Important NOTICE!! Contact Details To Challenge The HHP Plans

I'm sad to hear of your loss Tgwu.

I expect Monday morning will be a busy one for the Planning Office!

I was awake stupidly early today so I had a gander at all the correspondence received so far and I'm surprised at how many emails and letters there are objecting to it. I thought that with all 6000 Pasoti members able to be called upon that it would be a landslide in support of the plans. Nothing of the kind, if anything I reckon there are more objections, and the objections have thought out reasonable points why they object whereas the pro development correspondence on the whole is along the lines of I support Argyle and the stadium needs to be finished.

I hope Webb and Newell haven't got plans this weekend because right now this ain't going ahead.

Perhaps if all the mods on Pasoti used their multis and Mr president used his expertise with postal addresses then things might swing towards Brents plans.

Mine will be going in on Monday, shaping up nicely now.

My one will be going in on Monday. Hopefully send the Evil philistine Brent and his co-horts packing for good

Remember men, size isn't everything. The application will be accepted, rejected or eventually modified purely on planning issues not how many are for or against.

knecht wrote:

Remember men, size isn't everything. The application will be accepted, rejected or eventually modified purely on planning issues not how many are for or against.

And women, Knecht darling........ 

knecht wrote:

Remember men, size isn't everything. The application will be accepted, rejected or eventually modified purely on planning issues not how many are for or against.

Whilst that's true what I was getting at is that I would've thought that if it were going to get the go-ahead then it would probably be down to weight of numbers who were in favour of it and that there would be some kind of compelling reason why Central Park should suffer massive upheaval, and not just "It looks good in the pictures"

Unless there is a stampede of Plymothians getting there letters and e-mails in support of the plans over the weekend then I can't see how the planners can be all for something which is wanted by so few in the City it is planned in? If there is an undercurrent of opposition to the development and the people who are for it only like it because it will look shiny then I can't see it getting approval.

It's part of the council's brief to make money for the city. When it comes to the politicians rejecting or accepting what the planners recommend, that will come into the equation. But then I know bugger all about the planning system. All I've been told is that judgement will be made solely on planning issues.

And, babe, anyone who claims a 32GG can't be unaware of size.  

I really do think there are genuine reasons why it should not get the green light and I think they will be taken seriously.

As knecht has said "men" and women ;-) , quality is better than quantity, but quality and quantity really can make a difference.....so I have been told!

I take it the Objection or for letters posted on Friday will not be shown until Monday

Today's letters are now up there.

Not all Knecht, not yet at least.

Strange, the list doesn't seem to have changed much since Friday.

Acually I'm wrong, they have gone up in number.

There aren't many supportive letters that I can see? I can't be bothered to crunch the numbers but I'll bet that the yes men will be feeling gutted, (wavey smiley).

Just read about TGWU's loss. So sorry for your loss mate. Sorry I can't add to what's been said already. Take care.

Apparently the deadline is now the 3rd
Sorry for your loss TGWU, 92 a good age which you can look back on with fond memories, and will help with the healing process.

C&P from thread below, which contains information some may want to reference if intending to contact higher authorities referenced on first page of this thread.

Mock Cuncher wrote:

Not so sure this retail 5000sqm thing is a go-er.

Received a reply from Maria Bowen, a planning casework officer.

"The Govt is clear that localisation and decentralisation are at the heart of their planning agenda and the general approach of the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Gov't is not to interfere with the jurisdiction of authorities on planning matter.

The Secretary of State only calls in applications where issues of more than local importance arise."

I'd c/p the whole lot but it's on some annoying document which doesn't allow it...the gist was, I think we're relying on the local planners unforch.

Think Ms Bowen should follow the Planning Inspectors dealings with PCC more closely.

The 5000 sqm means PCC are obliged to refer to the Secretary of State. Whether the application is called in by Secretary of State for his decision at a Public Inquiry is not a given, but if we go back to the first page of stickied thread and consider the ill fated Derriford and Seaton AAP plan which the Secretary of State rejected a couple of months ago in more detail.

There is a District Shopping Centre planning application proposal for Derriford, which was heard at the same time as Seaton AAP.

The appeal is APP/N/1160/A/12/2169472/NFW (PCC ref 09/01899'OUT) and was submitted by Wharfside (Regeneration) Devon Ltd. for the North West Quadrant site at Derriford Road. Although it was initially a refusal of planning permission the appeal is now being dealt with by the National Planning Casework Unit (i.e. the Secretary of State) for a determination. The Inquiry was in August 2012.

The proposal was for a supermarket of 3220m2 and 1586 of smaller shop units plus bars, restaurants, offices and a hotel. It is remarkably similar in scale to the HHP proposals and it is most telling that the Secretary of State will now determine the application ratherv than the original Planning Inspector. He only does this when there is concern of the impact of the development.

The ## Planning Inspector Letter to PCC's Jonathon Bell ## about Seaton AAP  is damning of the  assessment of the impact on traffic on the congested A386 (where does that go past) and viability of scale of scheme with regards to PCC overall Core Strategy (which covers City Centre) given financial climate

Going back to very first post on stickied thread the Planning Inspectorate also had concerns over the Central Park AAP they will want to check are addressed by planning application.

green_genie wrote:

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.]

Would appear PCC and Akkeron can't do long addition.

There is an exchange of emails between Peter Ford of PCC and Veronica Graham (FoCP) on the planning website where Peter states PCC do not believe the Planning Application needs referral. Interesting tactic given recent relations over Seaton AAP.

## PCC Planning Letter ##

If you don't agree use the email in quote above.

Good work again GG  

At TFOCP meeting it was talked about writing to the national press by as many objectors to this development about an ex city banker proposal to run rough shot with the backing of the city council over the wishes of the people of Plymouth.

Not to mention the wishes of many Argyle fans!

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