Important NOTICE!! Contact Details To Challenge The HHP Plans

Posts : 1321 Join date : 2013-04-06

Couple of people have asked who the next authority above PCC is if the political lobby means that the PCC Planning Dept aren't given free reign to assess the plans.

C&P from the dark side.

PCC Planning aren't the only people who will have an input into the scheme approval. Central Government will also have their say if it varies from Central Park Adopted AAP.

PCC baggo link to the Govt Planning Inspectorate Report by Douglas Machin (BSC DipTP MRTPI) an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government which ratified the PCC Adopted Central Park AAP.

I'm sure they will have to check how the access road complies before any Detailed Planning Application was checked by Central Govt for compliance with the Adopted AAP

Quote :: 3.16 The possible uses included in CP2 are ones that can be found commonly at
football stadiums around the country. The uses are consistent with the
guidance in PPG17, at paragraph 21, where it states that leisure facilities,
entertainment and retail uses may have similar land use characteristics. The
Policy/Proposal does not require any particular combination of facilities but
provides an indication of those uses that might be permitted subject to
compliance with a number of detailed development control criteria.
Important amongst those is a requirement to produce a plan to manage the
transport and parking needs arising from development to address local
concern over the additional traffic likely to be attracted.

One for Tudor Evans below, bearing in mind this is based on the original AAP Adopted Option including Cottage Field shown in picture below

Quote :: 3.13 I am persuaded therefore that Policy/Proposal CP1 would be consistent with
the primary role of Central Park, both as expressed in the original Mawson
plan and as expressed in the Core Strategy and the Vision in this AAP.
Furthermore, Government guidance in the form of PPG 17 is concerned to
protect open space but where open space is to be lost, it also encourages, at
paragraph 13, qualitative improvements to open spaces, sport and
recreational facilities. I am convinced that the Life Centre would bring about
qualitative improvements both to the sport and recreational facilities there
and to the rest of the Park, and therefore accord with this guidance.

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

If you believe the Planning Inspectorate would be interested in the changes from the AAP that PCC took years to produce and have ratified, the report referenced above was sent by

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
0117-372 8000

to Jonathon Bell (Strategy Manager PCC) on 4th July 2008 REF PINS/N1160/429/9

Guest

Thanks for that GG.

Posts : 1321 Join date : 2013-04-06

You're welcome.

The Highways Agency will be another interested party as their initial assessment of extra traffic generated by the site meant they would be assessing impact to Manadon roundabout and Marsh Mills.

Letter included in page 50-1 of transport assessment part 1 doc on PCC planning site is from

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

With Morrisons being asked to pay for a roundabout ay Cot Hill don't think JB will be getting away with the half arsed Seagrave Road Improvements.

edir after morning coffee.

The letter makes reference that their traffic calculations didn't include for Argyle matchdays.

Posts : 1321 Join date : 2013-04-06

Bit more early morning reading.

The Highways Agency are only responsible for A38 Parkway within Plymouth, which is why they are looking for improvements to Manadon and Marsh Mills to accommodate additional traffic.

PCC Highways Authority ( [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] ) are responsible for the Outland Road improvements and any traffic plan inside the Park.

Hopefully they will push Akkeron and their professionals to actually say what their Plan B is.

The Design & Access Statement document describes the Service Yard as a cul-de-sac with only emergency access around the hotel along a reinforced grass margin, however the Hydrock Transport Assessment Appendix K states following, which presumably would require that section to be upgraded.

Quote :: 3.1.24 Whilst it is considered that more widely-attended matches could be managed effectively with
the northern concourse open to vehicles, it is assumed that the Safety Officer is likely to
instruct use of the southern service road for car park access on these safety or emergency
related occasions.

There is also a discrepancy between descriptions of the Service Access in the Design & Access Statement. On page 64 it describes HGVs gaining access to the service road next to Gilbert Lane passing to south of Life Centre, whereas Transport Assessment on Page 65 says traffic will pass the Demport and between Life Centre and Ice Rink.

All very dull I know but the safety aspects of bringing roads into a park with retail pedestrian zones must be PCC's primary concern.

Good work Agent Genie.

Guest

The cracks in the plan are spreading....good stuff cheers

Posts : 1321 Join date : 2013-04-06

Lets have a look at the whole scheme from another point .

The original Adopted Central Park AAP stated

Quote :: Leisure and sports related retailing of an appropriate scale and nature consistent with the Core Strategy’s retail objectives;

Going back to PCC baggo link to the Govt Planning Inspectorate Report by Douglas Machin (BSC DipTP MRTPI) an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government which ratified the PCC Adopted Central Park AAP most of the response is to discuss the following.

AAP.

