PAFC Planning Applications now online

Peggy * wrote:

green_genie wrote:

Peggy * wrote:

Person Of Interest wrote:

green_genie wrote:

Angry wrote:

built where its needed ie the city centre.

With his cosy relationship with Tudor you would have thought that they could have found a more suitable site for the Ice Rink and / or Cinema in the West End of City Centre which is crying out for an anchor attraction. Colin Campbell Court , or the empty Derrys or Woolworths buildings for example.

.

Absolutely, gg. So can anyone tell me WHY the hotel, ice-rink and cinema HAS to be built at HP?

The ice rink has to be near the Life Centre - that was a condition of the sale of the Pavilions to whichever of Brent's companies it was sold to.

The cinema, hotel, shops and road(s) are another story.

Peggy.

The Pavillions deal just stated that another Ice Rink had to be built elsewhere in the city. It's proposal for HHP is a hangover from the AAP when the full Life Centre should have included an Ice Rink / Conference Centre building on Cottage Field

According to the City Council website, it has to be next to the Life Centre: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

And the BBC reported this as a condition of the sale: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

you know it would have been so much easier for them to have made it adjacent to the lifecentre where the greenspace is now. freinds of central park have to give a little if they want the developments changed like we all do.

They are intelligent people. I never thought I'd say this - but we are in this together .....

BUT there are covenants in place protecting the park, so therefore none of it should be built.
I shall make sure I am at the Cherry Tree meeting and will be opposing it all the way.
There is no room in this city for the banker in my opinion
It has got me thinking tho, (from other stories) that the council are slowly handing over the city centre to the university and the future development of housing. This is to be off-set with out of town retail parks as the recently blocked plans for the Seaton Barracks site, plus the proposals of SHH to convert the airport.
I find it a bit odd tho that the council make so much money from parking, yet out of town retail parks provide free parking.
Basically anything and everything that belongs to the people i.e. publically owned, is being sold off to the private sector, with so far little opposition. Guaranteed taxes won't go down tho

Peggy * wrote:

green_genie wrote:

Peggy * wrote:

Person Of Interest wrote:

green_genie wrote:

Angry wrote:

built where its needed ie the city centre.

With his cosy relationship with Tudor you would have thought that they could have found a more suitable site for the Ice Rink and / or Cinema in the West End of City Centre which is crying out for an anchor attraction. Colin Campbell Court , or the empty Derrys or Woolworths buildings for example.

.

Absolutely, gg. So can anyone tell me WHY the hotel, ice-rink and cinema HAS to be built at HP?

The ice rink has to be near the Life Centre - that was a condition of the sale of the Pavilions to whichever of Brent's companies it was sold to.

The cinema, hotel, shops and road(s) are another story.

Peggy.

The Pavillions deal just stated that another Ice Rink had to be built elsewhere in the city. It's proposal for HHP is a hangover from the AAP when the full Life Centre should have included an Ice Rink / Conference Centre building on Cottage Field

According to the City Council website, it has to be next to the Life Centre: here

And the BBC reported this as a condition of the sale: and here

Followed the AAPs since inception and the Ice Rink could have gone anywhere in the city.

Would be interesting to check the details of the PCC / FDL Pavillions contract to see if it stipulates HHP.

green_genie wrote:

Peggy * wrote:

green_genie wrote:

Peggy * wrote:

Person Of Interest wrote:

green_genie wrote:

Angry wrote:

built where its needed ie the city centre.

With his cosy relationship with Tudor you would have thought that they could have found a more suitable site for the Ice Rink and / or Cinema in the West End of City Centre which is crying out for an anchor attraction. Colin Campbell Court , or the empty Derrys or Woolworths buildings for example.

.

Absolutely, gg. So can anyone tell me WHY the hotel, ice-rink and cinema HAS to be built at HP?

The ice rink has to be near the Life Centre - that was a condition of the sale of the Pavilions to whichever of Brent's companies it was sold to.

The cinema, hotel, shops and road(s) are another story.

Peggy.

The Pavillions deal just stated that another Ice Rink had to be built elsewhere in the city. It's proposal for HHP is a hangover from the AAP when the full Life Centre should have included an Ice Rink / Conference Centre building on Cottage Field

According to the City Council website, it has to be next to the Life Centre: here

And the BBC reported this as a condition of the sale: and here

Followed the AAPs since inception and the Ice Rink could have gone anywhere in the city.

