Objections to planning App

[Ade the green]

Wouldn't the address be the same for anyone wishing to object which Gasper and you might not have known about until the OP mentioned it?

Happy scribbling.

 

[Quintrell Green]

So the original post stating "As there are people raising objections to the clubs planning application can fans write or email the council giving support as it would be nice to finally get this off the ground." is not lobbying?

So how are the likes of myself living near Newquay over 50 miles away from Home Park to discover how to make a letter of support to the project unless I read it on here? I do not welcome The Boardmasters Festival every year because of gridlock traffic, foul air pollution and noise, but I recognise that it is responsible for raising the economic profile of Newquay, in a market driven economy. I would have thought that most Plymouthians would have recognised the same benefits, whether it is driven by PAFC, the Rockfeller family or Joe Soap. Personalities do not enter the equation.

 

[Bubba]

Wouldn't the address be the same for anyone wishing to object which Gasper and you might not have known about until the OP mentioned it?

Happy scribbling.

Pretty much how I see it

If you like it or loath it the OP is giving you the chance to have your say, I think its human nature that we only really comment on things we don't like, if we do like them we simply say nothing and just enjoy them.

 

[daniel m]

Are they nothing to do with the football club? I had assumed that they were and that they would form some kind of off field revenue for the club?

Paragraph 1.2(f) of a PCC report that went to cabinet on 3rd September 2013

It clearly states that Green Pilgrim (now PAFC Limited) agreed a deed (secured by legal charge on the HHP land) which gave the right of PCC to receive a 50% share of any development profits exceeding 15% of total development costs. Lombard also have a legal charge on the HHP land although exact details of it are not in the public domain

"Para 1.2 (f)
The value of the Higher Home Park Option and variation of restrictive covenants was
independently assessed by the District Valuer at £425,000, which the Council had forgone.
Green Pilgrim also however granted the Council the right to receive a 50% share of any
development profits exceeding 15% of total development costs, resulting from the future
development of the Higher Home Park site. This was secured by way of Legal Charge on
the land."

A public report giving public conformation of the true position on HHP.

So what is the point of the three food and drink uses, offices and gym if PAFC are never going to see a penny of the proceeds from any development of HHP.

 

[HC Green]

Are they nothing to do with the football club? I had assumed that they were and that they would form some kind of off field revenue for the club?

Paragraph 1.2(f) of a PCC report that went to cabinet on 3rd September 2013

It clearly states that Green Pilgrim (now PAFC Limited) agreed a deed (secured by legal charge on the HHP land) which gave the right of PCC to receive a 50% share of any development profits exceeding 15% of total development costs. Lombard also have a legal charge on the HHP land although exact details of it are not in the public domain

"Para 1.2 (f)
The value of the Higher Home Park Option and variation of restrictive covenants was
independently assessed by the District Valuer at £425,000, which the Council had forgone.
Green Pilgrim also however granted the Council the right to receive a 50% share of any
development profits exceeding 15% of total development costs, resulting from the future
development of the Higher Home Park site. This was secured by way of Legal Charge on
the land."

A public report giving public conformation of the true position on HHP.

So what is the point of the three food and drink uses, offices and gym if PAFC are never going to see a penny of the proceeds from any development of HHP.

Because after the development the land will be revalued and Argyle are entitled to 50% of the windfall profit from this revaluation. Obviously it won't be as much as the amount from the original scheme.

 

[freddie2greens]

If the club is going to progress any further than div 1 or 2 this development is essential in order to raise the income, end of. If it doesn't happen we are never going to reach the championship and compete accordingly and any possible future buyers/investors will continue to go elsewhere. This development will benefit everyone that so wishes to use it especially the local community and in return benefit the club in many respects. The proposed site is derelict wasteland in desperate need of development so what is the problem? Its called progress and we as both a city and a football club have been badly short of it for years. Can anyone explain to me what bad effects this will have to anyone? I think the small minded minority opposed to it have it so wrong and seem to live in the past, green with envy of anyone that makes a success of things.The sooner it happens the better.

 

[Abbotts Ann Green]

The conference facilities will be much more attractive to potential users if there is a good hotel next door to the ground, hence more income for the club.

Having stayed in many hotels in Plymouth over the years there are quite a few which are pretty awful.

 

[xmastree]

If the club is going to progress any further than div 1 or 2 this development is essential in order to raise the income, end of. If it doesn't happen we are never going to reach the championship and compete accordingly and any possible future buyers/investors will continue to go elsewhere. This development will benefit everyone that so wishes to use it especially the local community and in return benefit the club in many respects. The proposed site is derelict wasteland in desperate need of development so what is the problem? Its called progress and we as both a city and a football club have been badly short of it for years. Can anyone explain to me what bad effects this will have to anyone? I think the small minded minority opposed to it have it so wrong and seem to live in the past, green with envy of anyone that makes a success of things.The sooner it happens the better.

Am I right in saying that someone in the know estimated that the new Grandstand facilities would bring in around £1m a year in turnover?

Any additional income is to be welcomed and is essential to progress. However if this is vaguely accurate in terms of additional turnover, then it's not huge, bearing in mind the Hallett loan repayments might be £200k a year (very vague guesstimate). I think it's important that people don't get carried away thinking that this is our passport to wealth and the Championship, when the additional net profit isn't going to be very significant (assuming the £1m a year turnover figure to be relevant).

 

[IJN]

Good point made Daz but I still don't think it should be on the site.

As I've said many many times, this site allows any post that doesn't contain swear words and/or doesn't contain anything potentially libellous.

This is true free speech and not some concocted version which does allow the former and the latter.

Vote either way, it's your right.

I certainly WILL be letting PCC know that I think it's a wonderful opportunity for our City and our football club.

So far I've read two objections one from a person who doesn't attend any more and another from someone who lives on Yorkshire!! :lol:

Funnily enough, from memory, they both objected last time as well.

 

[PL2 3DQ]

Good point made Daz but I still don't think it should be on the site.

As I've said many many times, this site allows any post that doesn't contain swear words and/or doesn't contain anything potentially libellous.

This is true free speech and not some concocted version which does allow the former and the latter.

Vote either way, it's your right.

I certainly WILL be letting PCC know that I think it's a wonderful opportunity for our City and our football club.

So far I've read two objections one from a person who doesn't attend any more and another from someone who lives on Yorkshire!! :lol:

Funnily enough, from memory, they both objected last time as well.

It's amusing to see someone living in Leeds objecting to a development in Plymouth, if he's that concerned about Plymouth will he also complain about the roadworks and travellers that blight the city of Plymouth every day?
Bizarrely, the people not living in Plymouth are shouting the loudest against a development in Plymouth.

It seems to me the objectors are against the development purely because it's James Brent who is proposing it.
The football club needs the refurbished grandstand to enable it to financial progress and the ice rink and hotel built on existing brown field land ear marked for development will benefit the people of Plymouth.
Did the Life Centre have many objectors?

 

[IJN]

Graham it does appear strange to me that on a thread that talks about 'lobbying' that we now have the same people that objected to the original plans, then gave out the 'Never Again' statement, now appear to be on the 'what about the parking' campaign.

Someone copied and posted something allegedly penned by John Lloyd the other day, which in about 13 paragraphs suggested identical to that above, and I then saw an objection this morning from Peggy Prior objecting to the lack of parking.

Is it a coincidence I wonder that the same names keep cropping up? When the AFT was 'chaired' by Symons, we had the AFT getting into bed with the Friends of Central Park debacle, and still this keeps on happening.

I would suggest, that most Argyle fans are not interested in what this small group seems to be up to, which seems to be undermining EVERYTHING that is being suggested, most of us want us to get on with it and stop all the petty politicking which seems to be wound up each and every time a new plan is suggested.

It's only my opinion of course and people will make up their own minds, but I am sick and tired and seeing the same names involved each and every time a plan is put forward.

 

[Guiri Green]

Just to put a bit of context into the debate. The proposed conference and hospitality facilities within the Grandstand are for 800 covers (the same as the Exeter Suite at Sandy Park) and a further 120 in the corporate boxes and 60 in the VIP / Boardroom. This capacity is for both match day and non-match day.

In the accompanying Transport Assessment to the application this capacity for parking demand is not taken into account as it has been agreed with PCC that an assessment of the Saturday peak hour on a match day was not necessary, due to the management these conditions through the implementation of an Event Management Plan (EMP). As such, the Transport Assessment only assesses only a non-match day Saturday peak hour. The Club only need to produce an EMP for major events. The current match day parking plan consists of using the Park and Ride car park (capacity 590 cars) three hours before kick off under licence. It also consists of staff parking and VIP / match officials parking at Higher Home Park

The revised plans (4th September) show 60 spaces, mainly behind the three proposed food and drink units (by the refuse bins at the back). These are specifically shown to be for Football Club use and of course you have the demands of the Ice Rink (assuming it remains open on match days), two floors of offices and a large gym to cater for as well.

