Feedback on deli swingers club plans forces council to extend public consultation

Essex County Standard: Nigel Taylor is opposed to the plans Nigel Taylor is opposed to the plans

WORRIED residents have been given until Valentine’s Day to have their say on plans to open a swingers club in Colchester.

Swingers club Mingles wants to open at 66a London Road, in Lexden.

But the plans have attracted vocal opposition from neighbours who say the plans are inappropriate for the area.

They have cited parking issues and public order concerns as reasons for complaint.

On Friday, about 40 extra properties were sent a consultation letter.

Residents say just four were initially sent the letter. 

SEE TUESDAY'S GAZETTE FOR THE FULL STORY

Comments (33)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

1:59pm Mon 27 Jan 14

Hamiltonandy says...

I noticed all the additional people "consulted" in the council notification had the date entered as 24/01/14 - one day after the supposed closing date.
The owner Jason seems to have gone into hiding and his post is blowing around the area as there is no letter box.
Hopefully he will return to 66a soon as there is no point in demonstrating outside if he is not there.
I noticed all the additional people "consulted" in the council notification had the date entered as 24/01/14 - one day after the supposed closing date. The owner Jason seems to have gone into hiding and his post is blowing around the area as there is no letter box. Hopefully he will return to 66a soon as there is no point in demonstrating outside if he is not there. Hamiltonandy

2:04pm Mon 27 Jan 14

Linda Gosling says...

Valentines Day? oh please...someone has a sense of humor..
Valentines Day? oh please...someone has a sense of humor.. Linda Gosling

3:25pm Mon 27 Jan 14

Hamiltonandy says...

Agree with Linda. This planning application seems to have attracted widespread interest from the public and the amusement of planning staff for this hopeless application.
I was intrigued to read that the club expects up to 80 customers and employ 3 staff. That works out as about 1sqm per customer in the building and over 40 cars parked around. How can the owner promise they will not park down Back lane or wake up the neighbours at 2am?
Agree with Linda. This planning application seems to have attracted widespread interest from the public and the amusement of planning staff for this hopeless application. I was intrigued to read that the club expects up to 80 customers and employ 3 staff. That works out as about 1sqm per customer in the building and over 40 cars parked around. How can the owner promise they will not park down Back lane or wake up the neighbours at 2am? Hamiltonandy

4:33pm Mon 27 Jan 14

angus_mcoat_up says...

Hamiltonandy wrote:
Agree with Linda. This planning application seems to have attracted widespread interest from the public and the amusement of planning staff for this hopeless application.
I was intrigued to read that the club expects up to 80 customers and employ 3 staff. That works out as about 1sqm per customer in the building and over 40 cars parked around. How can the owner promise they will not park down Back lane or wake up the neighbours at 2am?
Why do you think it's a hopeless application?
Why the concern over parking too? There's a public car park just down the road & plenty of other surrounding roads to park on... or is it that you live on Back LaneWho said they'd all come in cars? It's a club first & foremost & therefore many may want a drink, haven't you heard of taxis?
As for waking the neighbours up at 2 am, remember, it's an adults club, not full of spotty neanderthal cretins off Queen Street. The vast majority of clientele that these such establishments cater for are well educated professional people who don't really want to come spilling out & bringing unwanted attention to themselves.
I've attended one of these clubs before & you notice that most people tend to drift off home at staggered times & not all come piling out looking for the nearest kebab shop & some poor sod they can beat 7 bells out of.
If is such objection, then why not give them a trial 6 month probation license & then hold another consultation with neighbours?
& before you come back with "how would you like it on your door step" statement, no, I wouldn't object at all because unlike many of the Naysayers on here, I have been to one of these clubs & yes I was apprehensive but was pleasantly surprised by how incredibly nice & friendly the people were. A nicer bunch you couldn't wish to meet.
Give them a chance, it takes all sorts to make a world & unlike some of the posters on here, swingers to try to impose their beliefs & morals on others.
[quote][p][bold]Hamiltonandy[/bold] wrote: Agree with Linda. This planning application seems to have attracted widespread interest from the public and the amusement of planning staff for this hopeless application. I was intrigued to read that the club expects up to 80 customers and employ 3 staff. That works out as about 1sqm per customer in the building and over 40 cars parked around. How can the owner promise they will not park down Back lane or wake up the neighbours at 2am?[/p][/quote]Why do you think it's a hopeless application? Why the concern over parking too? There's a public car park just down the road & plenty of other surrounding roads to park on... or is it that you live on Back LaneWho said they'd all come in cars? It's a club first & foremost & therefore many may want a drink, haven't you heard of taxis? As for waking the neighbours up at 2 am, remember, it's an adults club, not full of spotty neanderthal cretins off Queen Street. The vast majority of clientele that these such establishments cater for are well educated professional people who don't really want to come spilling out & bringing unwanted attention to themselves. I've attended one of these clubs before & you notice that most people tend to drift off home at staggered times & not all come piling out looking for the nearest kebab shop & some poor sod they can beat 7 bells out of. If is such objection, then why not give them a trial 6 month probation license & then hold another consultation with neighbours? & before you come back with "how would you like it on your door step" statement, no, I wouldn't object at all because unlike many of the Naysayers on here, I have been to one of these clubs & yes I was apprehensive but was pleasantly surprised by how incredibly nice & friendly the people were. A nicer bunch you couldn't wish to meet. Give them a chance, it takes all sorts to make a world & unlike some of the posters on here, swingers to try to impose their beliefs & morals on others. angus_mcoat_up

4:36pm Mon 27 Jan 14

angus_mcoat_up says...

Typo there! "swingers to try to impose their beliefs & morals on others."
Should have been, swingers DON'T try to impose their beliefs & morals on others.
Apologies
Typo there! "swingers to try to impose their beliefs & morals on others." Should have been, swingers DON'T try to impose their beliefs & morals on others. Apologies angus_mcoat_up

6:27pm Mon 27 Jan 14

Hamiltonandy says...

Actually "angus" your first comment "swingers to try to impose their beliefs & morals on others" is more accurate. The desperation you feel that you have to inflict your lifestyle in such a prominent place in Lexden. As I said before, there are alternative locations such as down Queen Street/St Botolphs/Whitehall industrial site.
So many anonymous people ranting on how we should tolerate their degenerate lifestyle yet no one is prepared to support the planning application. Shame on you. If you cannot stand up publicly for your beliefs you have no credibility.
As the owner of 66a London Road seems to have abandoned his home it suggests he is equally reluctant to face the public. And what about the silence from Rebecca the spokeswoman from MIngles? Complete silence.
A hopeless planning application and promoters going into hiding!
Actually "angus" your first comment "swingers to try to impose their beliefs & morals on others" is more accurate. The desperation you feel that you have to inflict your lifestyle in such a prominent place in Lexden. As I said before, there are alternative locations such as down Queen Street/St Botolphs/Whitehall industrial site. So many anonymous people ranting on how we should tolerate their degenerate lifestyle yet no one is prepared to support the planning application. Shame on you. If you cannot stand up publicly for your beliefs you have no credibility. As the owner of 66a London Road seems to have abandoned his home it suggests he is equally reluctant to face the public. And what about the silence from Rebecca the spokeswoman from MIngles? Complete silence. A hopeless planning application and promoters going into hiding! Hamiltonandy

6:29pm Mon 27 Jan 14

Jess says...