Would be interesting to check the details of the PCC / FDL Pavillions contract to see if it stipulates HHP.

I don't think that it matters, Akkeron is charged with delivering the package they hold the deeds to HHP and they are putting in planning, if planning gets refused they will have to look elsewhere. IMO the ice rink will and should go where it is, it is sport and leisure use, it can fit on the brownfield site of the car park. My problem is with the cinema, the hotel, most of all the school/dentists and extra shops Nandoes. Without them we might end up with feck all but I would rather see that than the plans get accepted in their present form.
I can't believe that more fuss isn't being made about the school. I know Nool doesn't like being called a sycophant but he really is one, he heads a long line of sycophants at HP these days, as fans of a club we should be fighting long and hard to have the school well and truly kicked out of the footprint of HP, it is not leisure, it is not sporting and it is taking up room where the extra seats we need should go, surely it contravenes the covenant?

If the school is multi-use then it becomes more attractive. I think it was to be focussed on catering & the leisure industry. (I certainly may be misremembering!) This would provide facilities to use on match-days for corporate hospitality.

I don't like where it appears to be sited but it may do a job for us.

But, and it's a big BUT, that's only if the rental for this facility goes into Argyle's coffers. It may be that Akkeron may be backtracking a little on this issue of rental income. I can't see that all of the income from the retail units will be coming Argyle's way though.

How can PCC, Tudor Evans, the Labour incumbents, Akkeron, James Brent et al justify PCC owned land that is leased by the club being used for commercial development with little or no gain for their tenants or the people of Plymouth?

knecht wrote:

If the school is multi-use then it becomes more attractive. I think it was to be focussed on catering & the leisure industry. (I certainly may be misremembering!) This would provide facilities to use on match-days for corporate hospitality.

I don't like where it appears to be sited but it may do a job for us.

But, and it's a big BUT, that's only if the rental for this facility goes into Argyle's coffers. It may be that Akkeron may be backtracking a little on this issue of rental income. I can't see that all of the income from the retail units will be coming Argyle's way though.

How can PCC, Tudor Evans, the Labour incumbents, Akkeron, James Brent et al justify PCC owned land that is leased by the club being used for commercial development with little or no gain for their tenants or the people of Plymouth?

the club shop will obviously make them a little money not much as knowing brent he will stick a sports direct right next too it. Other than that i cant see any proof argyle will benefit anymore from the shops and other pointless mod cons.

I see sue bucket rattler has joined the support brent village campaign, last throw of the dice for jimmy's fan club, all the superfans back their hero which must be a bonus for the growing opposition!

Sufferedsince68 wrote:

I see sue bucket rattler has joined the support brent village campaign, last throw of the dice for jimmy's fan club, all the superfans back their hero which must be a bonus for the growing opposition!

lol scraping the barrell for support now

Sufferedsince68 wrote:

I see sue bucket rattler has joined the support brent village campaign, last throw of the dice for jimmy's fan club, all the superfans back their hero which must be a bonus for the growing opposition!

Shes been part of that Clique since day 1 to be fair

Knecht,

I don't think I've seen anywhere that the school will / could be used by the club on match days. Posters have discussed the idea but no confirmation from Akkeron that this is the case.

Richard Blight wrote:

Knecht,

I don't think I've seen anywhere that the school will / could be used by the club on match days. Posters have discussed the idea but no confirmation from Akkeron that this is the case.

OK, Richard. Thanks.

The school is one of the reasons opposition needs to be on two different fronts, one the club, two the planners, I suppose the councillors would be the third front as the leaseholders of HP?

Iggy wrote:

The school is one of the reasons opposition needs to be on two different fronts, one the club, two the planners, I suppose the councillors would be the third front as the leaseholders of HP?

That's right Iggy, and I hope that the AFT provide a few ideas sooner rather than later, it would be ideal if the fans have something and someone to rally behind should this nightmare seem likely to succeed.

If you want to write to PCC to oppose (or support) these plans, this is the email address-

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

Don't leave this to others, its up to us all (even those who live in Plympton or beyond) to provide our feelings.

