PAFC Planning Applications now online

Pete1886 wrote:

Angry wrote:

Pokesdown wrote:

From the Akkeron Plans

Quote :

A Grandstand Working Group was assembled very early on in the design process. The Grandstand Working Group included Plymouth Argyle Football Club board members, fan representatives, representatives of the Green Taverners, Akkeron and the project architects BDP. Representatives of the Fans’ Disability Group and Community groups were also consulted via the Working Group.
Regular meetings were held with the Working Group from 20th June 2012 onwards. At each meeting the latest plans would be presented by BDP and Akkeron, with a discussion following where questions could be asked and comments/opinions put forward.

From Newell

Quote :

I attended most meetings, as a Fan's Rep' never, it's not so hard to understand is it?

Saying that, I gave a fans point of view, I made comments about the access, I made comment about the capacity, when it was announced towards the end, I got agitated when it was discussed (when JB had to attend a meeting) when the architects thought they could bulldoze the stand and not replace it for a year. So I was not a shrinking violet.

However, I repeat until it sinks in, I would never ever declare myself a fans rep', I simply don't believe anyone could fill that role.

So bearing in mind the first statement under which group do you think he was perceived by most present to represent....?

I notice it says that representatives of the disability and community groups were consulted VIA the working group i.e. someone was tasked with consulting them, they never attended a full meeting. That leaves....

Club Board Members
Fan Representatives (although he has categorically denied this)
Representatives of the GT's, although it is widely assumed that Mark Russell attended on behalf of the GT's
Akkeron
Project Architects - BDP

So is he a club board member, Akkeron employee or an architect? I'm confused now....

Has anyone ever had a straight answer to the simple question....who were the fans representatives that met as early as June 2012? a full 11 months prior to the plans being released.

Ian Newell lost his right to give the fans opinions the day he sold out.

I think you'll find that was the day he bought the right to be the 'fans' rep!

There has never been an individual who has divided the fan base as much as ian j newell has done over the years. He has managed to turn pasoti a fans forum into a corporate cespit which is what he values ore than being the voice of the fans.

FWIW what was the point in creating the PASB if ian is going to give his views on what he likes over the wishes of fans.

The planning application could be going before city councillors on 18 July or 15 August- looks like they want it rushed through-

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

Do that mean we got to send our objection in before the 2nd of July

yeap so everyone who feels strongly against this write in now dont delay.

green_genie's thread that is stickied has the list of all those who can write too

I was waiting untill TFOCP meeting on the 11th for their help in what to object to, to have the best chance to have it stopped.

Anyone for ATD attending the meeting.

Tgwu wrote:

I was waiting untill TFOCP meeting on the 11th for their help in what to object to, to have the best chance to have it stopped.

do both no limit to how many times you can object.

Put a perfectly reasonable comment in the Herald about the biased reporting..guess what?
Banned

punchdrunk wrote:

Put a perfectly reasonable comment in the Herald about the biased reporting..guess what?
Banned

Join the club

Old Brenty and his allies don't like it uppem.

The next time someone spouts the "move the road if we ever need to expand" mantra, ask them if that includes the part of hotel that wraps around so much that it is behind last block in BPE.

There is so much wrong with this development it's laughable. It MUST be challenged by every single person who feels that this sells our city and club short. Do not rely on others to do it - we all have to make our stand here.

im going to put a list of all the contact details up tomorrow so people can find the right areas to contact with their biggest concerns with.

Or

if green_genie is kind enough he may do that for us and a mod will sticky and lock it afterwards.

mannnameadbabe is right writing in now and dont wait for others to do it for you.

We probably need another sticky on the addresses to go to - I have a couple but have seen so many. Let the fight begin

Update on PCC contacts on

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

Please make sure you use them.

If you go for multiple objections to the website make them on specific points e.g. H&S of road, retail overkill etc.


EDIT. Thanks for the sticky's.

Why do I feel the urge to auction something? AAAARRRGGGHHH

I am in the process of submitting an objection proposal for HHP, and require a few more details please, the proposed service bay to the rear/side of the ice stadium/cinema does anybody know the dimensions? "i cant see the wood for the trees" on the plan. also the proposed path for emergency vehicles to use situated to the south / east of the hotel is 2 metres in width is that correct ? thanks in advance.

Furnau wrote:

I am in the process of submitting an objection proposal for HHP, and require a few more details please, the proposed service bay to the rear/side of the ice stadium/cinema does anybody know the dimensions? "i cant see the wood for the trees" on the plan. also the proposed path for emergency vehicles to use situated to the south / east of the hotel is 2 metres in width is that correct ? thanks in advance.

