AFT statement on HHP development and **new update 19th Sept*

[Lundan Cabbie]

The last plan was scuppered by the Council offering up Bretonside at the same time Paul.

By the way, the AFT objected to that one as well. :roll:

Indeed it was Ian. JB needed that imax cinema at HHP but the city didn't need two. One had to go and sadly it was the wrong one as far as JB was concerned.

 

[jerryatricjanner]

The last plan was scuppered by the Council offering up Bretonside at the same time Paul.

By the way, the AFT objected to that one as well. :roll:

Did they? I'm certain no objections came from the AFT or even to my knowledge any individual board members at the time.

Esmer seems to back up this recollection of mine earlier in the thread. The AFT worked on a working group to provide an alternative plan but they didn't object to the JB plans when the WG plans were rejected.

I am getting old Sam but I'm sure Symons did say something in the Herald, and despite denials, all of us at the FoCP meeting were told by the Chairman of the FoCP that they were working closely with the AFT to get the plan stopped. She was a JP and Symons is well, shall we say, unreliable at best. I know who I choose to believe.

It's no secret that Andy Symons and indeed many members of the AFT at that time had their doubts about the plan which probably accounts for some comments in the Herald but there were certainly no formal objections made. There's a big difference between having personal doubts about something and trying to get it stopped.

As for the FOCP thing, as you say there were a number of denials immediately after. Not just from Andy Symons who I'm aware you don't like but also from everybody else involved with the AFT at that time. Obviously I wasn't there so didn't hear the exact wording but I suspect she either said something vague enough that it could be interpreted one way or the other, misspoke or if she spoke correctly and unambiguously, was under the wrong impression.

In any case, there were certainly no statements against the development that time or any objections on the planning portal either.

The last plan was scuppered by the Council offering up Bretonside at the same time Paul.

By the way, the AFT objected to that one as well. :roll:

HHP 1 was granted Planning permission long before the Bretonside development was announced. It was scuppered because it was ill thought out.

Agreed. I remember it being mooted that work on it would start in October 2013. Bretonside wasn't announced until well into the spring of 2014.

That sounds about right. The reason the first HHP proposal floundered was because nobody would take up the units and it was doomed thankfully well before Bretonside.
This new proposal is a great improvement and if this is correct that the Brent private business is only seeking outline approval at this stage then it is even less understandable why the insignificant and self important handful of people purporting to represent all the fans should object. If the grandstand refurb, ice rink etc. gets approval which surely it will and James Brent/Akerron have funded the application then that's a bit of a result all round. I despair sometimes why these people try to find problems with something that is far outweighed by the benefits it will bring to the football club they claim to support. Perhaps it is more motivated by the politics of envy?

 

[Electronic]

I have. Since discovering that only outline planning is being sought for HHP with full for Grandstand, I hope planning is granted from this initial application. I feel the AFT should have taken this into consideration also and not objected, but taken a stance of objection against full planning for HHP unless a conversation could be had to discuss the benefits for the football club (and not some going flim flam about swarms of Nandos fans buying up all our tickets after they've stuffed themselves with chicken and run it off in the gym).

If the above is nailed-on true, that works for me too. Grandstand goes ahead unabated and the rest gets properly considered on its merits. Hopefully that would mean yes to the ice rink and hotel on Western Gateway and no to the offices, food, drink outlets. Keep Central Park as a leisure/sports complex.[/quote]

Yes let's build a leisure complex and not put any food outlets on it, that'll draw in the punters.

Are you hungry after your gym session? Kids starving after ice skating? Don't worry you can buy them pie and chips from one of the Home Park vans! Everyone knows gym buffs and young families flock to burger vans.

As for the offices, too right if we're building a brand new conferencing facility I sure as hell don't want a load of office workers on site who could potentially hire it out. Are we some sort of business or something.[/quote]

Define 'we'....are you speaking as an Akkeron fan, or an Argyle fan?[/quote]

Can I just ask if your objection is to having any providers of food is just that or if it's a worry that McDonald's and KFC will be the outlet of choice? To be honest with you, I'd object to fast food outlets being on the site but if it's a step up to Nando's or the like I think it will enhance the area.[/quote]

Honest question deserves an honest answer.

