, bored an irritable at the moment and this is what I decided to do How is it that someone from Hampshire even knows about this? Not exactly national news |
|
|
|
Post by admin on Jun 25, 2024 16:24:27 GMT
Feel for the poor sap in the planning department who’s going to have to review this nonsense. I bet they drew lots before someone went off long term sick. 2024 spades in the ground? Absolutely laughable. Hope that he hasn't booked his holidays! They seem to have dropped the speedway rider from the ET graphic, so a couple of reminders:   Peterborough City Council has been urged to ‘speed up’ a decision on a multi-million pound leisure village and homes development on the 164 acre East of England Showground. The call comes from a company based at Peterborough United Football Club’s stadium. - somewhat ironic that they are happy to use their football club base while happily hastening the demise of the city's second most important sporting team/establishment? Thought that suggesting that the EoES would be an ideal location for Posh's new stadium would be a better use of their time.The development plans have meant the closure of the Peterborough Panthers speedway track after 53 years – a move that has sparked immense opposition from speedway fans. A speedway spokesman ( from the sport's governing bodies of the BSPA/SCB, just for clarification  ) has called on the council to ensure AEPG provides alternative provision for the speedway club or not approve the development applications.from peterboroughtoday 25/6/24 for the full unedited text if you need to read it?
Alternatively you can just watch this video while it's still there!
because both groups mentioned in the ET article are members an obviously heeded Butterfield's request. You'll get the idea that the rest is the usual standard narrative. |
|
|
|
Post by admin on Jun 26, 2024 20:59:05 GMT
As posted on the supporters club facebook page: CONSORTIUM DEMANDS PROOF!The Save Peterborough Speedway consortium have challenged land promoters AEPG to come up with the hard evidence that they have massive public support for their plans to redevelop the East of England Showground. AEPG boss Ashley Butterfield has repeatedly claimed 100,000 people support the scheme to build more than 1,500 houses, a hotel and a ‘leisure village’ on the 64-acre site which has been the home of speedway since 1970. The consortium of former promoters Mick Bratley and Carl Johnson, major club sponsor Michael Tomalin and businessmen backers Andy Fairchild and father and son Dave and Josh Hewitt, have been fighting to keep the Panthers alive since they were refused a new lease at the end of last year. There are no provisions in the plans lodged with Peterborough City Council to either allow speedway to continue at the historic venue or to provide, as demanded by the Local Plan, an alternative site or the financial contribution to ensure the sport continues in the city. And after monitoring the Peterborough City Council planning portal of close to 2,300 public comments, the consortium insist an overwhelming majority – around 2,000 – are opposing the plans and there are approximately 150 in support. They have already written twice to Mr. Butterfield asking him to substantiate his figures without receiving a satisfactory reply. A consortium spokesperson said: “He replied promptly to our first request but did not give the information that we asked for.” A second request was made in which Mr Butterfield was warned that in the absence of a substantive response and the information requested the consortium would conclude that there is no basis for the suggestions and would proceed accordingly. Again, he responded promptly on behalf of AEPG but, according to the consortium, he did not produce a substantive response, or the information requested. The consortium say that before contacting Mr Butterfield they reviewed the AEPG East of England Showground planning applications (23/00400/OUT & 23/00412/OUT) and the relevant national planning policies, they found no sign of the support of 100,000 people in the planning application consultation process as claimed. The consortium therefore concluded that the statements published were misleading. A consortium spokesperson said: "We will do everything we can to ensure that the case for speedway to be retained at the East of England Showground is considered on its merits and a proper scrutiny of the relevant planning and legal points." The consortium membership has now increased to seven following the addition of property and planning consultant Brian Connolly who has played a major role in the successful campaign by a Coventry group to fight a planning application for housing at the site of Brandon Stadium. The battle went all the way to appeal after Rugby District Council turned down developers’ proposals and the verdict was upheld by the government’s Planning Inspector. The Peterborough campaigners will use some of the legal points that helped the speedway and stock car supporters’ successful opposition to demolish the stadium. Mr Connolly said: “Mr Butterfield’s statement did not reflect the relevant planning considerations for the redevelopment proposed at the East of England Showground and we will continue our fight.” |
|
|
|
Post by admin on Jul 2, 2024 15:52:44 GMT
