Green light for Colchester United's training ground application

8:07pm Thursday 3rd January 2013 in News

Green light for Colchester United's training ground application Green light for Colchester United's training ground application

COLCHESTER United has won permission to extend the hours of use at its training ground.

The decision safeguards the U’s academy and about 40 jobs.

Council’s planning committee approved the extra hours after a two-hour meeting attended by more than 200 residents at Colchester Town Hall on Thursday night. 

Robbie Cowling, U's chairman, said: "This is great news for Colchester United.

"It saves dozens of jobs at the club and secures the club's youth development programme.

"I fear if it had not gone for us, it would have forced us to fail our academy audit, but I am happy for the youth staff and this gives us some sort of confidence."

But Terry Shuttleworth, a spokesman for residents objecting to the application, described the decision as a kick in the teeth for the people of Tiptree.

He said: "The councillors have capitulated to Colchester United in the same way their officers have in the past.

"This must be one of the weakest councils in Britain.

"It seems that where football is involved, no one cares about the lives and wellbeing or ordinary people."

 

The club had argued the extra hours are needed in order to gain category two Premier League youth academy status, which would put the club on a par with some of the top clubs in England.

FOR THE FULL STORY AND REACTION, SEE FRIDAY'S GAZETTE

Comments(26)

angryman!!! says...
10:01pm Thu 3 Jan 13

Good news at last. I'm glad for cowling. I know people are on his back with the results of late etc. However long term this is massive for the club. The fact that we will have a tier 2 training academy the same as Ipswich our nearest rivals for youth players will be critical in future years.
Now hopefully knowing that future is secure, hopefully we can sort out the present.

Report this post »

Reginald47 says...
11:14pm Thu 3 Jan 13

Quite right too.

Report this post »

co4 says...
7:18am Fri 4 Jan 13

The objectors did a very good job of making themselves look petty and silly. They could not muster one single plausible argument for the extended hours not to be granted. I suspect their objections were based solely on the Tiptree residents dislike of Robbie Cowling.

Report this post »

Say It As It Is OK? says...
8:27am Fri 4 Jan 13

A 'back door' method of Robbie Cowling getting exactly what he wanted from his friends in the council, who bent over nicely for him. The outcome comes as no surprise! Last nights decision was really made long before the meeting took place.

And before anyone bites back I don't have issues with Robbie Cowling or Col U. However, I do question some of the very dubious decisions made by Colchester planning officers and the planning committee, where conditions are applied to a development and agreed by the applicant when planning is approved. Then, at a later date, after the development has been built these conditions are overturned to suit what the applicant actually wanted, but was refused in the first place.

We hear talk of back handers and the exchange of 'brown envelopes' but its decisions like this that raises those questions about what actually goes on in the background, behind closed doors?

Report this post »

servedcold says...
8:32am Fri 4 Jan 13

co4 wrote:
The objectors did a very good job of making themselves look petty and silly. They could not muster one single plausible argument for the extended hours not to be granted. I suspect their objections were based solely on the Tiptree residents dislike of Robbie Cowling.
And maybe one or two were motivated by supporting a football club that might expect to benefit if Colchester United didn't run a Grade 2 Academy.

Report this post »

TheCaptain says...
9:19am Fri 4 Jan 13

Say It As It Is OK? wrote:
A 'back door' method of Robbie Cowling getting exactly what he wanted from his friends in the council, who bent over nicely for him. The outcome comes as no surprise! Last nights decision was really made long before the meeting took place.

And before anyone bites back I don't have issues with Robbie Cowling or Col U. However, I do question some of the very dubious decisions made by Colchester planning officers and the planning committee, where conditions are applied to a development and agreed by the applicant when planning is approved. Then, at a later date, after the development has been built these conditions are overturned to suit what the applicant actually wanted, but was refused in the first place.

We hear talk of back handers and the exchange of 'brown envelopes' but its decisions like this that raises those questions about what actually goes on in the background, behind closed doors?
Very boring. Every time someone doesn't like a planning decision brown envelopes are mentioned.

Any one can apply for planning permission that alters conditions and these will be granted if within the law.

It's not as if the club want to train in the evenings so I don't understand the problem.

Report this post »

super waluigi says...
9:34am Fri 4 Jan 13

Say It As It Is OK? wrote:
A 'back door' method of Robbie Cowling getting exactly what he wanted from his friends in the council, who bent over nicely for him. The outcome comes as no surprise! Last nights decision was really made long before the meeting took place.

