Pete’s right there was no support provided by the applicant.

Last night I had a root about the planning application on the HDC website. Transparency is a great thing!

I think there are lessons here( which I think/hope HFC learned with the Holbrook debacle)

The key issues seem to be:-

The “pavilion” was to be 60 ft by 30 ft, replacing a pair of ramshackle portacabins – effectively double the footprint. I was to contain 2 * 15 person changing rooms, showers toilets, a tiny kitchen and a breakout/meeting area.

Sport England supported the application as it fell within their guidelines

The Environmental Impact Study was clean with no issues

West Sussex County Council could see no reason for objecting

However, the NIMBY’s – who had clearly been to a RaeGun boot camp came out with the most fatuous objections including:-

There had been a road accident on Southwater Street a few weeks ago (nowhere near the entrance to the site and nothing to do with football, as pointed out at the planning meeting)

Increased Traffic – the application stated the usage, which is unchanged

Light pollution from the small floodlights which are only used for training on rare occasions – unchanged

The previous facility was vandalised and would attract ne’er-do-wells (that’s was because it was portacabins, you idiots – the whole point of having a proper building, which will no doubt have security features built in, recognising previous experience, will prevent this recurring).

Southwater FC could not afford the facility?????

Plus numerous others which had nothing to do with the application itself, and which were thankfully pointed out by several councillors.

The application was still rejected - Politics

It just goes to prove that some 9,10 or 15 (depending on which part you read) objectors can do so much damage to what looked a simple application for a community improvement scheme. The other sad thing is, like HFC experienced, is that the noise (much of it untrue/scaremongering) from the objectors just creates enough doubt that the councillors will take the easy route out. The other thing is the cost, the duty of proof is on the applicants, not the objectors, so no matter how outrageous the claim, it has to countered. Costly and time consuming.

Let’s hope that our next sortie into this arena is tighter and recognises the issues a very small group of people mixed with some nervous councillors can cause.