Well, with an establishment like this, i just don't see how it's going to work. Not that there's anything wrong with a swinger's club- it's not the work of the devil and to each their own etc, etc. BUT to try to put one in a residential area isn't going to work. I think that's why it's been labeled a weak application or whatever they called it above.

This place is going to have to go into an industrial area or whatever you call the areas that are more for businesses rather than residential neighborhoods. I think the owners trying to force their way into a residential area is doing more damage than good.

I'm a very open minded person and even have friends who are swingers. BUT, i wouldn't want this in my backyard if I were raising kids. not because it's going to be so blatently obvious it's a sex parlour, but because people talk and kids do listen. they'll catch wind of it. I wouldn't want my young kids to grow up with the impression that this is a normal part of adult life. It's a lifestyle one chooses that isn't really as popular regular as the supporters make it out to be. Like I said, I have friends who are swingers, but in my entire life, I've only met a few people who are.
Well, with an establishment like this, i just don't see how it's going to work. Not that there's anything wrong with a swinger's club- it's not the work of the devil and to each their own etc, etc. BUT to try to put one in a residential area isn't going to work. I think that's why it's been labeled a weak application or whatever they called it above. This place is going to have to go into an industrial area or whatever you call the areas that are more for businesses rather than residential neighborhoods. I think the owners trying to force their way into a residential area is doing more damage than good. I'm a very open minded person and even have friends who are swingers. BUT, i wouldn't want this in my backyard if I were raising kids. not because it's going to be so blatently obvious it's a sex parlour, but because people talk and kids do listen. they'll catch wind of it. I wouldn't want my young kids to grow up with the impression that this is a normal part of adult life. It's a lifestyle one chooses that isn't really as popular regular as the supporters make it out to be. Like I said, I have friends who are swingers, but in my entire life, I've only met a few people who are. Jess

6:47pm Mon 27 Jan 14

Say It As It Is OK? says...

Hamiltonandy wrote:
Actually "angus" your first comment "swingers to try to impose their beliefs & morals on others" is more accurate. The desperation you feel that you have to inflict your lifestyle in such a prominent place in Lexden. As I said before, there are alternative locations such as down Queen Street/St Botolphs/Whitehall industrial site.
So many anonymous people ranting on how we should tolerate their degenerate lifestyle yet no one is prepared to support the planning application. Shame on you. If you cannot stand up publicly for your beliefs you have no credibility.
As the owner of 66a London Road seems to have abandoned his home it suggests he is equally reluctant to face the public. And what about the silence from Rebecca the spokeswoman from MIngles? Complete silence.
A hopeless planning application and promoters going into hiding!
Nobody, who would use this facility, is likely to support the venue in writing to the planning department because they have to provide their names and addresses to support any planning application. If they don't provide details then their comments would not be published on the planning portal and with people like you calling them degenerates is it any wonder!

But it's strange you seem to support type of thing if it was located in Queens Street or on Whithall Industrial estate but not in a commercial area of Lexden? Suggest you look at your own standards before accusing others of something you obviously know little about.
[quote][p][bold]Hamiltonandy[/bold] wrote: Actually "angus" your first comment "swingers to try to impose their beliefs & morals on others" is more accurate. The desperation you feel that you have to inflict your lifestyle in such a prominent place in Lexden. As I said before, there are alternative locations such as down Queen Street/St Botolphs/Whitehall industrial site. So many anonymous people ranting on how we should tolerate their degenerate lifestyle yet no one is prepared to support the planning application. Shame on you. If you cannot stand up publicly for your beliefs you have no credibility. As the owner of 66a London Road seems to have abandoned his home it suggests he is equally reluctant to face the public. And what about the silence from Rebecca the spokeswoman from MIngles? Complete silence. A hopeless planning application and promoters going into hiding![/p][/quote]Nobody, who would use this facility, is likely to support the venue in writing to the planning department because they have to provide their names and addresses to support any planning application. If they don't provide details then their comments would not be published on the planning portal and with people like you calling them degenerates is it any wonder! But it's strange you seem to support type of thing if it was located in Queens Street or on Whithall Industrial estate but not in a commercial area of Lexden? Suggest you look at your own standards before accusing others of something you obviously know little about. Say It As It Is OK?

6:59pm Mon 27 Jan 14

UndergroundOverground says...

Hamiltonandy wrote:
Agree with Linda. This planning application seems to have attracted widespread interest from the public and the amusement of planning staff for this hopeless application.
I was intrigued to read that the club expects up to 80 customers and employ 3 staff. That works out as about 1sqm per customer in the building and over 40 cars parked around. How can the owner promise they will not park down Back lane or wake up the neighbours at 2am?
Sorry, do the owners of the numerous clubs around town that open late have to make promises as to where their clientele will park their cars . Heaven forbid some of them may walk there or even be as bold as to take a taxi.
[quote][p][bold]Hamiltonandy[/bold] wrote: Agree with Linda. This planning application seems to have attracted widespread interest from the public and the amusement of planning staff for this hopeless application. I was intrigued to read that the club expects up to 80 customers and employ 3 staff. That works out as about 1sqm per customer in the building and over 40 cars parked around. How can the owner promise they will not park down Back lane or wake up the neighbours at 2am?[/p][/quote]Sorry, do the owners of the numerous clubs around town that open late have to make promises as to where their clientele will park their cars . Heaven forbid some of them may walk there or even be as bold as to take a taxi. UndergroundOverground

7:08pm Mon 27 Jan 14

Hamiltonandy says...

Actually "say it is" I would not personally support this sort of club anywhere but if would cause less offence if it was in Queen Street/St Botolphs, where there is already another of these sordid clubs and the whole area could not be made worse. The alternative of an industrial estate guarantees it is well away from any schools, private homes and not on a commuter route. It would also have lots of space for a car park.
.
I am puzzled why some people are insistent the "private club" must be on a commuter route near a school despite having traffic/parking problems already. It is the arrogance of the owner effectively stating "you are going to get the club whether you want it or not". As he appears to have gone into hiding we may never know!
Actually "say it is" I would not personally support this sort of club anywhere but if would cause less offence if it was in Queen Street/St Botolphs, where there is already another of these sordid clubs and the whole area could not be made worse. The alternative of an industrial estate guarantees it is well away from any schools, private homes and not on a commuter route. It would also have lots of space for a car park. . I am puzzled why some people are insistent the "private club" must be on a commuter route near a school despite having traffic/parking problems already. It is the arrogance of the owner effectively stating "you are going to get the club whether you want it or not". As he appears to have gone into hiding we may never know! Hamiltonandy

7:24pm Mon 27 Jan 14

angus_mcoat_up says...