I think something along the lines of McDo's or KFC would be utter disaster but personally I'd also regard something like Nando's as pretty bland chain fast food too and a suite of restaurants such as this, with - what? - a Wetherspoons or similar tagged on would simply make that area of Central Park look like any other identikit soulless food/business park in Anywheresville in the UK. If food and drink is required, why not look into something innovative and quality but still inexpensive like an area for street food vendors and/or local microbreweries having pitches for their product. That might still compete with Argyle but at least it would be interesting and would have the advantage of not concreting over everything, taking up every scrap of space and hemming in Home Park forever.

People often say that Argyle's location in Central Park is one of the most attractive things about the club and I agree with that, so why are so many so keen to sell that down the river by turning it into Sixfields or Glanford Park. There could and should be a halfway house here that sees Argyle's infrastructure push on whilst allowing for sensible development around the ground.

I understand why James Brent/Akkeron want to do it in the way that is being planned but I just don't agree with it. I'm also accepting there is nothing I can do about it. Will watch with interest as to how things unfold. I suspect it won't get the full go-ahead.

 

[Baby Face Johnson]

The last plan was scuppered by the Council offering up Bretonside at the same time Paul.

By the way, the AFT objected to that one as well. :roll:

Indeed it was Ian. JB needed that imax cinema at HHP but the city didn't need two. One had to go and sadly it was the wrong one as far as JB was concerned.

Is competition not good now then? I'm confused :crazy:

 

[Wozzer]

Sorry to see the abusive post you were subjected to last night on Facebook Nik, especially from someone whose outlook is to take offence from anything and everything that is spoken/written.

 

[Frazer Lloyd-Davies]

Is it time to lock this thread now. For all the shouting and counter shouting, accusations and counter accusations not one person has stated they've changed their mind on the development et al so the only thing this thread is now doing is providing people a reason to vent spleen.

What does locking it achieve, apart from stifling potential debate?

The debate has pretty much ended. Have you changed your position?

I have. Since discovering that only outline planning is being sought for HHP with full for Grandstand, I hope planning is granted from this initial application. I feel the AFT should have taken this into consideration also and not objected, but taken a stance of objection against full planning for HHP unless a conversation could be had to discuss the benefits for the football club (and not some going flim flam about swarms of Nandos fans buying up all our tickets after they've stuffed themselves with chicken and run it off in the gym).

If the above is nailed-on true, that works for me too. Grandstand goes ahead unabated and the rest gets properly considered on its merits. Hopefully that would mean yes to the ice rink and hotel on Western Gateway and no to the offices, food, drink outlets. Keep Central Park as a leisure/sports complex.

Yes let's build a leisure complex and not put any food outlets on it, that'll draw in the punters.

Are you hungry after your gym session? Kids starving after ice skating? Don't worry you can buy them pie and chips from one of the Home Park vans! Everyone knows gym buffs and young families flock to burger vans.

As for the offices, too right if we're building a brand new conferencing facility I sure as hell don't want a load of office workers on site who could potentially hire it out. Are we some sort of business or something.

This.

Those conference facilities will be used predominantly by companies near by. I work on Plymouth Science Park, where they have conferencing facilities. Therefore, it's highly unlikely that I'd hold a public event off site and I imagine it's the same for the majority of the 100+ businesses here also.

Building conference facilities without offices could make those facilities redudant. There aren't a great deal of large business events on the Plymouth (and surrounding area) calendar. There are a few and I expect the proposed facilities would be a good venue for them. However, they are going to need smaller areas for the majority of events, to drive regular business and as I alluded to above, the easiest and most secure way to get that is with offices on site.

 

[nikkk]

Sorry to see the abusive post you were subjected to last night on Facebook Nik, especially from someone whose outlook is to take offence from anything and everything that is spoken/written.

Thanks. I don't mind banter ...well I enjoy it ..from friends ...but this was just abuse in my book. I'll put it down to Andy Symons just being plain ignorant, but I'm not going to let it go. I was surprised that it got to me ...few things do.

