Objections to planning App

[Verte]

Brent is maximizing his return on land associated with Argyle and I suggest given the proliferation of bricks laid elsewhere to be very concerned.... oh wait a second.

 

[Somerset57]

Thank you Mike Greening for bringing this to my attention. By giving me, and everyone else, the link each individual can make their own choice as to whether they can support it or state their reasons for being against it. No one can tell anyone else how they should respond. By Mike making the link available it merely makes either camp's life easier. What the devil is wrong with that? I personally do not care whether someone is for or against it, but I am very grateful for being able to voice my opinion to the correct authorities. For the record I am in favour of the development, but if someone wants to take a contrary view for whatever reason, then fine. That is your right just like it is mine to approve. All the link has allowed me to do is take part. End of.

 

[Isondil]

I am aware I am a little bit thick but some pf the arguments just simply do not make sense to me.

1) Loss of revenue to the club through competing business.
1.1) argyle gain no real revenue's through sales of pies and cokes under the stadium because it's provided third party. Argyle's gains are rent and, if contractually agreed, a percentage over and above a set sum.
1.2) given the above and the land still belonging to 'the club' (under whatever bloomin name) can we not simply agree the same as the above but external to the ground?

2) Parking.
2.1 a stadium that holds 90,000 has only 3,000 carparking spaces and no street parking near by due to permit holders only. That's 30 fans per space. We are averaging attendances not near our capacity but if we were near capacity that is at 30 fans per space, with the provision of street parking.
2.2 a valid comment on disability spaces, would this be possible to underpin with a booking system...I don't know. You could lobby for better provision should you object.

So I guess can someone explain, at what point having other food and beverages outside the stadium reduces our revenues? And secondly, if it's okay for the biggest sporting arena in England, why is it not good enough for us?

 

[KFA]

Graham. Just a few points re your posts. First I think it's 70 spaces at HHP not 60 ( not material but to keep things straight). Second I don't know why the 6 accessible spaces on HHP aren't shown on the re drafted plan but presume it's an error by ADG and will be sorted out in the process.

With regard to nearness of spaces to shop/ticket office then these are being moved to behind the traditional facade so a bit nearer park and ride and further from existing car park. I would also refer to the polices letter on planning website re not wanting parking in areas where lots of pedestrians go or gather. So might this affect your suggested solution?

Whilst I have no insight into the figures of a development appraisal of HHP I think you would agree that the value of just the Ice Rink and a car park ( even assuming a charging one) is not likely to make a good looking appraisal.

I have no idea how HHP is to be funded but if it is borrowing any money then that might be made substantially more difficult if development appraisal not good.

I agree that your solution ( on the face of it and assuming police ok both with parking and traffic flow over the area between HHP and Life Centre) would be to the benefit of the club but the ownership of HHP is not even in the sole gift of Mr Brent so even if he was persuaded that profit opportunities on Western Gateway and Pavilions compensated him presumably the pension trustees and minority owners might not be happy without suitable compensation ? So where does that come from as club have already said that club funds are required in addition to Simon Hallets new loan etc for Grandstand works.

Just some thoughts as I don't think your solution is quite as straightforward as it perhaps looks at first sight.

By the way I totally concur that the new conference facilities are something the City really needs

 

[PutneyPete]

............

Proposal for three food and drink units, speculative offices, and gym on a site used for car parking by the football club on match days and non-match days - OBJECT

How anyone with the best interests of the Football Club at heart would rather have a speculative development of no benefit to the club, indeed.in terms of the food and drink element a direct competitor, rather than around 150 car parking spaces right outside the Grandstand within control of the club for which they could generate revenue is completely beyond me. Such parking would provide the premium match day parking and disabled parking close to the conference and hospitality facilities as well as the Club Shop, Ticket Office and Club Offices.

I reiterate the suggestion to use part of HHP for Football Club parking is not anti-James Brent it is pro the best interests of the Football Club. ....

The choice is simple - car parking for the Football Club or support for an unrelated speculative development that only succeeds in providing competition for the Club's own food and drink revenue. What is in the best interests of the Football Club and for a City desperate to upgrade its conference and hospitality offer?
..........