Say It As It Is OK? wrote:
Hamiltonandy wrote:
Actually "angus" your first comment "swingers to try to impose their beliefs & morals on others" is more accurate. The desperation you feel that you have to inflict your lifestyle in such a prominent place in Lexden. As I said before, there are alternative locations such as down Queen Street/St Botolphs/Whitehall industrial site.
So many anonymous people ranting on how we should tolerate their degenerate lifestyle yet no one is prepared to support the planning application. Shame on you. If you cannot stand up publicly for your beliefs you have no credibility.
As the owner of 66a London Road seems to have abandoned his home it suggests he is equally reluctant to face the public. And what about the silence from Rebecca the spokeswoman from MIngles? Complete silence.
A hopeless planning application and promoters going into hiding!
Nobody, who would use this facility, is likely to support the venue in writing to the planning department because they have to provide their names and addresses to support any planning application. If they don't provide details then their comments would not be published on the planning portal and with people like you calling them degenerates is it any wonder!

But it's strange you seem to support type of thing if it was located in Queens Street or on Whithall Industrial estate but not in a commercial area of Lexden? Suggest you look at your own standards before accusing others of something you obviously know little about.
I have to agree with a lot you said "Say it...." & Mr Hamilton, I didn't choose where it goes did I? I agree it shouldn't really go in residential areas but as it's his building then that's up to himself & the planners? As for Queen street et al, no self respecting swinger would be seen dead in those bars or clubs!
As stated, you wonder why people who support these establishments & maybe attend, don't want to be labeled "degenerates" or "perverts" or any other derogatory remarks dished out by curtain twitching moralistic citizens such as yourself?
Personally, I hate & despise religion & all it's manipulative, dictatorial, guilt inducing ways BUT I also understand that for some people, it brings them comfort & a faith. Each to their own, so long as nobody tries to convert me or come knocking on my door while I'm watching mock the week :0)
So why can't you Mr Hamilton let others get on with what makes them happy & fulfilled & keep your derogatory remarks to yourself?
[quote][p][bold]Say It As It Is OK?[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hamiltonandy[/bold] wrote: Actually "angus" your first comment "swingers to try to impose their beliefs & morals on others" is more accurate. The desperation you feel that you have to inflict your lifestyle in such a prominent place in Lexden. As I said before, there are alternative locations such as down Queen Street/St Botolphs/Whitehall industrial site. So many anonymous people ranting on how we should tolerate their degenerate lifestyle yet no one is prepared to support the planning application. Shame on you. If you cannot stand up publicly for your beliefs you have no credibility. As the owner of 66a London Road seems to have abandoned his home it suggests he is equally reluctant to face the public. And what about the silence from Rebecca the spokeswoman from MIngles? Complete silence. A hopeless planning application and promoters going into hiding![/p][/quote]Nobody, who would use this facility, is likely to support the venue in writing to the planning department because they have to provide their names and addresses to support any planning application. If they don't provide details then their comments would not be published on the planning portal and with people like you calling them degenerates is it any wonder! But it's strange you seem to support type of thing if it was located in Queens Street or on Whithall Industrial estate but not in a commercial area of Lexden? Suggest you look at your own standards before accusing others of something you obviously know little about.[/p][/quote]I have to agree with a lot you said "Say it...." & Mr Hamilton, I didn't choose where it goes did I? I agree it shouldn't really go in residential areas but as it's his building then that's up to himself & the planners? As for Queen street et al, no self respecting swinger would be seen dead in those bars or clubs! As stated, you wonder why people who support these establishments & maybe attend, don't want to be labeled "degenerates" or "perverts" or any other derogatory remarks dished out by curtain twitching moralistic citizens such as yourself? Personally, I hate & despise religion & all it's manipulative, dictatorial, guilt inducing ways BUT I also understand that for some people, it brings them comfort & a faith. Each to their own, so long as nobody tries to convert me or come knocking on my door while I'm watching mock the week :0) So why can't you Mr Hamilton let others get on with what makes them happy & fulfilled & keep your derogatory remarks to yourself? angus_mcoat_up

7:42pm Mon 27 Jan 14

Hamiltonandy says...

But "angus" the whole purpose of this forum is that everyone can freely express their views. My view is the so called "private club" is morally wrong and the practices people indulge in this commercial club are unacceptable. You may not agree and you are free to disagree.
Because the Mingles clubs decided to gamble on opening in such a high profile area they have ensured a huge groundswell of opposition to this sort of club wherever they try next in Colchester.
But "angus" the whole purpose of this forum is that everyone can freely express their views. My view is the so called "private club" is morally wrong and the practices people indulge in this commercial club are unacceptable. You may not agree and you are free to disagree. Because the Mingles clubs decided to gamble on opening in such a high profile area they have ensured a huge groundswell of opposition to this sort of club wherever they try next in Colchester. Hamiltonandy

8:17pm Mon 27 Jan 14

angus_mcoat_up says...

Hamiltonandy wrote:
But "angus" the whole purpose of this forum is that everyone can freely express their views. My view is the so called "private club" is morally wrong and the practices people indulge in this commercial club are unacceptable. You may not agree and you are free to disagree.
Because the Mingles clubs decided to gamble on opening in such a high profile area they have ensured a huge groundswell of opposition to this sort of club wherever they try next in Colchester.
Ok, on some points I whole heartedly agree with you, yes, everyone should be free to express their own opinions on the subject matter BUT those who do contribute to the forum should also be aware that it's wrong to start accusing people of being "perverts", "degenerates" "deviants" etc etc, I'm not saying you used all these derogatory remarks but some you have.
"My view is the so called "private club" is morally wrong"... Who's morals? Yours? as I stated my views on religion, each to their own but don't knock my door with your fairy tales! How many times have you had Mr & Mrs "deviant" knock on your doors trying to convert you into the lifestyle?
My own personal opinion is this, yes, put it somewhere like whitehall, off the beaten track so to speak, the club owners & patrons tend to police their establishments themselves quite well with out the moral police getting involved, they have their own code of conduct where NO means NO.... Jehovahs witnesses on the other hand...
A High profile area? Lexden as someone else posted, it's next to a tyre shop, a takeaway & model shop? hardly Vint Cresent or Beverly road or The avenue is it?
& one more point Mr H, I used to be a cab driver & I'd hate to burst your Principality of Lexden bubble but do you know how many unlicensed brothels there are in the very close proximity to the proposed site & surrounding area? Now if the local residents knew how many there were, they might not have such a nimby, holy than thou attitude?
[quote][p][bold]Hamiltonandy[/bold] wrote: But "angus" the whole purpose of this forum is that everyone can freely express their views. My view is the so called "private club" is morally wrong and the practices people indulge in this commercial club are unacceptable. You may not agree and you are free to disagree. Because the Mingles clubs decided to gamble on opening in such a high profile area they have ensured a huge groundswell of opposition to this sort of club wherever they try next in Colchester.[/p][/quote]Ok, on some points I whole heartedly agree with you, yes, everyone should be free to express their own opinions on the subject matter BUT those who do contribute to the forum should also be aware that it's wrong to start accusing people of being "perverts", "degenerates" "deviants" etc etc, I'm not saying you used all these derogatory remarks but some you have. "My view is the so called "private club" is morally wrong"... Who's morals? Yours? as I stated my views on religion, each to their own but don't knock my door with your fairy tales! How many times have you had Mr & Mrs "deviant" knock on your doors trying to convert you into the lifestyle? My own personal opinion is this, yes, put it somewhere like whitehall, off the beaten track so to speak, the club owners & patrons tend to police their establishments themselves quite well with out the moral police getting involved, they have their own code of conduct where NO means NO.... Jehovahs witnesses on the other hand... A High profile area? Lexden as someone else posted, it's next to a tyre shop, a takeaway & model shop? hardly Vint Cresent or Beverly road or The avenue is it? & one more point Mr H, I used to be a cab driver & I'd hate to burst your Principality of Lexden bubble but do you know how many unlicensed brothels there are in the very close proximity to the proposed site & surrounding area? Now if the local residents knew how many there were, they might not have such a nimby, holy than thou attitude? angus_mcoat_up

9:31pm Mon 27 Jan 14

Green Moggy says...

As one of the oldest swingers in town (well in Stanway anyway) I'm delighted that we can have recourse to something local that is not a knocking shop (corner of Winstree Road at Fiveways junction springs to mind but, alas, that got busted and is no more).
As the proposed location is adjacent to a tyre shop perhaps rubber fetishists may be high on the membership list. It's also near a long established model shop so we could have some A1 stunners in the club too. Catering can be supplied by the takeaway chippy next door or by a short trip down the road to the all night Big Mac outlet. If it gets too hot then the emergency services (fire and ambulance) maintenance facility is only a stone's throw away and can provide immediate relief. It gives me the impression that it's a perfect location for the venture.
As one of the oldest swingers in town (well in Stanway anyway) I'm delighted that we can have recourse to something local that is not a knocking shop (corner of Winstree Road at Fiveways junction springs to mind but, alas, that got busted and is no more). As the proposed location is adjacent to a tyre shop perhaps rubber fetishists may be high on the membership list. It's also near a long established model shop so we could have some A1 stunners in the club too. Catering can be supplied by the takeaway chippy next door or by a short trip down the road to the all night Big Mac outlet. If it gets too hot then the emergency services (fire and ambulance) maintenance facility is only a stone's throw away and can provide immediate relief. It gives me the impression that it's a perfect location for the venture. Green Moggy

9:59pm Mon 27 Jan 14

busterjames says...

looks like tongue will be back on the menu if the swingers club opens in the former deli !!!!
looks like tongue will be back on the menu if the swingers club opens in the former deli !!!! busterjames

10:10pm Mon 27 Jan 14

Hamiltonandy says...

Great contribution by "Green moggy". The planning application has certainly brightened up some council officers' days. Perhaps this is a "creative business" the council would want to promote.
Great contribution by "Green moggy". The planning application has certainly brightened up some council officers' days. Perhaps this is a "creative business" the council would want to promote. Hamiltonandy

10:11pm Mon 27 Jan 14

Boris says...

Green Moggy wrote:
As one of the oldest swingers in town (well in Stanway anyway) I'm delighted that we can have recourse to something local that is not a knocking shop (corner of Winstree Road at Fiveways junction springs to mind but, alas, that got busted and is no more).
As the proposed location is adjacent to a tyre shop perhaps rubber fetishists may be high on the membership list. It's also near a long established model shop so we could have some A1 stunners in the club too. Catering can be supplied by the takeaway chippy next door or by a short trip down the road to the all night Big Mac outlet. If it gets too hot then the emergency services (fire and ambulance) maintenance facility is only a stone's throw away and can provide immediate relief. It gives me the impression that it's a perfect location for the venture.
Brilliant, one of the best contributions yet. That particular part of Lexden is not posh at all, it is extremely ordinary. "Vive le sport".
[quote][p][bold]Green Moggy[/bold] wrote: As one of the oldest swingers in town (well in Stanway anyway) I'm delighted that we can have recourse to something local that is not a knocking shop (corner of Winstree Road at Fiveways junction springs to mind but, alas, that got busted and is no more). As the proposed location is adjacent to a tyre shop perhaps rubber fetishists may be high on the membership list. It's also near a long established model shop so we could have some A1 stunners in the club too. Catering can be supplied by the takeaway chippy next door or by a short trip down the road to the all night Big Mac outlet. If it gets too hot then the emergency services (fire and ambulance) maintenance facility is only a stone's throw away and can provide immediate relief. It gives me the impression that it's a perfect location for the venture.[/p][/quote]Brilliant, one of the best contributions yet. That particular part of Lexden is not posh at all, it is extremely ordinary. "Vive le sport". Boris

1:37pm Tue 28 Jan 14

Scoot says...

I think people are getting confused as to who the clientelle of this establishment will be when they talk of St Botolphs and Queens Street. The people who will go to this place will not want a crowd of boozed up spotty adolescents with their mobiles out facebooking who they have just seen entering the place whilst its ok for them to carry out lewd acts in toilets, shop doorways etc. I just wonder how many of those against this place really know what their neighbours get upto behind closed doors. After all I bet there are a few neighbours of Jimmy Saville, the bloke off Corrie and DLT who have for years gone around saying "Guess who my neighbour is" and now are remaining very quiet about where they live...The place has businesses either side of them and its on a main road out of Colchester, its not as if its in the middle of Highwoods.
I think people are getting confused as to who the clientelle of this establishment will be when they talk of St Botolphs and Queens Street. The people who will go to this place will not want a crowd of boozed up spotty adolescents with their mobiles out facebooking who they have just seen entering the place whilst its ok for them to carry out lewd acts in toilets, shop doorways etc. I just wonder how many of those against this place really know what their neighbours get upto behind closed doors. After all I bet there are a few neighbours of Jimmy Saville, the bloke off Corrie and DLT who have for years gone around saying "Guess who my neighbour is" and now are remaining very quiet about where they live...The place has businesses either side of them and its on a main road out of Colchester, its not as if its in the middle of Highwoods. Scoot

12:22pm Wed 29 Jan 14

Harry.Brown says...

