Central Park

Sensiblegreeny wrote:

Not necessarily GOB. We aren't talking about something owned by an individual here we are talking about recreational land or at least that is what it was originally intended for. Recreational as in for sport and walks etc. This land was not intended to be full of dog shit or neglected. What is popular in one era is not necessarily as popular in others. If something is little used anymore and is in the public domain then there well could be an argument of it's not used therefore we will change the use of some of it. Would you agree to a library staying open if it never lent a book? I doubt you would because it would be a waste of time it remaining and a waste of public money paying for something that is redundant.

A lot of Central Park is redundant land certainly around the edges so I don't see much wrong with some development being done there. As long as it isn't a complete abomination and doesn't blend in with the area. If somebody profits from that then again I see nothing wrong with profit as already said. I don't believe in allowing any old thing to be thrown up without question which I believe is a world of difference to what is likely here.

To answer your question SG, I would keep the libruary open even if only one book was being lent or if even the architecture or landscape was enjoyed.

We must remember that CP is not just for the pleasure of Argyle fans, it's for the pleasure of all citizens and whether they use it or not.

But there is no need for that to happen knecht and if I may say so that is an argument used to avoid any change for anything be it for good or bad. It is not always the case that allow one or two things and suddenly the rest disappears altogether. I take the point that kids do use the park in certain areas and people do just go and have a stroll about but again this is mainly in certain areas and not the whole of the park by a long way. The area we are talking about for building is the bit along Outland Road rather than the centre of it.

There is a bit of land behind the old Pennycomequick Pub for example that does nothing for the park at all except provide an entrance. Now that is below a bank so would impact little on the site overall. If that was developed for example with the clauses thrown in that the Park gets certain attention from the Developers then this would lose little and possibly gain the Park a lot. It isn't a huge chunk of land. Along Outland Road is next to the highway and has little going for it so again the Park would lose little and once more could gain. The area development would provide jobs also which aids the local economy. Now all of that is only my opinion and there will be those that will think it is the thin end of the wedge and want to avoid any change at all. Mostly these will be people who don't set foot in the place from one week to the next. There can be argument for change and all change isn't necessarily bad. I read numerous posts on here about the Airport previously. If that were developed that would be change. Would that be a bad thing? It strikes me that people are only interested in change if it affects them and provides them with something they want. If it doesn't then it's bound to be bad and somebody is making a fortune which also cannot be right can it. I fail to understand any argument that if people don't use something it is somehow still for their benefit. How is it and how can you justify the cost?

How about Saltram or Mount Edgcombe SG, develop that as well?

GOB you can't just simply go around the area picking one site after another and asking your question. I am talking about Central Park and only Central Park. Other areas might have an argument to do something with but the ones you pick are I believe National Trust land and therefore not in public ownership. Each thing has it's own argument for or against and you cannot just lump everything into one. I'll ask you another question. Do you drive? If you do then you have probably used the Expressway and motorways of this land. Now most of this was built on green area and possibly farm land. Under your argument of never changing anything then you would still be using the old A38 country lane. Or, is it ok for the land near somebody else to be taken for another purpose that suits you but not for anything within this City to be changed that you possibly never use anyway.

No you're not, you were talking about libruaries just a few minutes ago SG.

That was in response to your general "If you don't use it you lose it" analogy GOB which you asked me. I answered your Saltram/Mount Edgecombe point also. I was trying to make it clear that I am giving an opinion on Central Park as a venue for some change and only that. If you want to start a thread about all open spaces in Plymouth then some I might agree to changing and others I would not. It depends on the site and it's use along with what might be proposed. There is no coverall answer or opinion to fit them all. You on the other hand didn't mention the Expressway in your answer so would you care to?

The Expressway was a necessary that beneifts everyone, I have yet to read of a development potential at CP that would provide the same benefits for the whole community, however, I have read plenty of speculative comments that suggest it would benefit a very small minority and I really do not believe that was the intention or purpose of the original gift to the people.

So you use the Expressway then even though it took a change in land useage to put it there. So you are selective in what land can or should be changed which is exactly like me. I am not advocating all spare land be concreted over in the City. I am not even advocating all of Central Park being cemented over either. Just some of it which in my opinion could be put to better use. Most developments only benefit some people rather than all which is not that surprising really is it. Just because not every Citizen of the City would benefit does not make it a bad thing. I won't benefit by it but it doesn't make me say no change under any circumstances. I would hope that I would try to look at a bigger picture than simply my own needs and judge each thing on it's individual merits. I can see no issue with some development there and have yet to see anything convincing to alter that view. But. it is only an opinion and only mine. There might yet be some argument that I consider meaningful to change my view so I'm not stuck in the mud because of any ideology.

