Mankover Planning application submitted

When is their next meeting? Let's storm it

Les Miserable wrote:

When is their next meeting? Let's storm it

Send in the senior green with their leader

Tgwu wrote:

Talking to a well know councilor ex leader of her/his party, that the park and ride should be turned into a multi car parking. The person in question is on the planning committee.

The FOCP has lost it's soul, after the last run in with Brent most of the committee has left after a squabble over paying the person out of FOCP fund who put up the money for cost of the legal spoke person, this was on the under standing they would be paid back.

Not only committee members be some of the membership left, It left about 8 to ten members. Now it is run like a nodding shop and the two meeting with Brent was held back from us members. With this and the support expressed in the comments in planning without a vote ( Brent used this support as a endorsement for his development in the Herald) I have left the FOCP.

Fair play tgwu. that group have sold out and a complete disgrace for supporting brents destruction of the park.

Also a proud 'member' of pacsa.....he was born there don't you know.

Angry wrote:

Tgwu wrote:

Talking to a well know councilor ex leader of her/his party, that the park and ride should be turned into a multi car parking. The person in question is on the planning committee.

The FOCP has lost it's soul, after the last run in with Brent most of the committee has left after a squabble over paying the person out of FOCP fund who put up the money for cost of the legal spoke person, this was on the under standing they would be paid back.

Not only committee members be some of the membership left, It left about 8 to ten members. Now it is run like a nodding shop and the two meeting with Brent was held back from us members. With this and the support expressed in the comments in planning without a vote ( Brent used this support as a endorsement for his development in the Herald) I have left the FOCP.

Fair play tgwu. that group have sold out and a complete disgrace for supporting brents destruction of the park.

Agreed, and it's a sad day when somebody as committed as T&G no longer feels at home in the group. I told them on their FB page it was shocking that they'd supported the application: they told me to read their comments (which I'd already done - they don't seem to be bothered that 'a few trees' will have to come down, for starters) and then they posted this:

FOCP wrote:

It's private land not parkland. Last time we massively objected to the hotel spilling onto quiet parkland. This time it's completely on their own land unless we've missed something?? Obviously we'd rather no commercial development or anything to spoil the tranquillity anywhere near the park, but in reality this area is going to develop as it's their land to develop. The fans club are sensible though, to think through future impact on the football club and highways need to think through traffic issues. FoCPP are working hard to get the best outcome for the park through all of this. Individuals must write in their objections or concerns if they have them.
Like · Reply · 20 September at 08:15

Shocking.

green_genie wrote:

harvetheslayer wrote:

Greensam giving Newell a roasting over Bretonside after fatboy once again claimed it scuppered HHP1
He really is a fruit of the highest order

Leigh Rapson and his Keep HP P&R Parking Free campaign did more than most to scupper HHP. NCP then had no interest in underground car park.

The Studio School application was laughed at and for some reason JB thought PCC and Plymouth health care should provide £8M towards the dentist and health centre.

Coupled with retailers being able to understand that the gap between ministand and HHP would resemble the Death Star trench with no natural light and bingo , it was alll those pesky British Lands fault.

Lets not forget brent had a two year start on british land before there plans came in

Peggy wrote:

Angry wrote:

Tgwu wrote:

Talking to a well know councilor ex leader of her/his party, that the park and ride should be turned into a multi car parking. The person in question is on the planning committee.

The FOCP has lost it's soul, after the last run in with Brent most of the committee has left after a squabble over paying the person out of FOCP fund who put up the money for cost of the legal spoke person, this was on the under standing they would be paid back.

Not only committee members be some of the membership left, It left about 8 to ten members. Now it is run like a nodding shop and the two meeting with Brent was held back from us members. With this and the support expressed in the comments in planning without a vote ( Brent used this support as a endorsement for his development in the Herald) I have left the FOCP.

Fair play tgwu. that group have sold out and a complete disgrace for supporting brents destruction of the park.