 

[Knarf Reprah]

Sorry to see the abusive post you were subjected to last night on Facebook Nik, especially from someone whose outlook is to take offence from anything and everything that is spoken/written.

Thanks. I don't mind banter ...well I enjoy it ..from friends ...but this was just abuse in my book. I'll put it down to Andy Symons just being plain ignorant, but I'm not going to let it go. I was surprised that it got to me ...few things do.

I agree with wozzer.......imagine if it had been the other way around! Not that you would stoop so low nikk.
See u at fanfest tmoz

 

[PL2 3DQ]

Sorry to see the abusive post you were subjected to last night on Facebook Nik, especially from someone whose outlook is to take offence from anything and everything that is spoken/written.

Thanks. I don't mind banter ...well I enjoy it ..from friends ...but this was just abuse in my book. I'll put it down to Andy Symons just being plain ignorant, but I'm not going to let it go. I was surprised that it got to me ...few things do.

I'm also sorry to hear about those abusive comments directed at you. Has he offered an apology?
He used to post on Pasoti as Homeslice and thankfully he's no longer on here.

 

[esmer]

The last plan was scuppered by the Council offering up Bretonside at the same time Paul.

By the way, the AFT objected to that one as well. :roll:

Did they? I'm certain no objections came from the AFT or even to my knowledge any individual board members at the time.

Esmer seems to back up this recollection of mine earlier in the thread. The AFT worked on a working group to provide an alternative plan but they didn't object to the JB plans when the WG plans were rejected.

Ian's mistaken. I don't know if individual board members objected, I wasn't that close to them and anyway it was their business but the AFT as an organization representing the fans didn't object; the Chairman at the time recognized he did not have a mandate from his members. A stark contrast to this time around.

 

[Baby Face Johnson]

Sorry to see the abusive post you were subjected to last night on Facebook Nik, especially from someone whose outlook is to take offence from anything and everything that is spoken/written.

Thanks. I don't mind banter ...well I enjoy it ..from friends ...but this was just abuse in my book. I'll put it down to Andy Symons just being plain ignorant, but I'm not going to let it go. I was surprised that it got to me ...few things do.

This is it in a nutshell. Banter and abuse only work if both sides are in on it and know the boundaries. Anything else is just plain abuse and very boorish regardless of which side of the argument you are on.

 

[SWTT]

Is it time to lock this thread now. For all the shouting and counter shouting, accusations and counter accusations not one person has stated they've changed their mind on the development et al so the only thing this thread is now doing is providing people a reason to vent spleen.

What does locking it achieve, apart from stifling potential debate?

The debate has pretty much ended. Have you changed your position?

I have. Since discovering that only outline planning is being sought for HHP with full for Grandstand, I hope planning is granted from this initial application. I feel the AFT should have taken this into consideration also and not objected, but taken a stance of objection against full planning for HHP unless a conversation could be had to discuss the benefits for the football club (and not some going flim flam about swarms of Nandos fans buying up all our tickets after they've stuffed themselves with chicken and run it off in the gym).

What's your source for this about it being full permission for the grandstand and outline permission for HHP Sam? I was under the awareness it was outline permission for both?

Hi Sam, Jubb submit Supporting Info on 13th Sept, the "redevelopment masterplan". On page 4 within the introduction under section 2.1.2 it details the two sets of planning applications sought.

 

[esmer]

I sympathise if anyone has suffered online abuse but do we have to bring that cr@p on here.

 

[esmer]

Is it time to lock this thread now. For all the shouting and counter shouting, accusations and counter accusations not one person has stated they've changed their mind on the development et al so the only thing this thread is now doing is providing people a reason to vent spleen.

What does locking it achieve, apart from stifling potential debate?

The debate has pretty much ended. Have you changed your position?