GOB wrote:

What gripes me is that some greedy barsteward will make profit from land that was bestowed to the citizens of Plymouth, it should be the citizens that keep the profit and not some jumped up money fanatic.

The council, which is all of us by proxy, profited from that land when they sold the ground at a high price and bought it back at a lower one. They will also be paid rent in the future. So we are making money out of it. If Brent does profit from building on the car park then good luck to him. It's not as though that particular patch of land is much use to anybody except on match days and for car boot sales. As Knecht has said there should be no building outside the current footprint but inside it whatever, within reason, is built is fine by me.

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

GOB wrote:

What gripes me is that some greedy barsteward will make profit from land that was bestowed to the citizens of Plymouth, it should be the citizens that keep the profit and not some jumped up money fanatic.

The council, which is all of us by proxy, profited from that land when they sold the ground at a high price and bought it back at a lower one. They will also be paid rent in the future. So we are making money out of it. If Brent does profit from building on the car park then good luck to him. It's not as though that particular patch of land is much use to anybody except on match days and for car boot sales. As Knecht has said there should be no building outside the current footprint but inside it whatever, within reason, is built is fine by me.

If it was *just* the dumping ground at the rear of the grandstand then I maybe able to live with that, but I suspect that will just be the start of the developments and that a lot more will follow (nothing to do with Brent or Argyle). - As for the rent, let's see if the club can stand on its own two feet even before thinking about the rent, I have a feeling that PCC will be asked to subsidies the club, not pick up the rent.

Sensiblegreeny wrote:

So you use the Expressway then even though it took a change in land useage to put it there. So you are selective in what land can or should be changed which is exactly like me. I am not advocating all spare land be concreted over in the City. I am not even advocating all of Central Park being cemented over either. Just some of it which in my opinion could be put to better use. Most developments only benefit some people rather than all which is not that surprising really is it. Just because not every Citizen of the City would benefit does not make it a bad thing. I won't benefit by it but it doesn't make me say no change under any circumstances. I would hope that I would try to look at a bigger picture than simply my own needs and judge each thing on it's individual merits. I can see no issue with some development there and have yet to see anything convincing to alter that view. But. it is only an opinion and only mine. There might yet be some argument that I consider meaningful to change my view so I'm not stuck in the mud because of any ideology.

I think we agree, it matters not as long as the majority agree, the majority profit and, the profit is spread equally?

No GOB I don't think we agree as no development done by anyone in a private capacity is going to benefit the majority and nor is it going to finacially benefit the majority either. I also don't agree that PCC will either be asked to subsidise the club or would do so if asked. There is a world of difference in doing a business transaction that is actually financially beneficial to all of the Citizens of this City, which this one is however which way you look at it, and handing over public money to a private concern. How ever much I love my football club I would never agree to all of the Citizens being forced by the Elected to pay for my entertainment. I know it hasn't been very entertaining for a couple of years now but again I'm sure you know what I mean. Unike the Theatre Royal for example which is I believe subsidised by the City and only a handful use it. I don't hear much protest about that one though.

Sensiblegreeny wrote:

No GOB I don't think we agree as no development done by anyone in a private capacity is going to benefit the majority and nor is it going to finacially benefit the majority either. I also don't agree that PCC will either be asked to subsidise the club or would do so if asked. There is a world of difference in doing a business transaction that is actually financially beneficial to all of the Citizens of this City, which this one is however which way you look at it, and handing over public money to a private concern. How ever much I love my football club I would never agree to all of the Citizens being forced by the Elected to pay for my entertainment. I know it hasn't been very entertaining for a couple of years now but again I'm sure you know what I mean. Unike the Theatre Royal for example which is I believe subsidised by the City and only a handful use it. I don't hear much protest about that one though.

Exactly my point.

As you've raised it, I believe the Theater Royal makes a handsome profit but the profit is filtered off to the Pavilions. This enables the skating rink and swimming pool to be subsidised and also qualifies the Theater Royal for a hefty grant from the Arts Council that it would not receive if it was shown to be making a profi. As you say, unfortunately we don't hear much about that.

What we don't agree on is why it has to benefit the majority GOB as you highlighted that part. A hotel is going to benefit people who get a job working there which is not going to be the entire population. I doubt too many people from Plymouth would stay in it so they won't benefit that way. If people come to the City and stay in it however that does benefit the local economy and therefore everyone.

