£70million for new shopping mall in Colchester

An artist's impression from 2012 shows how Vineyard Gate shopping centre could look.

An artist's impression from 2012 shows how Vineyard Gate shopping centre could look.

First published in News
Last updated

PLANS for a £70million roofed shopping centre in Colchester are set to be made public.

The Vineyard Gate development will include a large anchor store as well as a number of smaller shops and restaurants.

Colchester Council plans to plough £5million into the project, with the remainder of the money coming from private investors.

The 175,000sq feet shopping centre would create 750 jobs, but work may not start for up to two years while planning permission is sought and full details are thrashed out.

Residents will also be able to give their views in a public consultation.

Anne Turrell, leader of Colchester Council, said: “This has been hanging around for years, but no we can say ‘this is going to happen’.

“It shows investors believe Colchester is a good place to invest - they want to come here.

“We have a great town which has a lot to offer.”

She added: “We’re not allowed to name the anchor store, but it has already brought in a number of other stores and is continuing to do so.

“This is something to be excited about.”

Caddick Developments first put forward £250million plans for a 550,000sq feet Vineyard Gate shopping centre in 2002, but work was delayed in 2009 because of the economic downturn.

But last year the developer signalled renewed interest in the site, which includes Vineyard Street car park.

Johnny Caddick, director at Caddick Developments, said: “Caddick Developments remains committed and financially invested in the Vineyard Gate scheme.

“Vineyard Gate will comprise of contemporary retail and leisure units that will be fully integrated with the centre of the town, aimed at attracting new high profile retailers to enhance the existing town centre of Colchester.”

Colchester Council cabinet will debate the plans on Monday, March 17.

Comments (46)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

2:48pm Fri 7 Mar 14

catflap1 says...

more planning blight
more planning blight catflap1
  • Score: -10

4:12pm Fri 7 Mar 14

Ontheball says...

I don't see any roof in that picture, only a canopy which will give little protection.
I don't see any roof in that picture, only a canopy which will give little protection. Ontheball
  • Score: -14

4:45pm Fri 7 Mar 14

angryman!!! says...

Two years for something originally planed for 12 years ago. Surely it can happen quicker than that. Also if these so called big brands are so interested in to coming to Colchester like house of Frazier etc tollgate why not get them in as part if this go back to thd original plans rather than the reduced ones
Two years for something originally planed for 12 years ago. Surely it can happen quicker than that. Also if these so called big brands are so interested in to coming to Colchester like house of Frazier etc tollgate why not get them in as part if this go back to thd original plans rather than the reduced ones angryman!!!
  • Score: -10

5:25pm Fri 7 Mar 14

Smouldering Ewok says...

Skateboarders will love it.
Skateboarders will love it. Smouldering Ewok
  • Score: 0

6:31pm Fri 7 Mar 14

James 1 says...

CBC plan to invest £5m in the project ?
According to the rhetoric from the Town Hall, they couldn't put £5 into it.

So, Anne Tyrell, perhaps you would care to tell us where the money is coming from.
CBC plan to invest £5m in the project ? According to the rhetoric from the Town Hall, they couldn't put £5 into it. So, Anne Tyrell, perhaps you would care to tell us where the money is coming from. James 1
  • Score: 6

7:18pm Fri 7 Mar 14

DailyGazette says...

Because the rest of the town is doing so well.
Because the rest of the town is doing so well. DailyGazette
  • Score: 1

7:46pm Fri 7 Mar 14

Shrub Ender says...

Where on earth do they get these ideas.....
Car park lost, historic wall no doubt trashed, view onto back of old scruffy buliding, no infastructure to cope with traffic. Another VAF style overspend inevitable
Where on earth do they get these ideas..... Car park lost, historic wall no doubt trashed, view onto back of old scruffy buliding, no infastructure to cope with traffic. Another VAF style overspend inevitable Shrub Ender
  • Score: 8

8:03pm Fri 7 Mar 14

angryman!!! says...

Well judging by the comments on here they get it from people of Colchester, people are always moaning about lack of good shops so a purpose built centre in town shoukd be a good thing.
Agree parking should be replaced but it is a tiny car park so shouldn't be to hard. Reference the wall I'd imagine it would be beneficial, as the centre would look into it they would want to make more of a feature of it, surely can't be worse than it is at the moment.
Well judging by the comments on here they get it from people of Colchester, people are always moaning about lack of good shops so a purpose built centre in town shoukd be a good thing. Agree parking should be replaced but it is a tiny car park so shouldn't be to hard. Reference the wall I'd imagine it would be beneficial, as the centre would look into it they would want to make more of a feature of it, surely can't be worse than it is at the moment. angryman!!!
  • Score: 19

9:12pm Fri 7 Mar 14

colcestrian says...

