Capacity, capacity, capacity! Why we need more!

Angry of Mayfair wrote:

GOB wrote:

I read that Jon B is suggesting that by voicing an opinion of objection there is an intent to undermine lawful process.

I would be very interested to know how or why that is the case, it's certainly not something that has been mentioned to me from the Councillors that I have spoken to and even more confusing when considering that the process was born from the desire to influence the opinion of those that represent us.

Jon also suggest that by doing so the process will be dragged out into a lengthy & costly period of enduring limbo. - Is Jon suggesting that we accept James Brent's proposal or else?

I'm confused of the points you are trying to make Jon, if you read this.

North Korean police laws perhaps lol

Since when has objecting to a planning application against the law?

If my neighbour wanted to build a massive extension that blocked my sunlight would it be illegal for me to submit a formal objection? Course it bleddy wouldn't be.

Just like anyone who objects to James Brent's plans can do so.

If the final plan submitted by Brent is as shite as the current one is then i'll object to it, like to see the old bill arresting me for that

As others have implied, there appears to be no real arguments made in favour of the Akkeron plan. They all appear to have been made on the basis of "we should be grateful for what we have been offered" and that it will cost the owner extra money.

I have some sympathy with Chris Webb's point about the emptiness of the polls - something like asking "Do you want 5 sweets or 10 sweets?". But that in no way advances a positive argument in favour of the current Akkeron proposals. I wait with bated breath to see the yet further improved version that will be made available to the GASB on Saturday.

Even if I only get five sweets... I don't want the five sweets Brent is offering me. They are sour.

I would still want five sweets that taste good.

The AFT plan is so much better even if it didn't have increased capacity.

Brent's design is quite literally stupid.

Rickler wrote:

Even if I only get five sweets... I don't want the five sweets Brent is offering me. They are sour.

I would still want five sweets that taste good.

The AFT plan is so much better even if it didn't have increased capacity.

Brent's design is quite literally stupid.

And if i put my corporate hat on for a minute with the AFT plans not only can Home Park have its desired grandstand he is free to INCREASE the size of each of the cinema,hotel and ice arena in the future if he so wishes! Not by much i grant you for the cinema and hotel but definitely for the ice rink given its a standalone building on cottage field he could fill it up and make it one of teh best ice arena's in the country. Where as if he continues with his current plans he wont let and that could harm them aswell as the club.

Rickler wrote:

Even if I only get five sweets... I don't want the five sweets Brent is offering me. They are sour.

I would still want five sweets that taste good.

The AFT plan is so much better even if it didn't have increased capacity.

Brent's design is quite literally stupid.

Thats the issue with the Akkeron plans. The capacity is, for me, a minor issue. That the plans destroy any future growth, both for the club and the capacity, is the problem. If the AFT WG plans had exactly the same stand as the Akkeron plans, I would, grudgingly I admit, have backed them. Even if the club never has to expand from this development on, I'd rather the Stand backed onto a piazza than a feckin alleyway.

Steve

Identity of Helen Richards-

Evens Peter Jones
2-1 Greenman
4-1 Windsor Boy
6-1 Deadly Lampshade

New ownership, new multis.

Happyclapper joins pasoti in April 2013 and like Helen Richards is very pro-brent/ pro ministand. I'm surprised the better pasotimods are allowing the "old" ways to happen once more. I bet both post from proxy servers too.

Chemical Ali wrote:

New ownership, new multis.

Happyclapper joins pasoti in April 2013 and like Helen Richards is very pro-brent/ pro ministand. I'm surprised the better pasotimods are allowing the "old" ways to happen once more. I bet both post from proxy servers too.

that site has no credibility anymore

I love the way Helen comes on and tells us all how the planning system works and then announces that she's now a nurse and she worked for a developer in the 90's.

Thank you for your input Helen but planning laws have changed a couple of times since then. I think I'll listen to the people currently employed in planning and construction.

Chemical Ali wrote:

Identity of Helen Richards-

Evens Peter Jones
2-1 Greenman
4-1 Windsor Boy
6-1 Deadly Lampshade

I would put my money on Jonesy for that one, he enjoys playing the dom. Unfortunately he has no idea how the planning process works.

No no no. Postey says she's not a multi so there you go!

Greenjock wrote:

No no no. Postey says she's not a multi so there you go!

jock how come your not in prison for being rude to argyles most independent and important fan ?

I've received a detailed email from another Peverell Councillor, John Mahoney. It is good to see councillors (at least mine) responding to questions in such a prompt informative way. I might now change the habit of a lifetime and actually vote in local elections.

Dingle wrote:

I've received a detailed email from another Peverell Councillor, John Mahoney. It is good to see councillors (at least mine) responding to questions in such a prompt informative way. I might now change the habit of a lifetime and actually vote in local elections.

and more importantly is he for or against or holding off till plans have been submitted?

Peter Jones was saying to Sparksey before the match how lucky we are to have fans so interested in all the development plans. Says Cottage field is a big no no. Tudor Evans manifesto pledge to not build on any more Green fields and the council own it. Said that route could take six years and still not happen but they are keen to keep the dialogue going with fans and WG! We shall see.

