HHP

When does planning consent for HHP expire? Assume our club value will plummet then?

I imagine that the value of the club will plummet but that the asking price will remain the same.

argyl3 wrote:

When does planning consent for HHP expire? Assume our club value will plummet then?

Five years from the time it was granted, innit?

Planning Portal - FAQ - Applications Decision
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Planning permission expires after a certain period. Generally, unless your permission says otherwise, you have three years from the date it's granted to begin the development. If you haven't started work by then, you will probably need to reapply or apply to extend the permission before it expires


So it runs out August 2016



Brent’s Akkeron Group were granted planning consent by Plymouth City Council for a £50 million Higher Home Park redevelopment in August 2013

Interesting times next year then around this time!

3 years is it? Either way, Brent ain't getting it done.

FOCP are watching it closely, we want our land back so we can put in the orchard that was plan for zoo field.

Tgwu wrote:

FOCP are watching it closely, we want our land back so we can put in the orchard that was plan for zoo field.

good on ya!

Plenty of land to build on the P&R carpark. wasnt that Dan's plan all along???

The NWO planned to build on P&R car park with Decathlon store provisionally signed up.

They were rightly hounded by all (inc Tudor) for plans to put student housing in the park.

Best plot of land for development is the old cricket ground behind Goals. Tie a sympathetic to surrounding low level development in with the (soon to close) Council parks depot at junction and could work well.

Doesnt Stapleton, Wrathall and the Estate of Robert Dennerley own the cricket ground still?

Stapleton, Dennerley estate and Phil Gill not Wrathall own Cricket Club land and Goals area, which they lease to the national chain.

green_genie wrote:

Stapleton, Dennerley estate and Phil Gill not Wrathall own Cricket Club land and Goals area, which they lease to the national chain.

FOCP are trying to regain the cricket ground to turn it into a formal garden, cannot go into it, but it involve what was the condition of the lease

green_genie wrote:

Stapleton, Dennerley estate and Phil Gill not Wrathall own Cricket Club land and Goals area, which they lease to the national chain.

This has been done to death but we need to be reminded every so often. This was the cause of the initial split between the Stapleton team and the Jones team. It was the first real opportunity for the directors to gain personally at the expense of the club. As landlords they could charge the club rent for the use of the ground.
Jones, Foot and Warren objected. The rest is history.

The decision to buy the freehold came later.

Argyle was offered that land first. The board was split as to whether or not to buy it. Foot, Jones and Warren wanted all available money to be poured into the team which was amazingly short-sighted. Stapleton, Gill and Dennerley went ahead and bought it anyway and Goals ended up on the site. Adding that land to Harper's Park was a complete no-brainer for a club looking to move into a more professional era and we got it badly wrong.

The failure of the club to buy that land is amongst the daftest decisions any of our boards ever made and that includes the New World calamities yet to come.

And the repercussions destroyed the board that bought out McCauley.

Just think how different our history might have been had we bought that land: a club infrastructure that would have been the envy of many teams with stadium and all 1st team training facilities on one site; better training facilities for 1st team, reserves and youth; no board fall-out; team momentum being sustainably built upon; training facilities that would have been approaching academy status and thus in turn attracting FA funding; the whole club moving away from its '60s-'70s cheese-paring mindset resulting in a modern, vibrant, ambitious, proactive organisation geared up to move the club forward not just by one division but all the way... No Kagami, no Todd, no SRG, no administration, no Brent, no asset-stripping... It could all have been good with no downside.

Instead of which when el momento de verdad came we looked it in the eye, bottled it and condemned ourselves to endless failure, squabbling, division, rancour, reacting to events rather than dictating them, penury, squalour, shame and bankruptcy to the point where half the fanbase is grateful that we are being asset-stripped by an owner who has no intention whatsoever of putting the club's needs top of the list and who puts barely any time, by his own admission, into his over-sight of the club.

Should Argyle have bought the cricket club land? Of course it should have. There was never a serious case for not buying it.

Who owned the cricket club land and why was it for sale ?

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

The decision to buy the freehold came later.

Argyle was offered that land first. The board was split as to whether or not to buy it. Foot, Jones and Warren wanted all available money to be poured into the team which was amazingly short-sighted. Stapleton, Gill and Dennerley went ahead and bought it anyway and Goals ended up on the site. Adding that land to Harper's Park was a complete no-brainer for a club looking to move into a more professional era and we got it badly wrong.

The failure of the club to buy that land is amongst the daftest decisions any of our boards ever made and that includes the New World calamities yet to come.

And the repercussions destroyed the board that bought out McCauley.

Just think how different our history might have been had we bought that land: a club infrastructure that would have been the envy of many teams with stadium and all 1st team training facilities on one site; better training facilities for 1st team, reserves and youth; no board fall-out; team momentum being sustainably built upon; training facilities that would have been approaching academy status and thus in turn attracting FA funding; the whole club moving away from its '60s-'70s cheese-paring mindset resulting in a modern, vibrant, ambitious, proactive organisation geared up to move the club forward not just by one division but all the way... No Kagami, no Todd, no SRG, no administration, no Brent, no asset-stripping... It could all have been good with no downside.

Instead of which when el momento de verdad came we looked it in the eye, bottled it and condemned ourselves to endless failure, squabbling, division, rancour, reacting to events rather than dictating them, penury, squalour, shame and bankruptcy to the point where half the fanbase is grateful that we are being asset-stripped by an owner who has no intention whatsoever of putting the club's needs top of the list and who puts barely any time, by his own admission, into his over-sight of the club.

Should Argyle have bought the cricket club land? Of course it should have. There was never a serious case for not buying it.