Met up we VP our Lord Mayor this weekend, She now have to be impartial from the politics in this, she listen to me why the development should not go through, a good conversion. She has brought her season ticket and hope we will have a few more new players in and then she will be looking for the club to have a good season.

Chemical Ali wrote:

If you want to write to PCC to oppose (or support) these plans, this is the email address-

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

Don't leave this to others, its up to us all (even those who live in Plympton or beyond) to provide our feelings.

You should not just abject to the development without pointing out specific parts, the best thing is to wait on what the TFOCP recommends to abject to or if someone with the knowledge of planning comes forwards and help.

Go to The Friends Of Central Park face book or e-mail them and they will keep you up to date when the time will come.


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

I can not find a link for today Herald letter page, it has made me fume, The Herald has nick pick the web reposed to the HHP and in some cases edit it to take the main point out of it

Knect said,
How can PCC, Tudor Evans, the Labour incumbents, Akkeron, James Brent et al justify PCC owned land that is leased by the club being used for commercial development with little or no gain for their tenants or the people of Plymouth?

I have had some dealings with PCC concerning land and buildings with covenants on (althought covenants aren't the main gist of what I have to say). PCC are not allowed to develop or add value to land or property themselves, which is as far as I can gather to stop the council becoming a commercial business, but they have a duty to obtain value on any of it's property that they sell or rent. If they are selling to a third party they have a duty to the voters of Plymouth to gain any value on their behalf on any uplift in value.
For example I bought a property that I developed which had a covenant placed on it, we had to pay the council 15% on top of the price to lift the covenant.
If we are still renting the ground from the council then I would expect our rent would go up with extra facilities provided for us, but I can't see how Akkeron can lease or sell any part of HP that doesn't belong to them, Brent only owns the car park, PAFC are the leaseholders, we need to lobby the board, the fact it is Brent is immaterial.
Can of worms ready to be opened I think.

Tgwu wrote:

I can not find a link for today Herald letter page, it has made me fume, The Herald has nick pick the web reposed to the HHP and in some cases edit it to take the main point out of it

The Herald has virtaully chosen it's side - read between the lines and you can see they have fallen for the deal and are no longer impartial!! It would seem that Brent has all the local bigwigs, press & little helpers in his arsenal, and you would think it looks a forgone conclusion - not so sure there, as there aspects that are bordering on the rediculous in this deal that might be forced up to a higher level when challenged!! This could all have been played out in a more agreeable fashion and given all sides the what they wanted, instead we have the spectacle of dividing all involved - been a poor show so far.....!!

Are the press complaints commission worth a go?

Green Greens could start with this:

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

What they are having to do is raise the ground levels the HHP side of Gilbert Lane. If you look at the Tree Report it identifies trees being removed on the northern side of Gilbert Lane. The raised ground levels (see to the right of your copied cross section – Gilbert Lane is the bit that is lower with a tree to the left of it) will also obliterate the wildlife in the hedgerow and the removal of several significant trees will further diminish its ecology value. In addition, the site plan seems to indicate a vehicular access into Gilbert Lane (look just to the right of the words ‘barrier’ and the entrance to Gilbert Lane looks to be improved at the other end and in the documentation Gilbert Lane is to be resurfaced. This could be the alternative route for traffic on match days otherwise why have an access onto it. It is an adopted highway for use by vehicles!

Mr. Newell, if he is consistent, should be most upset

Iggy wrote:

Are the press complaints commission worth a go?

yes the press have to report a fair and unbias view and the herald isnt doing that.

This a before and a after

Herald Web

I agree with the fotcp, the only place for a development like this is in the centre of town, Brent had said the only people to make money from this is the director of his company who happens to be his wife and himself.
He employed two people to round up the sheep of Argyle fans to follow him, they are a up start postman and a web site owner bully.
As an Argyle long-standing season ticket hold (I am sixty-five) if this is pass I will not step foot in Home Park again.
I have e-mail most of the Labour Councillors and have only one reply.
Come on the people of Plymouth and kick this development into the trees.”

Herald Print

As an Argyle long-standing season ticket hold (I am sixty-five) if this is pass I will not step foot in Home Park again.
I have e-mail most of the Labour Councillors and have only one reply.
Come on the people of Plymouth and kick this development into the trees.”