Dingle wrote:

I've received a detailed email from another Peverell Councillor, John Mahoney. It is good to see councillors (at least mine) responding to questions in such a prompt informative way. I might now change the habit of a lifetime and actually vote in local elections.

I had the same experience from him. He made some interesting comments also about the cinema.

Yea Man wrote:

Angry of Mayfair wrote:

GOB wrote:

I read that Jon B is suggesting that by voicing an opinion of objection there is an intent to undermine lawful process.

I would be very interested to know how or why that is the case, it's certainly not something that has been mentioned to me from the Councillors that I have spoken to and even more confusing when considering that the process was born from the desire to influence the opinion of those that represent us.

Jon also suggest that by doing so the process will be dragged out into a lengthy & costly period of enduring limbo. - Is Jon suggesting that we accept James Brent's proposal or else?

I'm confused of the points you are trying to make Jon, if you read this.

North Korean police laws perhaps lol

Since when has objecting to a planning application against the law?

If my neighbour wanted to build a massive extension that blocked my sunlight would it be illegal for me to submit a formal objection? Course it bleddy wouldn't be.

Just like anyone who objects to James Brent's plans can do so.

If the final plan submitted by Brent is as shite as the current one is then i'll object to it, like to see the old bill arresting me for that

Hi Gob (& AoM & YM),

Apols if I wasn't clear - no of course it isn't a problem to object to a planning proposal - indeed I'm something of a regular in such deeds.....

I was referring to what seemed to be a growing campaign to contact & try to influence the opinion of decision-makers now; at this time; before a planning application has been submitted.

Effectively, people are objecting to plans that are out for consultation; not to a planning application - if any potential decision-maker becomes involved now, it is very likely that they will not be able to participate in any related process once the application is received.

Should all decision-makers become so conflicted, I'm pretty certain we'd end up in a cycle of appeals & appeals about the appeals......

Graham Clarke raised near-identical concerns as me, but I think his post was deleted when one of threads calling for direct contact with mp's & councillors was also subsequently deleted.

I'm not saying 'say nothing', I'm saying that we need to follow due process or else we'll end up in limbo.

Hope this helps clarify.

JonB wrote:

Yea Man wrote:

Angry of Mayfair wrote:

GOB wrote:

I read that Jon B is suggesting that by voicing an opinion of objection there is an intent to undermine lawful process.

I would be very interested to know how or why that is the case, it's certainly not something that has been mentioned to me from the Councillors that I have spoken to and even more confusing when considering that the process was born from the desire to influence the opinion of those that represent us.

Jon also suggest that by doing so the process will be dragged out into a lengthy & costly period of enduring limbo. - Is Jon suggesting that we accept James Brent's proposal or else?

I'm confused of the points you are trying to make Jon, if you read this.

North Korean police laws perhaps lol

Since when has objecting to a planning application against the law?

If my neighbour wanted to build a massive extension that blocked my sunlight would it be illegal for me to submit a formal objection? Course it bleddy wouldn't be.

Just like anyone who objects to James Brent's plans can do so.

If the final plan submitted by Brent is as shite as the current one is then i'll object to it, like to see the old bill arresting me for that

Hi Gob (& AoM & YM),

Apols if I wasn't clear - no of course it isn't a problem to object to a planning proposal - indeed I'm something of a regular in such deeds.....

I was referring to what seemed to be a growing campaign to contact & try to influence the opinion of decision-makers now; at this time; before a planning application has been submitted.

Effectively, people are objecting to plans that are out for consultation; not to a planning application - if any potential decision-maker becomes involved now, it is very likely that they will not be able to participate in any related process once the application is received.

Should all decision-makers become so conflicted, I'm pretty certain we'd end up in a cycle of appeals & appeals about the appeals......

Graham Clarke raised near-identical concerns as me, but I think his post was deleted when one of threads calling for direct contact with mp's & councillors was also subsequently deleted.

I'm not saying 'say nothing', I'm saying that we need to follow due process or else we'll end up in limbo.

Hope this helps clarify.

It doesn't seem to me that there is ANY consultation, in a meaningful sense, happening at all. Or at least it hasn't so far. What it feels like is happening is that Akkeron people, IJN, Chris Webb, Tony Hooper, Ian De Lar and others are simply telling us that we must put up with what we are being told is the only deal in town. Well I say no no no no and no again. I just don't believe you. It is not the only possible plan. There is an alternative. In fact never, ever, ever believe anybody who tells you that there is "no alternative" because they are invariably lying to further their own self-interest.

So please cut the crap and ditch your unacceptable, ill-judged, poorly defined, vague and uncosted proposals and come back to us when you have a better, well-planned, specific and financially sound version because then it might, it just might, be acceptable not just to PCC, the Friends Of Central Park and the people of Plymouth in general but also to those of us who have supported Argyle through thick, thin, thinner and thinnest for years because we deserve better than what we have been given in the past and what will ever be possible, if these plans go through as they are, in the future.