So the council will debate the plans on 17th March, yet the article in today's paper states that the developer won't be submitting plans for a couple of months, so what plans will be discussed on 17th ? Or is it a case of they give it the go ahead without knowing exactly what is going to be built and then discover all the problems that will arise !
So the council will debate the plans on 17th March, yet the article in today's paper states that the developer won't be submitting plans for a couple of months, so what plans will be discussed on 17th ? Or is it a case of they give it the go ahead without knowing exactly what is going to be built and then discover all the problems that will arise ! colcestrian
  • Score: 0

10:45pm Fri 7 Mar 14

Reginald47 says...

What a bunch of whingers.
What a bunch of whingers. Reginald47
  • Score: 16

12:29am Sat 8 Mar 14

linton68 says...

Reginald47 wrote:
What a bunch of whingers.
I thought that too
[quote][p][bold]Reginald47[/bold] wrote: What a bunch of whingers.[/p][/quote]I thought that too linton68
  • Score: 3

12:39am Sat 8 Mar 14

Boris says...

linton68 wrote:
Reginald47 wrote:
What a bunch of whingers.
I thought that too
How can either of you expect anything else, when the "plans" are so vague , with an artist's drawing which is 8 or 9 years old, and there is such secrecy about which "anchor" store is coming?
It is pointless to be relentlessly positive about pie-in-the-sky projects.
[quote][p][bold]linton68[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Reginald47[/bold] wrote: What a bunch of whingers.[/p][/quote]I thought that too[/p][/quote]How can either of you expect anything else, when the "plans" are so vague , with an artist's drawing which is 8 or 9 years old, and there is such secrecy about which "anchor" store is coming? It is pointless to be relentlessly positive about pie-in-the-sky projects. Boris
  • Score: 0

1:20am Sat 8 Mar 14

MooGirl says...

Can I just throw in to the room, 70 million?
Can I just throw in to the room, 70 million? MooGirl
  • Score: -6

8:10am Sat 8 Mar 14

hazel1379 says...

with all the empty shops we already have in Colchester wouldn't the money be better spent on fixing potholes & pavements & sorting out the long awaited park & ride. This would encourage more shoppers to our town & then we could think about something like this if needed; after all we do already have Culver square & lots of cafes & little shops
with all the empty shops we already have in Colchester wouldn't the money be better spent on fixing potholes & pavements & sorting out the long awaited park & ride. This would encourage more shoppers to our town & then we could think about something like this if needed; after all we do already have Culver square & lots of cafes & little shops hazel1379
  • Score: 8

8:51am Sat 8 Mar 14

paperboy10 says...

Any development like this is a good thing for Colchester. We should get the moaning minnies to dig the foundations.
Any development like this is a good thing for Colchester. We should get the moaning minnies to dig the foundations. paperboy10
  • Score: 6

9:13am Sat 8 Mar 14

totallyfootball says...

Finally investing money in a town that died years ago, well done CBC you never cease to amaze us!
Finally investing money in a town that died years ago, well done CBC you never cease to amaze us! totallyfootball
  • Score: 0

10:27am Sat 8 Mar 14

A Very Private Gentleman says...

This was touted around in 2005 & 2006.
Nothing came of it.
Probably the only way to save Colchester from the onslaught of The factory shopping outlet arising at Freegate sorry Tollgate:
Positive & Negative Externalities:
1. Colchester Council & The Teflon's will be able to cream more car parking charges out of shoppers.
2. The town centre will get a fairly long Stay Of Execution:
3. I might be able to buy some low price high quality underwear.
4. Counsellor Bill Frame will be able to do more shopping and be happy
5. More money will come to the town, which may in turn reduce our Council Tax charge:
(I do presume the stationeries are gong to run out of brown envelopes again)?
AVPG.
:-(
Do we hold the Guinness record in our usage second to London
This was touted around in 2005 & 2006. Nothing came of it. Probably the only way to save Colchester from the onslaught of The factory shopping outlet arising at Freegate sorry Tollgate: Positive & Negative Externalities: 1. Colchester Council & The Teflon's will be able to cream more car parking charges out of shoppers. 2. The town centre will get a fairly long Stay Of Execution: 3. I might be able to buy some low price high quality underwear. 4. Counsellor Bill Frame will be able to do more shopping and be happy 5. More money will come to the town, which may in turn reduce our Council Tax charge: (I do presume the stationeries are gong to run out of brown envelopes again)? AVPG. :-( Do we hold the Guinness record in our usage second to London A Very Private Gentleman
  • Score: -13

10:57am Sat 8 Mar 14

blackrat2 says...

Nice idea IF anybody could get to the town centre without sitting in long traffic queues or paying extortionate public transport fares - nobody will come to town until the access problems are sorted - put some sensible thought into this first before shovelling more of our money into the pit.
Nice idea IF anybody could get to the town centre without sitting in long traffic queues or paying extortionate public transport fares - nobody will come to town until the access problems are sorted - put some sensible thought into this first before shovelling more of our money into the pit. blackrat2
  • Score: 8

12:33pm Sat 8 Mar 14

Checkout says...

