Villagers plan next step in training ground fight

First published in News

DISGRUNTLED residents packed out a community hall to discuss the next step in their fight against the Colchester United training ground.

On Friday, February 15, campaigners and MP Priti Patel hit out at the latest decision by Colchester Borough Council to allow footballers to train at the Tiptree site for longer.

They accused the council of ignoring public feeling and failing to take enforcement action against the club for using the site outside of permitted hours.

Villagers were encouraged to bombard Colchester council with complaint letters about how it handled the latest application and join Ms Patel in taking those complaints to the Local Government Ombudsman.

Comments (11)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

11:16am Sun 17 Feb 13

Catchedicam says...

If you don't like being next to the training ground.. then MOVE! You cannot dictate what happens outside your own property. Well done Pritti Patel for suggesting residents write letters of complaint, that will be a valuable use of public funds dealing with that rubbish.
If you don't like being next to the training ground.. then MOVE! You cannot dictate what happens outside your own property. Well done Pritti Patel for suggesting residents write letters of complaint, that will be a valuable use of public funds dealing with that rubbish. Catchedicam
  • Score: 0

12:53pm Sun 17 Feb 13

rowhedge-dave says...

Catchedicam wrote:
If you don't like being next to the training ground.. then MOVE! You cannot dictate what happens outside your own property. Well done Pritti Patel for suggesting residents write letters of complaint, that will be a valuable use of public funds dealing with that rubbish.
What a stupid comment from Catchedicam!

The planning system should have protected these residents against the noise and disturbance from the football club.

It is painfully obvious the the planners have failed to do their jobs properly.

Well done Pretti Patel for taking this complaint to the Ombudsman.

I think this will ultimately prove to be an own goal for the planners!
[quote][p][bold]Catchedicam[/bold] wrote: If you don't like being next to the training ground.. then MOVE! You cannot dictate what happens outside your own property. Well done Pritti Patel for suggesting residents write letters of complaint, that will be a valuable use of public funds dealing with that rubbish.[/p][/quote]What a stupid comment from Catchedicam! The planning system should have protected these residents against the noise and disturbance from the football club. It is painfully obvious the the planners have failed to do their jobs properly. Well done Pretti Patel for taking this complaint to the Ombudsman. I think this will ultimately prove to be an own goal for the planners! rowhedge-dave
  • Score: 0

1:23pm Sun 17 Feb 13

Say It As It Is OK? says...

None of this affects me but the truth is residents are right to continue their fight. Why should they move. Planning conditions are there to protect those who could or are likely to be affected by any planning decision.

The facts are clear:
CBC did approve the planning of this training ground and to protect residents 'planning conditions' were agreed at the time by the applicant, Robbie Cowling. He was fully aware of the conditions placed on the development. However, as soon as the building was completed he chose to disregard those conditions and did exactly what he wanted to do. In effect he stuck Two fingers up at the local residents.

CBC clearly failed to properly enforce or even curtail the conditions. Instead they allowed Robbie Cowling to continue to do whatever he wanted, when he wanted. He subsequently submitted an application to have thse conditions removed and the planning committee immediately agreed, without question.

What this really shows is CBC are not be trusted and the planning committee and/or council officials can be easily persuaded to change their minds by someone who has much deeper pockets than any of the residents have.
None of this affects me but the truth is residents are right to continue their fight. Why should they move. Planning conditions are there to protect those who could or are likely to be affected by any planning decision. The facts are clear: CBC did approve the planning of this training ground and to protect residents 'planning conditions' were agreed at the time by the applicant, Robbie Cowling. He was fully aware of the conditions placed on the development. However, as soon as the building was completed he chose to disregard those conditions and did exactly what he wanted to do. In effect he stuck Two fingers up at the local residents. CBC clearly failed to properly enforce or even curtail the conditions. Instead they allowed Robbie Cowling to continue to do whatever he wanted, when he wanted. He subsequently submitted an application to have thse conditions removed and the planning committee immediately agreed, without question. What this really shows is CBC are not be trusted and the planning committee and/or council officials can be easily persuaded to change their minds by someone who has much deeper pockets than any of the residents have. Say It As It Is OK?
  • Score: 0

2:00pm Sun 17 Feb 13

Carlosfandangles says...

Say It As It Is OK? wrote:
None of this affects me but the truth is residents are right to continue their fight. Why should they move. Planning conditions are there to protect those who could or are likely to be affected by any planning decision.

The facts are clear:
CBC did approve the planning of this training ground and to protect residents 'planning conditions' were agreed at the time by the applicant, Robbie Cowling. He was fully aware of the conditions placed on the development. However, as soon as the building was completed he chose to disregard those conditions and did exactly what he wanted to do. In effect he stuck Two fingers up at the local residents.

CBC clearly failed to properly enforce or even curtail the conditions. Instead they allowed Robbie Cowling to continue to do whatever he wanted, when he wanted. He subsequently submitted an application to have thse conditions removed and the planning committee immediately agreed, without question.

