Last day to lodge planning objections with PCC.

Where is she saying do it yourself? She has offered to include the opposition in the consideration but then points out that the person can do it themselves. This reads that it is up to the constituent which way they choose to go. What it doesn't say is do it yourself. Whilst not a Seabeck supporter, people should not make up their own interpretation of her words to suit themselves just because she doesn't agree the plans are bad.

sensible.....when will you realize that you haven't got a migraine or an headache......but have been hitting your head against a brick wall of......"only our view is right" syndrome........

Things can only be black or white.......James Brent is the devil incarnate to some... and the saviour of the world to others.....the answer cannot be somewhere in the middle, that wouldn't be right would it ?

How about the saviour devil?

Amid the drip feed of supportive emails off the back of PAFC mailshot another document has been uploaded

## Akkeron Planning Notice ##

This is formal notification from Akkeron to PCC as landowner and PAFC as leaseholder of Planning Application on their land in line with Town & Country Planning Development Management Procedure Regulations 2010. A formality which Akkeron's "professioals" should have been completed a long time ago. It means that the Council cannot determine the application (i.e. issue the decision notice) until 3 weeks (21 days) from the date of service of the notice 23rd July, which only just allows for the application before the Planning Committee on 15th August.

There are a number of issues still to resolve – drainage, contamination, transport, ecology (impact on the Park and Gilbert Lane), which the internal PCC consultee responses in some of these areas are yet to be made public. Believe the planning officer’s report should be available for public viewing on the 7th or 8th August if the are heading for 15th August.

Back to the Town & Country Planning Development Management Procedure Regulations 2010.
Wouldn't surprise me if they are looking for ways to avoid their requirement to refer plans to Secretary of State Planning Inspectorate, which is very ill advised, as I'm assured after Seaton AAP debacle they are keeping close eye on PCC.

The negotiations on the landownership issues continue. One issue not yet resolved is how Akkeron (or anyone else) can increase the capacity of the stadium by a further 2,500 (Phase 2a). The PAFC Safety Advisory Group’s response asking for improvements to Lyndhurst concourse road would appear to make this unachievable.

green_genie wrote:

Amid the drip feed of supportive emails off the back of PAFC mailshot another document has been uploaded

## Akkeron Planning Notice ##

This is formal notification from Akkeron to PCC as landowner and PAFC as leaseholder of Planning Application on their land in line with Town & Country Planning Development Management Procedure Regulations 2010. A formality which Akkeron's "professioals" should have been completed a long time ago. It means that the Council cannot determine the application (i.e. issue the decision notice) until 3 weeks (21 days) from the date of service of the notice 23rd July, which only just allows for the application before the Planning Committee on 15th August.

There are a number of issues still to resolve – drainage, contamination, transport, ecology (impact on the Park and Gilbert Lane), which the internal PCC consultee responses in some of these areas are yet to be made public. Believe the planning officer’s report should be available for public viewing on the 7th or 8th August if the are heading for 15th August.

Back to the Town & Country Planning Development Management Procedure Regulations 2010.
Wouldn't surprise me if they are looking for ways to avoid their requirement to refer plans to Secretary of State Planning Inspectorate, which is very ill advised, as I'm assured after Seaton AAP debacle they are keeping close eye on PCC.

The negotiations on the landownership issues continue. One issue not yet resolved is how Akkeron (or anyone else) can increase the capacity of the stadium by a further 2,500 (Phase 2a). The PAFC Safety Advisory Group’s response asking for improvements to Lyndhurst concourse road would appear to make this unachievable.

 Pretty much what us freaks and weirdos have been saying since day 1 then.

This is why nobody could see the planning notice, it wasn't there, I think that the legal requirement is 6 weeks before the planning to be heard? I see on the application they have just said that there is a little over 5000 metres sq. of retail space (a3 and a1) I was sure that there was like three times that amount or are they not including some parts of it?

There was a notice on a lamp-post on Outland Road, presumably about HHP.

Interesting that the 'expert professionals' took so long to get their act together to do such an important piece of paperwork, yet their costing of the WG proposals has been taken as fact.

I firmly believe that the WG's proposal was ignored - JB and his merry men paid lip-service to that engagement (as they do with all fan engagement apart from the inner sanctum).  Even if the WG's better proposal had been cheaper it would have been consigned to the waste paper bin.

mannameadbabe wrote:

I firmly believe that the WG's proposal was ignored - JB and his merry men paid lip-service to that engagement (as they do with all fan engagement apart from the inner sanctum).  Even if the WG's better proposal had been cheaper it would have been consigned to the waste paper bin.

Agree. The WG's alternative, and imho, much improved and widely accepted plans to us freaks and weirdos, never stood a chance in hell of ever seeing daylight. 

We all know that JB has a claw in that velvet glove -and I've heard from other sources who have come across him in the business world that he does not tolerate being 'told what to do' - and that's exactly how he would have viewed the WG proposal.