A Very Private Gentleman says...twaddle as usual.
A Very Private Gentleman says...twaddle as usual. Checkout
  • Score: 11

1:59pm Sat 8 Mar 14

Reginald47 says...

Boris wrote:
linton68 wrote:
Reginald47 wrote: What a bunch of whingers.
I thought that too
How can either of you expect anything else, when the "plans" are so vague , with an artist's drawing which is 8 or 9 years old, and there is such secrecy about which "anchor" store is coming? It is pointless to be relentlessly positive about pie-in-the-sky projects.
You know better than that Boris - you are commenting on a newspaper story in which the Gazette have chosen to use an old illustration, you are not commenting on what is in the agenda for the Cabinet meeting or on the contents of the presentation to be made at that meeting. Perhaps there is secrecy about the 'anchor' store because the 'anchor' store wants it that way for now.
[quote][p][bold]Boris[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]linton68[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Reginald47[/bold] wrote: What a bunch of whingers.[/p][/quote]I thought that too[/p][/quote]How can either of you expect anything else, when the "plans" are so vague , with an artist's drawing which is 8 or 9 years old, and there is such secrecy about which "anchor" store is coming? It is pointless to be relentlessly positive about pie-in-the-sky projects.[/p][/quote]You know better than that Boris - you are commenting on a newspaper story in which the Gazette have chosen to use an old illustration, you are not commenting on what is in the agenda for the Cabinet meeting or on the contents of the presentation to be made at that meeting. Perhaps there is secrecy about the 'anchor' store because the 'anchor' store wants it that way for now. Reginald47
  • Score: 1

2:36pm Sat 8 Mar 14

mirokou says...

With the amount of buildings vacant within the town centre including two ex department stores surely it should be invested elsewhere and encouragement given to the anchor store to consider this . Our High street looks run down and in serious need of building maintenance . Why are landlords not enforced to maintain their buildings. The old JJB site is prime development and an occasional shop turning up for 3 months is not a solution . Place 2 key department stores at either end of the High street and the rest should fall in to place.
With the amount of buildings vacant within the town centre including two ex department stores surely it should be invested elsewhere and encouragement given to the anchor store to consider this . Our High street looks run down and in serious need of building maintenance . Why are landlords not enforced to maintain their buildings. The old JJB site is prime development and an occasional shop turning up for 3 months is not a solution . Place 2 key department stores at either end of the High street and the rest should fall in to place. mirokou
  • Score: 7

5:35pm Sat 8 Mar 14

jut1972 says...

Mirokou JJB is to become a branch of the entertainer
Mirokou JJB is to become a branch of the entertainer jut1972
  • Score: -1

5:38pm Sat 8 Mar 14

jut1972 says...

750 jobs. 70 million in investment and STILL people moan...
750 jobs. 70 million in investment and STILL people moan... jut1972
  • Score: 5

6:44pm Sat 8 Mar 14

annaclairei says...

So long as it doesn't spoil the town and lose its quaintness.
So long as it doesn't spoil the town and lose its quaintness. annaclairei
  • Score: 1

8:46pm Sat 8 Mar 14

A Very Private Gentleman says...

Checkout wrote:
A Very Private Gentleman says...twaddle as usual.
Do you work on one Checkout?

Your mind seems to be wandering.
[quote][p][bold]Checkout[/bold] wrote: A Very Private Gentleman says...twaddle as usual.[/p][/quote]Do you work on one Checkout? Your mind seems to be wandering. A Very Private Gentleman
  • Score: -7

8:48pm Sat 8 Mar 14

A Very Private Gentleman says...

jut1972 wrote:
750 jobs. 70 million in investment and STILL people moan...
FAIRTRADE

750 Jobs for £70 Million

What planet are you on?

That is NOT value for money.

1972 I have got some years on you?
[quote][p][bold]jut1972[/bold] wrote: 750 jobs. 70 million in investment and STILL people moan...[/p][/quote]FAIRTRADE 750 Jobs for £70 Million What planet are you on? That is NOT value for money. 1972 I have got some years on you? A Very Private Gentleman
  • Score: -7

9:36pm Sat 8 Mar 14

Colonel Kurtz says...

Far too good an idea... will be rejected by the council
Far too good an idea... will be rejected by the council Colonel Kurtz
  • Score: 6

10:47pm Sat 8 Mar 14

UndergroundOverground says...

A Very Private Gentleman wrote:
Checkout wrote:
A Very Private Gentleman says...twaddle as usual.
Do you work on one Checkout?

Your mind seems to be wandering.
Yeah checkout have some respect.

Mr Private Gentleman has friends in high places why he even has people that tell him things they have seen elsewhere on the internet, oh yeah top level information is what he is getting I mean dont expect the daft old fool to back any of it up or act on his idle threats (apparently hes chosen to withhold evidence he has of serious misconduct in public office) he can take down half of Colchester police station if he so chooses in future checkout be careful who you mock or you could end up being lied to by a pensioner with an overactive imagination.
[quote][p][bold]A Very Private Gentleman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Checkout[/bold] wrote: A Very Private Gentleman says...twaddle as usual.[/p][/quote]Do you work on one Checkout? Your mind seems to be wandering.[/p][/quote]Yeah checkout have some respect. Mr Private Gentleman has friends in high places why he even has people that tell him things they have seen elsewhere on the internet, oh yeah top level information is what he is getting I mean dont expect the daft old fool to back any of it up or act on his idle threats (apparently hes chosen to withhold evidence he has of serious misconduct in public office) he can take down half of Colchester police station if he so chooses in future checkout be careful who you mock or you could end up being lied to by a pensioner with an overactive imagination. UndergroundOverground
  • Score: 1

10:49pm Sat 8 Mar 14

suzywright says...

I don't understand the secrecy of the anchor, if the deal has already been done. Unless they think the anchor will jump ship and go to Tollgate! Personally, I don't believe an anchor has been secured, maybe terms have been agreed, but if a contract had been exchanged, surely, it wouldn't need to be a secret!
I think it's great that Colchester has all this interest, but seriously, does the town have capacity for the £35m W&G scheme, the St.Botolphs quarter (which has a developer approved by CBC but no financial backer!), plus the Vineyard gate Scheme, with a mystery anchor!
I'm sure Hugo Fenwick is not going to be too thrilled about an anchor tenant on the other side of town (if it is a retailer, new multiplex cinema anyone!?).
Why oh why doesn't the council focus on the high street and its struggling boutique retailers rather than creating new development?
I don't understand the secrecy of the anchor, if the deal has already been done. Unless they think the anchor will jump ship and go to Tollgate! Personally, I don't believe an anchor has been secured, maybe terms have been agreed, but if a contract had been exchanged, surely, it wouldn't need to be a secret! I think it's great that Colchester has all this interest, but seriously, does the town have capacity for the £35m W&G scheme, the St.Botolphs quarter (which has a developer approved by CBC but no financial backer!), plus the Vineyard gate Scheme, with a mystery anchor! I'm sure Hugo Fenwick is not going to be too thrilled about an anchor tenant on the other side of town (if it is a retailer, new multiplex cinema anyone!?). Why oh why doesn't the council focus on the high street and its struggling boutique retailers rather than creating new development? suzywright
  • Score: 2

1:12am Sun 9 Mar 14

Boris says...

paperboy10 wrote:
Any development like this is a good thing for Colchester. We should get the moaning minnies to dig the foundations.
Take your bucket and spade along and dig them yourself.
[quote][p][bold]paperboy10[/bold] wrote: Any development like this is a good thing for Colchester. We should get the moaning minnies to dig the foundations.[/p][/quote]Take your bucket and spade along and dig them yourself. Boris
  • Score: -7

1:30am Sun 9 Mar 14

Boris says...

Reginald47 wrote:
Boris wrote:
linton68 wrote:
Reginald47 wrote: What a bunch of whingers.
I thought that too
How can either of you expect anything else, when the "plans" are so vague , with an artist's drawing which is 8 or 9 years old, and there is such secrecy about which "anchor" store is coming? It is pointless to be relentlessly positive about pie-in-the-sky projects.
You know better than that Boris - you are commenting on a newspaper story in which the Gazette have chosen to use an old illustration, you are not commenting on what is in the agenda for the Cabinet meeting or on the contents of the presentation to be made at that meeting. Perhaps there is secrecy about the 'anchor' store because the 'anchor' store wants it that way for now.
No Reggie, I am just an ordinary member of the public, so the only information I have is this newspaper story. You may have seen the agenda for the cabinet meeting, and you may have knowledge of what is to be presented to the meeting. I haven't. I therefore can only base my comments on what I have been told. The paper claims the illustration is from 2012, but it looks identical to one that appeared in about 2005, when the plan was a lot more grandiose than now. For all of us Gazette readers, the picture above is of the current project.
What is certain is that the "anchor store" does not exist, in that it has not put pen to paper and irrevocably committed itself to this development. If it had, then, as suzywright says, it would be happy for its name to made public. Instead of saying "The Vineyard Gate development will include a large anchor store", the Gazette should be saying "the developer and CBC hope to attract a prime tenant for a large anchor store".
CBC should learn from the fiasco of the Garbe hotel project for Queen Street, where that company for several years was the preferred bidder for the old Keddies building, and then pulled out, having brought no benefit whatsoever to our town, and having blocked other possible projects from being put forward.
[quote][p][bold]Reginald47[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Boris[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]linton68[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Reginald47[/bold] wrote: What a bunch of whingers.[/p][/quote]I thought that too[/p][/quote]How can either of you expect anything else, when the "plans" are so vague , with an artist's drawing which is 8 or 9 years old, and there is such secrecy about which "anchor" store is coming? It is pointless to be relentlessly positive about pie-in-the-sky projects.[/p][/quote]You know better than that Boris - you are commenting on a newspaper story in which the Gazette have chosen to use an old illustration, you are not commenting on what is in the agenda for the Cabinet meeting or on the contents of the presentation to be made at that meeting. Perhaps there is secrecy about the 'anchor' store because the 'anchor' store wants it that way for now.[/p][/quote]No Reggie, I am just an ordinary member of the public, so the only information I have is this newspaper story. You may have seen the agenda for the cabinet meeting, and you may have knowledge of what is to be presented to the meeting. I haven't. I therefore can only base my comments on what I have been told. The paper claims the illustration is from 2012, but it looks identical to one that appeared in about 2005, when the plan was a lot more grandiose than now. For all of us Gazette readers, the picture above is of the current project. What is certain is that the "anchor store" does not exist, in that it has not put pen to paper and irrevocably committed itself to this development. If it had, then, as suzywright says, it would be happy for its name to made public. Instead of saying "The Vineyard Gate development will include a large anchor store", the Gazette should be saying "the developer and CBC hope to attract a prime tenant for a large anchor store". CBC should learn from the fiasco of the Garbe hotel project for Queen Street, where that company for several years was the preferred bidder for the old Keddies building, and then pulled out, having brought no benefit whatsoever to our town, and having blocked other possible projects from being put forward. Boris
  • Score: -1

1:04pm Sun 9 Mar 14

Jess Jephcott says...

I am all for this development and, as usual, cannot see what all the whining is about. The usual anonymous suspects turn up here and run anything like this down for reasons I cannot understand. I just assume it is on a par with why a dog licks its private parts. But what my very relevant misunderstanding is how our council can crow about things like this, without a mention of how people are meant to access the town. We have a clear lack of parking and public transport, with legendary traffic congestion. How will people access the town so that these wonderful new developments can be best used?
I am all for this development and, as usual, cannot see what all the whining is about. The usual anonymous suspects turn up here and run anything like this down for reasons I cannot understand. I just assume it is on a par with why a dog licks its private parts. But what my very relevant misunderstanding is how our council can crow about things like this, without a mention of how people are meant to access the town. We have a clear lack of parking and public transport, with legendary traffic congestion. How will people access the town so that these wonderful new developments can be best used? Jess Jephcott
  • Score: -1

3:28pm Sun 9 Mar 14

jut1972 says...

A Very Private Gentleman wrote:
jut1972 wrote:
750 jobs. 70 million in investment and STILL people moan...
FAIRTRADE

750 Jobs for £70 Million

What planet are you on?

That is NOT value for money.

1972 I have got some years on you?
.....
The council pays £5m so that's 6.6k per job. Plus employment for builders, electricians, shop fitters, architects, support staff etc etc etc. ..
recouped through tourism and business rates. The remainder is funded by the shops.

yes I believe you do have some years on me. Not sure why that's relevant. Unless your saying your opinion is therefore more valid. In which case sorry no it isn't.

For Boris and Suze wright it's not uncommon for companies to keep deals quiet. Let's imagine it's primark for example. They then pull out. Your opinion of them goes down accordingly. There's no advantage to them to announce anything till they are ready.
[quote][p][bold]A Very Private Gentleman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jut1972[/bold] wrote: 750 jobs. 70 million in investment and STILL people moan...[/p][/quote]FAIRTRADE 750 Jobs for £70 Million What planet are you on? That is NOT value for money. 1972 I have got some years on you?[/p][/quote]..... The council pays £5m so that's 6.6k per job. Plus employment for builders, electricians, shop fitters, architects, support staff etc etc etc. .. recouped through tourism and business rates. The remainder is funded by the shops. yes I believe you do have some years on me. Not sure why that's relevant. Unless your saying your opinion is therefore more valid. In which case sorry no it isn't. For Boris and Suze wright it's not uncommon for companies to keep deals quiet. Let's imagine it's primark for example. They then pull out. Your opinion of them goes down accordingly. There's no advantage to them to announce anything till they are ready. jut1972
  • Score: 5

10:53am Mon 10 Mar 14

Scoot says...

Anchor tenant being kept secret ? Must be Primark or Poundland otherwise they'd be screaming it from the top of Jumbo...
Anchor tenant being kept secret ? Must be Primark or Poundland otherwise they'd be screaming it from the top of Jumbo... Scoot
  • Score: -7

11:13am Mon 10 Mar 14

SAndrewss says...

Why on Earth are people moaning about this?

It's brilliant news. The only thing that people should be moaning about is that they have to wait two years plus before it even potentially gets going.
Why on Earth are people moaning about this? It's brilliant news. The only thing that people should be moaning about is that they have to wait two years plus before it even potentially gets going. SAndrewss
  • Score: 8

11:27am Mon 10 Mar 14

SAndrewss says...

Jess Jephcott wrote:
I am all for this development and, as usual, cannot see what all the whining is about. The usual anonymous suspects turn up here and run anything like this down for reasons I cannot understand. I just assume it is on a par with why a dog licks its private parts. But what my very relevant misunderstanding is how our council can crow about things like this, without a mention of how people are meant to access the town. We have a clear lack of parking and public transport, with legendary traffic congestion. How will people access the town so that these wonderful new developments can be best used?
Surely, with all of the vacant buildings in the town centre, together with the parking issues that folk seem to enjoy moaning about, then the shops themselves can't be the cause of all of the traffic congestion?

Traffic problems must simply be due to the increase in the population of the town, how would you propose to address them?
[quote][p][bold]Jess Jephcott[/bold] wrote: I am all for this development and, as usual, cannot see what all the whining is about. The usual anonymous suspects turn up here and run anything like this down for reasons I cannot understand. I just assume it is on a par with why a dog licks its private parts. But what my very relevant misunderstanding is how our council can crow about things like this, without a mention of how people are meant to access the town. We have a clear lack of parking and public transport, with legendary traffic congestion. How will people access the town so that these wonderful new developments can be best used?[/p][/quote]Surely, with all of the vacant buildings in the town centre, together with the parking issues that folk seem to enjoy moaning about, then the shops themselves can't be the cause of all of the traffic congestion? Traffic problems must simply be due to the increase in the population of the town, how would you propose to address them? SAndrewss
  • Score: -3

3:02pm Mon 10 Mar 14

catflap1 says...

Jess Jephcott wrote:
I am all for this development and, as usual, cannot see what all the whining is about. The usual anonymous suspects turn up here and run anything like this down for reasons I cannot understand. I just assume it is on a par with why a dog licks its private parts. But what my very relevant misunderstanding is how our council can crow about things like this, without a mention of how people are meant to access the town. We have a clear lack of parking and public transport, with legendary traffic congestion. How will people access the town so that these wonderful new developments can be best used?
they wont... they'll go to Ipswich as they do now.
[quote][p][bold]Jess Jephcott[/bold] wrote: I am all for this development and, as usual, cannot see what all the whining is about. The usual anonymous suspects turn up here and run anything like this down for reasons I cannot understand. I just assume it is on a par with why a dog licks its private parts. But what my very relevant misunderstanding is how our council can crow about things like this, without a mention of how people are meant to access the town. We have a clear lack of parking and public transport, with legendary traffic congestion. How will people access the town so that these wonderful new developments can be best used?[/p][/quote]they wont... they'll go to Ipswich as they do now. catflap1
  • Score: -3

8:08pm Mon 10 Mar 14

A Very Private Gentleman says...

UndergroundOvergroun
d
wrote:
A Very Private Gentleman wrote:
Checkout wrote:
A Very Private Gentleman says...twaddle as usual.
Do you work on one Checkout?

Your mind seems to be wandering.
Yeah checkout have some respect.

Mr Private Gentleman has friends in high places why he even has people that tell him things they have seen elsewhere on the internet, oh yeah top level information is what he is getting I mean dont expect the daft old fool to back any of it up or act on his idle threats (apparently hes chosen to withhold evidence he has of serious misconduct in public office) he can take down half of Colchester police station if he so chooses in future checkout be careful who you mock or you could end up being lied to by a pensioner with an overactive imagination.
Keep taking the tablets WOMBLE
You have just proved you know nothing and you know nobody.
You talk in riddles the twaddle is starting to rub off on yourself,
Slightly Freudian I would say.
What you speak or portray is really what you mirror from your own subconscious.
Let them spend the money I Do Not Care!
Let Your Mates Do What They Want, We Do Not Care!
You carry on spouting your opinions off, I do not care!
The System spends £70 Million on a project like this, let them carry on, know one cares anymore.
It will not extend your life by one single day, or anyone else for that matter.
£70 Million turning the town into a science fiction comic book cartoon, from what was a historic Roman town with class is the legacy.
[quote][p][bold]UndergroundOvergroun d[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]A Very Private Gentleman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Checkout[/bold] wrote: A Very Private Gentleman says...twaddle as usual.[/p][/quote]Do you work on one Checkout? Your mind seems to be wandering.[/p][/quote]Yeah checkout have some respect. Mr Private Gentleman has friends in high places why he even has people that tell him things they have seen elsewhere on the internet, oh yeah top level information is what he is getting I mean dont expect the daft old fool to back any of it up or act on his idle threats (apparently hes chosen to withhold evidence he has of serious misconduct in public office) he can take down half of Colchester police station if he so chooses in future checkout be careful who you mock or you could end up being lied to by a pensioner with an overactive imagination.[/p][/quote]Keep taking the tablets WOMBLE You have just proved you know nothing and you know nobody. You talk in riddles the twaddle is starting to rub off on yourself, Slightly Freudian I would say. What you speak or portray is really what you mirror from your own subconscious. Let them spend the money I Do Not Care! Let Your Mates Do What They Want, We Do Not Care! You carry on spouting your opinions off, I do not care! The System spends £70 Million on a project like this, let them carry on, know one cares anymore. It will not extend your life by one single day, or anyone else for that matter. £70 Million turning the town into a science fiction comic book cartoon, from what was a historic Roman town with class is the legacy. A Very Private Gentleman
  • Score: -2

8:11pm Mon 10 Mar 14

A Very Private Gentleman says...

jut1972 wrote:
A Very Private Gentleman wrote:
jut1972 wrote:
750 jobs. 70 million in investment and STILL people moan...
FAIRTRADE

750 Jobs for £70 Million

What planet are you on?

That is NOT value for money.

1972 I have got some years on you?
.....
The council pays £5m so that's 6.6k per job. Plus employment for builders, electricians, shop fitters, architects, support staff etc etc etc. ..
recouped through tourism and business rates. The remainder is funded by the shops.

yes I believe you do have some years on me. Not sure why that's relevant. Unless your saying your opinion is therefore more valid. In which case sorry no it isn't.

For Boris and Suze wright it's not uncommon for companies to keep deals quiet. Let's imagine it's primark for example. They then pull out. Your opinion of them goes down accordingly. There's no advantage to them to announce anything till they are ready.
Fair quotation and comment:
[quote][p][bold]jut1972[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]A Very Private Gentleman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jut1972[/bold] wrote: 750 jobs. 70 million in investment and STILL people moan...[/p][/quote]FAIRTRADE 750 Jobs for £70 Million What planet are you on? That is NOT value for money. 1972 I have got some years on you?[/p][/quote]..... The council pays £5m so that's 6.6k per job. Plus employment for builders, electricians, shop fitters, architects, support staff etc etc etc. .. recouped through tourism and business rates. The remainder is funded by the shops. yes I believe you do have some years on me. Not sure why that's relevant. Unless your saying your opinion is therefore more valid. In which case sorry no it isn't. For Boris and Suze wright it's not uncommon for companies to keep deals quiet. Let's imagine it's primark for example. They then pull out. Your opinion of them goes down accordingly. There's no advantage to them to announce anything till they are ready.[/p][/quote]Fair quotation and comment: A Very Private Gentleman
  • Score: 3

8:54pm Mon 10 Mar 14

angryman!!! says...

So to avoid traffic in Colchester people will drive up 20minutes up the a12 and sit in traffic going to Ipswich????
I have the misfortune of working in Ipswich and lived there for a couple of years, so I can assure you that argument is bonkers, so well suited to most the comments on here.
This is a good idea, the vast majority of the money is private money bring invested into a part of town most on here like to moan about. As mentioned the only bad bit is the time frame
So to avoid traffic in Colchester people will drive up 20minutes up the a12 and sit in traffic going to Ipswich???? I have the misfortune of working in Ipswich and lived there for a couple of years, so I can assure you that argument is bonkers, so well suited to most the comments on here. This is a good idea, the vast majority of the money is private money bring invested into a part of town most on here like to moan about. As mentioned the only bad bit is the time frame angryman!!!
  • Score: 2

10:08pm Mon 10 Mar 14

Fellulah69 says...

Develop the old Keddies site!!! Spend the money on that eye sore!! Migh attract more people to the other waste of space & money (VAF) and get some use out of it other than skate boarders and teens smoking joints!!
Develop the old Keddies site!!! Spend the money on that eye sore!! Migh attract more people to the other waste of space & money (VAF) and get some use out of it other than skate boarders and teens smoking joints!! Fellulah69
  • Score: -2

11:27am Wed 12 Mar 14

suzywright says...

jut1972 wrote:
A Very Private Gentleman wrote:
jut1972 wrote:
750 jobs. 70 million in investment and STILL people moan...
FAIRTRADE

750 Jobs for £70 Million

What planet are you on?

That is NOT value for money.

1972 I have got some years on you?
.....
The council pays £5m so that's 6.6k per job. Plus employment for builders, electricians, shop fitters, architects, support staff etc etc etc. ..
recouped through tourism and business rates. The remainder is funded by the shops.

yes I believe you do have some years on me. Not sure why that's relevant. Unless your saying your opinion is therefore more valid. In which case sorry no it isn't.

For Boris and Suze wright it's not uncommon for companies to keep deals quiet. Let's imagine it's primark for example. They then pull out. Your opinion of them goes down accordingly. There's no advantage to them to announce anything till they are ready.
According to the press, the anchor has already signed a deal - presumably subject to planning, which CBC will grant. However, the deal with Caddick and CBC has not been agreed and won't be until 17th March when the two meet to discuss the Heads of Terms going forward. IF the Tenant has signed the deal, then it won't be able to pull out unless the deal between CBC and Caddick doesn't materialise. It all hinges on how greedy the developer is and how hungry CBC are to see this happen.
[quote][p][bold]jut1972[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]A Very Private Gentleman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jut1972[/bold] wrote: 750 jobs. 70 million in investment and STILL people moan...[/p][/quote]FAIRTRADE 750 Jobs for £70 Million What planet are you on? That is NOT value for money. 1972 I have got some years on you?[/p][/quote]..... The council pays £5m so that's 6.6k per job. Plus employment for builders, electricians, shop fitters, architects, support staff etc etc etc. .. recouped through tourism and business rates. The remainder is funded by the shops. yes I believe you do have some years on me. Not sure why that's relevant. Unless your saying your opinion is therefore more valid. In which case sorry no it isn't. For Boris and Suze wright it's not uncommon for companies to keep deals quiet. Let's imagine it's primark for example. They then pull out. Your opinion of them goes down accordingly. There's no advantage to them to announce anything till they are ready.[/p][/quote]According to the press, the anchor has already signed a deal - presumably subject to planning, which CBC will grant. However, the deal with Caddick and CBC has not been agreed and won't be until 17th March when the two meet to discuss the Heads of Terms going forward. IF the Tenant has signed the deal, then it won't be able to pull out unless the deal between CBC and Caddick doesn't materialise. It all hinges on how greedy the developer is and how hungry CBC are to see this happen. suzywright
  • Score: 0

1:17pm Fri 14 Mar 14

gilberdian says...

I just pray that the design and build is of the highest quality and that we are not treated as 'Basildon in all but name'.

Specifically, we need to focus on the design of building facing the Abbey Gateway attractive and in scale, or else another beutiful vista of the town will be ruined for ever. It looks tacky; I do hope it's not.
I just pray that the design and build is of the highest quality and that we are not treated as 'Basildon in all but name'. Specifically, we need to focus on the design of building facing the Abbey Gateway attractive and in scale, or else another beutiful vista of the town will be ruined for ever. It looks tacky; I do hope it's not. gilberdian
  • Score: 0

6:22am Fri 21 Mar 14

James.Harrington says...

A welcome opportunity to the town:
Some rather silly and ill thought of remarks on this issue above?
I have just started business in the borough, however I must confess I do not live here yet:
£70 Million is a lot of investment, good will come from this one way or another.
A welcome opportunity to the town: Some rather silly and ill thought of remarks on this issue above? I have just started business in the borough, however I must confess I do not live here yet: £70 Million is a lot of investment, good will come from this one way or another. James.Harrington
  • Score: 3

11:39am Sat 22 Mar 14

Heinz says...

Please spend the money on the plethora of eyesores that litter what was a wonderful town centre. Queen Street and High Street in particular need vast amounts of work.

And the surroundings to VAF are disgraceful, truly disgraceful. I dread to think what visitors there think of the town when they see the old bus station, the back of the old Keddies and the generally unkempt condition of the whole area.
Please spend the money on the plethora of eyesores that litter what was a wonderful town centre. Queen Street and High Street in particular need vast amounts of work. And the surroundings to VAF are disgraceful, truly disgraceful. I dread to think what visitors there think of the town when they see the old bus station, the back of the old Keddies and the generally unkempt condition of the whole area. Heinz
  • Score: 0

1:20pm Tue 1 Apr 14

nbnbnb says...

So more of our Council Tax money to be wasted on something we don't need, and no-one has asked for. Our money going to the developers and 'consultants'. Most people we know avoid the town centre now, parking is crazy and expensive. Loads of 'empty' shops in the town already, why build more. This will be of zero benefit to us, why should we pay for it ?

750 retail jobs created, great, why not invest in rebuilding the Cowdray Centre that was a great focus for real, small companies to start-up, rather than retail units that send our money off to chains and multinationals.
So more of our Council Tax money to be wasted on something we don't need, and no-one has asked for. Our money going to the developers and 'consultants'. Most people we know avoid the town centre now, parking is crazy and expensive. Loads of 'empty' shops in the town already, why build more. This will be of zero benefit to us, why should we pay for it ? 750 retail jobs created, great, why not invest in rebuilding the Cowdray Centre that was a great focus for real, small companies to start-up, rather than retail units that send our money off to chains and multinationals. nbnbnb
  • 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