Objections to planning App

[HC 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?

The people using the corporate facility on matchdays won't be increasing the capacity of Home Park above recent historical levels. So currently the parking is sufficient to meet a 17,000 gate as seen when we played Liverpool. Once the grandstand is complete the capacity at Home Park won't be anymore than that.

The car park issue is a red herring as there is sufficient spare capacity in the park and ride car park to meet demand apart from matchdays.

If you consider that the Ice Rink will be busiest in the evenings, weekends and school holidays then that is the time when the car park has even more spare capacity.

Finally if the Council had an issue with parking why do they give permissions for circuses and fun fairs to set up in Central Park. This Saturday and next Tuesday the Gerry Cottle circus will be having performances the same time that Argyle are playing. Where do the Council think people going to them will be parking.

 

[IJN]

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.

There is a member of PADSA at the Grandstand meetings and at the last meeting it was gone into great length.

She seemed to be delighted at the levels of parking for disabled fans, if that helps.

I know at ALL of the meetings, the needs of disabled fans are brought up and dealt with.

 

[metroace]

According to the Plymouth City Council Development Guidelines, the stadium is listed as being accessible to 70-79% of Plymouth residents by public transport within 30 minutes (Chapter 8: Parking Standards & Travel Plans).

 

[Chancellor]

The same old problem of Home Park being hemmed in still applies from the last application.

Mr Brent is essentially refurbishing a 70 year old Grandstand and by building offices(?), restaurants(?), a gym(?) and the obligatory mini ice rink is hamstringing any future expansion or indeed rebuild of the grandstand.

As Graham Clark has so eloquently put it, why on earth do we need all these contrary developments on what was Argyle land? All they serve to do is constrain the club and potentially compete for PAFC revenue.

The argument that these buildings are needed to fund the grandstand is now irrelevant as the club (read supporters) are funding the refurb through Mr Halletts loan.

A cynic would say that this development is not in the interest of our club, excepting the refurb of course, and that blatant profiteering is being made of what was once a club asset.

I am for the grandstand aspect but completely against the rest that is currently planned for HHP with perhaps the exception of a rethought ice rink.

 

[HC Green]

The same old problem of Home Park being hemmed in still applies from the last application.

Mr Brent is essentially refurbishing a 70 year old Grandstand and by building offices(?), restaurants(?), a gym(?) and the obligatory mini ice rink is hamstringing any future expansion or indeed rebuild of the grandstand.

As Graham Clark has so eloquently put it, why on earth do we need all these contrary developments on what was Argyle land? All they serve to do is constrain the club and potentially compete for PAFC revenue.

The argument that these buildings are needed to fund the grandstand is now irrelevant as the club (read supporters) are funding the refurb through Mr Halletts loan.

A cynic would say that this development is not in the interest of our club, excepting the refurb of course, and that blatant profiteering is being made of what was once a club asset.

I am for the grandstand aspect but completely against the rest that is currently planned for HHP with perhaps the exception of a rethought ice rink.

How can anyone that knows Home Park say it will be hemmed in?

 

[djg145]

Ermm where are the 'PLANS'

 

[Positively Green]

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.

There is a member of PADSA at the meetings and at the last meeting it was gone into great length.

She seemed to be delighted at the levels of parking for disabled fans, if that helps.

I know at ALL of the meetings, the needs of disabled fans are brought up and dealt with.

Thanks for that reassurance. I look at the Argyle badges on the clothes that the guys wear and I hope that there is consideration of ALL the loyal fans who helped keep Argyle afloat in THEIR time of need.

 

[Chancellor]

The same old problem of Home Park being hemmed in still applies from the last application.

Mr Brent is essentially refurbishing a 70 year old Grandstand and by building offices(?), restaurants(?), a gym(?) and the obligatory mini ice rink is hamstringing any future expansion or indeed rebuild of the grandstand.

As Graham Clark has so eloquently put it, why on earth do we need all these contrary developments on what was Argyle land? All they serve to do is constrain the club and potentially compete for PAFC revenue.

The argument that these buildings are needed to fund the grandstand is now irrelevant as the club (read supporters) are funding the refurb through Mr Halletts loan.

A cynic would say that this development is not in the interest of our club, excepting the refurb of course, and that blatant profiteering is being made of what was once a club asset.

I am for the grandstand aspect but completely against the rest that is currently planned for HHP with perhaps the exception of a rethought ice rink.

How can anyone that knows Home Park say it will be hemmed in?

I can assure you I know Home Park though I doubt you do if you feel that an eventual new grandstand would not be constrained by the HHP build.

 

[HC Green]

The same old problem of Home Park being hemmed in still applies from the last application.

Mr Brent is essentially refurbishing a 70 year old Grandstand and by building offices(?), restaurants(?), a gym(?) and the obligatory mini ice rink is hamstringing any future expansion or indeed rebuild of the grandstand.

As Graham Clark has so eloquently put it, why on earth do we need all these contrary developments on what was Argyle land? All they serve to do is constrain the club and potentially compete for PAFC revenue.

The argument that these buildings are needed to fund the grandstand is now irrelevant as the club (read supporters) are funding the refurb through Mr Halletts loan.

A cynic would say that this development is not in the interest of our club, excepting the refurb of course, and that blatant profiteering is being made of what was once a club asset.

I am for the grandstand aspect but completely against the rest that is currently planned for HHP with perhaps the exception of a rethought ice rink.

How can anyone that knows Home Park say it will be hemmed in?

I can assure you I know Home Park though I doubt you do if you feel that an eventual new grandstand would not be constrained by the HHP build.

You never know perhaps the a brand new grandstand could be on the Lyndhurst side, there are 3 other sides to Home Park, that aren't exactly hemmed in!

 

[Chancellor]

The same old problem of Home Park being hemmed in still applies from the last application.

Mr Brent is essentially refurbishing a 70 year old Grandstand and by building offices(?), restaurants(?), a gym(?) and the obligatory mini ice rink is hamstringing any future expansion or indeed rebuild of the grandstand.

As Graham Clark has so eloquently put it, why on earth do we need all these contrary developments on what was Argyle land? All they serve to do is constrain the club and potentially compete for PAFC revenue.

The argument that these buildings are needed to fund the grandstand is now irrelevant as the club (read supporters) are funding the refurb through Mr Halletts loan.

A cynic would say that this development is not in the interest of our club, excepting the refurb of course, and that blatant profiteering is being made of what was once a club asset.

I am for the grandstand aspect but completely against the rest that is currently planned for HHP with perhaps the exception of a rethought ice rink.

How can anyone that knows Home Park say it will be hemmed in?

I can assure you I know Home Park though I doubt you do if you feel that an eventual new grandstand would not be constrained by the HHP build.

You never know perhaps the a brand new grandstand could be on the Lyndhurst side, there are 3 other sides to Home Park, that aren't exactly hemmed in!

On PCC land?

 

[PL2 3DQ]

The people using the corporate facility on matchdays won't be increasing the capacity of Home Park above recent historical levels. So currently the parking is sufficient to meet a 17,000 gate as seen when we played Liverpool. Once the grandstand is complete the capacity at Home Park won't be anymore than that.

The car park issue is a red herring as there is sufficient spare capacity in the park and ride car park to meet demand apart from matchdays.

If you consider that the Ice Rink will be busiest in the evenings, weekends and school holidays then that is the time when the car park has even more spare capacity.

Finally if the Council had an issue with parking why do they give permissions for circuses and fun fairs to set up in Central Park. This Saturday and next Tuesday the Gerry Cottle circus will be having performances the same time that Argyle are playing. Where do the Council think people going to them will be parking.

Well said!

The car parking "issue" is indeed a red herring.

The club, the Life Centre and Central Park have a large free car park right on their door step, fans of away clubs can’t believe there is so much parking right next to the stadium and it’s free. Plus there is plenty of street parking in the surrounding area, park and ride and dedicated cheap bus travel for Argyle fans thanks to Target Travel. Does any other football club have such great car parking and transport facilities as Argyle?

Contrast that to other football stadiums where a visiting fan is lucky to find any kind of car park. For example at Fratton Park, with large attendances and a hotel right next door, there is only street parking and at Oxford they cope with a car park that serves the football stadium, cinema, bowling alley and retail units.

To cite the supposed lack of car parking as a reason to try and stop the development at Home Park and Central Park is a non-starter and instead has become a crusade against James Brent, again.

 

[Positively Green]

Regarding Fratton Park...... we pay £5 to park in Milton Cross School. Good funds for them and convenient and reassuring for us.

 

[Ade the green]

I admit I am naive and somewhat in awe of the arguments for both sides but two things I don't understand.

When talking about the car parking is it only to do with people wanting preferred parking as close to the stadium as possible and with regard to the other proposals on the HHP land, if there is so much more to do in that area rather than look at Home Park during the off days wouldn't/ couldn't it encourage people to spend money in the shop or perhaps open up the bars to non game days which I suppose they wouldn't /couldn't do now for a profit!

 

[IJN]

I won't be saying any more, there's little point.

Those that object will continue to do so, and those of us that support it, which is everyone I see around the City and face to face, will support.

My main concern is/was that the 'noisy few' could seem as if they spoke for those of us that want this done.

 

[Verte]

This ice rink is a farce. It is a whim that will be a white elephant.