03/08/2026
๐๐ฟ๐ฒ๐๐ฒ ๐๐ ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐น๐น๐ ๐ณ๐ผ๐ฟ ๐ฎ๐ป๐๐๐ฒ๐ฟ๐ ๐ฎ๐ ๐ณ๐ถ๐๐ฒ-๐บ๐ผ๐ป๐๐ต ๐ฑ๐ฒ๐น๐ฎ๐ ๐ฐ๐ผ๐ป๐๐ถ๐ป๐๐ฒ๐ ๐๐ผ ๐ต๐ผ๐น๐ฑ ๐๐ฝ ๐ณ๐๐น๐น๐ ๐ณ๐๐ป๐ฑ๐ฒ๐ฑ ๐ฝ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ฒ๐น
๐ฑ๐ฒ๐๐ฒ๐น๐ผ๐ฝ๐บ๐ฒ๐ป๐
Crewe FC is calling on Cheshire East Council to explain why a fully funded community padel development, conditionally approved more than five months ago, remains unable to proceed following months of delays, changing requirements and the introduction of a competitive procurement process.
Conditional planning permission for three covered padel courts at Crewe FC's community facility at King George V Playing Fields was granted on 26 February 2026.
The project is funded by Crewe FC, requires no capital contribution from Cheshire East Council or local taxpayers, and has received formal consent from the Football Foundation, Sport England & Fields In Trust.
It is proposed within Crewe FC's existing facility on land already disposed of from the
wider Public Open Space, meaning the Club's scheme requires no additional Public Open Space to be developed or disposed of.
More than five months after planning approval, construction has still not been able to begin.
Crewe FC believes the delays have now gone beyond reasonable governance and are preventing local residents and the wider community from accessing a sporting facility which could potentially already have been built and in use.
๐ ๐ฝ๐ฟ๐ผ๐ฐ๐ฒ๐๐ ๐๐ต๐ฎ๐ ๐ธ๐ฒ๐ฒ๐ฝ๐ ๐ฐ๐ต๐ฎ๐ป๐ด๐ถ๐ป๐ด
Crewe FC has tried throughout the process to engage constructively with Cheshire East and has responded to every requirement placed before it in an effort to move the project forward.
The Council has itself described its existing partnership with Crewe FC, which delivered the 3G facility at King George V, as "highly positive" and previously stated that it wished to work towards "a transparent and constructive way forward."
However, the experience of the Club has been one of repeated delay and an evolving process.
In February, Cheshire East told Crewe FC that, if its planning application was successful, the Council could then "explore the formal process required to vary the lease."
Planning permission was subsequently granted.
Crewe FC secured formal Football Foundation consent for the development and progressed the required Community Use Agreement through the planning process.
The Club was then told that market engagement was required.
Crewe FC participated fully.
Following that exercise, Cheshire East has now determined that a full competitive procurement process is required.
The Council has described that procurement as "largely a procedural requirement."
Crewe FC accepts that Cheshire East must comply with its legal and governance responsibilities and will participate in a fair and lawful procurement process.
What the Club finds increasingly difficult to accept is that each time a requirement has been satisfied, another hurdle has followed.
More than five months after conditional planning permission was granted, the project remains stalled.
๐๐ป ๐ฎ๐ด๐ฟ๐ฒ๐ฒ๐ฑ ๐ฝ๐น๐ฎ๐ป๐ป๐ถ๐ป๐ด ๐ฑ๐ผ๐ฐ๐๐บ๐ฒ๐ป๐ ๐ฟ๐ฒ๐บ๐ฎ๐ถ๐ป๐ ๐๐ป๐๐ถ๐ด๐ป๐ฒ๐ฑ
Crewe FC is particularly concerned by Cheshire East's continuing refusal to execute the Community Use Agreement required to discharge the remaining planning condition.
Sport England and Cheshire East's own Green Infrastructure officers have confirmed that the agreement is acceptable and requires no further amendment.
Cheshire East's Principal Planning Officer subsequently confirmed that the remaining requirement was simply for the agreement to be signed by the relevant person within Cheshire East before the condition could be discharged.
Crewe FC has signed it.
The relevant planning consultees have accepted it.
The contents are not in
dispute.
The outstanding action is Cheshire East's signature.
The Council has linked its refusal to provide that signature to the separate procurement process.
Crewe FC considers planning and procurement to be separate processes and has formally asked Cheshire East to identify the legal and governance basis for withholding ex*****on of an otherwise agreed planning document.