What this really shows is CBC are not be trusted and the planning committee and/or council officials can be easily persuaded to change their minds by someone who has much deeper pockets than any of the residents have.
yep, what he said........
[quote][p][bold]Say It As It Is OK?[/bold] wrote: None of this affects me but the truth is residents are right to continue their fight. Why should they move. Planning conditions are there to protect those who could or are likely to be affected by any planning decision. The facts are clear: CBC did approve the planning of this training ground and to protect residents 'planning conditions' were agreed at the time by the applicant, Robbie Cowling. He was fully aware of the conditions placed on the development. However, as soon as the building was completed he chose to disregard those conditions and did exactly what he wanted to do. In effect he stuck Two fingers up at the local residents. CBC clearly failed to properly enforce or even curtail the conditions. Instead they allowed Robbie Cowling to continue to do whatever he wanted, when he wanted. He subsequently submitted an application to have thse conditions removed and the planning committee immediately agreed, without question. What this really shows is CBC are not be trusted and the planning committee and/or council officials can be easily persuaded to change their minds by someone who has much deeper pockets than any of the residents have.[/p][/quote]yep, what he said........ Carlosfandangles
  • Score: 0

4:51pm Sun 17 Feb 13

super waluigi says...

The residents can do as they please.

I wonder how many people are disrupted by the noise at the training ground? And even more to the point, how many are not bothered enough to do anything about it?

Personally, if you chose to live in a quiet location and you have disruption added, be it noise, traffic or some other pollution, you have a right to fight it. But unless it is obscene, don't expect to win. Football clubs are seen as fundamental to towns and cities in the uk. Liverpool have announced that they cannot afford to move grounds and so will 'buy up' all of the houses around the stadium allowing them to expand anfield!!. Once they reach a certain percentage of willing sellers, the rest of the owners/tennents will be forced out!!! Does anyone think this is fair??? ofcourse not. But it is seen as what is best for the city.

Sorry to shatter anyone's dream. I realise colchester is not as big as Liverpool as a town or a football club, but size is irrelevant really. Every business needs growth. Hence col u and the category 2 status or Liverpool and its need for 70,000 fans in the champions league.
The residents can do as they please. I wonder how many people are disrupted by the noise at the training ground? And even more to the point, how many are not bothered enough to do anything about it? Personally, if you chose to live in a quiet location and you have disruption added, be it noise, traffic or some other pollution, you have a right to fight it. But unless it is obscene, don't expect to win. Football clubs are seen as fundamental to towns and cities in the uk. Liverpool have announced that they cannot afford to move grounds and so will 'buy up' all of the houses around the stadium allowing them to expand anfield!!. Once they reach a certain percentage of willing sellers, the rest of the owners/tennents will be forced out!!! Does anyone think this is fair??? ofcourse not. But it is seen as what is best for the city. Sorry to shatter anyone's dream. I realise colchester is not as big as Liverpool as a town or a football club, but size is irrelevant really. Every business needs growth. Hence col u and the category 2 status or Liverpool and its need for 70,000 fans in the champions league. super waluigi
  • Score: 0

8:56am Mon 18 Feb 13

TheCaptain says...

Have planning laws been broken by the Council? No - Oh well no leg to stand on.
Have planning laws been broken by the Council? No - Oh well no leg to stand on. TheCaptain
  • Score: 0

9:13am Mon 18 Feb 13

What's The Story? says...

Makes you wonder why people who claim that the club moved the goalposts fail to acknowledge that when the plans and hours of use for the training ground were put in, the EPPP did not exist.

Upon such time that the EPPP came into force, then the club needed to amend the hours.
Makes you wonder why people who claim that the club moved the goalposts fail to acknowledge that when the plans and hours of use for the training ground were put in, the EPPP did not exist. Upon such time that the EPPP came into force, then the club needed to amend the hours. What's The Story?
  • Score: 0

9:16am Mon 18 Feb 13

TheCaptain says...

What's The Story? wrote:
Makes you wonder why people who claim that the club moved the goalposts fail to acknowledge that when the plans and hours of use for the training ground were put in, the EPPP did not exist.

Upon such time that the EPPP came into force, then the club needed to amend the hours.
Because they don't want the facts to get in the way
[quote][p][bold]What's The Story?[/bold] wrote: Makes you wonder why people who claim that the club moved the goalposts fail to acknowledge that when the plans and hours of use for the training ground were put in, the EPPP did not exist. Upon such time that the EPPP came into force, then the club needed to amend the hours.[/p][/quote]Because they don't want the facts to get in the way TheCaptain
  • Score: 0

10:34am Mon 18 Feb 13

Say It As It Is OK? says...

What's The Story? wrote:
Makes you wonder why people who claim that the club moved the goalposts fail to acknowledge that when the plans and hours of use for the training ground were put in, the EPPP did not exist.

Upon such time that the EPPP came into force, then the club needed to amend the hours.
It makes you wonder why the club accepted the conditions in the first place? Particularly as the original application did ask for longer hours, and these were refused! The club accepted it at the time, but that was convenient.

So I agree lets not brush over the facts. Some people just cannot see, or don't want to see what has happened here.
[quote][p][bold]What's The Story?[/bold] wrote: Makes you wonder why people who claim that the club moved the goalposts fail to acknowledge that when the plans and hours of use for the training ground were put in, the EPPP did not exist. Upon such time that the EPPP came into force, then the club needed to amend the hours.[/p][/quote]It makes you wonder why the club accepted the conditions in the first place? Particularly as the original application did ask for longer hours, and these were refused! The club accepted it at the time, but that was convenient. So I agree lets not brush over the facts. Some people just cannot see, or don't want to see what has happened here. Say It As It Is OK?
  • Score: 0

11:57am Mon 18 Feb 13

wellnow says...

With the results and gates colchester united are getting. They might apply to play their home matches there.
With the results and gates colchester united are getting. They might apply to play their home matches there. wellnow
  • Score: 0

12:06am Fri 22 Feb 13

Reginald47 says...

It's all the Ps = Priti Patel, Pointless,
It's all the Ps = Priti Patel, Pointless, Reginald47
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

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