Home Park Development (PCC agenda 14th December 2pm)

MikeN":1wzkn9pm said:

But the fee for just the grandstand development would have been considerably less, and could have been taken from the Hallett loan. As it stands, an application that probably would have been waved through is held up, both in the development of the hybrid submission, and the formal planning process, and the club is presumably paying interest on the loan.

I don't hate the proposals as much as some people do. I'm massively unconvinced that the offices fit into the Central Park Action Plan, and I do think that, as happened with the life centre application, there could be design tweaks and additional mitigation measures to make sure that it's the best application possible - all of which takes time. That said, tacking this development onto the grandstand application just seems like a way to leverage the planners.

And look, I work in construction, and this happens all the time. Sweeteners, compromises and politely worded (and occasionally impolitely worded!) threats are part of the process. It's not dishonest, or evil - it's just a smart way to work the system. But I'm an Argyle fan, not a James Brent or Akkeron fan, so I want the easy bit that benefits the club pushed through, and the wider redevelopment to stand or fall on its own merits.

Making out the JB is doing us a favour with this hybrid application, or that we shouldn't utter a peep if we couldn't pay the planning fee, or live in the wrong place, isn't helpful. It's just people trying to stifle opposing views, rather than defend their own.

Click to expand...

IJN":3nwuvc6c said:

Ham Green":3nwuvc6c said:

IJN":3nwuvc6c said:

What if objected to the planning of something on Exmouth seafront? Would you think I had a right to?

Click to expand...

Surely that depends on the reason for the objection.

If a town I liked to visit was planning to build some horrid monstrosity then I most certainly would voice an objection, first verbally and then, if they didn't listen, more forcefully by taking my money elsewhere.

Not that the HP plans are a monstrosity but you get the point. If the objection amounts to "I don't like James Brent" then by all means chuck it out because we can't be wasting our time with shallow nonsense. But if someone has genuine concerns about the viability or impact of the plans, and they can back it up with some justification, then I don't care where in the world it comes from.

Click to expand...

I think you know my point is plainly the one's that object to it because it's JB. They feel it is their place to protect the world against this evil ex banker and Old Etonian.

However, I do feel as a resident of Plymouth for approx 56 years of my 63 years, that I have more of a right to have a say on the City that I have chosen to live in than others that have moved on to 'better their lives' or whatever the reason they left Plymouth for.

Also to revert back to my first point (and one you've alluded to as well) add the fact that the cabal include members that live in Leeds (a particularly nasty individual who constantly mocks JB on that page of idiots on FB) Southampton and of course 'Mighty London' I find it even more 'spiteful'.

Again, and this is ultra nimby, if I live directly opposite the vets, I fully understand why they'd object, I think I might as well.

Click to expand...

IJN":rdmxekkh said:

justanotherfan":rdmxekkh said:

If PAFC had to provide the possible £150,000 planning application fees then that would have been £150,000 less for the development or other things Argyle, it beggars belief that a chairman who funds the application himself could be so castigated. Yes he is a businessman/developer who wishes to profit from his holdings, but PAFC also profits. He has put the club on a sound financial footing, brought in directors who are investing in PAFC. He is a businessman who realises that PAFC is a business, he is also a supporter who wants what is the best for PAFC and if that coincides with his business plan, then so be it. A conference centre with hotel facilities a short walk away, an intelligent solution, office accommodation away from the clutter of the city centre, an intelligent solution, catering facilities which will be available other than just match days, this must encourage greater footfall in the wider Central Park area. JB, bring it on.

Click to expand...

It's worth remembering Patrick that the hotel and offices (but larger ones) were all rubber stamped by the council in 2008.

Click to expand...

IJN":2t0s94x4 said:

Is it too difficult to understand?

I too was born at the Alexander. However I have lived in Dunfermline, Elgin, Chatam, Camborne and St Austell and worked away in Bristol for ten years, only coming home at Weekends or mid week Argyle games.

I tell you this so you and your ‘friends’ can update your files. :wave:

Click to expand...

IJN":108b38cm said:

MikeN":108b38cm said:

But the fee for just the grandstand development would have been considerably less, and could have been taken from the Hallett loan. As it stands, an application that probably would have been waved through is held up, both in the development of the hybrid submission, and the formal planning process, and the club is presumably paying interest on the loan.

Click to expand...

1) No one would borrow money like that. It's probably in a escrow account, waiting to be drawn upon, so no interest charges apply. That's almost standard practice on about big project I'd suggest.

2) The only delay is what four weeks, no biggy as such as they will have made provisions for this. If it delays into 2018 then I think a few more would agree with you, but December 14th is the chosen date, and work can still start in January I'm sure.

3) Why on Earth would you take money from the 'Hallett Loan'? This way, all that money will be spent on the stand not a massive wad of paperwork, solicitors and architects etc.


I'm sure sometimes, people that say such things have zero idea of business and have listened to the rampant ramblings of some idiot that worked in a toothpaste factory or something.

Click to expand...

IJN":aoembb23 said:

My only take on the hybrid is that it does save us (PAFC) money and if I were JB I'd have done exactly the same. It just makes sense in several ways.

Click to expand...

gaspargomez":2jrupsp8 said:

IJN":2jrupsp8 said:

My only take on the hybrid is that it does save us (PAFC) money and if I were JB I'd have done exactly the same. It just makes sense in several ways.

Click to expand...

Mixing the grandstand refurbishment in with the other development slows down and complicates the planning process.

If the grandstand development was submitted as a separate planning application it could save a great deal of time and controversy. Quite possibly it would have had planning permission by now.

Any delays in the grandstand refurbishment will cost the club money, which is likely to be insignificant in comparison to the cost of submitting two separate planning applications. It doesn't cost THAT much money to submit a planning application for a relatively simple thing like a grandstand refurbishment- probably less than Nadir Ciftci's wages for a week. Bear in mind that the plans/drawings etc have already been prepared as part of the larger application.

The club could submit this now and let the Council make a decision on both applications at the same time.

Click to expand...