Despite the significance of that question, and the potential impact of the Council's decision on Crewe FC's position in the procurement process, Cheshire East has, to date, provided no response.
The consequence is that Crewe FC is being required to enter a procurement process while unable to demonstrate that its remaining planning condition has been formally discharged because the authority conducting the procurement is itself withholding the signature required to achieve that discharge.
Crewe FC believes that risks unfairly prejudicing the Club's position and has reserved its rights in relation to the matter.
๐ช๐ต๐ผ ๐ฒ๐
๐ฎ๐ฐ๐๐น๐ ๐ถ๐ ๐๐ต๐ฒ ๐๐ผ๐๐ป๐ฐ๐ถ๐น ๐ฝ๐ฟ๐ผ๐ฝ๐ผ๐๐ถ๐ป๐ด ๐ฐ๐ผ๐๐น๐ฑ ๐๐๐ฒ ๐๐ฟ๐ฒ๐๐ฒ ๐๐'๐ ๐น๐ฎ๐ป๐ฑ?
Cheshire East's explanation of the forthcoming procurement has created another significant issue.
The Council has told Crewe FC:
"We will also be prepared to consider alternative proposals, including delivery on the land for which you have already secured planning permission."
The land covered by Crewe FC's planning permission forms part of the Club's lease demise.
Crewe FC's lease restricts assigning, underletting, parting with or sharing possession or occupation of the Property and provides the Club with quiet enjoyment of the demised premises.
The Club's position is therefore unequivocal:
Crewe FC will not consent to another organisation constructing, occupying or independently operating a padel facility within the Club's lease demise.
If Cheshire East believes another provider could nevertheless deliver padel on that land without Crewe FC's consent, the Club believes the Council should explain publicly the contractual basis upon which it believes that could happen.
The Football Foundation position is also significant.
On 18 March 2026, the Foundation formally consented to Crewe FC's proposed padel development.
That consent expressly records that Crewe FC would manage and operate the courts in-house, with surplus reinvested into the facility, and states that the development should support the long-term sustainability of the site.
Crewe FC will protect its lease, its facility and the Football Foundation arrangements governing the site.
๐ฃ๐๐ฏ๐น๐ถ๐ฐ ๐ข๐ฝ๐ฒ๐ป ๐ฆ๐ฝ๐ฎ๐ฐ๐ฒ โ ๐ฎ ๐ฑ๐ถ๐ณ๐ณ๐ถ๐ฐ๐๐น๐ ๐ฐ๐ผ๐ป๐๐ฟ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ถ๐ฐ๐๐ถ๐ผ๐ป
Cheshire East previously cited concerns it had received regarding increased occupation of designated Public Open Space as one of the issues surrounding Crewe FC's proposal.
The Council has subsequently acknowledged, however, that the specific area covered by Crewe FC's planning application forms part of the land already disposed of as part of the existing development.
Crewe FC's scheme therefore requires no additional Public Open Space to be developed or disposed of.
Despite this, Cheshire East has stated that if Crewe FC is unsuccessful through procurement, it wishes to retain flexibility to consider alternative locations within the wider King George V site.
That position is difficult for the Club to reconcile.
Having previously raised concerns about increased occupation of Public Open Space, the Council is now contemplating a process which could result in an alternative development elsewhere at King George V potentially requiring precisely that, while a funded, planning-approved proposal already exists on land previously disposed of.
Crewe FC believes the local community is entitled to understand the rationale for that approach.
๐ง๐ต๐ฒ ๐ต๐ถ๐๐๐ผ๐ฟ๐ ๐ผ๐ณ ๐๐ต๐ฒ ๐น๐ฒ๐ฎ๐๐ฒ ๐ฏ๐ผ๐๐ป๐ฑ๐ฎ๐ฟ๐
The Club also believes events surrounding the lease plan are now relevant.
Cheshire East had been expressly informed that Crewe FC's proposed padel development sat within the Club's proposed lease demise.
During finalisation of the lease, the Council produced a plan containing the relevant land, which Crewe FC authorised.
Less than ten days later, another Council plan was issued which removed the area relevant to the proposed padel development.
Crewe FC challenged the change immediately.
Cheshire East apologised and explained that the plan did not reflect its intended amendment, specifically confirming that the intention had been "not to alter the area adjacent to the play area."
A corrected plan restoring the area was subsequently issued and agreed.