Now made Peterborough Today, although why Environment and not sport or business I don't know Peterborough speedway club demands proof of mass support for Showground development plans (peterboroughtoday 2/7/24)Over 2000 objections to the plans to create a new leisure village on the East of England Showground have been submitted. The consortium fighting to save Peterborough Panthers Speedway Club has challenged development agents AEPG to prove their claims that their plans to redevelop the site has widespread support. The 2022 title-winning speedway club and their race track have been removed from the East of England showground- their home since 1970- to make way for a multi-million pound 1,500 homes and leisure-village complex; consisting of two separate planning application of 650 and 850 homes. Both application are awaiting a decision but 2300 objections to the proposals have been received on the council website, as well as an estimated 150 letters in support. Members of the Peterborough Panthers Speedway Consortium previously wrote a letter to AEPG CEO Ashley Butterfield asking him to respond to questions including comments he had made that suggested ‘AEPG’s land use plan is supported by 50,000 / 100,000 people.’ Mr Butterfield told a meeting of business people in Peterborough in May that “enormous letters of support for the development represented the opinions of around 50,000 and that he was hopeful of getting this up to 100,000 people. In the same meeting, he branded speedway fans fighting for their club a “selfish, small cohort.” The consortium looking to save the team, however, have asked for proof regarding the claims. A consortium statement said: “Mr Butterfield replied promptly to our first request but did not give the information that we asked for. “A second request was made in which Mr Butterfield was warned that in the absence of a substantive response and the information requested the consortium would conclude that there is no basis for the suggestions and would proceed accordingly. “Again, he responded promptly on behalf of AEPG but, according to the consortium, he did not produce a substantive response, or the information requested. The consortium claim: “Having reviewed the AEPG East of England Showground planning applications (23/00400/OUT & 23/00412/OUT) and the relevant national planning policies and having found no sign of the support of 100,000 people in the planning application consultation process before contacting Mr Butterfield we have concluded that the statements published were misleading. “We will do everything we can to ensure that the case for speedway to be retained at the East of England Showground is considered on its merits and a proper scrutiny of the relevant planning and legal points.” In response to a request from the Peterborough Telegraph, AEPG was no more forthcoming.
A spokesperson said: “AEPG continues to work collaboratively through the planning application with PCC. This process does not require AEPG to supply any information at the behest of a third party that is not a statutory consultee."The Save Peterborough Speedway consortium have obviously expressed their wishes to be part of the showground as a new company, after the existing owner of Peterborough Speedway Ltd confirmed he would no longer be at the showground site after the last season ended in October 2023. "We were pleased Mr Chapman expressed his gratitude at that time for the support he had received prior to the mutually agreed end to the annual licensed agreement.In order for the landowner, the East of England Agricultural Society to review this new request, AEPG have asked for a business plan. |
|
|
|
Post by admin on Jul 2, 2024 16:37:40 GMT
Good to see us in the news but not sure that it moves the dial too much. It's not a particularly good read. Unless there is something going on that we don't know about, I can't see Butterfield losing any  on this issue and will be reasonably happy with that? |
|
|
|
Post by admin on Jul 5, 2024 15:52:47 GMT
Public meeting to be held over Peterborough Showground redevelopment plansA public meeting is to be held over plans to redevelop the East of England Showground. A public meeting, hosted by Orton Waterville ward councillor Nicola Day and the Green team, is being held at Orton Wistow Primary School hall on Wednesday July 17 at 6pm over plans to redevelop the East of England Showground that are yet to be considered by Peterborough City Council. Why? What's on the agenda? & 6pm on a Wednesday AEPG, the chosen land agents of the East of England Agricultural Society- which owns the showground, has previously said that it hoped that spades could go in the ground by next April. The proposed development has already led to the closure of the Showground as an events venue; meaning that Truckfest, Festival of Antiques and a large number of other popular events and shows have been forced out of the city.The Peterborough Panthers Speedway team has also been ejected from its home track used since its founding in 1970. Where did that come from all of a sudden, and why? peterboroughtoday.co.uk/news/ environment/public-meeting-to-be-held-over-peterborough-showground-redevelopment-plans 4/7/24
|
|
|
|
Post by admin on Jul 8, 2024 21:29:02 GMT
SaveRyeHouseSpeedway@SaveRyeHouse 8/7/24
Congratulations @_LewisCocking for being elected MP for Broxbourne. RHAG hope we can rely on your support to reinstate the speedway track at RH Stadium after it was unlawfully removed. A huge part of Hoddesdons identity needs to be put back. @aja_curtis @bobdeering4 @broxtories
Will we get more support from new Peterborough MP Andrew Pakes than we did from Bristow, even though the EoES is now unfortunately effectively under the remit of someone who wasn't even at school when Bratters & Frost were at the helm and Panthers 2006 were ripping up the shale!