BUT hasn't this parking issue / argument now become irrelevant and not valid?
If, because of the world we live in nowadays, all car parking close to public gatherings is being discouraged because of the possibility of a terrorist car incident - as stated below:


From the topic Home Park Grandstand , Western Gate & HHP appln submitted

A lot of documents added to the Planning website in the last couple of days.

https://planning.plymouth.gov.uk/online ... YGCMMJPP00

A significant change, the ice rink and car parking have swapped positions:

https://planning.plymouth.gov.uk/online ... 420609.pdf

Trawling through the documents online, the reason is given in a letter from the police which says:

"The Police counter terrorism security officer has attended a meeting with Richard Cord and ADG architects. In view of the previous comments made with regards to security and traffic management, the applicants have decided to move the buildings therefore resulting in no car parking in the public areas as per the original plans. This will now incorporate a large public area for people to sit and drink / dine etc."

 

[daniel m]

Can someone please point out EXACTLY where the disabled parking is because you can't see any on the plans.

If it's in the 60 spaces behind the ice rink, how many are disabled only?

Shouldn't be that hard to answer?

 

[KFA]

Daniel m - on previous plans it was 6 spaces on HHP.
Presume still same but left off in error in re drafted plans. The planning app for the commercial units is of course only outline

 

[HC Green]

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.

I assume that I am included in your definition of the 'noisy few'. I reiterate that I want 'this done' too. I am not part of any 'crusade' against James Brent as the site manager implies. What I am doing is highlighting issues that need to be urgently addressed if the submitted hybrid planning application is to be approved in a timely fashion and without delay so the Grandstand works can start as soon as possible. My focus is upon the proposed food and drink/office and gym building because it is the implications of this building that is putting the whole scheme in jeopardy, setting aside for now any 'best interests of the Football Club'. The reason is with a hybrid planning application only the Secretary of State has the ability to part approve or part refuse. It is an all or nothing position. My suggestion of retaining the western half of HHP for operational match day parking and non-match day parking for the proposed conference / hospitality facilities is simply that. It is the continuation of a use of the land that has existed for decades. It is proposing no change. Any issues with potential terrorism can be managed by additional fencing or more stewards.

The parking issue and in particular the disabled parking situation is simply NOT a 'red herring'. Taking the disabled parking situation first. The original scheme had disabled parking close to the entrances, Club Shop and Ticket Office. On the revised plan none are specified but even if they were there location would be a further minimum 60m-70m from where they were originally proposed. Similarly, those disabled spaces in the Park and Ride Car Park are a minimum of 70m away and at the bottom on a relatively steep incline should they even be available at any time. Such distances are simply not acceptable if the Club is considering the best interest of its disabled supporters. The walking distances are even greater for the Ice Rink. It is such a fundamental flaw in the proposals quite rightly PCC could consider it of such importance that they could not support the overall scheme in its present form. Parking a 'red herring' I don't think so. The solution - simple keep the existing car park on the western half of HHP (resurfaced with properly marked bays of course). As an aside I have to say your call out of the disabled representative on the Grandstand Working Party was most unfortunate, particularly as you know she has no right of reply having signed a NDA.

Looking at the proposed uses at HHP, I am not sure that many understand the scale of them and as a consequence the size of parking requirement to meet PCC Development Guidelines - Parking Standards. The food and drink units total 1,340m2 in size (nearly 14,500ft2 or one and half times the size of a typical Aldi foodstore). Assuming 66% of the floor space is available to customers the PCC parking requirement on site will be around 140 spaces. For the offices a floor space on two floors of 2,980m2 (32,100ft2 - or over three Aldi food stores in size). According to PCC Guidelines that generates a parking requirement of around 90 on site spaces.