I have. Since discovering that only outline planning is being sought for HHP with full for Grandstand, I hope planning is granted from this initial application. I feel the AFT should have taken this into consideration also and not objected, but taken a stance of objection against full planning for HHP unless a conversation could be had to discuss the benefits for the football club (and not some going flim flam about swarms of Nandos fans buying up all our tickets after they've stuffed themselves with chicken and run it off in the gym).

What's your source for this about it being full permission for the grandstand and outline permission for HHP Sam? I was under the awareness it was outline permission for both?

Hi Sam, Jubb submit Supporting Info on 13th Sept, the "redevelopment masterplan". On page 4 within the introduction under section 2.1.2 it details the two sets of planning applications sought.

it is stated clearly on the application on the planning portal. Full for the grandstand amd ice rink and outline for the rest. Not sure if all of HHP is full or just the ice rink, certainly Western Gate is outline.

 

[Ade the green]

I have. Since discovering that only outline planning is being sought for HHP with full for Grandstand, I hope planning is granted from this initial application. I feel the AFT should have taken this into consideration also and not objected, but taken a stance of objection against full planning for HHP unless a conversation could be had to discuss the benefits for the football club (and not some going flim flam about swarms of Nandos fans buying up all our tickets after they've stuffed themselves with chicken and run it off in the gym).

If the above is nailed-on true, that works for me too. Grandstand goes ahead unabated and the rest gets properly considered on its merits. Hopefully that would mean yes to the ice rink and hotel on Western Gateway and no to the offices, food, drink outlets. Keep Central Park as a leisure/sports complex.

Yes let's build a leisure complex and not put any food outlets on it, that'll draw in the punters.

Are you hungry after your gym session? Kids starving after ice skating? Don't worry you can buy them pie and chips from one of the Home Park vans! Everyone knows gym buffs and young families flock to burger vans.

As for the offices, too right if we're building a brand new conferencing facility I sure as hell don't want a load of office workers on site who could potentially hire it out. Are we some sort of business or something.[/quote]

Define 'we'....are you speaking as an Akkeron fan, or an Argyle fan?[/quote]

Can I just ask if your objection is to having any providers of food is just that or if it's a worry that McDonald's and KFC will be the outlet of choice? To be honest with you, I'd object to fast food outlets being on the site but if it's a step up to Nando's or the like I think it will enhance the area.[/quote]

Honest question deserves an honest answer.

I think something along the lines of McDo's or KFC would be utter disaster but personally I'd also regard something like Nando's as pretty bland chain fast food too and a suite of restaurants such as this, with - what? - a Wetherspoons or similar tagged on would simply make that area of Central Park look like any other identikit soulless food/business park in Anywheresville in the UK. If food and drink is required, why not look into something innovative and quality but still inexpensive like an area for street food vendors and/or local microbreweries having pitches for their product. That might still compete with Argyle but at least it would be interesting and would have the advantage of not concreting over everything, taking up every scrap of space and hemming in Home Park forever.

People often say that Argyle's location in Central Park is one of the most attractive things about the club and I agree with that, so why are so many so keen to sell that down the river by turning it into Sixfields or Glanford Park. There could and should be a halfway house here that sees Argyle's infrastructure push on whilst allowing for sensible development around the ground.

I understand why James Brent/Akkeron want to do it in the way that is being planned but I just don't agree with it. I'm also accepting there is nothing I can do about it. Will watch with interest as to how things unfold. I suspect it won't get the full go-ahead.[/quote]


Probably not but the likelihood is what will be given the green light will at least be the Ice Arena and food outlets. Whilst I think I understand what you would accept or expect I can't really see why independents would even think about this site. Someone said six outlets which to me seems a bit high. A Nando's is a favourite of footballers and chicken is a staple of people who do a lot of excercise so if there was a choice between Nando's and KFC I presume we'd both not want the KFC. Different with burgers as it's the staple of young children but we certainly wouldn't want McDonald's.

As far as independent, I can't think of anything better than either an Argyle bar open for food and drink 7 days a week or if the members bar can be a football themed bar and also I'd like it to be a bar and restaurant serving better quality than burger and chips. I'd probably have to go back to the plans to see how big the bars are but as they are over two floors it should have a fairly high capacity.