And before anyone bites back I don't have issues with Robbie Cowling or Col U. However, I do question some of the very dubious decisions made by Colchester planning officers and the planning committee, where conditions are applied to a development and agreed by the applicant when planning is approved. Then, at a later date, after the development has been built these conditions are overturned to suit what the applicant actually wanted, but was refused in the first place.

We hear talk of back handers and the exchange of 'brown envelopes' but its decisions like this that raises those questions about what actually goes on in the background, behind closed doors?
Boring......

I understand why planning permission and initial stages might have been contentious, but this is about hours of work.

Brown envelopes, blah, blah, blah.

Report this post »

Spartan says...
9:38am Fri 4 Jan 13

The residents arguments were based on planning issues such as noise, loss of amenity, highways.

CUFC based theirs on the EPPP funding, business, youth football.

If everyone took of their rosé tinted glasses, perhaps the pettiness of some of the comments may disappear.. Both are valid arguments.

I don't think either party is happy with the way the application was handled and it raises more questions than answers about getting the master plan through in Tiptree which was negotiated 4 years ago.

Not once did CUFC say the benefits for the residents to put up with noise,traffic etc is.....
Because the sad fact is, there is none not even for the everyday youth in Tiptree as they can't use the facilities

Report this post »

U's fan says...
10:16am Fri 4 Jan 13

Great news for the club now let's get those new houses through planning as well, those speaking against the application last night made a right mess of it, no wonder they lost!

Report this post »

angryman!!! says...
10:19am Fri 4 Jan 13

What a silly argument, noise from football, how often do players train? What great jobs do the population of tiptree do that means their in at these times. I live next to a school, I can't see there being half the noise that the players make and when I am in its not s problem.
Would have been intresting if it had have been refused, and seeing what they would have got in replace of the training ground

Report this post »

Spartan says...
10:44am Fri 4 Jan 13

Perhaps if you sat in your garden and had to put up with hearing f*****g h*** and worse as witnessed by The planning officer and environmental officer, on your days when you are supposed to relax with your young family then perhaps you may understand some of the frustrations of residents.
They admit it is a noise nuisance so the answer is to double the hours it can be made?

I shall give the benefit of the doubt to see how it goes and will take up issues with the club in the first instance as agreed with Robbie.

Report this post »

super waluigi says...
10:44am Fri 4 Jan 13

Spartan wrote:
The residents arguments were based on planning issues such as noise, loss of amenity, highways.

CUFC based theirs on the EPPP funding, business, youth football.

If everyone took of their rosé tinted glasses, perhaps the pettiness of some of the comments may disappear.. Both are valid arguments.

I don't think either party is happy with the way the application was handled and it raises more questions than answers about getting the master plan through in Tiptree which was negotiated 4 years ago.

Not once did CUFC say the benefits for the residents to put up with noise,traffic etc is.....
Because the sad fact is, there is none not even for the everyday youth in Tiptree as they can't use the facilities
But they are not both valid arguments hence the hours being extended.

Noise pollution is all around us. Trains, motorways, 24 hour shopping, road gritters, train crossing in every village, the list goes on.

This is about what is right and not about rosé tinted glasses as you put it.

Report this post »

Spartan says...
10:51am Fri 4 Jan 13

Perhaps if you sat in your garden and had to put up with hearing f*****g h*** and worse as witnessed by The planning officer and environmental officer, on your days when you are supposed to relax with your young family then perhaps you may understand some of the frustrations of residents.
They admit it is a noise nuisance so the answer is to double the hours it can be made?

I shall give the benefit of the doubt to see how it goes and will take up issues with the club in the first instance as agreed with Robbie.

With regards to alternative planning, cufc have opened up planning opportunities for others using the same methods. CBC have set a precedent so this can be rolled out across the borough.

Report this post »

TheCaptain says...
11:15am Fri 4 Jan 13

Spartan wrote:
Perhaps if you sat in your garden and had to put up with hearing f*****g h*** and worse as witnessed by The planning officer and environmental officer, on your days when you are supposed to relax with your young family then perhaps you may understand some of the frustrations of residents.
They admit it is a noise nuisance so the answer is to double the hours it can be made?

I shall give the benefit of the doubt to see how it goes and will take up issues with the club in the first instance as agreed with Robbie.

With regards to alternative planning, cufc have opened up planning opportunities for others using the same methods. CBC have set a precedent so this can be rolled out across the borough.
The language is inappropriate and action needs to be taken about it. However I don't see how that can be used are an argument for not allowing changes to the hours. I notice from the application as well that other previously allows hours are not not allowed. (May and June for example).

