Argyle Talk Democratic

The ONLY Independent Internet Forum for Argyle Fans
 
HomeHome  RegisterRegister  Log inLog in  

Share | 
 

 Mankover Planning application submitted

View previous topic View next topic Go down 
Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 13 ... 22  Next
AuthorMessage
harvetheslayer

avatar

Posts : 1822
Join date : 2015-04-02
Age : 57
Location : Timbuktu

PostSubject: Re: Mankover Planning application submitted   Wed Sep 06, 2017 7:50 am

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...


Last edited by harvetheslayer on Wed Sep 06, 2017 9:15 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top Go down
seadog
Admin
avatar

Posts : 8843
Join date : 2011-05-10
Age : 58
Location : @ sea or @home

PostSubject: Re: Mankover Planning application submitted   Wed Sep 06, 2017 8:48 am

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.

_______________________________________
Inselaffe! FFS![You must be registered and logged in to see this image.][You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]    [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] Religion is the root of a Evil,
Back to top Go down
PatDunne



Posts : 1198
Join date : 2013-11-21
Age : 56

PostSubject: Re: Mankover Planning application submitted   Wed Sep 06, 2017 9:21 am

As Brent said, 'Competion is good' better the food and drink profits are in his pockets than the clubs.
Back to top Go down
Punchdrunk

avatar

Posts : 181
Join date : 2016-02-18

PostSubject: Re: Mankover Planning application submitted   Wed Sep 06, 2017 11:44 am

Like taking candy from a baby.
I'm genuinly sickened by the lack of fight from the majority of our so called supporters.
Back to top Go down
Dingle



Posts : 531
Join date : 2012-01-23

PostSubject: Re: Mankover Planning application submitted   Wed Sep 06, 2017 1:13 pm

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



Posts : 1198
Join date : 2013-11-21
Age : 56

PostSubject: Re: Mankover Planning application submitted   Wed Sep 06, 2017 1:27 pm



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....
Back to top Go down
Cornish Rebel



Posts : 102
Join date : 2013-01-04

PostSubject: Re: Mankover Planning application submitted   Wed Sep 06, 2017 9:59 pm

The council receive these emails and wipe their asses on them.
Back to top Go down
harvetheslayer

avatar

Posts : 1822
Join date : 2015-04-02
Age : 57
Location : Timbuktu

PostSubject: Re: Mankover Planning application submitted   Thu Sep 07, 2017 8:59 am

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
Back to top Go down
Peggy

avatar

Posts : 1386
Join date : 2013-03-24
Age : 21

PostSubject: Re: Mankover Planning application submitted   Thu Sep 07, 2017 9:40 am

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.
Back to top Go down
harvetheslayer

avatar

Posts : 1822
Join date : 2015-04-02
Age : 57
Location : Timbuktu

PostSubject: Re: Mankover Planning application submitted   Thu Sep 07, 2017 9:54 am

Newell handed his arse once again.....
Back to top Go down
Czarcasm

avatar

Posts : 7457
Join date : 2011-10-23

PostSubject: Re: Mankover Planning application submitted   Thu Sep 07, 2017 9:55 am

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.
Back to top Go down
Les Miserable

avatar

Posts : 4768
Join date : 2014-03-30

PostSubject: Re: Mankover Planning application submitted   Thu Sep 07, 2017 10:33 am

Thanks/OK
Back to top Go down
Tgwu

avatar

Posts : 9060
Join date : 2011-12-11
Age : 68
Location : plymouth

PostSubject: Re: Mankover Planning application submitted   Thu Sep 07, 2017 10:48 am

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
Back to top Go down
Les Miserable

avatar

Posts : 4768
Join date : 2014-03-30

PostSubject: Re: Mankover Planning application submitted   Thu Sep 07, 2017 10:51 am

Real names only peeps...lol
Back to top Go down
PatDunne



Posts : 1198
Join date : 2013-11-21
Age : 56

PostSubject: Re: Mankover Planning application submitted   Thu Sep 07, 2017 11:10 am

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


Last edited by Yea Man on Thu Sep 07, 2017 12:32 pm; edited 1 time in total (Reason for editing : Removed address, let's not stoop to his level :-))
Back to top Go down
RegGreen



Posts : 1819
Join date : 2015-07-08

PostSubject: Re: Mankover Planning application submitted   Thu Sep 07, 2017 11:12 am

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  Pig
Back to top Go down
harvetheslayer

avatar

Posts : 1822
Join date : 2015-04-02
Age : 57
Location : Timbuktu

PostSubject: Re: Mankover Planning application submitted   Thu Sep 07, 2017 11:17 am

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


Last edited by harvetheslayer on Thu Sep 07, 2017 11:22 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top Go down
Yea Man
Admin


Posts : 423
Join date : 2016-02-19

PostSubject: Re: Mankover Planning application submitted   Thu Sep 07, 2017 11:19 am

Jesus has that guy never heard of proof reading?!


Last edited by Yea Man on Thu Sep 07, 2017 12:31 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top Go down
Innocent Egbunike

avatar

Posts : 154
Join date : 2016-09-01

PostSubject: Re: Mankover Planning application submitted   Thu Sep 07, 2017 11:23 am

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.
Back to top Go down
Tgwu

avatar

Posts : 9060
Join date : 2011-12-11
Age : 68
Location : plymouth

PostSubject: Re: Mankover Planning application submitted   Thu Sep 07, 2017 11:33 am

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 laugh
Back to top Go down
Peggy

avatar

Posts : 1386
Join date : 2013-03-24
Age : 21

PostSubject: Re: Mankover Planning application submitted   Thu Sep 07, 2017 11:35 am

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.
Back to top Go down
harvetheslayer

avatar

Posts : 1822
Join date : 2015-04-02
Age : 57
Location : Timbuktu

PostSubject: Re: Mankover Planning application submitted   Thu Sep 07, 2017 11:53 am

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
Back to top Go down
Frank Bullitt

avatar

Posts : 6049
Join date : 2011-05-10
Location : Right in front of you....

PostSubject: Re: Mankover Planning application submitted   Thu Sep 07, 2017 12:29 pm

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.
Back to top Go down
Yea Man
Admin


Posts : 423
Join date : 2016-02-19

PostSubject: Re: Mankover Planning application submitted   Thu Sep 07, 2017 12:34 pm

Address posts edited, let's not give the fool the moral high ground.
Back to top Go down
Czarcasm

avatar

Posts : 7457
Join date : 2011-10-23

PostSubject: Re: Mankover Planning application submitted   Thu Sep 07, 2017 12:47 pm

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. Very Happy
Back to top Go down
Sponsored content




PostSubject: Re: Mankover Planning application submitted   

Back to top Go down
 
Mankover Planning application submitted
View previous topic View next topic Back to top 
Page 5 of 22Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 13 ... 22  Next
 Similar topics
-
» EC receives UK application for 5p off islanders' fuel
» Application for PIA and PIA supplement
» Central Planning
» Bain's JrMod Application
» /warp trickortreat Warp Application

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
Argyle Talk Democratic  :: Home Park :: The Mayflower-
Jump to: