New Grandstand - 2 day public consultation

[arrythewurzel]

The real consultation period will be when the Council consider the application.

I'm fine with the grandstand redevelopment (even though I wish it was better) so I'd like to see that happen ASAP.

The hotel and ice rink are not suitable for Central Park. Why does there need to be hotel on an area of designated open space ? If Brent wants to build a hotel then the deal should be that some of the development profits go towards Phase 2 of the grandstand development and making that happen.

It's been explained many times that the hotel is not being built on open space but on land that already has a commercial building on it (the vets) and has been become ramshackle.
Central Park is not losing any green space from the three developments.

After completion no building will be higher than the Life Centre.

Hotel would be substantially larger and bulkier than the existing veterinary building. It would therefore have a greater visual impact and lead to a reduction in openness. The character of the park would be changed in that location.

The Life Centre is already a tall and bulky building- an additional building a similar height to that would have a massive effect on the appearance of the area. Not to mention the car- parking implications referenced above.

It provides no benefits to Plymouth Argyle and only harms the area. If Brent wants a hotel, there are more appropriate locations.

The vets will be classified as brownfield and the only considerations are likely to be the usual planning ones. Parking for a hotel will be largely overnight parking with little impact I would think. Some impact yes. Personally I can't see a hotel being a blight on that particular part of Central Park because it's surrounded by access roads and car park. Probably not be able to be higher than Life Centre as a planning condition anyway and the site isn't large enough for a Skyscraper.

I think James is being quite canny building a hotel here. I'd have thought it an obvious first choice for away supporters and possibly the away teams. Good position for lots of other reasons too.

The ice rink will surely be an improvement on a potholed car park bordered by temporary buildings showing wear and tear.

I think both would be good additions with no loss of green space. Jobs will be created and we'll have a great amenity.

When you travel the country you realise that we are so lucky to have this sort of investment and job opportunities and it can only be good imo.

 

[arrythewurzel]

The real consultation period will be when the Council consider the application.

I'm fine with the grandstand redevelopment (even though I wish it was better) so I'd like to see that happen ASAP.

The hotel and ice rink are not suitable for Central Park. Why does there need to be hotel on an area of designated open space ? If Brent wants to build a hotel then the deal should be that some of the development profits go towards Phase 2 of the grandstand development and making that happen.

It's been explained many times that the hotel is not being built on open space but on land that already has a commercial building on it (the vets) and has been become ramshackle.
Central Park is not losing any green space from the three developments.

After completion no building will be higher than the Life Centre.

Hotel would be substantially larger and bulkier than the existing veterinary building. It would therefore have a greater visual impact and lead to a reduction in openness. The character of the park would be changed in that location.

The Life Centre is already a tall and bulky building- an additional building a similar height to that would have a massive effect on the appearance of the area. Not to mention the car- parking implications referenced above.

It provides no benefits to Plymouth Argyle and only harms the area. If Brent wants a hotel, there are more appropriate locations.

The vets will be classified as brownfield and the only considerations are likely to be the usual planning ones. Parking for a hotel will be largely overnight parking with little impact I would think. Some impact yes. Personally I can't see a hotel being a blight on that particular part of Central Park because it's surrounded by access roads and car park. Probably not be able to be higher than Life Centre as a planning condition anyway and the site isn't large enough for a Skyscraper.

I think James is being quite canny building a hotel here. I'd have thought it an obvious first choice for away supporters and possibly the away teams. Good position for lots of other reasons too.

The ice rink will surely be an improvement on a potholed car park bordered by temporary buildings showing wear and tear.

I think both would be good additions with no loss of green space. Jobs will be created and we'll have a great amenity.

When you travel the country you realise that we are so lucky to have this sort of investment and job opportunities and it can only be good imo.

Edited to add: I think Brent HHP Argyle whoever they are are simply putting out feelers at the moment in terms of getting some assurance in principle before detailed plans with ensuing costs. I think each part will be considered individually and they won't throw out the 3 based on problems with one. That would be crazy.

 

[Ade the green]

I dont understand why the hotel has to be part of the same planning application.

Brent will say that its to present a comprehensive plan of the area. More likely, its a way of increasing his chances of getting permission for the hotel. If the Council reject the hotel then they also reject the grandstand, which would be bad from a political point of view.

You say a hotel would have no impact- but I've explained why the visual impact would be much greater. The vets surgery might be scruffy but it is fairly inconspicuous. Furthermore a large hotel is not the only way of improving that part of the park. Then there is the effect on car-parking to consider, as discussed by Graham Clark.

However, I suspect the city Councillors are too weak and easily led to seriously challenge Brent on these points, so the scheme is sure to be approved.

I didn't say the hotel would have no impact, I said the hotel wouldn't have an effect on the plans for home park and I am sure that any multiple use planning permissions would not have a blanket yes or no and the plans for the proposed hotel could be turned down and still allow the rest of the proposal. I think the hotel is (if granted) a 4 floor affair so won't impact on anyone wanting to gaze at the Life Centre.

A large hotel might not make the area any more attractive but if properly maintained it won't actually make it worse. Also, the Life Centre is a world class diving facility so people competing there would have a local facility to stay at.

I suggested you need to distance one proposal from all the rest. It could be that everything is denied on their own demerits or maybe only the Grandstand will be turned down. It's only just being prepared for discussion by the council. You along with everyone else will have ample opportunity to complain.

 

[Argylegames]

I said the hotel wouldn't have an effect on the plans for home park and I am sure that any multiple use planning permissions would not have a blanket yes or no and the plans for the proposed hotel could be turned down and still allow the rest of the proposal.

