-
Welcome to PASOTI. Sponsored by Lang & Potter
Home Park Development (PCC agenda 14th December 2pm)
- Thread starter IJN
- Start date
Not sure it's a very good example. I don't know Exmouth at all, but if it's like a lot of seaside towns and local businesses rely heavily on the summer months and tourists coming in then the thoughts of the tourists is actually important as you wouldn't want to deter them from coming.foreigner":5p3dnvug said:
Okay, Argyle get a lot of people travelling in to the city for games at Home Park, but this development isn't going to stop fans attending, if they're fans, they'd come anyway surely?
IJN":16nb5h5v said:
Surely that depends on the reason for the objection.
If a town I liked to visit was planning to build some horrid monstrosity then I most certainly would voice an objection, first verbally and then, if they didn't listen, more forcefully by taking my money elsewhere.
Not that the HP plans are a monstrosity but you get the point. If the objection amounts to "I don't like James Brent" then by all means chuck it out because we can't be wasting our time with shallow nonsense. But if someone has genuine concerns about the viability or impact of the plans, and they can back it up with some justification, then I don't care where in the world it comes from.
IJN":22phduqa said:
Ian, to be fair that's a pretty rubbish argument.
Having supported the club for 40 years, I would expect to be able to have an opinion about its future, whether it is positive or negative. As it is, I am in favour of the devolopment. But because I live in London, by your logic my opinion doesn't count.
I have no plan to go to Norwich or Exmouth, so my opinion there is irrelevant. But I'd like to think that I can have a say about a piece of land dear to me, even if I'm only able to be there a handful of times a year.
My job took me away from Plymouth but I still regard Plymouth as āHomeā. People used to say to me ā what are you doing this weekend Steveā and i would say ā Iām going home for the weekendā. Most people laughed as they said they went home most nights. The idea that you have no concern about the city of your birth and should have no say as to what goes on there is utterly ridiculous. As it happens Iām in favour of this scheme and registered my views with the planning committee. Now itās up to them if they think the views of Joe Bloggs from Aughtermuchtie are as relevant as the views of Joe Bloggs from Plympton but they are both entitled to their views. Itās called democracy.
I agree that having been born in Plymouth should allow a person to have concerns about the city of their birth. The Alexandria Maternity Nursing Home in Michael's Terrace, Devonport (so my birth certificate says) actually was my birthplace...although I was too young at the time to remember if I could hear the Dockyard siren calling in those early days of my life.
I do feel that I should be able to say my thoughts without being lambasted on how I see this development, I am not against the Grandstand or James Brent's additions, but I do feel they should be a different development. Mr Brent "adding" his development to the long over due Grandstand plans just looks suspicious, with it possibly slowing down acceptance of the football side that we all want. It could well of been rubber stamped by now being only football related.
I do feel that I should be able to say my thoughts without being lambasted on how I see this development, I am not against the Grandstand or James Brent's additions, but I do feel they should be a different development. Mr Brent "adding" his development to the long over due Grandstand plans just looks suspicious, with it possibly slowing down acceptance of the football side that we all want. It could well of been rubber stamped by now being only football related.
Princerock":1a5swf4s said:
We're going around in circles here but it's almost a self fulfilling prophesy, the few that are now say 'Look we said it might be delayed' are (in the main) the self same people that have objected. How can they say "I told you so' when it was they who made it happen. Perplexed of Plympton.
justanotherfan
š Callum Wright 23/24
ā
Evergreen
Jade Berrow 23/24
š« S.T. Donor š«
š Bomber Harris.
š Steve Hooper
āØPasoti DonorāØ
šSparksy Muralš
If PAFC had to provide the possible Ā£150,000 planning application fees then that would have been Ā£150,000 less for the development or other things Argyle, it beggars belief that a chairman who funds the application himself could be so castigated. Yes he is a businessman/developer who wishes to profit from his holdings, but PAFC also profits. He has put the club on a sound financial footing, brought in directors who are investing in PAFC. He is a businessman who realises that PAFC is a business, he is also a supporter who wants what is the best for PAFC and if that coincides with his business plan, then so be it. A conference centre with hotel facilities a short walk away, an intelligent solution, office accommodation away from the clutter of the city centre, an intelligent solution, catering facilities which will be available other than just match days, this must encourage greater footfall in the wider Central Park area. JB, bring it on.