Boris wrote:
Green Moggy wrote:
As one of the oldest swingers in town (well in Stanway anyway) I'm delighted that we can have recourse to something local that is not a knocking shop (corner of Winstree Road at Fiveways junction springs to mind but, alas, that got busted and is no more).
As the proposed location is adjacent to a tyre shop perhaps rubber fetishists may be high on the membership list. It's also near a long established model shop so we could have some A1 stunners in the club too. Catering can be supplied by the takeaway chippy next door or by a short trip down the road to the all night Big Mac outlet. If it gets too hot then the emergency services (fire and ambulance) maintenance facility is only a stone's throw away and can provide immediate relief. It gives me the impression that it's a perfect location for the venture.
Brilliant, one of the best contributions yet. That particular part of Lexden is not posh at all, it is extremely ordinary. "Vive le sport".
that building green moggy is talking about is an old cop house?
i am surprised at you lot wanting a swing palace in an old deli?
love the heard lines deli - licious or how about large bratwurst night Wednesday's
i supposed i could COme mines a big one!
I was blessed with a good bayonet!
whats with the vive le sport boris/bob
can you educate us?
[quote][p][bold]Boris[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Green Moggy[/bold] wrote: As one of the oldest swingers in town (well in Stanway anyway) I'm delighted that we can have recourse to something local that is not a knocking shop (corner of Winstree Road at Fiveways junction springs to mind but, alas, that got busted and is no more). As the proposed location is adjacent to a tyre shop perhaps rubber fetishists may be high on the membership list. It's also near a long established model shop so we could have some A1 stunners in the club too. Catering can be supplied by the takeaway chippy next door or by a short trip down the road to the all night Big Mac outlet. If it gets too hot then the emergency services (fire and ambulance) maintenance facility is only a stone's throw away and can provide immediate relief. It gives me the impression that it's a perfect location for the venture.[/p][/quote]Brilliant, one of the best contributions yet. That particular part of Lexden is not posh at all, it is extremely ordinary. "Vive le sport".[/p][/quote]that building green moggy is talking about is an old cop house? i am surprised at you lot wanting a swing palace in an old deli? love the heard lines deli - licious or how about large bratwurst night Wednesday's i supposed i could COme mines a big one! I was blessed with a good bayonet! whats with the vive le sport boris/bob can you educate us? Harry.Brown

10:13pm Wed 29 Jan 14

Jason_Mingles says...

Hamiltonandy wrote:
Actually "angus" your first comment "swingers to try to impose their beliefs & morals on others" is more accurate. The desperation you feel that you have to inflict your lifestyle in such a prominent place in Lexden. As I said before, there are alternative locations such as down Queen Street/St Botolphs/Whitehall industrial site.
So many anonymous people ranting on how we should tolerate their degenerate lifestyle yet no one is prepared to support the planning application. Shame on you. If you cannot stand up publicly for your beliefs you have no credibility.
As the owner of 66a London Road seems to have abandoned his home it suggests he is equally reluctant to face the public. And what about the silence from Rebecca the spokeswoman from MIngles? Complete silence.
A hopeless planning application and promoters going into hiding!
Dear Mr Hamilton,

I am almost at a loss for words, having afforded you the courtesy of reading both of your planning objections and numerous posts on the gazette website, which equates to well over 1500 words on the subject you are without doubt the most ignorant and perturbed individual regarding our recent planning application.

I accept my original application was misleading over the opening hours of the business and I have done my best to publicly apologise for this in a letter that has been added to the planning website, inserted into the original online gazette posts by Rebecca 12:08pm Fri 24 Jan 2014 and kindly reproduced by the Gazette newspaper on Page 12 Tuesday 28th January 2014.

You claim in numerous posts that we have gone into hiding? If you afforded us the same courtesy as has been extended to you, then you would have read our posts and realised that we have published our email addresses and phone numbers and encouraged anybody who would like talk to us to use these contact details.

Here they are again for you:-
Jason Woolf 07951 720997 - jason@mingles-club.c
o.uk
Rebecca Freeman 07736 049266 - rebecca@mingles-club
.co.uk

In your objection listed on the 25th January at 14:37 you state "I have discussed this proposed use online with the owners", "Essentially I was told you are going to get it whether you want it or not" I would be obliged if you could forward more details because your conversation wasn't with us.

Much of your ignorance in this matter would be diminished if you read the above mentioned information which in collaboration with Rebecca's posts we hope has alleviated most of the nearby residents concerns.

When I bought the property I didn't consider it to be in a particularly residential area, firstly it is on a busy "A" road the A1124, at the rear of the property is a tyre workshop, to one side is the tyre companies store room, the other side an enthusiasts model shop. There are at least three or more commercial properties on either side of these including late night take-away's and a gambling establishment. Opposite there is a large garage for emergency vehicles, an ambulance despatch facility and a bank, non of these are residential.

Our proposal actually minimises any additional traffic or parking issues at busy times as we will mostly operate at different times to the other shops, I could open a "Poundland" or similar during the day but that additional footfall would makes things worse in the area. Those popping in for a few minutes would be likely to abandon their car in back lane, with my proposal our guests will stay for 3-5 hours so they will park responsibly or arrive by taxi.

You have called me an "Arrogant applicant" which I believe is unjust, before the formal application was submitted I prudently paid for a pre-planning report to test if there were any major planning concerns over the proposed use of my building. The response was positive and in accordance with this I am now following the correct planning process, arrogance would be demonstrated by using the building for the proposed use and seeking permission thereafter. I believe that demonstrates beyond reasonable doubt that we fully intend to operate our business in a responsible manner. Using a building without the correct permission is not a criminal offence.

While the planning application is in process we have made modifications to the building in order to satisfy ourselves that we will not cause a disturbance to residents by sound proofing the building. Currently the objections are concerned with potential noise, what nobody realises yet is that we have already been running the sound system late at night far louder than it will be used in practice for testing purposes without any complaints.

On the subject of "The owner refused to sell the property" and "They deliberately set a high price" The price set was less than I paid for the building, in the first 6 months the building was up for sale the best offer was 20% lower than my asking price of £99,000 and therefore not prudent. I did actually receive a better offer towards the end of last year proving the asking price wasn't set too high, but by this time I was already through the pre-planning stage which was positive enough for me to continue that route.

You also stated the commercial estate agent was unprofessional, I checked with him and he has no record of you contacting him regarding my building.