Quote :: Issue 1 – Whether Policy/Proposal CP1 proposes a level of development that would be inconsistent with the Park’s primary function

The following lists of floor areas asscociated with the primary Argyle and leisure facilities

FM 37
football facilities 374
ice arena 6034
health centre 1059
plant 1606
grandstand 6788
grandstand office 574
SubTotal 16472 sq m

and now the commercial supporting functions

cinema 6875
school 1607
franchise café 230
hotel 5222
retail 3629
retail stand 1392
Sub total 18955 sq m

With the car park taking up another 10,302 sq m it shows the emphasis of the development doesn't lie with the Park's primary function.

According to this site Planning Help website

Quote :: Local planning authorities must inform the Secretary of State if they intend to approve an application that includes "of a large retail, office or leisure use outside a town centre"

Quote :: Development outside town centres
This refers to development which consists or includes retail, leisure or office use which is

(a) is to be carried out on land which is edge-of-centre, out-of-centre or out-of-town;

and

(b) is not in accordance with one or more provisions of the development plan in force in relation to the area in which the development is to be carried out; and

(c) consists of or includes the provision of a building or buildings where the floor space to be created by the development is:

(i) 5,000 square metres or more; or

(ii) extensions or new development of 2,500 square metres or more which, when aggregated with existing floor space, would exceed 5,000 square metres.

There you have it PCC Planning HAVE to inform Secretary of State due to the size of retail units.

I'm sure Tudor & co are all over it but just in case

Nice easy link for them to follow

The National Planning Casework Unit (NPCU) is responsible for central Government planning casework. It is via the NPCU that you can request that the Secretary of State calls in a planning application. The contact details for the NPCU are:

5 St Philips Place
Colmore Row
Birmingham
B3 2PW

Tel: 0303 444 8050
Email: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Posts : 1321 Join date : 2013-04-06

Whilst I'm on about Tudor he may want to reflect on this article on PCC bag o'

Quote :: A planned and co-ordinated approach to encourage long term growth has been thrown up in the air, he said, as a result of a Government inspector declaring the Derriford and Seaton Area Action Plan likely to be found unsound.

The inspector's initial findings have been published and could signal a new era of uncertainty - particularly for the city centre, warned Councillor Evans and he said: “We are still trying to figure out the implications of this judgement, but we are worried, very worried. This could lead to piecemeal developments that could jeopardise the economic future of the city centre."

Maybe he would like to reconcile that statement with plans for over 5000 sq m of retail and food outlets at HHP.

Posts : 1321 Join date : 2013-04-06

Just in case some people like formality of a letter Govt Planning Inspectorate Report on the central park AAP by Douglas Machin was drafted out of

The Planning Inspectorate
Temple Quay House
2 The Square
Temple Quay
Bristol
BS1 6PN
tel: 0117-372 8000

In case Douglas isn't still about may be best to use REF PINS/N1160/429/9 sent to Jonathon Bell (Strategy Manager PCC) on 4th July 2008

Posts : 2345 Join date : 2011-05-10 Age : 54

mods, can we have a 'what you can do thread', stickied, with all this info. just to keep it all in one place like?

Posts : 10222 Join date : 2011-10-23

Great work Genie. You's pulling some great material from that lamp.

Posts : 1321 Join date : 2013-04-06

Czarcasm wrote:: Great work Genie. You's pulling some great material from that lamp.

Thanks.

Just make sure you all make use if you feel strongly enough as pointed out by Richard Blight.

Richard Blight wrote:: One thing I would like to point out that people may not be aware of is it is no good relying on one body or organisation to do the work for everybody. For instance an organisation writing a letter of objection and asking it's members to copy, sign and send in the same letter is apparently no longer seen as valid. All letters that appear to be the same are counted as one by planning authorities. There was a test case a while a go and that was the guidance that came out of it.

Letters of objection if that is what people want to do, will carry a lot more weight if they are individual ones. Expecting one body such as the Trust to object ( if that's what they want to do) on behalf of everybody will not work.

I would also suggest that the Trust need to be very sure of what their members wanted before deciding to go down any particular route. Has the Trust got a legitimate reason to object in the first place? The stand isn't big enough isn't a reason. The development could restrict the future expansion of the business ( club) but the owner says that isn't a problem. Do the planners take notice of the owner or some of the fans who don't believe the horseshoe expansion plans will ever happen.

Greensleeves. The Trust isn't going to comment on what their action may or may not be until they have inwardly digested the details of the planning application and I would imagine that is going to take quite some time.

Also it's not so much that the stand may not be to everyone's liking; it's the fact that nobody with any building experience believes for the slightest minute that the horseshoe expansion plans will ever see the light of a blackboard let alone a builders plan.