Ham Green":hyl7nml4 said:
I think you know my point is plainly the one's that object to it because it's JB. They feel it is their place to protect the world against this evil ex banker and Old Etonian.
However, I do feel as a resident of Plymouth for approx 56 years of my 63 years, that I have more of a right to have a say on the City that I have chosen to live in than others that have moved on to 'better their lives' or whatever the reason they left Plymouth for.
Also to revert back to my first point (and one you've alluded to as well) add the fact that the cabal include members that live in Leeds (a particularly nasty individual who constantly mocks JB on that page of idiots on FB) Southampton and of course 'Mighty London' I find it even more 'spiteful'.
Again, and this is ultra nimby, if I live directly opposite the vets, I fully understand why they'd object, I think I might as well.
I find that surprising but at least you answered.
I'd ask visitors opinions but certainly wouldn't give it as much credence as someone who live in and around Exmouth.
I would like to think if twenty visitors suggested a neon sign would be nice to see and a local didn't, the local would win.
Perhaps we should get petition up and say we want a toilet in every platform in Paddington. I wonder how that would go?
I'd ask visitors opinions but certainly wouldn't give it as much credence as someone who live in and around Exmouth.
I would like to think if twenty visitors suggested a neon sign would be nice to see and a local didn't, the local would win.
Perhaps we should get petition up and say we want a toilet in every platform in Paddington. I wonder how that would go?
M
MikeN
Guest
But the fee for just the grandstand development would have been considerably less, and could have been taken from the Hallett loan. As it stands, an application that probably would have been waved through is held up, both in the development of the hybrid submission, and the formal planning process, and the club is presumably paying interest on the loan.
I don't hate the proposals as much as some people do. I'm massively unconvinced that the offices fit into the Central Park Action Plan, and I do think that, as happened with the life centre application, there could be design tweaks and additional mitigation measures to make sure that it's the best application possible - all of which takes time. That said, tacking this development onto the grandstand application just seems like a way to leverage the planners.
And look, I work in construction, and this happens all the time. Sweeteners, compromises and politely worded (and occasionally impolitely worded!) threats are part of the process. It's not dishonest, or evil - it's just a smart way to work the system. But I'm an Argyle fan, not a James Brent or Akkeron fan, so I want the easy bit that benefits the club pushed through, and the wider redevelopment to stand or fall on its own merits.
Making out the JB is doing us a favour with this hybrid application, or that we shouldn't utter a peep if we couldn't pay the planning fee, or live in the wrong place, isn't helpful. It's just people trying to stifle opposing views, rather than defend their own.
I don't hate the proposals as much as some people do. I'm massively unconvinced that the offices fit into the Central Park Action Plan, and I do think that, as happened with the life centre application, there could be design tweaks and additional mitigation measures to make sure that it's the best application possible - all of which takes time. That said, tacking this development onto the grandstand application just seems like a way to leverage the planners.
And look, I work in construction, and this happens all the time. Sweeteners, compromises and politely worded (and occasionally impolitely worded!) threats are part of the process. It's not dishonest, or evil - it's just a smart way to work the system. But I'm an Argyle fan, not a James Brent or Akkeron fan, so I want the easy bit that benefits the club pushed through, and the wider redevelopment to stand or fall on its own merits.
Making out the JB is doing us a favour with this hybrid application, or that we shouldn't utter a peep if we couldn't pay the planning fee, or live in the wrong place, isn't helpful. It's just people trying to stifle opposing views, rather than defend their own.
M
MikeN
Guest
IJN":3toemn6j said:
This is a local shop, for local people...
The fact is, comments and input are welcome from everyone. That's democracy. Generally people are only moved to comment on planning applications that affect them. That could be because they live there, or because they have some kind of emotional attachments to the place. Any comment that has nothing to add, either for or against, will be politely ignored by the planning officials and the committee (that's the theory anyway - in my experience planning officers are better at that than committees, which can be political animals.) Anyone that raises a genuine planning related issue should be listened to.