You are correct there has been "A couple in residence" on occasions at 66a London Road, (you must spend a lot of time watching us, the name for that is voyeurism) you are also correct that the building is rated for commercial use, you then continued to question about what would happen if we continue to break council rules now how will we stick to planning permission. What rules are we breaking? The rates on a commercial property are higher than that of a domestic property even though we do not receive such benefits of waste collection etc, we do not require planning permission to use any part of the building to live in. Just to clarify though we do not live in the building, we occasionally stay overnight if we are working late, so again we are not hiding we are just not living in or working in the building this week due to running other businesses.

I will state again I am happy to meet at a mutually convenient time with anyone who still has concerns, I do not feel obligated to do this and it will not make any difference to the decision the planning committee make, but I am willing to listen and discuss any concerns in depth, I genuinely believe our business will not have a negative impact on the area. Mr Hamilton if you would like to meet with me then I think we should invite Ryan Jennings of the gazette who has been very even-handed so far to join us, you may also wish to invite any of the local residents who you have spoken with, so please do not think I'm hiding from you or the local residents, I'm just minding my own business elsewhere.

Finally I realise this is a bit off subject regarding the planning application, however you have been publicly rude about my fiancée and those who chose a swinging lifestyle by calling them "sad people", "Morally deficient", and having a "Degenerate Lifestyle" and so on, I therefore feel the following is somewhat justified:-

You state "A more suitable location would be the local Sodom and Gomorrah that is Queen Street" maybe you think of yourself as the lord and have come to destroy us?

I am not forcing my lifestyle on anyone, you don't have to become a member, in the same way you do not have to gamble in Ladbrokes, simply walk by or drive by without stopping that is your prerogative.

It is clear you think you have a higher moral code, you called swinging morally indefensible, Sir I would welcome a debate on this subject as your morels appear to be based on ancient unproven religious writings, and it appears you feel entitled to force your opinion, slander and try to prevent others from doing something just because you don't approve of it.

My morals are based on a journey towards enlightenment via spiritualism, I am working towards eradicating such emotions as anger, jealousy and judgement from my life, my morals are based on undisputable principles. Please point out anywhere in the bible it entitles you to judge and persecute consenting adults doing as they wish?

The book entitled Power verses Force by Dr David R Hawkins particularly chapters 3 & 4 in recent years gave me a different perspective of life and helped to open my mind and with respect may also give you an opportunity to consider your own parochial view of life.

I think you have damaged your own credibility with the stance you have taken so far, maybe a more sincere and positive approach would better serve your purposes.

Jason Woolf
[quote][p][bold]Hamiltonandy[/bold] wrote: Actually "angus" your first comment "swingers to try to impose their beliefs & morals on others" is more accurate. The desperation you feel that you have to inflict your lifestyle in such a prominent place in Lexden. As I said before, there are alternative locations such as down Queen Street/St Botolphs/Whitehall industrial site. So many anonymous people ranting on how we should tolerate their degenerate lifestyle yet no one is prepared to support the planning application. Shame on you. If you cannot stand up publicly for your beliefs you have no credibility. As the owner of 66a London Road seems to have abandoned his home it suggests he is equally reluctant to face the public. And what about the silence from Rebecca the spokeswoman from MIngles? Complete silence. A hopeless planning application and promoters going into hiding![/p][/quote]Dear Mr Hamilton, I am almost at a loss for words, having afforded you the courtesy of reading both of your planning objections and numerous posts on the gazette website, which equates to well over 1500 words on the subject you are without doubt the most ignorant and perturbed individual regarding our recent planning application. I accept my original application was misleading over the opening hours of the business and I have done my best to publicly apologise for this in a letter that has been added to the planning website, inserted into the original online gazette posts by Rebecca 12:08pm Fri 24 Jan 2014 and kindly reproduced by the Gazette newspaper on Page 12 Tuesday 28th January 2014. You claim in numerous posts that we have gone into hiding? If you afforded us the same courtesy as has been extended to you, then you would have read our posts and realised that we have published our email addresses and phone numbers and encouraged anybody who would like talk to us to use these contact details. Here they are again for you:- Jason Woolf 07951 720997 - jason@mingles-club.c o.uk Rebecca Freeman 07736 049266 - rebecca@mingles-club .co.uk In your objection listed on the 25th January at 14:37 you state "I have discussed this proposed use online with the owners", "Essentially I was told you are going to get it whether you want it or not" I would be obliged if you could forward more details because your conversation wasn't with us. Much of your ignorance in this matter would be diminished if you read the above mentioned information which in collaboration with Rebecca's posts we hope has alleviated most of the nearby residents concerns. When I bought the property I didn't consider it to be in a particularly residential area, firstly it is on a busy "A" road the A1124, at the rear of the property is a tyre workshop, to one side is the tyre companies store room, the other side an enthusiasts model shop. There are at least three or more commercial properties on either side of these including late night take-away's and a gambling establishment. Opposite there is a large garage for emergency vehicles, an ambulance despatch facility and a bank, non of these are residential. Our proposal actually minimises any additional traffic or parking issues at busy times as we will mostly operate at different times to the other shops, I could open a "Poundland" or similar during the day but that additional footfall would makes things worse in the area. Those popping in for a few minutes would be likely to abandon their car in back lane, with my proposal our guests will stay for 3-5 hours so they will park responsibly or arrive by taxi. You have called me an "Arrogant applicant" which I believe is unjust, before the formal application was submitted I prudently paid for a pre-planning report to test if there were any major planning concerns over the proposed use of my building. The response was positive and in accordance with this I am now following the correct planning process, arrogance would be demonstrated by using the building for the proposed use and seeking permission thereafter. I believe that demonstrates beyond reasonable doubt that we fully intend to operate our business in a responsible manner. Using a building without the correct permission is not a criminal offence. While the planning application is in process we have made modifications to the building in order to satisfy ourselves that we will not cause a disturbance to residents by sound proofing the building. Currently the objections are concerned with potential noise, what nobody realises yet is that we have already been running the sound system late at night far louder than it will be used in practice for testing purposes without any complaints. On the subject of "The owner refused to sell the property" and "They deliberately set a high price" The price set was less than I paid for the building, in the first 6 months the building was up for sale the best offer was 20% lower than my asking price of £99,000 and therefore not prudent. I did actually receive a better offer towards the end of last year proving the asking price wasn't set too high, but by this time I was already through the pre-planning stage which was positive enough for me to continue that route. You also stated the commercial estate agent was unprofessional, I checked with him and he has no record of you contacting him regarding my building. You are correct there has been "A couple in residence" on occasions at 66a London Road, (you must spend a lot of time watching us, the name for that is voyeurism) you are also correct that the building is rated for commercial use, you then continued to question about what would happen if we continue to break council rules now how will we stick to planning permission. What rules are we breaking? The rates on a commercial property are higher than that of a domestic property even though we do not receive such benefits of waste collection etc, we do not require planning permission to use any part of the building to live in. Just to clarify though we do not live in the building, we occasionally stay overnight if we are working late, so again we are not hiding we are just not living in or working in the building this week due to running other businesses. I will state again I am happy to meet at a mutually convenient time with anyone who still has concerns, I do not feel obligated to do this and it will not make any difference to the decision the planning committee make, but I am willing to listen and discuss any concerns in depth, I genuinely believe our business will not have a negative impact on the area. Mr Hamilton if you would like to meet with me then I think we should invite Ryan Jennings of the gazette who has been very even-handed so far to join us, you may also wish to invite any of the local residents who you have spoken with, so please do not think I'm hiding from you or the local residents, I'm just minding my own business elsewhere. Finally I realise this is a bit off subject regarding the planning application, however you have been publicly rude about my fiancée and those who chose a swinging lifestyle by calling them "sad people", "Morally deficient", and having a "Degenerate Lifestyle" and so on, I therefore feel the following is somewhat justified:- You state "A more suitable location would be the local Sodom and Gomorrah that is Queen Street" maybe you think of yourself as the lord and have come to destroy us? I am not forcing my lifestyle on anyone, you don't have to become a member, in the same way you do not have to gamble in Ladbrokes, simply walk by or drive by without stopping that is your prerogative. It is clear you think you have a higher moral code, you called swinging morally indefensible, Sir I would welcome a debate on this subject as your morels appear to be based on ancient unproven religious writings, and it appears you feel entitled to force your opinion, slander and try to prevent others from doing something just because you don't approve of it. My morals are based on a journey towards enlightenment via spiritualism, I am working towards eradicating such emotions as anger, jealousy and judgement from my life, my morals are based on undisputable principles. Please point out anywhere in the bible it entitles you to judge and persecute consenting adults doing as they wish? The book entitled Power verses Force by Dr David R Hawkins particularly chapters 3 & 4 in recent years gave me a different perspective of life and helped to open my mind and with respect may also give you an opportunity to consider your own parochial view of life. I think you have damaged your own credibility with the stance you have taken so far, maybe a more sincere and positive approach would better serve your purposes. Jason Woolf Jason_Mingles