I could go on and include the Ice Rink requirement for 1,100 spectators or the gym (floor space 2,065m2 - 22,240ft2 or two Aldi food stores) but there is no need to. Far from being a 'red herring' the shortfall of on site spaces at HHP and that is not including the operational requirements for the football club is so fundamentally short of the PCC Guideline requirement that in itself would be enough for PCC to consider it of such importance that it could again jeopardise its overall support for the scheme. Even the submitted Transport Statement states that there is a requirement for 148 spaces in HHP but that the shortfall could be accommodated in the Western Gateway site which means an additional trip of around 250m through crowds if the 60-70 spaces at HHP are full.

All these concerns could be avoided if the western half of the HHP car park was to be retained in its long held existing use as a car park with any necessary security adjustments. That is what I am trying to highlight. Remove the food and drink uses/ offices and gym from the overall scheme then I consider the overall scheme would 'sail through' virtually unopposed. For those, who you say 'face to face' support it, just put the points expressed to them above to them. To keep going as the scheme is now proposed is to go into choppy waters and uncharted territory with an uncertain outcome other than costly delays, particularly to the Grandstand which, in turn will mean cost cutting and a failure to deliver the whole of Stage 1.

I am only setting alarm bells ringing because I want an overall scheme to be approved and implemented and before you say it I have spoken with James Brent before the application was submitted and expressed my concerns but the die was already cast. Finally, on the terrorism point. If the situation is as serious as suggested by the Police Liaison Officer then the Club surely have a duty of care to its supporters on other parts of the ground , not just in front of some speculative food and drink units in HHP. I am thinking in particular around the main entrance to the Grandstand (iconic gates) and the whole length of the Devonport End. There is no protection there whatsoever. Perhaps the Club could publish their review and as owners of the Stadium what they intend to do about crowd safety in such circumstances.

If you believe that the plans could be rejected on parking issues then the implication would be that in the future Argyle would never get planning permission to develop Home Park that increased its capacity.

 

[Stuart House]

I simply don't know enough about planning and parking requirements to weigh in to this argument. (Although Grahams points of view are the only ones that seem well presented and knowledgable - some of the crap on Free Chat makes your eyes bleed)

That said no one is really objecting to the outline scheme except on the basis that it 'could' jeopardise the grandstand.

Let James Brent go with his way, it is him who will fall on his sword IF the application fails for any reason related to these additional units.

He has goodwill on his side now, he won't if we don't end up with a Grandstand.

 

[PL2 3DQ]

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.

I assume that I am included in your definition of the 'noisy few'. I reiterate that I want 'this done' too. I am not part of any 'crusade' against James Brent as the site manager implies. What I am doing is highlighting issues that need to be urgently addressed if the submitted hybrid planning application is to be approved in a timely fashion and without delay so the Grandstand works can start as soon as possible. My focus is upon the proposed food and drink/office and gym building because it is the implications of this building that is putting the whole scheme in jeopardy, setting aside for now any 'best interests of the Football Club'. The reason is with a hybrid planning application only the Secretary of State has the ability to part approve or part refuse. It is an all or nothing position. My suggestion of retaining the western half of HHP for operational match day parking and non-match day parking for the proposed conference / hospitality facilities is simply that. It is the continuation of a use of the land that has existed for decades. It is proposing no change. Any issues with potential terrorism can be managed by additional fencing or more stewards.

The parking issue and in particular the disabled parking situation is simply NOT a 'red herring'. Taking the disabled parking situation first. The original scheme had disabled parking close to the entrances, Club Shop and Ticket Office. On the revised plan none are specified but even if they were there location would be a further minimum 60m-70m from where they were originally proposed. Similarly, those disabled spaces in the Park and Ride Car Park are a minimum of 70m away and at the bottom on a relatively steep incline should they even be available at any time. Such distances are simply not acceptable if the Club is considering the best interest of its disabled supporters. The walking distances are even greater for the Ice Rink. It is such a fundamental flaw in the proposals quite rightly PCC could consider it of such importance that they could not support the overall scheme in its present form. Parking a 'red herring' I don't think so. The solution - simple keep the existing car park on the western half of HHP (resurfaced with properly marked bays of course). As an aside I have to say your call out of the disabled representative on the Grandstand Working Party was most unfortunate, particularly as you know she has no right of reply having signed a NDA.