We all live near noise caused by other, for years I lived near the army rifle range and at times had to put up with gun fire day and night.

Perhaps you would have preferred more housing there with all the associated noise or even a travellers site. Things could be worse.

Report this post »

Bert_Stimpson says...
12:06pm Fri 4 Jan 13

Maybe the club could appeal to the League against relegation because League 2 status would surely threaten the club's ability to finance category two Premier League youth academy status?

Storm in a teacup. By the way, who owns the training facility? If Mr C decided to walk, does it belong to him or the club? Can it be separated from the club? Valuable bit of housing real estate that land should push come to shove at any point in the future...

Report this post »

TheCaptain says...
12:13pm Fri 4 Jan 13

Mr C owns CUFC so he must own the training ground as well. I would hope that there is no legal agreement that if he sells the club the training ground or use of it is included. But don't know.

Report this post »

wellnow says...
7:21pm Fri 4 Jan 13

All l will say is with all the land around the comunity stadium why tiptee.with the super road links now in place to me it makes no sense.then l dont own a building company and land in tiptree.

Report this post »

crum says...
11:40pm Fri 4 Jan 13

I live next door to one of the objectors and enjoy my garden I am sorry to learn that I must be deaf as I hae heard no noise from the training facility. Not all residents object to this all I can say is when Col U need a new stadium please can it be in Tiptree! Tiptree is rapidly coming a place to sleep, we lost TBS we may lose Wilkin and Sons, residents get a life we need employment and that inckudes Robbies 40 jobs. On a still night from here I can hear trains at Kelvedon - can I object to the railway .....

Report this post »

crum says...
11:45pm Fri 4 Jan 13

wellnow wrote:
All l will say is with all the land around the comunity stadium why tiptee.with the super road links now in place to me it makes no sense.then l dont own a building company and land in tiptree.
What is a comunity stadium?
Where is tiptee?
What building company? That was Cadman decades ago! Cowling is Jobserve.co.uk.

Lets think and take time before we post!

Report this post »

Goonerboy says...
9:43am Sat 5 Jan 13

The issue is not about whether extending the hours causes issues , clearly it will not cause significant problems. the issue is why was the initial planning permission granted with such restricted hours in the first place? If the original planning permission would not have been granted if the new operating hours were asked for, then it is a backdoor way of getting what they want

Report this post »

Spartan says...
9:54am Sat 5 Jan 13

As you say you should think before posting especially if you do live so close

Mr C owns the Aspire Group. Jobserve is one of many companies in that group including APH the company that built the training ground and associated works.

TBS needed to expand and the problem they had was with the infrastructure in an around Tiptree as the roads are so bad so they had no choice but to move.

I would agree that some residents may not have been affected as much as others but on the other foot people were supporting the proposals when it would not affect them.

Time to move on, see what happens at Florence Park and off there are issues they should be dealt with by the relevant parties.

Now as for the housing issue.......

Report this post »

Reginald47 says...
9:55am Sat 5 Jan 13

As I understand it Cowling applied for the hours he needed at the time. The situation is now different with the success of the youth football programme.
If you've lived next door to a playground full of screaming kids I can assure you this is nothing

Report this post »

Spartan says...
10:07am Sat 5 Jan 13

Oh and on the point of hearing the trains at kelvedon, this demonstrates how farvsound travels and how different people will be affected by the noise from Florence park depending on how they are screened.

This was acknowledged by environmental but obviously he couldn't go into 100 plus properties to check.

Report this post »

Spartan says...
10:09am Sat 5 Jan 13

Oh and on the point of hearing the trains at kelvedon, this demonstrates how far sound travels and how different people will be affected by the noise from Florence park depending on how they are screened.

This was acknowledged by environmental but obviously he couldn't go into 100 plus properties to check and they also stated there is a significant noise nuisance to some properties.

Report this post »

Johnny T says...
5:05pm Sat 5 Jan 13

After watching the u's at Crawley last
Week they Need all the training they can get.

Report this post »

TheCaptain says...
12:29pm Mon 7 Jan 13

wellnow wrote:
All l will say is with all the land around the comunity stadium why tiptee.with the super road links now in place to me it makes no sense.then l dont own a building company and land in tiptree.
Well I guess the fact that Cowling / CUFC owned the land in Tiptree and not near the ground was a factor.

Academies also have catchment areas and I think this was a factor as Tiptree allows CUFC to expand their's into London.

Report this post »

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree