Mankover Planning application submitted

Peggy wrote:

Here's the link to the PCC planning page: you'll have to register to make a comment and they'll print your address with it, so if you don't want Newell or one of his mates knocking on your door you might want to do it by email or hand it in to the council office in person.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

What the hell is the world coming to when we have to be concerned that Newell an aging thug who is of an age that he has retired from work, that we cant submit an application of objection because we are afraid the odious fat oaf will turn up at our front door.
Just for one minute consider the lunancy of the situation if we were talking about any other club in the land...

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.

As Brent said, 'Competion is good' better the food and drink profits are in his pockets than the clubs.

Like taking candy from a baby.
I'm genuinly sickened by the lack of fight from the majority of our so called supporters.

Quick or you'll miss it - details of how to comment on the development have appeared on the other side.

As an Argyle fan, I support the Grandstand development.

I'm not very keen on the hotel development and other associated development though. It has nothing to do with the football club and involves putting sizeable buildings on an area defined by its sense of openness. Central Park is important asset for the city and I don't want it's setting gradually eroded by large buildings. I know there is development there already- but its far smaller than what is being proposed.

So even as an Argyle fan and someone who wants the club to progress I still object to the proposal !






Top
Profile

Reply with quote




Online GreenDave1981


Post subject: Re: Objections to planning App

PostPosted: Wed Sep 06, 2017 11:21 am



Joined: Sat Aug 05, 2017 12:22 pm

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?



Green tinted Dave fully taken in....

The council receive these emails and wipe their asses on them.

Cornish Rebel wrote:

The council receive these emails and wipe their asses on them.

Is there a link to them being displayed....?? I'd like to see that mine is actually listed

Why isn't Graham Clark King or something?

Graham Clark wrote:

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.

Newell handed his arse once again.....

You can have 100 Newells, De Lars, various other nodding donkey Pasoti Mod types clapping happily in favour of Brent's latest carbuncle. But you only need one Graham Clark with a concerned response like that, and it knocks the rest into oblivion.

Bravo, Graham.

harvetheslayer wrote:

Cornish Rebel wrote:

The council receive these emails and wipe their asses on them.

Is there a link to them being displayed....??  I'd like to see that mine is actually listed

Out of 18 comments 13 is in support

I have try to comment but it saying, 502 - Web server received an invalid response while acting as a gateway or proxy server
I am waiting for a reply from Planning

try this link

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Yes it is knowing you name on facebook

Real names only peeps...lol

I always thought Pig would live in a nicer house than ********* (address from public realm, PCC PLANNING PORTAL)

Peggy wrote:

Why isn't Graham Clark King or something?

Graham Clark wrote:

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.

Stick that in your trough and eat it 

Tgwu wrote:

harvetheslayer wrote:

Cornish Rebel wrote:

The council receive these emails and wipe their asses on them.

Is there a link to them being displayed....??  I'd like to see that mine is actually listed

Out of 18 comments 13 is in support

I have try to comment but it saying, 502 - Web server received an invalid response while acting as a gateway or proxy server
I am waiting for a reply from Planning

try this link

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Yes it is  knowing you name on facebook

ok thanks yes its showing. I wanted to put my address in Far East but you can just imagine the ridicule from Newell and his yokel mate if I listed that considering chappers gets a mauling for living in Yorkshire

Jesus has that guy never heard of proof reading?!

Newell and co. can't argue coherently with Graham Clark and so they either ignore large tracts of his discourse, or do the internet equivalent of sticking their fingers in their ears: 'I've said all I want to say on the subject'.

The thick feckers can't get their heads around that he is saying he supports the proposals, simply not the part which is detrimental to PAFC and might hold up the refurb of the grandstand.

harvetheslayer wrote:

Tgwu wrote:

harvetheslayer wrote:

Cornish Rebel wrote:

The council receive these emails and wipe their asses on them.

Is there a link to them being displayed....??  I'd like to see that mine is actually listed

Out of 18 comments 13 is in support

I have try to comment but it saying, 502 - Web server received an invalid response while acting as a gateway or proxy server
I am waiting for a reply from Planning

try this link

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Yes it is  knowing you name on facebook

ok thanks yes its showing. I wanted to put my address in Far East but you can just imagine the ridicule from Newell and his yokel mate if I listed that considering chappers gets a mauling for living in Yorkshire

I am putting Moorhaven for mine

PatDunne wrote:

I always thought Pig would live in a nicer house ********** (address from public realm, PCC PLANNING PORTAL)

It might be in the public realm, but please let's not do this. It just gives him the excuse to do similar with other people's personal details, and we all know where that leads.

Newell has never posted so much in one single day trying to establish a pecking order....as with everything he's failing dismally......out of interest I emailed the council today further to my submission last night and the concerns some people have over divulging their personal addresses.
I have been assured the issue had already been noted via the Police prior to the portal being opened for submissions. I would urge all to voice your point of view on the website for or against the development without fear or favour

Peggy wrote:

PatDunne wrote:

I always thought Pig would live in a nicer house than ********(address from public realm, PCC PLANNING PORTAL)

It might be in the public realm, but please let's not do this. It just gives him the excuse to do similar with other people's personal details, and we all know where that leads.

Agreed. The moment there is any mention of his address on ATD he will have a ready made excuse as to why a monthly subscription to "Mega Big Ass" drops on his doorstep.

Address posts edited, let's not give the fool the moral high ground.

PatDunne wrote:

I always thought Pig would live in a nicer house than ********* (address from public realm, PCC PLANNING PORTAL)

One of our old Exeter contributors, The Red Star, used to have Newells address as his tag line.