PAFC Planning Applications now online

The complaint of misinformation levelled against FoCP is quite funny actually given the amount of missed information eventually supplied by Mr Brent and Akkeron.  The missed information that the magnificent two tierd structure was actually a one tiered abomination subsequently altered to include a shelf.  The missed information that the ground was to include a school.  The missed information that the development was going to include a dental practice.  the missed information about the height of the hotel.  The missed information about the access to the away end down somne steps.  I sure there is other information that they missed telling.

The idea that the majority of fans will share the concourse outside the ground is a recipe for disaster and I can't see the old bill being happy with that arrangement.

Unless of course they plan on making the Devonport the new away end......

IJN wrote:

I think you could be right Mr E, but just for a very small percentage of the game.

As long at the OB do their job right inside and OUTSIDE, I can't see there being much of a problem.

If I was a Police Chief, I'd insist that the shops/resturants were closed an hour before the game and 30 minutes after for games like Leeds, Pompey, either of the Bristols (cue Droly) Exeter etc, they'd be asking for trouble if they didn't.

Bearing in mind Brent has seen little of "big game" football since he's been here I wonder if he's had the chat with the Odeon, Pizza Express etc on this subject. Personally Newell is being optimistic in my opinion.

For the games he highlights it is more likely that all licensed premises in the development will be "dry" and many will be encouraged to close. That's going to please their beancounters if the fixtures fall the wrong way. Pompey at home on Mothering Sunday weekend for example..?

If (and its a bloody big if) we ever got to the Championship most weekends would fall into that bracket. Bearing in mind the lack of space that Brents plan allows this is asking for trouble.

In addition the ice rink will plan to increase revenue by catering for children's parties, when do most of the occur?

The fact that a couple (who live near the park) whilst at the FOCP meeting, stated that they only knew and attended after receiving a leaflet whilst using the park says it all about how  this is being carried out.
Also the provision for wheelchairs being at the top of the stand can't possibly be passed by the fire service because lifts (if there are any planned) cannot be used during a fire.
I contacted my local conservative councillor and he thought it was an excellent plan and everyone (wouldn't say how many) that had contacted him were in favour. He also pointed out that it would be great for PAFC to have a nice new, big stand built, but quickly went into blubber mode when I pointed out that it would be reducing the capacity. So it just goes to show that even the councillors don't know what is going on. He also stated that a cinema was good as when he goes to Vue on a Wednesday he couldn't park. I replied that it was because of Orange Wednesday (half price tickets) and also the car park is not just for the cinema users. Added to that the fact that when I go to the cinema I can choose which seat to sit in as you are lucky to see 30 people in there. There is also the major concern that if the development does not work for any reason, it will already be developed land and therefore open for anything to be built.

The consultation has been a farce and a sham, why don't they have a big billboard type poster put up at the entrances to the park so that park users can see what is really going on? I think we know the answer to that one.
This has been marketed and accepted by the gullible element of our fanbase, I think we should steal the Gull title from them down the road for some here, with most of the people who have read the 'Erald are a bit like Tis, thinking we are ungrateful for whining about someone providing us with world class facilities at no cost to ourselves. The truth is that Brent is not paying one copper penny towards this stand, he and Akkeron have got themselves a massive amount of development by building shops, schools and dentists in and under the stand to pay for it, why should I be grateful for somebody who seems more interested in profit for a large development company than the football club he owns?
As for the space around HP, if it kicks off on a match day when we have a big match with say Pompey or Leeds how many shop windows will get kicked in down the alleyway? Can you imagine what it would be like to get stuck down there with thugs baying for your blood at each end of said alleyway? The police would be able to do nothing, it's an accident waiting to happen, also you would have non football going public there as well.
If anyone thinks the hoolies are gone they are wrong I was talking to one at my local, a country pub, the other night, I noticed the Argyle crest on his arm, it looked like it had been done by Doc Price when he was really pissed and he had the colours wrong lol, when I mentioned it he said, "got the crest on my arm, got the firm on my wrist (TCE) an I bleeds Green I does" the fact that he was also wearing a Chelski shirt did make me chuckle. He went on to tell me how him and his mates had had it at Torquay, and City and couldn't wait for Pompey. There are a new generation of wankers out there, they will love the new designs.

If i was going to build an ice arena i would build one that would actually attract business, customers and sports to the place. 1,500 isnt big enough to hold anything of worth so this building will be a giant underused building that wont turn a profit.

Back to the drawing board Akkeron, maybe 2nd time lucky with your development plans because this one is a clusterfuck.

My stance has become more hardline as time goes by - there was a time a few months ago when I nearly gave in and was willing to go along with this deal, but beause of Brent stonewall no compromise and the incredible mind control over the usual suspects, it's no go for me!! This has been the most underwhelming event in my follwing of this club - there is a real sense of this guy getting one over on us fans, if he thought for one minute this was going to turn him into the hero, think again we're on the end of a mugging!! Road, I ask you, WTF sort of icing on a crap cake is that little baby - so much wrong!!

What makes me laugh is the fact that ian and chris are almost campaigning to get fans to write in to back this proposal of development. If this proposal was well liked as a whole there wouldnt be a need to beg fans to back it and claim it as a victory, would there?

They must be crapping themselves

Angry wrote:

What makes me laugh is the fact that ian and chris are almost campaigning to get fans to write in a back this proposal of development. If this proposal was well liked as a whole there wouldnt be a need to beg fans to back it and claim it as a victory, would there?

Correct - this was an opportunity to placate the majority of fans and should have been plain sailing, instead his weird logic in these crazy plans was that Ratner moment!! There has been a steamroller used here jammed in overdrive - poor show!!

When nool and the gang have got to disrupt a focp meeting, its because they are worried that opposition is growing to their friend the propety developers shite half baked overdevelopment of the park.

Sufferedsince68 wrote:

When nool and the gang have got to disrupt a focp meeting, its because they are worried that opposition is growing to their friend the propety developers shite half baked overdevelopment of the park.

You can also say that when it comes to making intimidating comments on twitter about names and addresses that it's a case of desperate measures for a desperate group.

Yea Man wrote:

Sufferedsince68 wrote:

When nool and the gang have got to disrupt a focp meeting, its because they are worried that opposition is growing to their friend the propety developers shite half baked overdevelopment of the park.

You can also say that when it comes to making intimidating comments on twitter about names and addresses that it's a case of desperate measures for a desperate group.

and all done to get a laugh for themselves by trying to spread fear to the paranoid. These people represent our club you know.

URGENT ACTION REQUIRED FROM EVERYONE 




The planning application (No. 13/00942/FUL) was submitted to Plymouth City Council on 24 May 2013 and can be found on the Council website. The objection/consultation period ends 02 July 2013.  It’s vital everyone objects before that date!




We need to get as many objections to the council as possible - the Planning Inspectorate takes them into account!! So, if you could please do all of these: object online to PCC, email, write, phone then we stand a better chance of success.  Encourage friends to do same!




You can go onto City Council website and follow menus:




Object:  by clicking on the 'comment' icon at the bottom of the Planning Application page

Email :  planningconsents@plymouth.gov.uk                      

Write to: Peter Ford, Head of Development Management, Plymouth City Council, Civic              Centre, Plymouth, PL1 2AA

Phone: 304366




 or to save you time, 




To VIEW application status click this link:  http://tinyurl.com/lyqfef4




To VIEW documents:




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




To make a COMMENT click or paste this into your browser:




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




Please be constructive and not defamatory in your comments.  State clearly why you object (based on the planning considerations below). Remember that your comments may be redacted online so your first point (para) should be clear and concise: this may help others following to form a comment. It’s better if everyone does not submit verbatim(copy and paste) the exact wording from this document-change words around etc.. You can use our guidelines below to assist your comments. 




PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS

Example


Mr Robert Heard
Planning Services Department
Plymouth City Council
Civic Centre
Plymouth
PL1 2AA
 
Date:
 
Dear Mr Heard
 
 
1.     The hotel and taxi rank/minibus drop-off will cover existing paths and public rights of way.  Some of the buildings extend onto land that is well used as public open space and it will block a popular right of way across Gilbert lane.  This seems to have been overlooked on the planning application.
 
2.     The new development would add far more traffic to Outland Road.  There has already been a significant increase in the number of vehicles since the Life centre opened.   According to the applicant's submitted traffic assessment, on football match days an additional 500 cars would be arriving or leaving the site between 1 and 2 pm.  There is no mention of a travel survey carried out since the Life Centre opened to show how many people walk, cycle or arrive by public transport. 
 
3.     There would be continuous traffic into the heart of the park.  There would be constant air, light and noise pollution from the traffic that would destroy its present peace and tranquillity and have a great impact on wildlife.  The applicant's traffic assessment projects that 700 cars will arrive or leave the site between 8 and 9 pm on Saturdays and 500 on weekdays.  200 cars will leave or arrive at the site between 11 pm and midnight.  There is no provision for this traffic route in the Central Park Area Action Plan.
 
4.     The site is almost at the highest part of the park.  The buildings will dominate the park.   Far from softening the visual impact of the Life Centre, this development will increase it four-fold.  The hotel would be the tallest building, as the ground slopes eastwards from the Life Centre.  It would be in the heart of the park and would be far too intrusive, looming over the most natural areas of the park.  It is totally inappropriate for a green open space.
 
5.     There is no stated provision or planning permission for the dumping of spoil from the excavation of ground for the underground car park.  If it is to go on Zoo Field, young trees to replace all of those to be felled will not grow on land that has spoil dumped on it.  The field is proposed to be 'landscaped ' to provide a memorial garden.  All of the healthy mature trees currently on the field would need to be felled.  This will have a severe affect on the topography, landscape and on wildlife.  New trees will not grow on spoil heaps.  There is no mention of Zoo Field in the Trees Survey.
 
6.     There are restrictive covenants on the leasehold land which would need to be lifted.  The covenants are there to protect both the park and the future of the football club.
 
7.     The public have been misled by the public consultation.  The public were told that the land to be developed was just the stadium and the freehold Higher Home Park land that is already fenced off from the park.  The planning application plan clearly shows the development extending onto public open space. 
8.     The site for the memorial garden and landscaping will go on land that has been designated as an orchard by the Community Forum on the Central Park Masterplan approved by the council in March 2013.
9.     Gilbert Lane will be severely damaged by the building of a new service road right up against the hedge.
10.   There is no specified long-term financial benefit to Plymouth Argyle Football Club from the hotel and commercial development.
11.   The cinema and fast-food outlets do not fit in with the Central Park Area Action Plan condition for development that promotes a healthy lifestyle.
12.   Zoo Field has 3 water courses running through it, a fact that has been ignored in the planning application.
13.   A high-quality hotel is not needed.  3 similar hotels on Plymouth Hoe, The Grand , The Astor and Quality Hotel have all closed or are for sale.  The Grand has been turned into apartments with the others to follow suit.  These hotels are in a far more desirable location than Home Park.  If they have failed, there is every possibility that the hotel on Home Park will fail and be turned into apartments. 
14.   The locality of Home Park is not in an area that required regeneration.  It would be better suited to the west or east end of the city centre,  Millbay to Frankfurt Gate to the west, or Laira bridge to the east, where there is a huge site that has been empty for years.  
       
Yours sincerely
 
 
 
 
 
 
Signature:
 
Name:
 
Address:

Posted on another thread and repeated here - this is a good standard letter but I understand that it will not be considered more than once if everyone cuts and pastes the content (happy to be corrected if I'm wrong) and will be treated like a petition.  

Customise it, add your own bits etc.  For me it's important that everyone that objects is genuine in their reasons for doing so and it should be a personal objection but this is a good reference document.

Angry wrote:

What makes me laugh is the fact that ian and chris are almost campaigning to get fans to write in to back this proposal of development. If this proposal was well liked as a whole there wouldnt be a need to beg fans to back it and claim it as a victory, would there?

From what I've seen of the pro letters they basically say all the same thing - this looks lovely. The comments seem to focus entirely on the stand and Argyle and not the other aspects of the development.

Anyone writing in opposition to the development have been encouraged to focus on the plans as a whole and make individual points rather than solely on the effects on Argyle as apparently these are neither relevant to the planning decision and will be treated as one response.

What is the situation for the pro's? Are these responses irrelevant?

The tree people have got involved and it makes interesting reading

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

Owing to past behavior of Club officials etc. there may well be a fear of commenting, I hope that Councillors, Officials etc. are aware of this.

Who would send a transcipt of the twitter exchange between (albeit an exchange probably intended as a windup) two prominent REAL Argyle fans and representives of the club and its major sponsor to councillors when a least one councillor has played footloose with someones opinion on the development? 

You'd have to be a brave soul to take that on.  I'm still surprised that anyone interested in fairness and democracy and against intimidation and bullying could be invloved in something like that even in jest.

Considering past experiences that some have had to suffer it would be understandable if it was considered as an act to install fear and intimidation to deter comments that oppose the development proposal.

Cllr Leaves who was at the FoCP meeting was clearly alarmed at the behaviour of senior Argyle fans and may well have mentioned this to some of his council colleagues.  I sincerely hope that there would be no action taken against anyone expressing their view and objecting - but if anyone is concerned about this it may be as well to tell your Cllr or the Planning Department your fear in doing so because of any potential repercussions.

I'm fairly sure the plan will get approved. Delayed maybe but approved with a few more trees saved and some tin pot compromises.  Looking at planning applications and results there have to be some fairly heavy burdens for schemes not to be approved.

Of course it will be trumpeted as a massive result for the dog of war twatterings and campaigning.  And indivduals will be forever marked as pro or anti development.  To be honest I've never seen something that should have been a gift horse tied up in a huge red bow be so divisive.  Brent was either badly advised or needs better, much better, PR.

Postey wrote:

The Plymouth Tree Partnership supports the development in principle but have some issues regarding the loss of some trees.

Some issues.......