Cracking Post one of the Best I've ever seen re Argyle.

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

The decision to buy the freehold came later.

Argyle was offered that land first. The board was split as to whether or not to buy it. Foot, Jones and Warren wanted all available money to be poured into the team which was amazingly short-sighted. Stapleton, Gill and Dennerley went ahead and bought it anyway and Goals ended up on the site. Adding that land to Harper's Park was a complete no-brainer for a club looking to move into a more professional era and we got it badly wrong.

The failure of the club to buy that land is amongst the daftest decisions any of our boards ever made and that includes the New World calamities yet to come.

And the repercussions destroyed the board that bought out McCauley.

Just think how different our history might have been had we bought that land: a club infrastructure that would have been the envy of many teams with stadium and all 1st team training facilities on one site; better training facilities for 1st team, reserves and youth; no board fall-out; team momentum being sustainably built upon; training facilities that would have been approaching academy status and thus in turn attracting FA funding; the whole club moving away from its '60s-'70s cheese-paring mindset resulting in a modern, vibrant, ambitious, proactive organisation geared up to move the club forward not just by one division but all the way... No Kagami, no Todd, no SRG, no administration, no Brent, no asset-stripping... It could all have been good with no downside.

Instead of which when el momento de verdad came we looked it in the eye, bottled it and condemned ourselves to endless failure, squabbling, division, rancour, reacting to events rather than dictating them, penury, squalour, shame and bankruptcy to the point where half the fanbase is grateful that we are being asset-stripped by an owner who has no intention whatsoever of putting the club's needs top of the list and who puts barely any time, by his own admission, into his over-sight of the club.

Should Argyle have bought the cricket club land? Of course it should have. There was never a serious case for not buying it.

IF we bought the cricket ground it would n't have followed that the facilties would have followed. To suggest that was the turning point in the clubs history is ridiculous.

Is it?

That decision set in motion board upheaval and the purchase of the freehold. Had we never bought the freehold we could never have gone £17m into debt and PCC might, somehow, have found a way to build the grandstand, a stadium "fit for champions" completed on all 4 sides, no financial meltdown, no admin, we might even still be in the CCC and we might have gone up by now if we were!

The buildings were already on the cricket club land for showers etc. The pavillion could easily have been converted into physio rooms, media centre etc. The field was flat and beautifully maintained and only needed marking out as football pitches. There was even a sodding car park so the poor loves wouldn't need to walk far to get there!

It was all there. In place. Next door. Up for grabs at a decent price. Begging to be exploited for the betterment of the club.

And we said "no".

It utterly beggars belief.

If that wasn't a turning point I don't know what was.

Your starting point is flawed SFD.

The club were never going to be the landlords. The directors were. A big difference.

Which is why your views, on this particular subject, are a waste of time.

At no point have I suggested that any individuals or group of individuals should have bought the land. At every stage I named "the club".

The directors at the time should have bought that land for the club not so that they could rent it to the club on behalf of themselves but even if they have done that it would have been better than what actually happened.

Doing so would not have been ridiculously, unreasonably altruistic because the club's value would have risen meaning their share of the club would have been more valuable. Any investment made would have been protected by it hingeing on a land asset that was always going to accrue value even if they did nothing at all with it.

Quite what was intended by any of them in lieu of that is irrelevant because it didn't happen in any shape or form that directly affected the club.

The hardest fact of all is that Argyle could have bought, should have bought, that land and did not.

Tringreen wrote:

Who owned the cricket club land and why was it for sale ?

Plymouth Cricket Club leased the land (off the council? I'm not absolutely sure about that) and the lease was due to expire. The cricket club couldn't afford a new lease or to raise the money needed to buy the land and so had to move on and the soon-to-be vacated land was up for sale.

There is still huge resentment in Plymouth's cricketland about how it all happened and the role Stapleton, in particular, played in it all. There's not much doubt that the cricket club was stitched up big time.

Plymouth Cricket Club ended up moving to Mount Wise where it took on the city's old RN cricket pitch.

SFD, you've gone off on one about how Argyle should have bought the cricket club land.

They, the club, were never given the opportunity. It was hijacked by half the board who saw a money spinner. In the event of a split vote, three v three, then the chairman's (Stapleton) vote counted twice. The motion for the club to buy the land would have been carried.


It was never on the agenda.

Stapleton, Gill and Dennerley bought it for theirselves with the intention of leasing it to the club. They then threw the cricket teams off the land. One team refused to go and dragged it on for a couple of years. As time passed the club got deeper into debt. The idea was dropped.

Your whole, what if premis, has no point. It never happened.

For pity's sake...

I know it never happened.

It should have though. That's EXPLICITLY my point.

You seem to blame Jones, Foot and Warren for their short sightedness when all they wanted was for the CLUB to be able to buy the land. They could do nothing to stop the other three from doing as they wished owing to Stapleton's casting vote. In fact they carried out that wish.

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

Tringreen wrote:

Who owned the cricket club land and why was it for sale ?

Plymouth Cricket Club leased the land (off the council? I'm not absolutely sure about that) and the lease was due to expire. The cricket club couldn't afford a new lease or to raise the money needed to buy the land and so had to move on and the soon-to-be vacated land was up for sale.

There is still huge resentment in Plymouth's cricketland about how it all happened and the role Stapleton, in particular, played in it all. There's not much doubt that the cricket club was stitched up big time.

Plymouth Cricket Club ended up moving to Mount Wise where it took on the city's old RN cricket pitch.

Thank you......... played on the Navy ground at Mount Wise in the late 60's. Good pitch and location if I remember correctly.