Iggy wrote:

Peter Jones was saying to Sparksey before the match how lucky we are to have fans so interested in all the development plans. Says Cottage field is a big no no. Tudor Evans manifesto pledge to not build on any more Green fields and the council own it. Said that route could take six years and still not happen but they are keen to keep the dialogue going with fans and WG! We shall see.

Gordon Sparks is a worm of the slimiest order

There's a nice big empty airport going spare at Roborough.. Prehaps we should have built a new ground up there rather than getting hemmed in by ice rinks at Home park?

Why not just move the Ice Rink to Roborough full stop

knecht wrote:

Herald article

If the green lung of central park won't be developed on, then the Akkeron plans will also struggle (according to Graham Clark)-

Quote :

I will only deal with the facts, which in the light of the Council Leaders comments at Full Council this week on Cottage Field, are important.

The Akkeron proposals for Higher Home Park extend outside the identified Central Park AAP CP 02 boundary and into the green area or 'green lung' of Central Park as the Council Leader refers to it. To be fair the area of land in question is of poor quality and serves little useful purpose. The area in question is to be part of the hotel and multiplex development and car park access road and is the area in the south east corner of the proposed development. It is also the area between that outlined in green and identified in James Brent's ownership and the red line that marks the boundary of the land bought back by PCC. The size of the area in question is roughly equivalent to the size of half of the Home Park pitch.

The Akkeron proposals for Higher Home Park, as we know, have been the subject of extensive pre-planning application discussions with senior Council Officers before they were more widely consulted on. It is the responsibility of the Council Officers to have discussed the proposed incursion into the green area or 'green lung outside of the Central Park AAP CP02 identified area with the Council Leadership, if they felt it necessary, whilst those pre-application discussions were continuing. It is quite possible that the view was taken that the overall proposals were in the wider public interest and there is nothing wrong with that. The Council have to take a balanced view with the full facts before them as they did for the Life Centre which faced similar considerations.

Others with judge the irony of the situation where the sale of Cottage Field for any form of development is deemed as contrary to a political manifesto commitment but the sale, or even the leasing, of public owned land outside of the Council's approved and adopted Central Park AAP land identified for development is not viewed with the same political zeal. It may be that the quality of the land in question may be a reason. However, I am sure others will concentrate on the principle.

Both the Trust Working Group and the PASB are aware of the above which normally would not have been given so much weight if it wasn't for the Council Leader's most recent strongly worded comments at Full Council.

Regretfully, it will also be my final contribution on the subject but I felt it important that facts not conjecture informed the debate.

knecht wrote:

Herald article

And Graham Clark's take on the situation............ wonder why it's his last offering on the subject ?

Graham Clark
Post subject: Re: Tudor Evans says no to Cottage FieldPosted: Thu Apr 25, 2013 8:44 am

Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2012 9:51 am
I will only deal with the facts, which in the light of the Council Leaders comments at Full Council this week on Cottage Field, are important.

The Akkeron proposals for Higher Home Park extend outside the identified Central Park AAP CP 02 boundary and into the green area or 'green lung' of Central Park as the Council Leader refers to it. To be fair the area of land in question is of poor quality and serves little useful purpose. The area in question is to be part of the hotel and multiplex development and car park access road and is the area in the south east corner of the proposed development. It is also the area between that outlined in green and identified in James Brent's ownership and the red line that marks the boundary of the land bought back by PCC. The size of the area in question is roughly equivalent to the size of half of the Home Park pitch.

The Akkeron proposals for Higher Home Park, as we know, have been the subject of extensive pre-planning application discussions with senior Council Officers before they were more widely consulted on. It is the responsibility of the Council Officers to have discussed the proposed incursion into the green area or 'green lung outside of the Central Park AAP CP02 identified area with the Council Leadership, if they felt it necessary, whilst those pre-application discussions were continuing. It is quite possible that the view was taken that the overall proposals were in the wider public interest and there is nothing wrong with that. The Council have to take a balanced view with the full facts before them as they did for the Life Centre which faced similar considerations.

Others with judge the irony of the situation where the sale of Cottage Field for any form of development is deemed as contrary to a political manifesto commitment but the sale, or even the leasing, of public owned land outside of the Council's approved and adopted Central Park AAP land identified for development is not viewed with the same political zeal. It may be that the quality of the land in question may be a reason. However, I am sure others will concentrate on the principle.

Both the Trust Working Group and the PASB are aware of the above which normally would not have been given so much weight if it wasn't for the Council Leader's most recent strongly worded comments at Full Council.

Regretfully, it will also be my final contribution on the subject but I felt it important that facts not conjecture informed the debate.

"Is it me, or is there a very high number of ex pats, and exiles that seem to be very anti this new stand?

Nothing to do, at all with the debate, but I have noticed that over the last few days."

Anyone care to guess who has posted this comment?

First one to give a correct answer will be provided with a white feather as a prize.