Manchester United’s proposal to expand a temporary car park at the Carrington training complex has run into a major hurdle. Counter-terrorism police have raised serious concerns over the site’s exposure to possible threats, while local community groups have also strongly opposed the application on environmental and sustainability grounds.

The club are seeking to continue the use of a temporary facility that was first created for contractors involved in the £50 million refurbishment of the Carrington training complex. However, that proposal has now been significantly held up.

As per a report by Inside Sport, counter-terrorism police assessed the application and identified major security weaknesses. Greater Manchester Police have been in contact with Counter Terrorism officials and have formally written to the local council because of the high-profile nature of the venue. The authorities pointed to a clear absence of secure entry and exit routes for visitors, prompting a strong intervention over the continuing safety of the site for both players and staff.

The police response has been especially firm, with direct warnings issued over the risks created by inadequate security arrangements. In their official communication, the police said they “implore the application to provide suitable secure pedestrian access” so that every visitor entering the site can be properly vetted.

The authorities also specifically warned the council about the genuine possibility of “bad actors” gaining entry to the restricted training ground while concealed within a group of pedestrians. They have formally urged United to significantly strengthen their security measures if the council chooses to approve the disputed expansion plans in the months ahead.

The matter has become even more complicated because of strong opposition from local residents, adding to United’s problems. A campaign group called Friends of Carrington Moss submitted a four-page letter of objection. The group said they were “particularly disappointed that United did not consider it necessary to consult with communities in advance of submission” and argued that the request does not amount to an application for “sustainable development”.

Calling the club’s approach “shameful”, residents added: “The applicant repeatedly states throughout its documentation that Manchester United is a world leading football club. It is clearly not world leading in sustainable operations.” The group also alleged that the club removed two mature trees and fully cleared vegetation from the area.

Manchester United must now wait for the final ruling from the local council on the request for a three-year extension. If the club want to avoid the proposal being turned down, they will probably have to submit revised plans that properly include counter-terrorism measures and respond to the environmental objections. With Greater Manchester Police clearly placing security at the top of the agenda, further delays to construction now look very likely.