If it has gone in to PCC as one planning application it will all either be granted or be rejected. There is no provision under planning law to partially grant an application. (unless you are the secretary of state)

What may happen is that the applicant will get feedback from the council officers as to whether they would recommend acceptance or rejection. If rejection is likely then you would expect to see a modified version of the application put forward in an attempt to overcome the objections.

 

[Abbotts Ann Green]

In big planning applications such as this there will already have been significant discussions with council officers and others well before anything has been submitted, that's the way local government works.

The application is for an under used and not particularly attractive site. If the development goes ahead it will also provide new jobs, both of these factors will be significant when it comes to permission.

 

[signalspast]

As has been said none of us know what is in the contract of sale for HHP. If its in the contract that he will provide the new grandstand as part of the sale or 50% of the profits from it then I would consider that Argyle are entitled to the 50% because it has not been provided but the renovations being undertaken via a loan to pay for it. This puts the club in debt instead of something that was previously meant to be provided.

 

[Andy S]

The real consultation period will be when the Council consider the application.

I'm fine with the grandstand redevelopment (even though I wish it was better) so I'd like to see that happen ASAP.

The hotel and ice rink are not suitable for Central Park. Why does there need to be hotel on an area of designated open space ? If Brent wants to build a hotel then the deal should be that some of the development profits go towards Phase 2 of the grandstand development and making that happen.

It's been explained many times that the hotel is not being built on open space but on land that already has a commercial building on it (the vets) and has been become ramshackle.
Central Park is not losing any green space from the three developments.

After completion no building will be higher than the Life Centre.

Hotel would be substantially larger and bulkier than the existing veterinary building. It would therefore have a greater visual impact and lead to a reduction in openness. The character of the park would be changed in that location.

The Life Centre is already a tall and bulky building- an additional building a similar height to that would have a massive effect on the appearance of the area. Not to mention the car- parking implications referenced above.

It provides no benefits to Plymouth Argyle and only harms the area. If Brent wants a hotel, there are more appropriate locations.

The vets will be classified as brownfield and the only considerations are likely to be the usual planning ones. Parking for a hotel will be largely overnight parking with little impact I would think. Some impact yes. Personally I can't see a hotel being a blight on that particular part of Central Park because it's surrounded by access roads and car park. Probably not be able to be higher than Life Centre as a planning condition anyway and the site isn't large enough for a Skyscraper.

I think James is being quite canny building a hotel here. I'd have thought it an obvious first choice for away supporters and possibly the away teams. Good position for lots of other reasons too.

The ice rink will surely be an improvement on a potholed car park bordered by temporary buildings showing wear and tear.

I think both would be good additions with no loss of green space. Jobs will be created and we'll have a great amenity.

When you travel the country you realise that we are so lucky to have this sort of investment and job opportunities and it can only be good imo.

Gets my vote!

What I don't understand is why some people feel that they should be informed of every whit and turn of events and contracts!

Why?

When you stump up GBP5 million or so out of your own pocket, then you might just be entitled to such information.

 

[Electronic]

Curious as to why no one has picked up on the line in Graham's post which details that both Lombard and PCC might have a prior claim over PAFC to any windfall profit from HHP. What is the reality here? Seems to me it might negate any benefit to the football club from this element of the development, which then further begs the question 'why submit it as part of one application?'. The only upside for Argyle is the grandstand refurb.

If PCC stand to gain from HHP profits then I get the hook for them but what is the motivation for Mr Hallett?

 

[Lundan Cabbie]

The ice rink and the hotel will be a benefit to the city. It's not all just about Argyle.

 

[HC Green]

Any 'windfall' profit would come if the freehold of the site is sold on to something like a Pension Fund.
Obviously if the original scheme had gone ahead with a cinema, hotel and multi retail units it would have sold for millions.
Now with this scheme with the anchor building being an Ice Rink the value of the freehold if sold on will be a lot less.
Assuming the Ice Rink will still be part of the Pavilions then as it is a one of Brent's companies I would think there is a strong likelihood the freehold won't be sold.
One complication would be if the agreement also applied to 'paper' profits as once the scheme is complete there will be a revaluation of the land for accounts purposes.

 

[Electronic]

The ice rink and the hotel will be a benefit to the city. It's not all just about Argyle.

Actually, in the case of the grandstand refurbishment, it is...or at least it should be.

When the refurb was announced, there was no word about the wider scheme for HHP. It was sold to the fans on the basis of the Halletts putting up £5m in loans and a share purchase, with no other complications. All of a sudden, the planning application includes HHP and a hotel on another site within Central Park.

I understand what is in it for James Brent and, potentially, for PCC but there does seem to be a risk to planning approval which need not be there and could be detrimental to the club.

 

[DavePa]

Just noticed that a planning application EIA screening opinion (17/01553/ERS103) was submitted this week and is now available online on the PCC planning portal web site. It contains a covering letter from PCC and a number of broad scope detail documents, including an overview of the proposed location of the ice, rink, club offices etc.

Worth a look, particularly if you haven't seen any layout plans yet of the proposals

See
https://planning.plymouth.gov.uk/online ... 7ALMM00A00

 

[davie nine]

The ice rink and the hotel will be a benefit to the city. It's not all just about Argyle.

On reflection, I see your point. It should certainly benefit local cabbies, eh?

 

[pedro91]

No one has answered my question as to where the car boot sale in the HHP car park will be situated.
At £6 per seller,the loss of this site could mean a loss of between £300-£600 per sunday

 

[X Isle]

No one has answered my question as to where the car boot sale in the HHP car park will be situated.
At £6 per seller,the loss of this site could mean a loss of between £300-£600 per sunday

Unless I am missing the point of your question Pedro, that's small beer compared to the benefits of the project as a whole.