Agreed, and it's a sad day when somebody as committed as T&G no longer feels at home in the group. I told them on their FB page it was shocking that they'd supported the application: they told me to read their comments (which I'd already done - they don't seem to be bothered that 'a few trees' will have to come down, for starters) and then they posted this:

FOCP wrote:

It's private land not parkland. Last time we massively objected to the hotel spilling onto quiet parkland. This time it's completely on their own land unless we've missed something?? Obviously we'd rather no commercial development or anything to spoil the tranquillity anywhere near the park, but in reality this area is going to develop as it's their land to develop. The fans club are sensible though, to think through future impact on the football club and highways need to think through traffic issues. FoCPP are working hard to get the best outcome for the park through all of this. Individuals must write in their objections or concerns if they have them.
Like · Reply · 20 September at 08:15

Shocking.

surely they must realise in the words of manic street preachers if you tolerate this then your chilren will be next!!! basically im saying brent wont stop on this and will move into other areas as will others inspired by brent.

and again I have to say that the green tinted bobble hatted minority of Plymouth would happily see the squire concrete over the whole park if the club gained a few crumbs, it's only a bit of grass after all.

PatDunne wrote:

and again I have to say that the green tinted bobble hatted minority of Plymouth would happily see the squire concrete over the whole park if the club gained a few crumbs, it's only a bit of grass after all.

Recalling the football games I played in central park way back in the day, it's quite a bit of grass, but also ALOT of dog shit.

akagreengull wrote:

PatDunne wrote:

I know about the three pitches, watch the selfish 'fans' back it, and I don't mean Nool and the gang, the average fan has no regard for the park, as a park.

I'm really not feeling the passion anymore, blinkered fans, shyster owner, village carnival atmosphere, lack of ambition etc etc.
Feel more distressed about Somerset going down which is almost certain after the loss today.
BRENT OUT

Indeed. It's all rather tedious and embarrassing really. Aviva got it so right.

nzgreen wrote:

PatDunne wrote:

and again I have to say that the green tinted bobble hatted minority of Plymouth would happily see the squire concrete over the whole park if the club gained a few crumbs, it's only a bit of grass after all.

Recalling the football games I played in central park way back in the day, it's quite a bit of grass, but also ALOT of dog shit.

I've seen better wildernesses than the overrated Central Park.....what a disappointing area so near a City centre for its people to enjoy.

zyph wrote:

I've seen better wildernesses than the overrated Central Park.....what a disappointing area so near a City centre for its people to enjoy.

It's a green lung Zyph not an ornamental garden.

Les Miserable wrote:

zyph wrote:

I've seen better wildernesses than the overrated Central Park.....what a disappointing area so near a City centre for its people to enjoy.

It's a green lung Zyph not an ornamental garden.

Absolutely Les. Cities are noisy places and for those that actually walk or cycle around this town as opposed to those that only venture 10 yards from their car to their destination, parks are the only places in your day to day life you're not 5 yards from traffic and fumes, roaring motorbikes and just about everything that makes walking on pavements so unpleasant. The park is an oasis, and the more "wilderness" in central Park the better, although that doesn't give the council carte blanche not to properly maintain that "wilderness"
Worryingly, some in the council think Central Park is all about footfall, burgers, and "sustainability". Cute how they steal a word meaning one thing green and healthy and use it to justify their monetisation of a park, when the whole idea is supposed to be quality of life. It's the contemporary method of lying, while degrading the language of the enemy at the same time. It's all the rage. A bit like calling non ring fenced VAT on electricity and gas a "green" tax. Why not call it a nuclear tax ? It's all subliminal propaganda.

Posh ornamental gardens cost a LOT of money to maintain, or at least a never ending supply of people trafficked apprentices doing it for nothing.
Devonport park has made a good job at being more "ornamental" but they have received a lot of money from that devil across the channel, the EU. Wait for it..... that park actually has someone working full time looking after it and organising things !! And they're actually paid a living wage  !! How revolutionary is that.

The money that the EU gave to Devonport park, where did it come from?

PCC is spending £40,000 on eight notice boards for the Hoe. £215.000 to make the path beside the Aspire building look better for the developer, it gave Brent a two year rent and business rates holiday, £80,000 on ocean city signs, there's plenty money to look after our park.......

The money came from people of Europe who can afford it, which certainly includes this country. You pay it out, you get it back. I was agnostic in the debate and vote before I get called a remoaner, but at least the EU attempts on occasion, to redistribute the money downward where it's desperately needed. Is it such a novel idea to actually have paid souls personally looking after our parks. In the 60s when we were nowhere near as wealthy per capita, we actually had park keepers ? They even had  place to live.  Actual wardens looking after every park. It's all about what is valued in life.
I'm quite aware, Pat, that many citizens prefer the latest mobile phone in their pocket than a fully functioning park. There's plenty of dosh to go around, but it's just that some really emotionally  hate to see any bit of land not put to their economic advantage, not concreted over. They've always been around, spouting off in pubs and workplaces up and down the land.
As for how money is spent on things, council, quango, joe bloggs or whoever, Pat, and who receives it, take yourself down to Stonehouse creek and DHS and look at the massively expensive drainage system that has gone in recently. Funny how it can help relieve the flooding right up to pennycomequick where the old GPO sorting office land that has flooding issues is up for private sale by the newly privatised profiteers. How timely. Who's paid for that drainage, who gave the go ahead, who stands to gain from it ? Flood up, trickle down. The new drainage system probably ends in someone's bank account, full to overflowing.
Sorry about the mank Pat. Right, I'm up to Central Park to tend my runner beans and butternut squash.

The money for Demport park came from the Heritage Lottery Fund and a bit from the Demport regeneration project which was central government funded. Not a penny came from the EU. I was closely involved in a lot of the work.

You're probably right Peggy. I keep getting my regeneration monies mixed up. Certain SRB monies, that even I have benefited from in the past, come from so many sources these days, it's hard to keep track. It's how so much "social enterprise" survives these days, constantly spending half their time chasing " funding". Outrageous really. Much should be funded directly from taxation. The £11 to 15m that Central Park is getting is just the latest example. All going on capital expenditure, with little left for maintenance, hence the desire of the council to monetise the park. They'll be charging next just to walk in. Our allotment rents are going up by 200% in 5 years !!!! That's 200%

Have a soothing time with the beans and squash dude, I agree with a lot of what you say, however when it comes to EU funding it would be far more cost effective to not give the money to the EU in order to get some back, although where it would be spent is another question.

Build a civic centre, fail to maintain, face huge bill, sell for a pound. It's 'our' fault - no votes in boring, routine maintenance, 'the people' demand swanky boulevards and coffee. lots of coffee.

EU or UK the one common factor is that the people who collect the money and then hand it out are the ones who really benefit from it, faceless unelected suits. The garden bridge in London is a good example the scheme has been abandoned after spanking £37m with a good CGI being the only thing actually done.

nzgreen wrote:

PatDunne wrote:

and again I have to say that the green tinted bobble hatted minority of Plymouth would happily see the squire concrete over the whole park if the club gained a few crumbs, it's only a bit of grass after all.

Recalling the football games I played in central park way back in the day, it's quite a bit of grass, but also ALOT of dog shit.

Yeh, but it's our dog shit.

zyph wrote:

nzgreen wrote:

PatDunne wrote:

and again I have to say that the green tinted bobble hatted minority of Plymouth would happily see the squire concrete over the whole park if the club gained a few crumbs, it's only a bit of grass after all.

Recalling the football games I played in central park way back in the day, it's quite a bit of grass, but also ALOT of dog shit.

I've seen better wildernesses than the overrated Central Park.....what a disappointing area so near a City centre for its people to enjoy.

PCC has created larges wild meadows in the park and around Plymouth (especially roundabouts) they looks nice when in flower but my up take is it cost saving by PCC from grass cutting and maintenance. Just plant and leave.

agree about the 'wild meadows' we're not stupid, we know it's cost cutting, very dangerous on road verges and roundabouts when its not in flower, waist height and obscuring oncoming traffic.

Back in the day Central Park was a proper wilderness with several of us surviving by sustenance hunting of the park rabbits using our Lurchers.