Mankover Planning application submitted

Dick Trickle wrote:

Rickler.....

Biggs on the Farm doesn't know who you are

Quote :

I'd certainly never even heard of Nigel.

But there are people over there who know stuff about us that we don't even know ourselves. I mean, apparently I'm a 'senior member' (whatever that is - sounds more like the kind of thing I'd call somebody like the poster who came up with it) of the AFT. Could have sworn I haven't been any kind of member of it for a few years now.

Peggy wrote:

Dick Trickle wrote:

Rickler.....

Biggs on the Farm doesn't know who you are

Quote :

I'd certainly never even heard of Nigel.

But there are people over there who know stuff about us that we don't even know ourselves. I mean, apparently I'm a 'senior member' (whatever that is - sounds more like the kind of thing I'd call somebody like the poster who came up with it) of the AFT. Could have sworn I haven't been any kind of member of it for a few years now.

I think he refered to you as the 'victim of all victims' as well Peggy.

Tbh you've managed to piss him off to such a magnificent standard, you've got to be due some sort of ATD Janner Banner.

For an organisation who were invited to the working group PADSA seem to have a lot of issues with the Grandstand Developments' coformance with disability legislation. Bleddy troublemakers.

PADSA wrote:

PADSA is a voluntary group that represents disabled supporters who
attend PAFC. Our members have a range of disabilities from hearing
and visually impaired, ambulant and wheelchair / mobility scooter users
and those with hidden disabilities such as autism dementia etc.
We the committee would like to make the following comments as we
have had meeting with Tony Hopwood and Richard Cord and these are
issues we are concerned about with the planning application for PAFC
1) Lack of disabled parking for all the planning application. There would
be less car parking spaces. There was a suggestion of 4 spaces. There
should be at least 6% of the total number of spaces for disabled badge
holders who are staff and visitors. How many spaces are there to be?
the lack of drop off points many disabled supporters travel by taxi to and
from the ground on match days or are dropped off by others These drop
off points need to be near to where they gain entrance to the venue
In public transport buses can only accommodate 1 wheel chair at a time
and some services the buses used are not wheelchair friendly. The bus
stops where buses serve the central park area are quite distance away
from the ground Some areas of the city are not served by a bus at all or
do not run when evening matches are on.
Page 1
Grandstand
1) There are no disabled toilets in the stand you have to go outside to
the outside concourse there would be 4 .disabled toilets. The timing to
get to these and back again and having to go out into the open air when
the weather is not good is a great concern.
What are the sizes of the proposed toilets? Colour scheme Signage
Are they to be accessible unisex toilets? (Transgender)
Ambulant disabled toilet? Changing place toilet?
We need to consider the needs of those who have dementia has they
have different things they require from what a disabled person may need
eg a mirror for a disabled person but someone with dementia does not
like mirrors.
The City of Plymouth currently has three changing place toilet facilities
these are disabled toilets with hoists and shower facilities. This would be
an ideal opportunity for all agencies involved with central park to work
with the Council those involved with the central park updates, the life
centre, PAFC and Akkeron to provide this facility. It was in the original
plans before this facility would be provided. Thou a changing place
facility exists in the life centre it is for those accessing the facilities there
or are spectators it is not open to the public All disabled people should
have an opportunity to enjoy leisure facilities within central park and this
would be a good opportunity to create another somewhere on the site.
2) There would be room for 56 wheelchairs and 70 seats for carers with
the new wheelchair platforms .All under cover. Is there enough space
around so families can be seated as near to each other as possible with