The fact that their greed in putting so much retail in there has backfired that the plans have to be referred to Central Govt Secretary of State for Planning should at least ensure a fair hearing.

Posts : 1321 Join date : 2013-04-06

Mapperley, darling wrote:: mods, can we have a 'what you can do thread', stickied, with all this info. just to keep it all in one place like?

Seconded.

Guest

Posts : 1321 Join date : 2013-04-06

Angry wrote:: done

Not forgetting the all important

Plymouth City Council Online Planning Link

Couple of queries to check they have called in Secretary of State Planning as above wouldn't go amiss.

green_genie wrote:

Czarcasm wrote:: Great work Genie. You's pulling some great material from that lamp.

Thanks.

Just make sure you all make use if you feel strongly enough as pointed out by Richard Blight.

Richard Blight wrote:: One thing I would like to point out that people may not be aware of is it is no good relying on one body or organisation to do the work for everybody. For instance an organisation writing a letter of objection and asking it's members to copy, sign and send in the same letter is apparently no longer seen as valid. All letters that appear to be the same are counted as one by planning authorities. There was a test case a while a go and that was the guidance that came out of it.

Letters of objection if that is what people want to do, will carry a lot more weight if they are individual ones. Expecting one body such as the Trust to object ( if that's what they want to do) on behalf of everybody will not work.

I would also suggest that the Trust need to be very sure of what their members wanted before deciding to go down any particular route. Has the Trust got a legitimate reason to object in the first place? The stand isn't big enough isn't a reason. The development could restrict the future expansion of the business ( club) but the owner says that isn't a problem. Do the planners take notice of the owner or some of the fans who don't believe the horseshoe expansion plans will ever happen.

Greensleeves. The Trust isn't going to comment on what their action may or may not be until they have inwardly digested the details of the planning application and I would imagine that is going to take quite some time.

Also it's not so much that the stand may not be to everyone's liking; it's the fact that nobody with any building experience believes for the slightest minute that the horseshoe expansion plans will ever see the light of a blackboard let alone a builders plan.

The fact that their greed in putting so much retail in there has backfired that the plans have to be referred to Central Govt Secretary of State for Planning should at least ensure a fair hearing.

I think you will also find that petitions are also now only counted as one, whether it has 10 signatures or 10,000.

Posts : 1321 Join date : 2013-04-06

I was a bit concerened with the source link I provided earlier stating that Secretary of State should be called in, but here is the Government Online #LINK# containing the relevant pdf, which states that any out of town retail over 5,000 sqm must be referred.

“out-of-centre” means a location which is not in, or on the edge of, a town centre but not necessarily outside the urban area;

Circular and Direction THE TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (CONSULTATION) (ENGLAND) DIRECTION 2009

Quote :: Where, by virtue of paragraph 9, a local planning authority is required to consult the
Secretary of State, they shall as soon as practicable send to the Secretary of State at the
appropriate Government Office for the Region –
(a) a copy of the application (including copies of any accompanying plans, drawings
and any appropriate flood risk assessment) and supporting information;
(b) a copy of the requisite notice;
(c) a copy of any representations made to the authority in respect of the application;
(d) a copy of any report on the application prepared by an officer of the authority;
(e) unless contained in a report supplied pursuant to sub-paragraph (d), a statement
of the material considerations which the authority consider indicate a departure
application should be determined otherwise than in accordance with s.38(6) of
the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 20043.

EDIT. PCC only have to refer to Secretary of State if the intend to pass the planning application, so this is a little way off yet.

G_G many thanks for your thoughts on this its much appreciated.

Contact details for FoCP-

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

Posts : 1945 Join date : 2013-02-23

So am i right in saying that the life centre only got the go ahead because they replaced the land the mayflower center was built on with green open space, so effectively nothing was lost !!

if this is the case ....... where is cottage field going to be replaced too if this is built on ?

Guest

If it meant everyone could be happy and no one dips out ie brent gets all his businesses all under one roof on a carpark and the club got a stand fit for a professional and ambitious football club plus the road situation was resolved then great. However, if it meant building on cottage field to achieve all of this then sadly something has to give and its not like there arent 12 football pitches in the park that couldnt host and do all the events that field held and does now.

It would be a shame to lose it but come what may whatever happens between now and when the ribbon is cut to that complex that field will be built on sooner rather than later.

Posts : 1321 Join date : 2013-04-06

Been asked elsewhere to give idea of contacts to raise concerns.

The primary route which you should all be encouraging anyone with a view to contribute to is

## PCC Planning Website Comments Page ##.

There are comments appearing on the ## Planning Website ## already!