There are very few dimensions on any of the plans or elevations but the service yard is bigger than the one of the 200 sq m retail units in PAFC footprint. It should be noted that the waste compactors for the entire development will be housed here overlooking Gilbert Lane and Cottage Field

The Design & Access Statement document describes the Service Yard as a cul-de-sac (access road 6m wide to this point) with only emergency access around the hotel along a reinforced grass margin shown on elevation drawing LS001 as 3.725m wide, however the Hydrock Transport Assessment Appendix K states following, which presumably would require that section to be upgraded to 7.3m width stipulated by Dept of Highways regulations for two way traffic..

Quote :

3.1.24 Whilst it is considered that more widely-attended matches could be managed effectively with
the northern concourse open to vehicles, it is assumed that the Safety Officer is likely to
instruct use of the southern service road for car park access on these safety or emergency
related occasions.

There is also a discrepancy between descriptions of the Service Access in the Design & Access Statement. On page 64 it describes HGVs gaining access to the service road next to Gilbert Lane passing to south of Life Centre, whereas Transport Assessment on Page 65 says traffic will pass the Demport and between Life Centre and Ice Rink.

Thanks for the info green -genie, plenty to mull over !

Good work Agent Furnau.

Absolutely brilliant!!. on last page of 144kb pdf on 12/06 at link below

Stuart Hose of Bristol has written giving full support as PAFC ST holder  but has used his company email complete with his job title.

Franchisee and Development Administrator  for SUBWAY.

McJobs for the boys!!!


PCC Planning page Link

On a more serious note ther are plenty of "it's awsum inniti" posts going on there.

PCC Planning email 12_06

Last two pages cover FoCP letter and reply from Cllr Sam Davey. Whilst disappointing that it is rather emotive and doesn't use enough FACTS there are a couple of good points. First one being about noise and light pollution from the hotel and access road. Second one is really interesting

" Restrictive covenants on the Home Park football stadium leasehold land will require amendment if the 
Higher Home Park development is to go ahead.  The development extends beyond the Higher Home Park 
land for which the council has already agreed amendments to the covenants on 18th October 2011.  
 
The planned hotel stretches to the edge of the 'red line' boundary of the leasehold land.  This land has 
covenants on it restricting development to uses that are integral to the football club.  This leasehold land 
covers the whole of the football stadium.  If the covenants were to be amended to allow the hotel to be built, 
it could put the future of the football stadium at risk if Plymouth Argyle were to run into financial difficulties again.  Furthermore, the hotel could, under new planning laws, be easily converted to living accommodation, setting a precedent that could see the whole of that leasehold land (and possibly the training pitches as well) developed for housing. "
 
Somebody asked back along (here or on dark side) why you would build a hotel without a restaurant for breakfast at least, and it was implied that guests would be forced to use ministand facilities or the (not fast) food outlets in the mall.

120 rooms next to a Studio School. Could we possibly be looking at beer cans stacked in the windows overlooking the park?

I would imagine that Saturday afternoons between 1pm and 5pm are important times for retail outlets. I wonder how many shoppers won't go when Argyle are playing. Has this been taken into account in Brent's plans? Losing the busiest afternoon every fortnight cant be good for business.

that is true, however the 'outlets' are in theory only likely to be quiet from half 2 until 5 and even then the retail outlets have the potential (a word closely associated with argyle) 6,000 customers walking by.
anyhow that wont be a problem when argyle have moved.

I flicked through them all today. Most are supportive. There are very few actual objections. I've not left any response but I will do. I was surprised at how few there are. Maybe this isn't such a burning political issue - are forums actually blowing this up into some kind of war when it isn't. Given we have about 114,000 domestic premises in Plymouth, I've counted under 100 responses there.

hairy j wrote:

I flicked through them all today. Most are supportive. There are very few actual objections. I've not left any response but I will do. I was surprised at how few there are. Maybe this isn't such a burning political issue - are forums actually blowing this up into some kind of war when it isn't. Given we have about 114,000 domestic premises in Plymouth, I've counted under 100 responses there.

Most of the pro  resides out side of Plymouth

I use the Life Centre and the park a lot and live in the area and am shocked at how few people have any idea of the extent of the development.  When a small development (5 houses) was planned adjacent to my own property we received 2 letters in the post from PCC listing what was planned as well as notices pinned to lamp posts.  This major plan doesn't appear to have received such publicity - I suspect people just don't know.