By the way GOB, where does the Art Council get it's money from in the first place to hand over to the Theatre? Guess what, it's you and me the tax payer. But, I keep saying that it is opinion and expressing mine. You are of course free to disagree and have your own opinion but I have yet to see any convincing argument that the development would be harmful so we will have to agree to disagree on that one.

On the subject of development what about the proposed tungsten mine on the outskirts of Plympton?

Isn't that South Hams? If so nothing to do with me, I'm busy hugging trees in Plymouth. Or not.

If the basis for building a hotel in CP is employment then I think it becomes even a weaker argument considering the very low numbers involved and the very low income of those employed that would generate little for the local economy, even with consideration to the customers using the hotel. I would suggest that student accommodation would provide a higher return but that may well require further expansion in time.

Yes SG, the Arts Council is public money, public money used for the public, not individuals.

pepsipete wrote:

On the subject of development what about the proposed tungsten mine on the outskirts of Plympton?

Yes Pete, it's land owned by a mining company, it's not owned by a local authority, not subsidised by the local authority and the mining company would have paid for it at one time. What has Brent paid out so far?

It isn't used for me GOB I don't use the Theatre and there is no public money being used to build the hotel either so how does that even become part of the discussion for or against it? What it boils down to as far as I can see is your argument is against anybody making a profit here. I can't see any argument against improper use of the land or environmental reasons etc. What you don't want is for Brent to make any money. By the way have you ever stayed in a Hotel? If so you have gone along with the exploitation of the cheap labour for your own enjoyment or convenience. Not very green or public spirited there if I may say so.

I see by your response to pete that my assumption is spot on with "it's Brent so it must be wrong" (noted before pressing post).

No SG, what I don't want is for Brent or anyone else to make money from land at Central Park by exploiting the predicament of the club and using that to justify his doing so.

In many ways the perfect surrounding at CP for a football club has been the clubs downfall and as we have already found out, it's been ripe for exploiting. It's early days but as of yet I remain unconvinced that Brent is not from the same mold as Stapleton, Gardener and Todd etc. and as far as I am concerned all the indications are that he is.

My views are quite simplistic on this really, if a developer such as Brent wishes to make a profit from land at CP it must come at a very hefty cost to him and that cost should be to the benefit of PAFC in the form of a "suitably" sized grandstand and facilities, a clean financial slate with subsidising from Brent's pocket if necessary and at least Championship football. He should also provide leisure facilities for the citizens but that's another paragraph!

How about you SG, what would your pay back be for this chunk of land that Brent seems keen to develop and what comes first, the Championship football or the hotel?

You don't even see the flaw in your argument do you. What you are saying is that the land can be developed but not by the owner of PAFC. Therefore you actually don't have a problem with the place being developed at all as you have been trying to say previously. We now get to the crux of your objection so forget the "it's public space" argument or it is "our inheritance and is green". Why did you not just simply say at the outset that it was the Developer rather than the plan.

I am looking at the what and not the who. I have no objection to the proposed development as long as it sits with the local area and any development is judged on merits individually. Therefore I have no objection as long as the first bit is satisfied to whoever, including Brent, does the developing. Why would any other developer add anything for PAFC in their proposal and more importantly why should they? Central Park is not owned by PAFC and apart from the ground being in it have nothing else to do with the area. Whatever Brent may or may not propose regarding a hotel is completely seperate to the ground itself or players or standard of football. All that has happened here is the purchase of the Club has given him a shoe in to other plans. And why not. If not him then it would be somebody else. As far as I'm aware he also has plans to complete the ground and install facilities which the club will benefit from longterm. Again, what is wrong with that. Championship football may take a bit longer and if we make it back there one day then all well and good. If we don't then it is not likely to be Brent's fault as such. Nobody could or would guarantee us that and all he has said is that is where we should be and he would endeavour to put us back there and it isn't going to happen just because you want it or demand it.

pepsipete wrote:

On the subject of development what about the proposed tungsten mine on the outskirts of Plympton?

Re-opening and existing mine at Hemerdon. Don't think anyone lives around there, or not that close anyway.

PlymptonPilgrim wrote:

pepsipete wrote:

On the subject of development what about the proposed tungsten mine on the outskirts of Plympton?

Re-opening and existing mine at Hemerdon. Don't think anyone lives around there, or not that close anyway.

Good pub there, if I remember rightly. Isn't the main objection that the disruption of lorry traffic in the 21st century would not be the same as when it was last open?

and the great big spoil heaps.

Bumpy bump face.

I'm wiv GOB.

Fook this development. You only lose parkland once. You never get it back.