There is a direct email [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

There are Council Officials who are working on the application

The case officer is Robert Heard, Tel. 01752 304349 or email [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Jonathan Bell, Head of Development Planning, phone 01752 304353 or email [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Peter Ford Head of Development Management Planning Department email [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

I would only email this guys if you have something pertinent.

If you want to make your local Councillor aware of your views you will find their details on link below.

## Plymouth City Councillors Contact Details ##

If it is the Council's intention to approve the planning application the Secretary of State must be notified under the THE TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (CONSULTATION)(ENGLAND) DIRECTION 2009. We await confirmation that PCC are going to comply with this

Happy typing!

Guest

good man green_genie and as this info is too important to be lost im going to give it its own page and lock n stick it Smile

Mr Robert Heard
Planning Services Department
Plymouth City Council
Civic Centre
Plymouth
PL1 2AA

Date:

Dear Mr Heard

Planning Application No. 13/00942/FUL

PLYMOUTH ARGYLE FOOTBALL CO LTD, HOME PARK OUTLAND ROAD PLYMOUTH PL2 3DQ

I wish to register my Strongest Possible Objections to the above planning application for the following reasons

1.     The hotel and taxi rank/minibus drop-off will cover existing paths and public rights of way. Some of the buildings extend onto land that is well used as public open space and it will block a popular right of way across Gilbert lane. This seems to have been overlooked on the planning application.

2.     The new development would add far more traffic to Outland Road. There has already been a significant increase in the number of vehicles since the Life centre opened.   According to the applicant's submitted traffic assessment, on football match days an additional 500 cars would be arriving or leaving the site between 1 and 2 pm. There is no mention of a travel survey carried out since the Life Centre opened to show how many people walk, cycle or arrive by public transport.

3.     There would be continuous traffic into the heart of the park. There would be constant air, light and noise pollution from the traffic that would destroy its present peace and tranquillity and have a great impact on wildlife. The applicant's traffic assessment projects that 700 cars will arrive or leave the site between 8 and 9 pm on Saturdays and 500 on weekdays. 200 cars will leave or arrive at the site between 11 pm and midnight. There is no provision for this traffic route in the Central Park Area Action Plan.

4.     The site is almost at the highest part of the park. The buildings will dominate the park.   Far from softening the visual impact of the Life Centre, this development will increase it four-fold. The hotel would be the tallest building, as the ground slopes eastwards from the Life Centre. It would be in the heart of the park and would be far too intrusive, looming over the most natural areas of the park. It is totally inappropriate for a green open space.

5.     There is no stated provision or planning permission for the dumping of spoil from the excavation of ground for the underground car park. If it is to go on Zoo Field, young trees to replace all of those to be felled will not grow on land that has spoil dumped on it. The field is proposed to be 'landscaped ' to provide a memorial garden. All of the healthy mature trees currently on the field would need to be felled. This will have a severe affect on the topography, landscape and on wildlife. New trees will not grow on spoil heaps. There is no mention of Zoo Field in the Trees Survey.

6.     There are restrictive covenants on the leasehold land which would need to be lifted. The covenants are there to protect both the park and the future of the football club.

7.    The public have been misled by the public consultation. The public were told that the land to be developed was just the stadium and the freehold Higher Home Park land that is already fenced off from the park. The planning application plan clearly shows the development extending onto public open space.
8.     The site for the memorial garden and landscaping will go on land that has been designated as an orchard by the Community Forum on the Central Park Masterplan approved by the council in March 2013.
9.     Gilbert Lane will be severely damaged by the building of a new service road right up against the hedge.
10.   There is no specified long-term financial benefit to Plymouth Argyle Football Club from the hotel and commercial development.
11.   The cinema and fast-food outlets do not fit in with the Central Park Area Action Plan condition for development that promotes a healthy lifestyle.
12.   Zoo Field has 3 water courses running through it, a fact that has been ignored in the planning application.
13.   A high-quality hotel is not needed. 3 similar hotels on Plymouth Hoe, The Grand , The Astor and Quality Hotel have all closed or are for sale. The Grand has been turned into apartments with the others to follow suit. These hotels are in a far more desirable location than Home Park. If they have failed, there is every possibility that the hotel on Home Park will fail and be turned into apartments.
14.   The locality of Home Park is not in an area that required regeneration. It would be better suited to the west or east end of the city centre, Millbay to Frankfurt Gate to the west, or Laira bridge to the east, where there is a huge site that has been empty for years.

Yours sincerely

Signature:

Name:

Address:

Guest

great letter makes mine look shite lol

» Notice me Senpai - Notice Me!
» Pete's funeral details
» Scunthorpe United Ticket Details
» PAFC Take Notice.
» Welling FA Cup details