Objections to planning App

[davegreenarmy]

James Brent saved our club in our hour of need, if he can turn the club and surrounding area into a successful business venture, good luck to him!

100% agree

 

[NorfolkGreen]

I really do struggle to understand why there is this constart necessity to label people, it comes across as unnecessary and unpleasant. There are some interesting comments and different opinions being made, but surely it is possible to make comments based upon the information provided and not try to deride the poster?

 

[KFA]

Philmeboots - it's allowed for
Positively Green - You might be able to pre arrange something with PADSA on a match day to cover that eg someone to be with person dropped off for a few minutes whilst you park

 

[Positively Green]

Philmeboots - it's allowed for
Positively Green - You might be able to pre arrange something with PADSA on a match day to cover that eg someone to be with person dropped off for a few minutes whilst you park

That is fine if there is anywhere to park closeby. If there is then I would have parked there in the first place. If there isn't then it is going to be more than a few minutes and what happens at the end of the game?

 

[metroace]

Using the details available at http://www.footballgroundguide.com I find this is the situation at various large stadiums which regularly cater for many more fans than we will get:

Arsenal, Emirates Stadium - There is little parking at the stadium itself or in nearby streets. An extensive residents only parking scheme operates around the stadium on matchdays.

Brighton & Hove Albion, Amex Stadium - There is no parking available for away fans at the stadium itself, but coaches and minibuses will be allowed to park there providing that they have been pre-booked with the Club. Please note that there is a large no parking zone in force around the area of the stadium on matchdays.

Chelsea, Stamford Bridge - A number of local resident schemes are in operation around the stadium, so you may well end up having to park some way from the ground itself. What parking there is available in the local area is rather pricey too.

Crystal Palace, Selhurst Park - Most streets around the ground are either designated residents only parking on matchdays or are pay and display with a four hour limit. So please take note of any street signs advising of parking restrictions, or else you win run the risk of being towed away.

Everton, Goodison Park - There is a car park in nearby Stanley Park which costs £10.

Newcastle United, St James' Park - As the ground is so central there are a number of pay and display car parks in the vicinity.

Tottenham Hotspur, Wembley Stadium - Wembley Stadium has been labelled as a 'public transport' destination, meaning that there is limited parking available at the stadium itself and there is also a residents only parking scheme in operation in the local area.

West Ham, London Stadium - The nearby Westfield Shopping Centre offers car parking at £9.50 for a day

QPR, Loftus Road - There is not much in the way of parking near to the ground.

Reading, Madejski Stadium - There is some limited parking available at the stadium itself for a cost of £8, but it can be a bit of lengthy process to get out of the car park at the end of the game.

Sunderland, Stadium of Light - There is only limited parking at the ground itself and there is a residents only parking scheme in operation on streets close to the stadium.

Rotherham United, New York Stadium - Car parking at the stadium is for permit holders only. However there are a number of pay & display car parks located around the town centre.

Whilst you could also go on this site and find plenty of grounds with fantastic car parking, I think it does illustrate that there is no requirement for grounds to actually provide parking.

(Edited for a typo)

 

[Stuart House]

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'.

Don't get me wrong, I like the proposals. But where you say you don't know why Argyle fans continually think of new was to stop what is best for the club, this kind of misses the point that people have differing views on what is best for the club.

Now how those views are expressed says a lot about some of the people, just take a look at Free Chat, but as in live we have to agree that people do have differing views.

 

[philmeboots]

Philmeboots - it's allowed for
Positively Green - You might be able to pre arrange something with PADSA on a match day to cover that eg someone to be with person dropped off for a few minutes whilst you park

That's great to hear. Do you know what the provision is?

 

[IJN]

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?

You seem to have taken one of my points in isolation PG.

The disabled parking post refurb is better for the disabled fans. Again from memory, the disabled parking spaces are together, adjacent to Gilbert's Lane and there are more of them.

Plus there will be better access into to refurbed stand including a lift which will no doubt improve access to higher levels.

The club are certainly doing its bit and as I say, the disabled fans have been mentioned at EVERY meeting.

I hope this eases your mind.

 

[Electronic]

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'.

I actually regard Graham as one of the 'balanced few', rather than the 'noisy few'. I think it's unfair to lump him in with people who are perceived as the 'anti-Brent brigade'. I don't see anything that isn't sensible in his assessment of the scheme. How is it wrong to point out that by including a gym, offices, food and drink units which do nothing to benefit the football club might put the grandstand refurb under jeopardy? He is clearly saying that he broadly supports the proposals, even Western Gateway, but because he is not 100% behind the plan, he is being called out as a 'troublemaker'. Life is just not that black and white.

Like Graham, I absolutely want to see the progress with the infrastructure of the club and I welcomed the £5m refurb plan. Where I am irritated is that James Brent has decided to run his own commercial project in tandem with the grandstand proposal. It wasn't necessary, so why do it other than to benefit his other schemes? How does it help PAFC if everything gets held up, or if the parking situation ends up being a nightmare, thus potentially putting off customers.

Isn't there any part of you which can concede that these plans have not been put in place solely for the benefit of PAFC?

 

[metroace]

I don't know why I bothered correcting the misunderstanding about parking or pointing out the poor parking at other larger stadiums. No one seems to read through a thread before putting their oar in.

 

[IJN]

Don't get me wrong, I like the proposals. But where you say you don't know why Argyle fans continually think of new was to stop what is best for the club, this kind of misses the point that people have differing views on what is best for the club.

Now how those views are expressed says a lot about some of the people, just take a look at Free Chat, but as in live we have to agree that people do have differing views.

I get that Stu, and luckily we live in a true democracy, however my point is it's the exact same people every time. No what are the chances of that? It suggests to me there's an agenda.

As an example, and before anyone jumps on here saying well you like everything all of the time, I detested the thought of the hornbeams being taken down on the last attempt. I contacted the FoCP and had a word with them, spoke to someone in the PCC and spoke to them and I told JB what I thought of trees being lopped down.

Why can't some of these serial objectors, try to do the same, talk to the people involved and try to get their point across?

Just a thought.

 

[KFA]

Graham Clarke - "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."

Graham - am I right in thinking government standard is between 50 and 150 metres distance depending on type of disability? If so the lower is quite close to your estimates and I presume should be to the entrance turnstile? In which case I would suggest it's tape measurement time to determine if within 50 metres and well within wheel chair 150 m

 

[HC Green]

I just wonder if the people bringing up parking as an issue would be doing it if Argyle put in plans to increase Home Park's capacity by 1,200.
I hope for the sake of consistency they would.

 

[IJN]

I actually regard Graham as one of the 'balanced few', rather than the 'noisy few'. I think it's unfair to lump him in with people who are perceived as the 'anti-Brent brigade'. I don't see anything that isn't sensible in his assessment of the scheme. How is it wrong to point out that by including a gym, offices, food and drink units which do nothing to benefit the football club might put the grandstand refurb under jeopardy? He is clearly saying that he broadly supports the proposals, even Western Gateway, but because he is not 100% behind the plan, he is being called out as a 'troublemaker'. Life is just not that black and white.

Like Graham, I absolutely want to see the progress with the infrastructure of the club and I welcomed the £5m refurb plan. Where I am irritated is that James Brent has decided to run his own commercial project in tandem with the grandstand proposal. It wasn't necessary, so why do it other than to benefit his other schemes? How does it help PAFC if everything gets held up, or if the parking situation ends up being a nightmare, thus potentially putting off customers.

Isn't there any part of you which can concede that these plans have not been put in place solely for the benefit of PAFC?

I like Graham, we've often gone to games together and a few extra curricular Argyle activities, so it's nothing personal.

He is however absolutely entrenched with some of the anti Brent brigade, some more covert than overt, but he is totally involved wth them.

As for liking some parts and not others, that's fine in theory, but as Graham knows, if one part of the plan is booted out, the whole thing is booted out, so let's not have this 'cherry picking' idea, it's an obvious plan. Pick on one element, object to it and again our club's plan is delayed (again).

As for your last question, do you think I'm thick? Of course they're not, it's called symbiosis, as an amateur marine biologist, I wonder at the fact that two things come together (cleaner wrasse and groupesr, upside down jellyfish etc etc) for the mutual benefit of both, mother nature never gets it wrong. :greensmile:

What I would say is, ask yourself this question, is the fact that Akkeron benefits from part of the deal fuelling these peoples objection? Care to answer that one? Back to you.

 

[PL2 3DQ]

I don't know why I bothered correcting the misunderstanding about parking or pointing out the poor parking at other larger stadiums. No one seems to read through a thread before putting their oar in.

No it hasn't been missed by me and thanks for pointing it out.