Looking at the proposed uses at HHP, I am not sure that many understand the scale of them and as a consequence the size of parking requirement to meet PCC Development Guidelines - Parking Standards. The food and drink units total 1,340m2 in size (nearly 14,500ft2 or one and half times the size of a typical Aldi foodstore). Assuming 66% of the floor space is available to customers the PCC parking requirement on site will be around 140 spaces. For the offices a floor space on two floors of 2,980m2 (32,100ft2 - or over three Aldi food stores in size). According to PCC Guidelines that generates a parking requirement of around 90 on site spaces.

I could go on and include the Ice Rink requirement for 1,100 spectators or the gym (floor space 2,065m2 - 22,240ft2 or two Aldi food stores) but there is no need to. Far from being a 'red herring' the shortfall of on site spaces at HHP and that is not including the operational requirements for the football club is so fundamentally short of the PCC Guideline requirement that in itself would be enough for PCC to consider it of such importance that it could again jeopardise its overall support for the scheme. Even the submitted Transport Statement states that there is a requirement for 148 spaces in HHP but that the shortfall could be accommodated in the Western Gateway site which means an additional trip of around 250m through crowds if the 60-70 spaces at HHP are full.

All these concerns could be avoided if the western half of the HHP car park was to be retained in its long held existing use as a car park with any necessary security adjustments. That is what I am trying to highlight. Remove the food and drink uses/ offices and gym from the overall scheme then I consider the overall scheme would 'sail through' virtually unopposed. For those, who you say 'face to face' support it, just put the points expressed to them above to them. To keep going as the scheme is now proposed is to go into choppy waters and uncharted territory with an uncertain outcome other than costly delays, particularly to the Grandstand which, in turn will mean cost cutting and a failure to deliver the whole of Stage 1.

I am only setting alarm bells ringing because I want an overall scheme to be approved and implemented and before you say it I have spoken with James Brent before the application was submitted and expressed my concerns but the die was already cast. Finally, on the terrorism point. If the situation is as serious as suggested by the Police Liaison Officer then the Club surely have a duty of care to its supporters on other parts of the ground , not just in front of some speculative food and drink units in HHP. I am thinking in particular around the main entrance to the Grandstand (iconic gates) and the whole length of the Devonport End. There is no protection there whatsoever. Perhaps the Club could publish their review and as owners of the Stadium what they intend to do about crowd safety in such circumstances.

Graham, once again you mention my post as a Site Manager when in fact I posted under my usual username and my point about a crusade against James Brent was a general point aimed at a certain group and not specifically you, hence why I removed your quote when I replied to HC Green.

 

[metroace]

The parking issue and in particular the disabled parking situation is simply NOT a 'red herring'. Taking the disabled parking situation first. The original scheme had disabled parking close to the entrances, Club Shop and Ticket Office. On the revised plan none are specified but even if they were there location would be a further minimum 60m-70m from where they were originally proposed. Similarly, those disabled spaces in the Park and Ride Car Park are a minimum of 70m away and at the bottom on a relatively steep incline should they even be available at any time. Such distances are simply not acceptable if the Club is considering the best interest of its disabled supporters. The walking distances are even greater for the Ice Rink. It is such a fundamental flaw in the proposals quite rightly PCC could consider it of such importance that they could not support the overall scheme in its present form. Parking a 'red herring' I don't think so. The solution - simple keep the existing car park on the western half of HHP (resurfaced with properly marked bays of course). As an aside I have to say your call out of the disabled representative on the Grandstand Working Party was most unfortunate, particularly as you know she has no right of reply having signed a NDA.

Looking at the proposed uses at HHP, I am not sure that many understand the scale of them and as a consequence the size of parking requirement to meet PCC Development Guidelines - Parking Standards. The food and drink units total 1,340m2 in size (nearly 14,500ft2 or one and half times the size of a typical Aldi foodstore). Assuming 66% of the floor space is available to customers the PCC parking requirement on site will be around 140 spaces. For the offices a floor space on two floors of 2,980m2 (32,100ft2 - or over three Aldi food stores in size). According to PCC Guidelines that generates a parking requirement of around 90 on site spaces.

I could go on and include the Ice Rink requirement for 1,100 spectators or the gym (floor space 2,065m2 - 22,240ft2 or two Aldi food stores) but there is no need to. Far from being a 'red herring' the shortfall of on site spaces at HHP and that is not including the operational requirements for the football club is so fundamentally short of the PCC Guideline requirement that in itself would be enough for PCC to consider it of such importance that it could again jeopardise its overall support for the scheme. Even the submitted Transport Statement states that there is a requirement for 148 spaces in HHP but that the shortfall could be accommodated in the Western Gateway site which means an additional trip of around 250m through crowds if the 60-70 spaces at HHP are full.

Please do not take Graham's word for what he has written above. Please take a look at the Parking Standards themselves which can be found at http://www.plymouth.gov.uk/sites/defaul ... Review.pdf

The relevant section is Chapter 8: Parking Standards and Travel Plans. Looking CAREFULLY at those standards, the reader will note that parking standards listed are MAXIMUM spaces per development. There are NO minimum standards. In other words, they will not let a developer exceed a stated number of parking spaces but they will not dictate to a developer how many spaces below that maximum are provided. This is turned on its head for bicycles where the standards are a MINIMUM.

Therefore a developer has a duty to meet a minimum number of cycling spaces but has NO requirement to supply any number of parking spaces.

Therefore Graham has misunderstood the guidelines. There is NO requirement to provide any number of parking spaces. The document talks about MAXIMUM parking standards.

I have said this before and no doubt I will have to point this out again because all it takes is for one person's mistaken reading of a document to be repeated to become a PASOTI fact.

Also, think about The Emirates, a relatively new stadium and one where my ex-boss has a season ticket. The only parking close to the stadium, he tells me, is for disabled supporters and then one has to arrive very early if they wish to secure one of those spaces.

Please, please, please read the document and read it CAREFULLY looking for words such as minimum or maximum. Once again, the document is at http://www.plymouth.gov.uk/sites/defaul ... Review.pdf and you need to examine Chapter 8: Parking Standards and Travel Plan.

 

[IJN]

I checked my notes last night and indeed the parking for disabled fans is enhanced and from memory there will be a drop off point just by the ice rink which will allow drop off by the bars for those with more serious mobility problems.

As for the police intervention regarding terrorism, they will not back down, hence why the previous car parking idea was changed into a wider 'milling area' which I would have thought would be welcomed by the vast majority of us.

Thinking back however, remember the furore over pedestrianisation of Plymouth City Centre? Thank God the City Council didn't listen then and I hope they don't on this one.

As for your question Graham, yes I do consider you one of the noisy few. I like to be up front about my comments and would hate people to be confused with as to my aim. I could name the others as well but there is no point. It's the same people that sided with the Friends of Central Park when it suited.

Sometimes I do wonder when people complain about the 'division' of Argyle fans if their comment expands to this sort of thing. Why on Earth would Argyle fans continually think of new ways of trying to stop PAFC doing what is best for the football club.

If everything was changed to what is suggested in the Lloyd/Clark parking document(s) what then? Tarmac the wrong colour? Slow worms under threat? Pipestral Bat abuse?

What did X Isle say yesterday 'Let's get this thing built'.

 

[philmeboots]

Interesting points of view! When Sky cover our matches they normally seem to use around a third of the "players" car park. Does anyone know what provision has been made for this within the future development? On the occasion that this happens it does make a huge difference to the clubs "coffers"?

 

[Positively Green]

A drop off point is of little use to those disabled people who cannot be left alone whilst the driver goes to park elsewhere.
This parking issue should not be brushed aside as one of those "red herrings". It's all very good having facilities and buildings but if paying customers (and staff) cannot access them how successful will those businesses be?

 

[Pogleswoody]

I have an objection!:
It ain't built yet! Geddon wiv it!! :scarf: