Important NOTICE!! Contact Details To Challenge The HHP Plans

Pokesdown wrote:

Didn't Brent have a run in with Private Eye once?

He set lawyers on them after they questioned how he bought mansion from Torbay council to turn into hotel

the beeb report

I see that FoCP have contacted a Planning Consultant (Sutherland Property & Legal Services Ltd) who has sent a letter opposing the plans (letter of representation SINGLE 30/07/13). The consultant has also questioned whether the proposal will be going to the Secretary of State.

Hope Messrs Sutherland and Co are prepared to face the dogs of war.

Dougie wrote:

Hope Messrs Sutherland and Co are prepared to face the dogs of war.

This type of objection carries a bit of weight, Let's hope they're steadfastly professional and refuse to be intimidated.

green_genie wrote:

Pokesdown wrote:

Didn't Brent have a run in with Private Eye once?

He set lawyers on them after they questioned how he bought mansion from Torbay council to turn into hotel

the beeb report

 
He does like his "enabling" developments doesn't he. Seems to me the enabling is to allow Akkeron to cover all their speculative costs up front and then let the profits roll in.

I think that this is the stinger in this objection:

We have determined that any permission granted under these circumstances would be open to judicial review. I am instructed to instigate such proceedings unless the necessary actions are taken to address the above.

Nice and clear, no ambiguity......

Apologies for brevity off phone.

Hell yeah. The cavalry is here

green_genie wrote:

Apologies for brevity off phone.

Hell yeah. The cavalry is here

It's not going to be the easy ride the wankers thought it would be.

"I love the plans" feck Off Nooligan and Webb, nobody loves the plans, not even Brent.

The plans are, on the whole, shite. And it's only the downtrodden or sycophantic that think otherwise. Whatever happens, I'm glad I got to look Mr Brent in the eye and tell him I thought his mini-stand and shelf was rubbish..... and that the corridor was even worse.

green_genie wrote:

Apologies for brevity off phone.

Hell yeah. The cavalry is here

Yay!

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

mannameadbabe wrote:

The plans are, on the whole, shite.  And it's only the downtrodden or sycophantic that think otherwise.  Whatever happens, I'm glad I got to look Mr Brent in the eye and tell him I thought his mini-stand and shelf was rubbish.....  and that the corridor was even worse.

May I ask what his reply was?

Utd fans have managed to get Old Trafford listed as an Asset of Community Value so that if the owners ever want to try and sell it the United Fans Trust has the right to bid for it. Not sure how relevant it would be if the asking price is astronomical, but I reckon enough wealthy United fans could ensure it's not sold to a quivering lipped property developer.

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

Rickler wrote:

mannameadbabe wrote:

The plans are, on the whole, shite.  And it's only the downtrodden or sycophantic that think otherwise.  Whatever happens, I'm glad I got to look Mr Brent in the eye and tell him I thought his mini-stand and shelf was rubbish.....  and that the corridor was even worse.

May I ask what his reply was?

From memory just some diversionary comment about how it was good for the club and the facilities would make us self-sustaining. No sign at that point of the numbers behind his assertion of course - which I'd love to scrutinise. He's a very clever man - affable and engaging - which I think helps him to pull the wool over some peoples eyes. Shame really - he has an amazing opportunity to leave a wonderful legacy and to give our club a real advantage. I continue to be vexed about the whole situation.

Iddesleigh_Goebbels and mate have now written to the PCC with a thinly veiled threat at the end-

Plymuff Directors innit wrote:

Dear Sir
Re: Planning Application 13/00942/FUL
We write in support ofthe above planning application.
We do so as Plymothian non-executive directors of Plymouth Argyle Football Club. We have no financial interest in the proposed Higher Home Park development - our only concern is for the future of PAFC.
The board's aspirations for the club are that PAFC should:

be a success on the pitch;
become and remain financially sustainable and secure;
be (and be recognised as) a real asset to the Plymouth and surrounding
community;
play its full part in the revitalisation of the city already underway, which will
peak with Mayflower 2020.

The club must never again suffer the kind of financial meltdown witnessed a mere two years ago, which saw it come perilously close to liquidation. The impact of which would have been felt by the entire city, not just Argyle fans.

We have comprehensive financial information at our disposal, relating to the past, present and future of PAFC. Driven by this analysis, our judgement is that Argyle will simply not be able to achieve its objectives without a new grandstand.

The club desperately needs to attract a new generation of proud fans - and that demands a grandstand that is fit-for-purpose in terms of supporter facilities (expectations have changed radically since the 1950's!), and which is capable of delivering income 365 days a year, via conferences, hospitality, and other revenue streams.

It is our firm belief that the submitted plans will deliver to these requirements and
secure the future of this much-loved football club.

If this development were not to go ahead, or even if it were to be delayed by any
significant period, we would be fearful of the adverse impact on the club.

Yours faithfully
David Felwick and Peter Jones

How bizarre  

Chemical Ali wrote:

Iddesleigh_Goebbels and mate have now written to the PCC with a thinly veiled threat at the end-

Plymuff Directors innit wrote:

Dear Sir
Re: Planning Application 13/00942/FUL
We write in support ofthe above planning application.
We do so as Plymothian non-executive directors of Plymouth Argyle Football Club. We have no financial interest in the proposed Higher Home Park development - our only concern is for the future of PAFC.
The board's aspirations for the club are that PAFC should:

be a success on the pitch;
become and remain financially sustainable and secure;
be (and be recognised as) a real asset to the Plymouth and surrounding
community;
play its full part in the revitalisation of the city already underway, which will
peak with Mayflower 2020.

The club must never again suffer the kind of financial meltdown witnessed a mere two years ago, which saw it come perilously close to liquidation. The impact of which would have been felt by the entire city, not just Argyle fans.

We have comprehensive financial information at our disposal, relating to the past, present and future of PAFC. Driven by this analysis, our judgement is that Argyle will simply not be able to achieve its objectives without a new grandstand.

The club desperately needs to attract a new generation of proud fans - and that demands a grandstand that is fit-for-purpose in terms of supporter facilities (expectations have changed radically since the 1950's!), and which is capable of delivering income 365 days a year, via conferences, hospitality, and other revenue streams.

It is our firm belief that the submitted plans will deliver to these requirements and
secure the future of this much-loved football club.

If this development were not to go ahead, or even if it were to be delayed by any
significant period, we would be fearful of the adverse impact on the club.

Yours faithfully
David Felwick and Peter Jones

WHAT A LOAD OF BOLLOCKS.

Jones you tosser we know you read this site so feck off with your blackmail bollocks. You're pocketing a decent wedge and from where I'm sitting I don't see what you actually do for the money.

Britain's ocean city? tw@t.

Feck off Jones, your involvement in the club will have an adverse impact on the club anyway.

You and your bunch of cling-ons feeding at the trough getting their freebie dinners every week.

We were here before you and we'll be here long after you feck off (again).

P.S your hair is as shite as Stapleton's.

Hello Mr Jones

Quote :

I loved what the club represented with Foot ... it had dignity along with a little humour, long term identity and purpose.

Look how far we've come

Chemical Ali wrote:

Iddesleigh_Goebbels and mate have now written to the PCC with a thinly veiled threat at the end-

Plymuff Directors innit wrote:

Dear Sir
Re: Planning Application 13/00942/FUL
We write in support ofthe above planning application.
We do so as Plymothian non-executive directors of Plymouth Argyle Football Club. We have no financial interest in the proposed Higher Home Park development - our only concern is for the future of PAFC.
The board's aspirations for the club are that PAFC should:

be a success on the pitch;
become and remain financially sustainable and secure;
be (and be recognised as) a real asset to the Plymouth and surrounding
community;
play its full part in the revitalisation of the city already underway, which will
peak with Mayflower 2020.

The club must never again suffer the kind of financial meltdown witnessed a mere two years ago, which saw it come perilously close to liquidation. The impact of which would have been felt by the entire city, not just Argyle fans.

We have comprehensive financial information at our disposal, relating to the past, present and future of PAFC. Driven by this analysis, our judgement is that Argyle will simply not be able to achieve its objectives without a new grandstand.

The club desperately needs to attract a new generation of proud fans - and that demands a grandstand that is fit-for-purpose in terms of supporter facilities (expectations have changed radically since the 1950's!), and which is capable of delivering income 365 days a year, via conferences, hospitality, and other revenue streams.

It is our firm belief that the submitted plans will deliver to these requirements and
secure the future of this much-loved football club.

If this development were not to go ahead, or even if it were to be delayed by any
significant period, we would be fearful of the adverse impact on the club.

Yours faithfully
David Felwick and Peter Jones

It looks to me like someone is more than a little rattled about the development!

Does that abuse mean that people disagree with Felwick & Jones?

My disagreement is based upon my view that, whilst the stand is too small, there are elements of the rest of the proposed development that are unacceptable.

That doesn't mean that they aren't sincere in their beliefs.

and just to back that statement up, another from our wizard in waiting [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

The PR and spin machine is well in motion again.  Directors, fans, non-fans - whoever - can write whatever letters of support they like.   The inescapable fact is that it is a poorly designed development.  If the decision about whether to grant permission is made honestly and with all facts in front of the planners and Secretary of State then this thing will not be passed without some significant changes.

mannameadbabe wrote:

Rickler wrote:

mannameadbabe wrote:

The plans are, on the whole, shite.  And it's only the downtrodden or sycophantic that think otherwise.  Whatever happens, I'm glad I got to look Mr Brent in the eye and tell him I thought his mini-stand and shelf was rubbish.....  and that the corridor was even worse.

May I ask what his reply was?

From memory just some diversionary comment about how it was good for the club and the facilities would make us self-sustaining.  No sign at that point of the numbers behind his assertion of course - which I'd love to scrutinise.  He's a very clever man - affable and engaging - which I think helps him to pull the wool over some peoples eyes.  Shame really - he has an amazing opportunity to leave a wonderful legacy and to give our club a real advantage.  I continue to be vexed about the whole situation.

I'm not vexed. He doesn't 'get it'. He gets how to manipulate others for personal profit.

He does indeed, have the opportunity to leave a wonderful legacy and to inspire a new generation of supporters. It would eat into his profits to provide a truly ambitious set up, so for him it's a non starter.
The WG's proposals were spot on and received widespread approval.

Jones has the nerve to use fit for purpose when he supports that pile of shite, if there had been any realistic consultation with actual fans then all this could have been avoided, you made your beds now lie in them.