|
|
|
|
Post by admin on Jul 11, 2024 16:11:38 GMT
Public meeting to be held over Peterborough Showground redevelopment plansA public meeting is to be held over plans to redevelop the East of England Showground. A public meeting, hosted by Orton Waterville ward councillor Nicola Day and the Green team, is being held at Orton Wistow Primary School hall on Wednesday July 17 at 6pm over plans to redevelop the East of England Showground that are yet to be considered by Peterborough City Council. Why? What's on the agenda? & 6pm on a Wednesday AEPG, the chosen land agents of the East of England Agricultural Society- which owns the showground, has previously said that it hoped that spades could go in the ground by next April. The proposed development has already led to the closure of the Showground as an events venue; meaning that Truckfest, Festival of Antiques and a large number of other popular events and shows have been forced out of the city.The Peterborough Panthers Speedway team has also been ejected from its home track used since its founding in 1970. Where did that come from all of a sudden, and why? peterboroughtoday.co.uk/news/ environment/public-meeting-to-be-held-over-peterborough-showground-redevelopment-plans 4/7/24 For anyone going who wants to question Butterfield's claim that Peterborough is short of his type of proposed leisure, you can firstly point to Ferry Meadows and their proposed activity centre & climbing wall, as well as this that popped up in the ET today, funnily enough with climbing wall and axe-throwing angleentertainment.co.uk/angle-peterborough/ - by the time this thing ever got built there could be a glut of such entertainment and the city might be better suited by more focussed national entertainment like speedway perhaps? Just a thought |
|
|
|
Post by rodders on Jul 11, 2024 16:43:53 GMT
It is quite clear that a climbing wall is essential in any community and indeed in every back garden. What puzzles me is why people do not see that.
|
|
|
|
Post by admin on Jul 11, 2024 22:46:37 GMT
I see Bratters was talking on the BSF about lack of infrastructure so interesting that these popped up:
23/00412/OUT Representation from Consultee (Web) Ambulance Service 10/07/2024
This proposed development is likely to impact on the services of 3 x ambulance stations operating within the vicinity: travel times from Peterborough Ambulance Stations and Hub in rush hour traffic to the development location are circa 20 minutes (Reference ShapeAtlas) (NB this is a standard reference point and does not mean ambulances come from these locations in order to respond to calls).
S106 funding would be used to support establishment of a new ambulance station post with capacity for 2 ambulances in the development area to meeting the population growth from this development. Each ambulance requires 78.46m2 GIA at a cost of £5,167 per m2.
This development of 650 dwellings would see an increase in patient pressure of circa 1,560 residents generating circa 359 emergency incidents per annum (2023/24 activity is currently calculated at population level across the East of England (residents 6.3m) / number of Incidents in (1.4m) = 0.23 incidents per person per annum). This development combined with other developments in Peterborough places significant pressure on Peterborough ambulance stations to maintain mandated response times.
A developer contribution will be required to mitigate the impacts of this proposal and is calculated at £221,000 (650 houses * £340 Infrastructure Cost ( EEASTs baseline infrastructure cost* calculation of £340 is based on 2.2 persons per dwelling as submitted to Peterborough IDP Regulation 18 consultation November 2023)). Strange calculation & seems a bit cheap?
