Objections to planning App

[PL2 3DQ]

People of Plymouth have to decide what we want (City wide that is) a nice sleepy village or a vibrant economy.

It comes down to that really doesn't it?

No, not really.

The hotel, retail and office developments don't need to be in this location. There are more appropriate locations for those forms of development such as urban centres and employment parks. The proposed buildings would form the setting to Central Park which I happen to value. I don't want to see it urbanised and covered in big bulky buildings. You don't see this happening in the London parks and that place isn't a sleepy village.

What do you think of the Life Centre? It's not the best looking building and was built on a green field site (we lost a field and trees) while the buildings for the proposed new development will be built on existing concrete or replacing existing buildings and not taking up any green areas.

 

[Wozzer]

People of Plymouth have to decide what we want (City wide that is) a nice sleepy village or a vibrant economy.

It comes down to that really doesn't it?

No, not really.

The hotel, retail and office developments don't need to be in this location. There are more appropriate locations for those forms of development such as urban centres and employment parks. The proposed buildings would form the setting to Central Park which I happen to value. I don't want to see it urbanised and covered in big bulky buildings. You don't see this happening in the London parks and that place isn't a sleepy village.

What do you think of the Life Centre? It's not the best looking building and was built on a green field site (we lost a field and trees) while the buildings for the proposed new development will be built on existing concrete or replacing existing buildings and not taking up any green areas.

Hi Ian

Not going to get too involved in this however I looked after Central Park at the time and more green was forthcoming with the demolition of the Mayflower centre than the Life Centre took.

 

[gaspargomez]

What do you think of the Life Centre? It's not the best looking building and was built on a green field site (we lost a field and trees) while the buildings for the proposed new development will be built on existing concrete or replacing existing buildings and not taking up any green areas.

The Life Centre building is OK as an individual building- but it did replace two existing buildings (the Mayflower Centre and Central Park swimming pool).

The impact of several bulky buildings in addition to the Life Centre would have a far greater visual impact. You say that there is development on the site already, but its very modest and maintains openness. What uis there already mostly consists of hardstanding- not much other built development.

I'm all for Argyle getting a new grandstand, but we are talking about something else here. Something that won't benefit the club in the long run and has nothing to do with it. We've already heard the arguments about parking.

IJN- maybe you were talking about something else in that previous quote. But I think you are an advocate of the proposals and hold the view that the new buildings would be good for the city. I don't. Grandstand- yes. Hotel, shops and offices- no thank you. But I wouldn't worry too much. I'm pretty certain that the Council will grant planning permission.

 

[Fat_green_belly]

People of Plymouth have to decide what we want (City wide that is) a nice sleepy village or a vibrant economy.

It comes down to that really doesn't it?

No, not really.

The hotel, retail and office developments don't need to be in this location. There are more appropriate locations for those forms of development such as urban centres and employment parks. The proposed buildings would form the setting to Central Park which I happen to value. I don't want to see it urbanised and covered in big bulky buildings. You don't see this happening in the London parks and that place isn't a sleepy village.

A big football stadium and an even bigger warehouse type life centre surrounded by 2 massive car parks.
Not urbanised? No bulky buildings. Your happy for a big bulky ice rink then?
As for the setting to central park you think a concrete car park and a massive warehouse is any better.
I would rather the setting was seeing lots of people enjoying themselves either in the sporty bit or
the green spaces beyond.
As for the hotel, retail, gym and office bits they pay for the ice rink. Thats how private investment
works. The only other alternative is public funding and that just aint going to happen.
Also that hotel is really important for argyle in its conferencing ambitions.

 

[NorfolkGreen]

People of Plymouth have to decide what we want (City wide that is) a nice sleepy village or a vibrant economy.

It comes down to that really doesn't it?

No, not really.

The hotel, retail and office developments don't need to be in this location. There are more appropriate locations for those forms of development such as urban centres and employment parks. The proposed buildings would form the setting to Central Park which I happen to value. I don't want to see it urbanised and covered in big bulky buildings. You don't see this happening in the London parks and that place isn't a sleepy village.

What do you think of the Life Centre? It's not the best looking building and was built on a green field site (we lost a field and trees) while the buildings for the proposed new development will be built on existing concrete or replacing existing buildings and not taking up any green areas.

I'm assuming someone may know the answer, do the proposed new buildings have any impact on the potential for expansion of the club's Stadium footprint, especially on the Mayflower side?

 

[Chancellor]

People of Plymouth have to decide what we want (City wide that is) a nice sleepy village or a vibrant economy.

It comes down to that really doesn't it?

No, not really.

The hotel, retail and office developments don't need to be in this location. There are more appropriate locations for those forms of development such as urban centres and employment parks. The proposed buildings would form the setting to Central Park which I happen to value. I don't want to see it urbanised and covered in big bulky buildings. You don't see this happening in the London parks and that place isn't a sleepy village.

What do you think of the Life Centre? It's not the best looking building and was built on a green field site (we lost a field and trees) while the buildings for the proposed new development will be built on existing concrete or replacing existing buildings and not taking up any green areas.

I'm assuming someone may know the answer, do the proposed new buildings have any impact on the potential for expansion of the club's Stadium footprint, especially on the Mayflower side?

Yes they will. Our 70 year old grandstand will be completely hemmed in pretty much and therefore we are never likely to get a "new" stand. One of the main reasons I am against it, its developing on land that has always been in the clubs ownership and cant be taken back.

Once again, we dont need this development to refurb the grandstand, the funds are already in place so why do it?

 

[gaspargomez]

Once again, we dont need this development to refurb the grandstand, the funds are already in place so why do it?

Brent's been wanting to build a hotel on Central Park since the moment he bought the football club.
He's not here out of the kindness of his heart as some people like to believe.

 

[SWTT]

If Brent had the club at heart he wouldn't have taken the land for himself. It'd be in club hands and any development would be of financial benefit for the club. It might, y know, buy a couple of corners or something. Ah wait, I forgot, we're forever in his debt both figuratively and literally.

 

[CADMAN]

If Brent had the club at heart he wouldn't have taken the land for himself. It'd be in club hands and any development would be of financial benefit for the club. It might, y know, buy a couple of corners or something. Ah wait, I forgot, we're forever in his debt both figuratively and literally.

Hope you have your time hat on.

 

[CADMAN]

If Brent had the club at heart he wouldn't have taken the land for himself. It'd be in club hands and any development would be of financial benefit for the club. It might, y know, buy a couple of corners or something. Ah wait, I forgot, we're forever in his debt oth figuratively and literally.

Hope you have your tin hat on.

 

[SWTT]

If Brent had the club at heart he wouldn't have taken the land for himself. It'd be in club hands and any development would be of financial benefit for the club. It might, y know, buy a couple of corners or something. Ah wait, I forgot, we're forever in his debt oth figuratively and literally.

Hope you have your tin hat on.

Meh, we're poo and I'm peed off.

 

[NorfolkGreen]

Once again, we dont need this development to refurb the grandstand, the funds are already in place so why do it?

Brent's been wanting to build a hotel on Central Park since the moment he bought the football club.
He's not here out of the kindness of his heart as some people like to believe.

I don't have a problem with him wanting to make money, just so long as it has no current or future restriction on Argyle.

 

[Greenrod]

I didn't realise, until I read the minutes of the recent AFT meeting with James Brent and Martin Starnes that "PAFC are looking for additional space behind the proposed Memorial Garden for a 4g and 2 grass pitches at a commercial rent."

 

[jimsing]

If Brent had the club at heart he wouldn't have taken the land for himself. It'd be in club hands and any development would be of financial benefit for the club. It might, y know, buy a couple of corners or something. Ah wait, I forgot, we're forever in his debt both figuratively and literally.

He didn't "take" anything.

Brent bought the Club from the Council, in order to keep the Club going when it was going through administration.

He then bought the lease for the ground from the Council and gave it to the Club. This separated the ground from the car park, leaving him with the car park.

It has been suggested that the Club should buy back the car park. Brent has agreed that this could happen, but suggests that, from the Clubs point of view, the money would be better spent elsewhere, and that he could not see that happening whilst he was Chairman.

In my opinion, this seems logical, as the Club is still strapped for cash, and the Clubs priority should be with the playing side of the business, until such time that the Club has sufficient money to invest, which may be a long long time away.

 

[monkeywrench]

If Brent had the club at heart he wouldn't have taken the land for himself. It'd be in club hands and any development would be of financial benefit for the club. It might, y know, buy a couple of corners or something. Ah wait, I forgot, we're forever in his debt both figuratively and literally.

He didn't "take" anything.

Brent bought the Club from the Council, in order to keep the Club going when it was going through administration.

He then bought the lease for the ground from the Council and gave it to the Club. This separated the ground from the car park, leaving him with the car park.

It has been suggested that the Club should buy back the car park. Brent has agreed that this could happen, but suggests that, from the Clubs point of view, the money would be better spent elsewhere, and that he could not see that happening whilst he was Chairman.

In my opinion, this seems logical, as the Club is still strapped for cash, and the Clubs priority should be with the playing side of the business, until such time that the Club has sufficient money to invest, which may be a long long time away.

Another excellent post jimsing.