As a result of the proposals almost all of the users of the corporate / hospitality facilities will have to take their chances of parking at the park and Ride site on both match days and non-match days during the daytime. Without the certainty of parking (Sandy Park has 500 allocated spaces available for the sole use of the facilities at an hourly charge) then how on earth are the Club going to maximise its revenue generation from the corporate / hospitality facilities on both match days and non-match days.

To make matters worse there is no identified parking, other than at the Park and Ride site (should they be available) for those visiting the Club Shop, Ticket Office or the offices of the club including staff and officials other than 39 spaces randomly distributed around the Stadium. Even worse than that there is no identified conveniently located disabled parking close to the Grandstand, Club Shop or Ticket Office. How the shareholders of the Club could let this particular situation arise is completely beyond me.

For those thinking there is not going to be a parking problem as a result, specifically of the HHP part of the proposals think again. Even the submitted Transport Assessment (TA) says there is a requirement for 148 cars generated by the HHP proposals and that is without including the Grandstand conference and hospitality uses. The TA says as additional parking is provided in the (unrelated - my word) Western Gateway car park then the overall need is met. Well try and negotiate your way to that car park on match day!

For a Football Club with serious pretensions to climb the Football League pyramid would surely ensure it has enough car parking within its control adjoining the site to meet match day and non-match requirements the best it can. The ironic thing is that the owner of the has ownership of the very land that would go along way to meet that requirement. rather than act in the best interests of the Football Club and go a long way to ensure its future legacy and prosperity the choice has been made to proposed the food and drink units in direct competition to the Football Club and not only that provide the sort of outdoor food and drink facility (think Liverpool Fan Zones) where none of the revenue will go top the Club. You couldn't make it up!

The solution. Remove the food and drink, office and gym buildings from the hybrid planning application proposal and use that land solely for car parking for the Grandstand and non-match day use of the ice rink. You could even generate additional revenue for match day parking and non-match day use of of the conference / hospitality facilities. The land could even be sold back to the Club. The Ice Rink unlocks the Pavilions site and provides additional leisure opportunity in the Park. Western Gateway goes ahead unencumbered in a much more favourable commercial location and the Football Club gets about an acre of operational parking where it is most needed. What's not to like?

Build a Multi Storey on the Park and Ride Site, problem solved.

 

[nikkk]

Letter in support emailed and posted to the council.

The parking argument is simply not a valid one. It is just being used by serial objectors to anything "Argyle positive" and in particular James Brent related.

Are you seriously saying that people are not prepared to park in the huge adjoining car park and wander up the ramp to do anything Argyle related ? Remember the huge amount that visited the ticket office for the Liverpool games. The car park outside the ticket office was empty, and thousands managed. The plan does allow for disabled parking.

How on earth do inner city clubs manage with attendances far in excess of Argyle ? Perfectly well !

 

[Positively Green]

Graham it does appear strange to me that on a thread that talks about 'lobbying' that we now have the same people that objected to the original plans, then gave out the 'Never Again' statement, now appear to be on the 'what about the parking' campaign.

Someone copied and posted something allegedly penned by John Lloyd the other day, which in about 13 paragraphs suggested identical to that above, and I then saw an objection this morning from Peggy Prior objecting to the lack of parking.

Is it a coincidence I wonder that the same names keep cropping up? When the AFT was 'chaired' by Symons, we had the AFT getting into bed with the Friends of Central Park debacle, and still this keeps on happening.

I would suggest, that most Argyle fans are not interested in what this small group seems to be up to, which seems to be undermining EVERYTHING that is being suggested, most of us want us to get on with it and stop all the petty politicking which seems to be wound up each and every time a new plan is suggested.

It's only my opinion of course and people will make up their own minds, but I am sick and tired and seeing the same names involved each and every time a plan is put forward.

I am a neutral as far as the past political situation is concerned. I am a born-again Argyle fan who returned to the fold when they were in financial trouble (felt our money could help keep them afloat). I can tell you that I am worried about problems re parking for us on a matchday (I bring two disabled men and leave St Austell at 11o'clock already to ensure a disabled parking space). I am so concerned that I am already thinking about how I could break to them that we may not be able to attend games any more.

 

[metroace]

My supporting comments have been submitted online. There are no minimum standards for parking, only maximum limits. Essentially, a development can go ahead with NO parking provision but it cannot exceed a maximum number of spaces that is calculated by a formula contained in planning guidance.