As for 23/00400/OUT:This development of 850 dwellings and care village would see an increase in patient pressure of circa 2,040 residents generating circa 469 emergency incidents per annum (2023/24 activity is currently calculated at population level across the East of England (residents 6.3m) / number of Incidents in (1.4m) = 0.23 incidents per person per annum). This development combined with other developments in Peterborough places significant pressure on Peterborough ambulance stations to maintain mandated response times. A developer contribution will be required to mitigate the impacts of this proposal and is calculated at £289,000. (same calculation as above)
|
|
bratters
Championship poster.
Posts: 165
|
Post by bratters on Jul 12, 2024 22:36:19 GMT
I see Bratters was talking on the BSF about lack of infrastructure so interesting that these popped up: 23/00412/OUT Representation from Consultee (Web) Ambulance Service 10/07/2024This proposed development is likely to impact on the services of 3 x ambulance stations operating within the vicinity: travel times from Peterborough Ambulance Stations and Hub in rush hour traffic to the development location are circa 20 minutes (Reference ShapeAtlas) (NB this is a standard reference point and does not mean ambulances come from these locations in order to respond to calls). S106 funding would be used to support establishment of a new ambulance station post with capacity for 2 ambulances in the development area to meeting the population growth from this development. Each ambulance requires 78.46m2 GIA at a cost of £5,167 per m2. This development of 650 dwellings would see an increase in patient pressure of circa 1,560 residents generating circa 359 emergency incidents per annum (2023/24 activity is currently calculated at population level across the East of England (residents 6.3m) / number of Incidents in (1.4m) = 0.23 incidents per person per annum). This development combined with other developments in Peterborough places significant pressure on Peterborough ambulance stations to maintain mandated response times.A developer contribution will be required to mitigate the impacts of this proposal and is calculated at £221,000 (650 houses * £340 Infrastructure Cost ( EEASTs baseline infrastructure cost* calculation of £340 is based on 2.2 persons per dwelling as submitted to Peterborough IDP Regulation 18 consultation November 2023)). Strange calculation & seems a bit cheap?As for 23/00400/OUT:This development of 850 dwellings and care village would see an increase in patient pressure of circa 2,040 residents generating circa 469 emergency incidents per annum (2023/24 activity is currently calculated at population level across the East of England (residents 6.3m) / number of Incidents in (1.4m) = 0.23 incidents per person per annum). This development combined with other developments in Peterborough places significant pressure on Peterborough ambulance stations to maintain mandated response times. A developer contribution will be required to mitigate the impacts of this proposal and is calculated at £289,000. (same calculation as above) That’s half a million from section 106 money for just one organisation. We want to be part of that section 106 money. For balance the section 106 money for the Lakeside development (before the developers bailed out) was over £30m. |
|
|
|
Post by admin on Jul 16, 2024 14:46:57 GMT
I see Bratters was talking on the BSF about lack of infrastructure so interesting that these popped up: 23/00412/OUT Representation from Consultee (Web) Ambulance Service 10/07/2024This proposed development is likely to impact on the services of 3 x ambulance stations operating within the vicinity: travel times from Peterborough Ambulance Stations and Hub in rush hour traffic to the development location are circa 20 minutes (Reference ShapeAtlas) (NB this is a standard reference point and does not mean ambulances come from these locations in order to respond to calls). S106 funding would be used to support establishment of a new ambulance station post with capacity for 2 ambulances in the development area to meeting the population growth from this development. Each ambulance requires 78.46m2 GIA at a cost of £5,167 per m2. This development of 650 dwellings would see an increase in patient pressure of circa 1,560 residents generating circa 359 emergency incidents per annum (2023/24 activity is currently calculated at population level across the East of England (residents 6.3m) / number of Incidents in (1.4m) = 0.23 incidents per person per annum). This development combined with other developments in Peterborough places significant pressure on Peterborough ambulance stations to maintain mandated response times.A developer contribution will be required to mitigate the impacts of this proposal and is calculated at £221,000 (650 houses * £340 Infrastructure Cost ( EEASTs baseline infrastructure cost* calculation of £340 is based on 2.2 persons per dwelling as submitted to Peterborough IDP Regulation 18 consultation November 2023)). Strange calculation & seems a bit cheap?As for 23/00400/OUT:This development of 850 dwellings and care village would see an increase in patient pressure of circa 2,040 residents generating circa 469 emergency incidents per annum (2023/24 activity is currently calculated at population level across the East of England (residents 6.3m) / number of Incidents in (1.4m) = 0.23 incidents per person per annum). This development combined with other developments in Peterborough places significant pressure on Peterborough ambulance stations to maintain mandated response times. A developer contribution will be required to mitigate the impacts of this proposal and is calculated at £289,000. (same calculation as above) That’s half a million from section 106 money for just one organisation. We want to be part of that section 106 money. For balance the section 106 money for the Lakeside development (before the developers bailed out) was over £30m. Emergency services chiefs are calling for £510,000 to be made available to create new ambulance stations to cover the propsed development at the East of England Showground. East of England Ambulance Service bosses say the funds should be provided by the Showground through a section 106 agreement as part of conditions attached to any planning approval for the developments. Commenting on AEPG's plan, the ambulance service’s Zoë May, head of business relationships, states that the EoES development would ‘impact on the services of the three ambulance stations currently operating within the vicinity’. She states that for each development ‘Section 106 funding would be used to support the establishment of a new ambulance station post with capacity for two ambulances in the development area to meet the population growth.’ "This development combined with other developments in Peterborough places significant pressure on Peterborough ambulance stations to maintain mandated response times."She says that the additional funds would be allocated, in agreement with the council, to support the establishment of additional ambulance station response posts, the development of a Peterborough Hub, for instance with electric vehicle charging and additional power supply for the use of EV ambulances, the purchase of additional ambulances and rapid response vehicles to meet the demand from the new developments and the purchase of extra equipment for community responders in Peterborough. Given the additional congestion from this fantasy and other developments in Peterborough, as well as population growth on already creaking services, I'd double that at least!How does the ambulance service calculate its costs? - The formula used by the ambulance service to work out the cost of additional emergency ambulance health services arising from a development proposal is that each home is assumed to be used by an average 2.2 people and the cost of cover per home is £340. So do they get off lightly with a minimal one off charge for the ongoing city problems that they would be creating? |
|
|
|
Post by rodders on Jul 16, 2024 20:01:13 GMT
I do not see and have never seen where all this is going. Nothing but admiration for Bratters and the consortium, but others are always it seems to me several steps ahead of us. Regardless of planning every delay is a victory for AEPG. Support for Speedway lies with the older generation and the longer this goes on the more the odds are against Speedway returning . Eventually and in not too distant future there will be few left who give stuff about Speedway or even know what Speedway is.
|
|
|
|
Post by admin on Jul 16, 2024 21:11:07 GMT
I do not see and have never seen where all this is going. Nothing but admiration for Bratters and the consortium, but others are always it seems to me several steps ahead of us. Regardless of planning every delay is a victory for AEPG. Support for Speedway lies with the older generation and the longer this goes on the more the odds are against Speedway returning . Eventually and in not too distant future there will be few left who give stuff about Speedway or even know what Speedway is. Depends where you think it is going, which is not in the direction where you or many others (including me) want it to be going. If we don't get 2025, which in reality was always a fantasy, or some significant wins somewhere pdq then I'd say that your summing up is pretty accurate. I can't see the consortium or support lasting too long once 2024 is out. Losing this season was a disaster and was the coffin lid being closed. As you say, we're always playing catch and I'm sure that they are preparing the final nail and hammer. That's down to PCC in the final analysis and who has any faith in them in the current environment? Where it's going though is nowhere fast seemingly, along with the likes of Brandon, Lakeside, Swindon, Wolves et al! It's trench warfare and waiting for someone to crack! If you're looking for those big wins then you are going to be disappointed I fear. All we (or me basically) on here is highlight some of the flaws in their plans and associated. Will it make a difference? On a scale of 0-10 it's probably 0, but life support hasn't been switched of yet, even though the fingers on the switch! So I'll stick with it until I get a new dog! |
|
) (PT 20/6/24)
) has called on the council to ensure AEPG provides alternative provision for the speedway club or not approve the development applications.
on this issue and will be reasonably happy with that?