PAFC Planning Applications now online

There's quite a few to go through-

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

Bloody hell that's a lot

Need to get my facts straight - can anybody tell me the capacities of:

- The existing Grandstand (including Mayflower Stand)
- The old temporary Mayflower seats
- The old Mayflower terrace

Need to be sure how 4700 compares with what we have / used to have

I was the only one to say a health centre was in the development. I was wrong. It is a dentist.

What are dentist to do with sport


4.1.8 Finally, the development includes provision of a dentistry centre that will accommodate a maximum of 10 dentists. This will be located within the south stand building

see you in four days when ive gone through all that.! when is the application to be heard? i have a feeling there are so many applications in order to confuse/delay any concerns. nice tactic.

The planning application proposes a replacement south stand at Home Park, the home of Plymouth
Argyle Football Club. The stand will have seating capacity for 5,000 spectators and will include within
its structure the provision of hospitality suites and ancillary accommodation associated with the use
of the football stadium.
1.1.3 The planning application also proposes the following mix of land uses,
 A new Ice Centre of one ice rink with associated spectator seating for 1,500 spectators, this
will replace existing facilities at the ‘Pavilions’ site in Plymouth City Centre;
 A 10 screen Cinema complex, including one iMax theatre with seating for 1,786 patrons in
total;
 A 120 bedroom hotel;
 A mix of retail units at ground, first and second floors of 4,200 m² gross floor area in total.
The retail element of the scheme is to be accommodated both within the new stand and the
leisure building and is envisaged to be let to predominantly A1 and A3 land uses;
 A Primary Health Care Centre that will accommodate a total of 10 treatment rooms for
dentists providing dentistry treatment services for adults and children; and,
 Parking provision for 360 vehicles and approximately 200 bicycles.

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

So it is a 7 storey hotel!

Well there is a lower ground floor, ground floor and Floors 1 to 5.

Which makes 7.

a feckin dentists surgery. god give me feckin strength.

Pokesdown wrote:

a feckin dentists surgery. god give me feckin strength.

Some would say Pokes that watching Argyle these last few years has been like having your teeth pulled out.

The Red Star wrote:

Pokesdown wrote:

a feckin dentists surgery. god give me feckin strength.

Some would say Pokes that watching Argyle these last few years has been like having your teeth pulled out.

snare snare bassdrum hi-hat

I can't see any mention of a sports bar to replace the Far Post and Pyramid suites.

Had some time to calm down now...

What this needs is someone with more brains than I to sit down and give a list of reasons why this simply does not fit in a planning sense and why this doesn't fit in an Argyle sense. The latter we can use to bombard the 'Erald, this site, councillors, the club etc. The former can be used if individuals wish to formally object to the plans. As I think Richard has said mass internet pre-filled forms don't work. This needs to be personal letters with good genuine reasons which the planners will listen to.

It may be a good idea to have a stickied thread to list these issues in a simple format.

Take this quote from [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] about Rovers new stadium plans:

Q.Why plan for 20,000 spectators given the club’s recent relegation and existing attendances at games?
A. The increased capacity is required to match the club’s sporting ambitions, to assist in attracting new players, and to provide a better experience for existing and new fans.


AMBITION!


Just comparing our plans to Rovers plans says it all for me.

Brent only cares about one thing, profit for him and Mrs Brent.

This south stand building as its known should be nowhere near HP, feckin dentist?

Yea Man wrote:

Take this quote from [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] about Rovers new stadium plans:

Q.Why plan for 20,000 spectators given the club’s recent relegation and existing attendances at games?
A. The increased capacity is required to match the club’s sporting ambitions, to assist in attracting new players, and to provide a better experience for existing and new fans.


Just comparing our plans to Rovers plans says it all for me.

Brent only cares about one thing, profit for him and Mrs Brent.

If you look at JonB's response last night the "businessmen" of Crystal palace suggested that having a lower capacity is better as the demand for season tickets and advance memberships/sales will be greater, thereby driving demand and prices. The thought that you may miss out on a ticket will drive you to pay earlier and to pay more.

Methinks Brent could understand that logic. I bet his lip isn't quivering about those people that cannot afford season tickets and advance payments for tickets.

The Bristol Rovers approach puts the club at the heart of the community, Brents' plans puts profit at the heart of the development. The two plans are like chalk and cheese. In recent history we've at least matched Rovers for support base, if not exceeded them, yet they are poised to engage and enthuse their fan base.

Yet all we can proclaim is unique is that you can rot your teeth on pick 'n' mix and then get the fuckers removed and all within 20 metres

Have to say the Brovers plan looks superb. Thats what Argyle needs, a move away from Home Park, fresh start with a new build, BUT where? and financing it is a huge problem.

My mates a Gas fan and when we talked recently he said, "it's all good at the Gas at the moment", they all think they will kick on from here.

Good to see the plans finally in Print. Seems to be a slightly higher Grandstand figure than originally suggested at 5,000.
Hopefully full steam ahead and completed as soon as practical. Have sat and read the opinions of many some ranting and raving but as I said weeks and weeks ago this was a fait accompli a long time ago. There was a great deal of backroom discussions at high level that virtually no one was aware of.
I attempted to sign in to Pasoti and post same there but wont let me sign in for some reason. Anyway all systems go and looking forward to the future on and off the field now. This is a big step forward in the regeneration of Central Park.

Welcome to ATD, nurse Richards.

What do you make of the news of Sheridan's re-signing, following the many posts you made about his being to blame for our defeats in April due to not packing the midfield enough?

helenrichards wrote:

Good to see the plans finally in Print. Seems to be a slightly higher Grandstand figure than originally suggested at 5,000.
Hopefully full steam ahead and completed as soon as practical. Have sat and read the opinions of many some ranting and raving but as I said weeks and weeks ago this was a fait accompli a long time ago. There was a great deal of backroom discussions at high level that virtually no one was aware of.
I attempted to sign in to Pasoti and post same there but wont let me sign in for some reason. Anyway all systems go and looking forward to the future on and off the field now. This is a big step forward in the regeneration of Central Park.

That's because they found out you're Paul Thomas, the saddo with no life who creates mutiple twitter accounts talking to eachother.

You have the same IP as Dutchgreen Ray.

Your account has been suspended.

So do the plans confirm what most people think or have they been modified a little ?

'As a result of this strength of feeling Akkeron instructed the design team to reassess the proposals and consider whether capacity could be increased from that shown, bearing in mind cost and land constraints. The design team did not identify any opportunity for increased capacity from that originally designed given the limitations of the site and the need for the stand to be as cost efficient as possible.'

the bold bit concerns me greatly.

taken from statement of community involvement

Iggy wrote:

My mates a Gas fan and when we talked recently he said, "it's all good at the Gas at the moment", they all think they will kick on from here.

Depressing isnt it ! if these plans get accepted, i just really cannot justify to myself the point of attending anymore, whats the point if this is the level of ambition?
Lets hope that either the Council squash his plans (hardly likely with that Worm Tudor Evans on the scene) or that the Trust can find a nugget of discrepancy in the plans that can send the whole stinking, rotten plan packing or that could force Brent into a compromise that would suit both parties.

helenrichards wrote:

Good to see the plans finally in Print. Seems to be a slightly higher Grandstand figure than originally suggested at 5,000.
Hopefully full steam ahead and completed as soon as practical. Have sat and read the opinions of many some ranting and raving but as I said weeks and weeks ago this was a fait accompli a long time ago. There was a great deal of backroom discussions at high level that virtually no one was aware of.
I attempted to sign in to Pasoti and post same there but wont let me sign in for some reason. Anyway all systems go and looking forward to the future on and off the field now. This is a big step forward in the regeneration of Central Park.

Nurse Richards had loads of build-it-tiny brent loving supporters on pasoti too

and on a light hearted note, no mention of hisnibs and snooper in the reptile document