a family member is a wheelchair user?
Level Playing Field Guidelines for PAFC Home supporters have 80
spaces for wheelchair users available to them, and these can be found
at pitch side. 28 spaces for wheelchair users can be found at pitch side
in the away section for away supporters. Supporters with ambulant
disabilities can request front row or aisle seating in segregated areas.
Page 2
NB: Under existing minimum standards for accessible stadia, the club
should have 145 wheelchair spaces (123 home and up to 22 away).
75% of these should be elevated positions and the remaining 25% pitch
side. Based on the above, the club therefore only meets 74% of the
guidance and has a shortfall of 37 wheelchair spaces. They should be
working on a plan to rectify this deficit within a reasonable timeframe
under the auspices of a full independent Access Audit.
At present we only have 9 elevated wheelchair spaces which are in the
disabled enclosure.
3) If those using mobility scooters and they transfer to a seat where are
the scooters being parked? They need to near to where the person is
seated to be able to access them. This also needs to include prams.
4) Seating for ambulant disabled would be the next row down from the
wheelchair platforms. Can these be behind the wheelchair platforms so
no one will stand up blocking the view of ambulant disabled. Will they be
extra leg room seating? But at no extra charges would be made for
this.eg paying for premier seating.
Will there be a section of seating set aside for those fans who are
disabled who like to be sat together (same as the disabled enclosure
now?) Those who have learning disabilities and autism who like to be
away from people etc. and find it easier to cope in a set area.
Level Playing Field Guidelines for PAFC LPF's view is that many
disabled supporters should be able to access general seating areas and
only those with specific needs eg those who require extra legroom, or
access via aisle seats or who need step free access etc should be
allocated seats in the dedicated areas. At present supporters with
ambulant disabilities can request front row or aisle seating in segregated
areas.
5) There is a ramp of 1/12 gradient to access the seating area where the
wheelchair platforms are situated is this to used solely for the wheelchair
users and ambulant disabled? Will it be stewarded? Emergency plan
and how to manage this area? What type will the flooring surface be?
Page 3
Public walkways need to be the maximum size can wheelchair users
and the public pass by each other safely? What flooring will be used?
Are there to be any rest area seating?
6) Soccer sight will this be included into where the media part will be and
can we check that their equipment can be used
7) Visual impact non sight lines this has been checked but will it be
check at every point when things are built or altered?
Hearing loop system will this be available in the seating area?
9) Is there an area for assistant dogs?
10) Catering facilities will be outside on the main outside concourse This
is a long way to go at half time. Thou things can be put in place to help
in this matter such as orders being taken and bought to disabled fans.
11) There would be a lift to the new part for hospitality, offices etc what
are the lift sizes? We need to remember that many are using mobility
scooters and power wheelchairs which are quite large plus the need for
carers to be able to accompany in a lift.
Can an area be set aside for a sensory room and memory room for
those dementia?
12) In hospitality there would be places for wheelchairs users such as
low bar counter, removable furniture. What type of seating, tables will be
available, hearing loop system, tactile signage?
13) Ticket office will be a low counter with hearing loop system. Will
there be a text relay telephone?
14) Disabled enclosure is not being demolished could be still used thou
how will the sight lines be affected with the new seating areas? We need
to remember all those with different disabilities from wheelchair users,
ambulant disabled, hearing and visual impairments; dementia learning
disabilities all have different needs and should be fully consulted on
access issues on the planned refurbishment of the grandstand.

How can FOCP support this development when they wrote this.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the above planning application.  

The Friends of
Central Park
Plymouth

FOCP is a community group whose aims include the preservation, protection and
improvement of Central Park as a place of historical and ecological interest, beauty, rest and
recreation.
We have reviewed the planning application against those aims , as well as policies in the
Joint Local Plan submission, and make the following representation.  
Higher Home Park Development of the Higher Home Park site is likely to improve its standard of presentation.  We therefore support the planning application, subject to achieving satisfactory resolution of all the following issues where park amenity and its usage are affected
.
1.Park main entrance
.  
The park’s main entrance is poorly defined and not immediately apparent to new visitors.
The development will exacerbate the situation by obscuring the hedgerow trees on Gilbert Lane and narrowing the field of view when approaching from Outland Road. Part of the area by the Gilbert Lane entrance is owned by HHP NOMINEE LIMITED.  
For these reasons, and in view of the scale of development and its impact on the local area, the applicant should be required to make provision for a suitably-designed park entrance to include
stone pillars and a splayed hedgebank into Gilbert Lane.

2.
Layout on east side of the Life Centre.

The road and footway layout on the east side of the Life Centre
is confusing and this approach to Central Park is dominated by unwelcoming hard surfaces.
The development will increase the number of pedestrians using the area on a daily basis and high
buildings on both sides will make it seem more of a bare, wind - swept ‘canyon’. Concerns about safety and usability should be addressed by requiring the applicant to design and implement an acceptable road and footway layout which should include re-planting the tree pits  and introducing other soft landscape elements.

3.
Surface water drainage.

It appears that overflows from the existing soakaway discharge into Central Park and the whole of the existing drainage arrangement contributes to uncontained groundwater issues which spill across paths
and make transit difficult. Enlarging the existing soakaway as proposed will hardly reduce the problem and could worsen it if more aquifers are intersected.  Instead, high priority should be given to designing and implementing a drainage solution that will contribute to providing channelled surface water in the park as a much wanted amenity. It should be noted that previous studies have ruled out the use of soakaways for this site.  In 2013, investigations by Edenvale Young recorded exceptionally low infiltration rates and Hydrock deemed soakaways not viable.  In 2009, an investigation by Ove Arup & Partners for the adjacent Life Centre site considered infiltration drainage was not suitable.

4.
Path on western edge of Zoo Field.  

The development would block the current path between Coronation Avenue and Gilbert Lane on the
western edge of Zoo Field.  This is a wide, well used path and any deviation from the existing route would present a major obstacle to people walking in the park.  Furthermore, the current ownership boundary inhibits effective grounds management such that the whole field has become untidy.  The
issue could start to be addressed by developing a landscape plan that reflects stakeholder needs and desires. It will require clear terms of reference and independent professional leadership.  The applicant
should be required to commit to the process, understanding that the developed landscape plan would
inform the park’s Masterplan and become the basis for determining future work.
   
5.
Parking.

The Transport Statement overlooks the parking needs of Central Park visitors.  Those wanting to use facilities by the clock tower roundabout already find it difficult to park close by because of pressure on spaces in the Life Centre car - park and the same can apply for the Park - and - Ride car - park.  Crowded car - parks tend to deter people from visiting Central Park and this issue, which directly affects the park’s vitality, needs to be addressed before development is permitted.

6.
Gilbert Lane.  

The plans show extensive felling which would risk damaging the hedgerow structure.  Only trees that are at risk of falling should be removed or reduced initially, hedge banks should be cleared of all foreign matter and, thereafter, there should be ongoing management.  
The plan to include a soft verge on the PAFC side of the hedge is welcome as this will assist in keeping the hedgerow trees healthy and, suitably kerbed, it will help to define the parking area so that vehicles do not rub against or dislodge the hedge bank or its plants.

Western Gateway Site Development of the Western Gateway site is likely to improve its standard of presentation.  We therefore support the planning application, subject to achieving satisfactory resolution of the following issues where park amenity is impacted.

1.
The Vets/Office and Hotel buildings will be clearly visible extending out beyond the Life Centre into
Central Park and they will stand taller than that side of the Life Centre building.
They will obscure the Life Centre’s frontage from some views and dominate it from others,
thereby detracting from the Life Centre as a focal point. This issue could be addressed by placing restrictions on the extent and height of any new building in the area .

2.
Some trees will be lost as part of the development and the applicant should be required to
plant and establish others so that tree cover in the immediate vicinity is maintained or
improved.
[END)

PADSA wrote:

The City of Plymouth currently has three changing place toilet facilities
these are disabled toilets with hoists and shower facilities. This would be
an ideal opportunity for all agencies involved with central park to work
with the Council those involved with the central park updates, the life
centre, PAFC and Akkeron to provide this facility. It was in the original
plans before this facility would be provided. Thou a changing place
facility exists in the life centre it is for those accessing the facilities there
or are spectators it is not open to the public All disabled people should
have an opportunity to enjoy leisure facilities within central park and this
would be a good opportunity to create another somewhere on the site.

Unbelievable. Now the Brent fans, disabled or not, are suggesting the cost of Brent's responsibilities for disabled fans should be met by the funding secured for the wider park, the council, and anyone who falls for it. It's Brent's responsibility to provide the necessary disabled facilities for his businesses, not others.
He bought the land, REMEMBER ?, HHP and Argyle match days are either a separate entity from the wider park or they're not. They're either dumb or have been prodded at meetings. The cheek of it.

Free Chat Tim Chown

The Environment Agency as a statutory consultee have today commented on the planning application, and have said that while they have no objections in principle

“We concur with the proposal to further investigate solutions and opportunities for surface water management from the site within Central Park. Accordingly we recommend that no development is brought forward until a surface water management solution is submitted to the satisfaction of the Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA). “

Their full comment is on the planning portal.

What this means is that much more detailed drainage investigation work, ground testing and design is required before the Environment Agency is satisfied with the proposals and can support them.

This work is time consuming and will cause delays. Then Akkeron will have to reach agreement with a third party (the Council) to carry out drainage works on PCC land in Central Park. More delay.

It's worth noting that the Grandstand refurbishment proposal does not increase the impermeable area for surface water drainage within its site, so if the Grandstand refurbishment had been submitted as a separate application it would not have required any additional surface water

I agree with you TG. At the last FOCP meeting it seemed the feeling, although no vote was held at all, was that it would be deemed more effective in the long run to support,  but list their "shopping list". Ludicrous logic and will get them nowhere. They either don't know the cunning they are dealing with, or are ducking their responsibilities. They won't get what they want from Brent. The land drainage worries just show how sneaky Brent has been lobbing in a hybrid application. It's almost like he's just pumped forward a long ball and hopes someone gets on the end of it. If he goes one -up, he'll play safe until half time and sell the permissions for a nice bunce, so as to avoid the brick thing.

As for what happens in the HHP car park, we have all known the ice rink was going there, and FOCP, as a public group, don't seem too fussed at all about the office block and gym it would seem, as they of course aren't bothered about asset stripping and the football centric side of the debate. The car park has of course been a constant eye sore for years, so they obviously back that changing as soon as possible. Argyle fans are a tiny minority of city residents, and I can't argue with that premise. They seemed to have no concept of how many eateries were planned and were frankly all over the place, with little direction. The chair seemed at odds with attendees over the parking issues, with no coherent strategy, with viewpoints split 50/50. I think the rockery is more important.
There is clearly a "no more green space lost" stand of FOCP, as there should be, but as you know, they didn't have a clue that the club were after more park space for their own "training" private use over and above Harpers Park. Extraordinary.

They fell right into his trap

Quote

PAFC welcomes the feedback from The Friends of Central Park Plymouth supporting the plans which The Friends believe will improve the standard of presentation of both Higher Home Park and Western Gateway."

Why did they not say neutral like PADSA

Tringreen wrote:

nzgreen wrote:

sufferedsince 68 wrote:

Czarcasm wrote:

Whatever anyone thinks of Hallett, the fact he's a Plymothian who is willing put his hand in his pocket to try and drag the club forward - and as a minority shareholder -  makes him a thousand times more desirable as a potential owner than Brent.

If I was Hallett, I'd be making one or two things crystal clear to Jimbob.

Hallet, would be an upgrade from the Brentmare, though thats not setting the bar high, and its true he's loaned the club money, but i dont understand why a guy who's obviously been successful in buisness would want to play second fiddle to wor Jimmy?
If Hallet really wants to take the club forward he should offer to buy out Brent or pull the plug on his loan, because i cant believe he's happy about this ackeron crap being involved with the Grandstand Mankover.

Has Brent/Akkeron built anything, crap or otherwise, in Plymouth, or for that matter anywhere? I live a long way away now and obviously I'm not a praaper faan, but was just wondering...

Not as far as I'm aware. They 'acquire' property and sit on it, waiting for someone else to pay for development. The failed neoliberalism introduced by Thatcher & Reagan has produced shysters who play the system and con the peasants.

I was looking on Google for Brent and his Romanian Farm that he bought to property squat on.....
Top of listings was this not seen it before

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Old stuff Harve. He wrote many articles for them, and his advice article for people looking for a safe  property haven for their stash away from the ongoing collapse was a classic. Advice that he took himself later on here, and then obviously passed on to Mr Hallett. He thought the situation so serious, the trick was to find tenants that wouldn't go bust and hence not pay the rent, and a colapse in yer portfolio. That's still the big goal. Get close to government/local community.. they were where it's at for safety.
The Romanian farm got a cool 250K farm payment in 2011, just after the purchase, and then no news of Jim's entry into world farming at all. A strange avenue for the squire to take, farming, given his previous form LOL. Laws state "locals" must buy Romanian lands and farms to stop the property speculation going on once they joined the EU. Everyone was looking at the people migrating here, but not the capital migrating there, and the right old EU gold rush. Hey, it's just the markets, single farm payments, stocksnd shares, and people playing them. No one gets hurt ............ supposedly.  Donnie Darko called it mad, I call it sad.

Dick Trickle wrote:

Rickler.....

Biggs on the Farm doesn't know who you are

Quote :

I'd certainly never even heard of Nigel.

Well Biggs isn't in with the 'in crowd'.

Sad thing is...  Biggs probably believed every word Brent said and yet the whole little tirade was a bunch of lies.  I'm not the boss of ATD and I've never had it in for the GT's.  All a figment of Brent's imagination.

All because Brent really didn't want to admit we owe the GT's 87.5K or discuss what will happen to the money (Up to whatever the GT's decide they want to do)

When Racist Frank hears one of the objections asks questions about transgender toilets he's going to shit bricks.

This is bringing out the very worst in PASOTI. Public mudslinging at named individuals. No class. No alternative views tolerated.

Earwegoagain wrote:

When Racist Frank hears one of the objections asks questions about transgender toilets he's going to shit bricks.

Gaspergomez nailing it on the Farm

Its not a vote, its down to the planning merits of the case.

1 letter of objection making a valid point can outweigh 100 letters of support making less relevant points.

Earwegoagain wrote:

When Racist Frank hears one of the objections asks questions about transgender toilets he's going to shit bricks.

Given the ever increasing cost of real bricks Brent may want to use Frank's in the development.

Surprised the Brentherald today gives so much coverage to the AFT formal objection.
Anyway did my bit just voted against in the online poll currently 74% for 26% against.

Surprised the Brentherald today gives so much coverage to the AFT formal objection.


Been taken down, no sign of it on their web site

Tgwu wrote:

Surprised the Brentherald today gives so much coverage to the AFT formal objection.


Been taken down, no sign of it on their web site

Yes read it about 0830 tried to read it again after I posted about 0900 but no sign of it or the poll just thought it was me being stupid.
Looks like old quiverlip wasn't happy with negative coverage - surely not.

Dick Trickle wrote:

Earwegoagain wrote:

When Racist Frank hears one of the objections asks questions about transgender toilets he's going to shit bricks.

Given the ever increasing cost of real bricks Brent may want to use Frank's in the development.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]


still there

PatDunne wrote:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]


still there

Yes it is isn't it and it seems to accept votes from mobile phones that are not currently being utilised within earshot of the dockyard siren [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.].

PatDunne wrote:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]


still there

Who the fook wrote that piece Brent himself?

While it is only right for such a significant band of supporters to have a view, you do have to question if the AFT have gone about things in the correct way. I mean, this statement has been released without any polling of its members.

In the statement, the FAT say: "The clear majority of members submitting opinions have expressed concerns about the proposed redevelopment.” But how do they know for sure?

They follow that up with: “While we would have preferred to have been able fully to ballot our membership before making our submission to PCC (Plymouth City Council), the short notice given for comment made it extremely difficult to do so but we did inform members how they could express their opinions to us.”

I’m sorry, but that doesn’t sit well with me and smacks of a lack of organisation and planning. The proposals have been in the public domain for quite some time now and talk of redeveloping the stand and additional redevelopment of Home Park has been mooted for years.

The only problem with the above piece is that although he's right in saying the plans have been around for years only a hand picked band of yes men we're allowed anywhere near the new plans for months, then we were drip fed only part of said plans and when the fans found out what was actually being proposed was when the planning went in leaving very little time to organise anything. A very deliberate and misleading tactic employed by Brent.

PatDunne wrote:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]


still there

Cheers, must be having a senior moment.

akagreengull wrote:

PatDunne wrote:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]


still there

Cheers, must be having a senior moment.

Not when you open argyle page

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]