10:41pm Wed 29 Jan 14

Hamiltonandy says...

Quote from Jason "My morals are based on a journey towards enlightenment via spiritualism, I am working towards eradicating such emotions as anger, jealousy and judgement from my life, my morals are based on undisputable principles".
.
So that is why you planned to inflict your disreputable business on Lexden! Perhaps I should add insensitive and deluded after the above interminable rant. Its your money to lose and I will enjoy watching you lose it.
Quote from Jason "My morals are based on a journey towards enlightenment via spiritualism, I am working towards eradicating such emotions as anger, jealousy and judgement from my life, my morals are based on undisputable principles". . So that is why you planned to inflict your disreputable business on Lexden! Perhaps I should add insensitive and deluded after the above interminable rant. Its your money to lose and I will enjoy watching you lose it. Hamiltonandy

8:10am Thu 30 Jan 14

justwondering says...

Excellent Jason_mingles, fantastic comment.

Strangely it appears as if Mr Hamilton has refused your offer of a meeting with himself and Ryan Jennings ?

You and your fiancée have been nothing but open and honest and it is a credit to you, I am sure you have now reassured a vast majority of my neighbours in the local area who initially objected and have now thought more rationally about the whole situation.

As I have said previously, good luck with the venture, even though I won't be visiting you as I have other hobbies I prefer to indulge in but then again, life is short so who knows what the future will bring....
Excellent Jason_mingles, fantastic comment. Strangely it appears as if Mr Hamilton has refused your offer of a meeting with himself and Ryan Jennings ? You and your fiancée have been nothing but open and honest and it is a credit to you, I am sure you have now reassured a vast majority of my neighbours in the local area who initially objected and have now thought more rationally about the whole situation. As I have said previously, good luck with the venture, even though I won't be visiting you as I have other hobbies I prefer to indulge in but then again, life is short so who knows what the future will bring.... justwondering

9:12am Thu 30 Jan 14

romantic says...

Andy, your ongoing pursuit of the truth regarding the VAF is admirable, and I guess it is that tenacity which is being applied here, but I have to say that the reply from Jason at Mingles is very clear, coherent and sensible. He is very reasonably offering to meet with you to discuss this, and has gone through the various points of objection along the way.

It seems clear that your objection is primarily one of moral outrage because you object to the idea of the swinging scene. I must admit, I am not and have never been a swinger (Mrs R wouldn't let me...), but it seems to me that there are far more morally reprehensible activities going on. The people who go to this club will be consenting adults, mostly professional people in their 30s and above. These are not the same people who create what you called the "Sodom and Gomorrah" of Queen St. (And Queen St isn't as bad as it looks on the TV, really!). There is a bookies next door. What's better? People doing some swinging, or blokes gambling away their wages on electronic roulette?

From an external perspective, it seems to me that the owners are being open and honest, and willing to discuss this and probably even show you around the place. As this issue does seem to be such a big one for you. maybe it would be worth taking them up on their offer. What is there to lose?
Andy, your ongoing pursuit of the truth regarding the VAF is admirable, and I guess it is that tenacity which is being applied here, but I have to say that the reply from Jason at Mingles is very clear, coherent and sensible. He is very reasonably offering to meet with you to discuss this, and has gone through the various points of objection along the way. It seems clear that your objection is primarily one of moral outrage because you object to the idea of the swinging scene. I must admit, I am not and have never been a swinger (Mrs R wouldn't let me...), but it seems to me that there are far more morally reprehensible activities going on. The people who go to this club will be consenting adults, mostly professional people in their 30s and above. These are not the same people who create what you called the "Sodom and Gomorrah" of Queen St. (And Queen St isn't as bad as it looks on the TV, really!). There is a bookies next door. What's better? People doing some swinging, or blokes gambling away their wages on electronic roulette? From an external perspective, it seems to me that the owners are being open and honest, and willing to discuss this and probably even show you around the place. As this issue does seem to be such a big one for you. maybe it would be worth taking them up on their offer. What is there to lose? romantic

9:14am Thu 30 Jan 14

Hamiltonandy says...

There you go again "justwondering" accusing me of refusing a meeting with the invisible Jason Woolf. And now you confidently state the neighbours "have now thought more rationally about the whole situation". How patronising. To call this sex club "a credit to" Jason shows you have an unusual view of acceptable behaviour. So go on put your name and address on the planning comments so you can publically stand up for what you believe.
There you go again "justwondering" accusing me of refusing a meeting with the invisible Jason Woolf. And now you confidently state the neighbours "have now thought more rationally about the whole situation". How patronising. To call this sex club "a credit to" Jason shows you have an unusual view of acceptable behaviour. So go on put your name and address on the planning comments so you can publically stand up for what you believe. Hamiltonandy

10:18am Thu 30 Jan 14

justwondering says...

Hamiltonandy wrote:
There you go again "justwondering" accusing me of refusing a meeting with the invisible Jason Woolf. And now you confidently state the neighbours "have now thought more rationally about the whole situation". How patronising. To call this sex club "a credit to" Jason shows you have an unusual view of acceptable behaviour. So go on put your name and address on the planning comments so you can publically stand up for what you believe.
'Unacceptable behaviour' as I see it is being rude, threatening and abusive which you have done continuously Mr Hamilton.

Mr Woolf and Miss Freeman have been nothing but open, honest and respectful, which indeed is a credit to them.

The question is...will you or won't you take up Mr Woolf offer of meeting him and Mr Jennings....I doubt it.
[quote][p][bold]Hamiltonandy[/bold] wrote: There you go again "justwondering" accusing me of refusing a meeting with the invisible Jason Woolf. And now you confidently state the neighbours "have now thought more rationally about the whole situation". How patronising. To call this sex club "a credit to" Jason shows you have an unusual view of acceptable behaviour. So go on put your name and address on the planning comments so you can publically stand up for what you believe.[/p][/quote]'Unacceptable behaviour' as I see it is being rude, threatening and abusive which you have done continuously Mr Hamilton. Mr Woolf and Miss Freeman have been nothing but open, honest and respectful, which indeed is a credit to them. The question is...will you or won't you take up Mr Woolf offer of meeting him and Mr Jennings....I doubt it. justwondering

5:04pm Thu 30 Jan 14

Red Tape 2 says...

It actually doesn't matter if the club gets the go ahead or not as public opposition/protests will soon ensure it is non-commercially viable and so forced to close down.
It actually doesn't matter if the club gets the go ahead or not as public opposition/protests will soon ensure it is non-commercially viable and so forced to close down. Red Tape 2

1:11am Fri 31 Jan 14

Hamiltonandy says...

Contrary to "justwondering" comments it is difficult to meet the invisible Jason Woolf and his partner. The property has been abandoned by them for some days and the post blows round the neighbourhood as there is no letter box. It is of course Jason Woolf's money to lose on this sordid business and his choice. He could have rented a empty unit down Queen Street as that moral cesspool could not be made worse or rent a building down an industrial area well away from the public and having good parking. Instead he insists on this offensive trade in busy Lexden flaunting his lifestyle on this major commuter route near schools.
.
I notice someone has been repeatedly complaining about my posts and getting them deleted. It will not alter the facts and nor will it stop the protests.
Contrary to "justwondering" comments it is difficult to meet the invisible Jason Woolf and his partner. The property has been abandoned by them for some days and the post blows round the neighbourhood as there is no letter box. It is of course Jason Woolf's money to lose on this sordid business and his choice. He could have rented a empty unit down Queen Street as that moral cesspool could not be made worse or rent a building down an industrial area well away from the public and having good parking. Instead he insists on this offensive trade in busy Lexden flaunting his lifestyle on this major commuter route near schools. . I notice someone has been repeatedly complaining about my posts and getting them deleted. It will not alter the facts and nor will it stop the protests. Hamiltonandy

10:31am Sat 1 Feb 14

HARRY438 says...

I don't see the problem.M+S has a deli so why can't S+M?
I don't see the problem.M+S has a deli so why can't S+M? HARRY438

1:52pm Sat 1 Feb 14

stevedawson says...

What ever is the matter with some people.why do they always think their stance is the right one.this establishment will prosper or otherwise on the the support it gets.the council will have conditions imposed on the landlord that he will be obliged to follow.vote ukip.
What ever is the matter with some people.why do they always think their stance is the right one.this establishment will prosper or otherwise on the the support it gets.the council will have conditions imposed on the landlord that he will be obliged to follow.vote ukip. stevedawson

2:50pm Sun 2 Feb 14

Stickman55 says...

Surely swingers have the same rights to be free to do what they do in the privacy of a private club which will not in any way cause noise vandalism and disturbance to its neighbours and any natural human behaviour between consenting free thinking adults will be well hidden from those who do like and cherish their own rights to freedom of speech but seem keen to put a jackboot on those who wish to do something not regarded as spiritually enlightening or brainwashing from the tabloid gutter press with strange Victorian values or religious practice , which no free person would dare to try and oppress
Surely swingers have the same rights to be free to do what they do in the privacy of a private club which will not in any way cause noise vandalism and disturbance to its neighbours and any natural human behaviour between consenting free thinking adults will be well hidden from those who do like and cherish their own rights to freedom of speech but seem keen to put a jackboot on those who wish to do something not regarded as spiritually enlightening or brainwashing from the tabloid gutter press with strange Victorian values or religious practice , which no free person would dare to try and oppress Stickman55

4:27pm Sun 2 Feb 14

Hamiltonandy says...

Guess "Stickman" would support a brothel or strippers joint on the same grounds as long as they were done in a private club. The problem with the present location is that it will cause noise and disturbance to neighbours. Not to mention the traffic chaos.
.
No one seems prepared to support the planning application by writing to the council planning dept. Anonymous supporters of the sex club cannot expect their views to be taken into account by the planning committee.
Guess "Stickman" would support a brothel or strippers joint on the same grounds as long as they were done in a private club. The problem with the present location is that it will cause noise and disturbance to neighbours. Not to mention the traffic chaos. . No one seems prepared to support the planning application by writing to the council planning dept. Anonymous supporters of the sex club cannot expect their views to be taken into account by the planning committee. Hamiltonandy

10:06pm Sun 2 Feb 14

Hamiltonandy says...

Correction. One supporter dated January 29th on the planning application. At least he is publicly standing up for what he believes. So good for you Martyn Goldsmith of Wivenhoe.
Correction. One supporter dated January 29th on the planning application. At least he is publicly standing up for what he believes. So good for you Martyn Goldsmith of Wivenhoe. Hamiltonandy

6:16pm Wed 5 Feb 14

Hamiltonandy says...

I notice the spy cameras attached to the outside of 66a, London Road viewing public areas including the pavement. Jason Woolf might like to hide behind his blocked off windows but he does like to spy on the public. No public notice that he is recording you and I doubt he got official permission. Well he will get a good view of me on the pavement with my protest board - when it stops raining! I am sure none of the public will be inclined to make a few gestures at the cameras or use his post-box as a suggestion box.
I notice the spy cameras attached to the outside of 66a, London Road viewing public areas including the pavement. Jason Woolf might like to hide behind his blocked off windows but he does like to spy on the public. No public notice that he is recording you and I doubt he got official permission. Well he will get a good view of me on the pavement with my protest board - when it stops raining! I am sure none of the public will be inclined to make a few gestures at the cameras or use his post-box as a suggestion box. Hamiltonandy

Comments are closed on this article.

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