Crewe FC accepted that explanation and makes no allegation as to why the incorrect plan was produced.
However, given the Council's subsequent statement that it may consider another provider delivering padel on the land for which Crewe FC has planning permission, the sequence inevitably raises questions which did not exist when the Club accepted that explanation.
๐ ๐๐ฒ๐ฟ๐ ๐ฑ๐ถ๐ณ๐ณ๐ฒ๐ฟ๐ฒ๐ป๐ ๐ฎ๐ฝ๐ฝ๐ฟ๐ผ๐ฎ๐ฐ๐ต ๐ฒ๐น๐๐ฒ๐๐ต๐ฒ๐ฟ๐ฒ
There is also a significant contrast with Cheshire East's previous approach to padel development.
In August 2025, Cheshire East approved ยฃ490,000 of public capital funding for padel facilities to be delivered through Everybody Health & Leisure at Wilmslow Leisure Centre and Barony Sports Complex.
The Council's own decision record stated that Everybody would manage the supply chain and recorded:
"No other alternatives have been considered."
Crewe FC recognises that the contractual circumstances are different and does not suggest that the situations are legally identical.
However, the contrast deserves scrutiny.
Cheshire East was prepared to commit almost half a million pounds of public money to padel facilities delivered through its existing leisure partner.
Crewe FC's development requires no Council capital funding whatsoever. It is funded by the Club, has planning permission, has formal Football Foundation & Sport England consent and can be delivered without developing additional Public Open Space.
Yet Crewe FC is now required to compete through procurement for the opportunity to deliver the project it independently developed.
The Club believes Cheshire East should be prepared to explain publicly why the two approaches are so fundamentally different.
Crewe FC Chairman Steve Parker said:
"We've tried throughout this process to engage constructively with Cheshire East and have responded to every requirement placed before us in an effort to move the project forward.
"Conditional planning permission was granted on 26 February. We're now more than five months on and we're still unable to build.
"Crewe FC developed the project, will fund it, have obtained planning permission and secured formal consent from the Football Foundation. We're not asking Cheshire East or local taxpayers for a penny towards construction.
"What has become increasingly frustrating is that every time we satisfy one requirement, another process seems to follow.
"We were told that if planning permission was secured, the Council could explore the process required to deal with the lease. We secured planning. Then came market engagement. We participated fully. Now we're being required to go through a full procurement exercise.
"Meanwhile, Cheshire East is refusing to sign a Community Use Agreement which has already been accepted through the planning process. We've formally asked for the legal and governance basis for withholding it and haven't received an answer.
"That leaves us in the extraordinary position where the only reason we cannot enter the Council's procurement process with our remaining planning condition formally discharged is because the Council itself won't provide the signature Planning requires.
"We're also being told that another organisation could potentially propose to deliver padel on land within our facility. Our position could not be clearer:
Crewe FC will not consent to another operator
occupying part of our leased facility to build and independently operate padel courts.
"There is also a contradiction around Public Open Space. Cheshire East previously raised concerns about increased occupation of it. Our development avoids that because it sits on land already disposed of. Yet the Council is now talking about alternative locations elsewhere at King George V if somebody else is selected.
"And while all this continues, the people losing out are the community.
"This isn't just paperwork moving between Crewe FC and Cheshire East. Every month this drags on is another month local residents and the wider community are denied access to a new sporting facility that is funded and ready to be delivered.
"Had we been able to progress following planning approval in February, the courts could potentially have been built and in use by now.
"We're not asking for preferential treatment. If Cheshire East believes procurement is legally required, we'll participate and our proposal can stand on its merits.
"But after months of delays, changing requirements and unanswered questions, there needs to be some accountability for why this project is still being prevented from progressing.
"Cheshire East has described our existing partnership as 'highly positive' and said it wants a 'transparent and constructive way forward'. We want that too.
"But actions have to match those words. This project is funded, has planning permission, has Football Foundation consent and requires no Council capital funding or additional Public Open Space. We just want to get on and build it for the community."
Crewe FC remains prepared to engage with Cheshire East and participate in the forthcoming procurement process.
However, after more than five months of delay since conditional planning permission was granted, the Club believes Cheshire East must now provide clear answers on why the agreed Community Use Agreement remains unsigned, how another operator could use land within Crewe FC's lease demise, and why a fully funded community sports development remains unable to progress.
Crewe FC is ready to deliver. The community should not have to keep waiting.
Crewe FC
