Agenda item

Purpose: To adopt the Playing Pitch Strategy developed for West Berkshire.

Resolved that the Playing Pitch Strategy for West Berkshire be adopted.

This decision is eligible to be ‘called-in’.  However, if the decision has not been ‘called-in’ by 5.00pm on Thursday 20 February 2020, then it will be implemented.

(Councillor Lee Dillon declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 14 by virtue of the fact that he was a founder member of Parklife Rovers who played football at Brimpton. However, as his interest was personal and not prejudicial or a disclosable pecuniary interest, he determined to remain to take part in the debate and vote on the matter.)

The Executive considered a report (Agenda Item 14) concerning the adoption of a Playing Pitch Strategy for West Berkshire.

Councillor Rick Jones stated that the Playing Pitch Strategy was an evidence based document that Sport England recommended that Councils produced in order to guide investment, development and improvement in pitch sport facilities and which also met the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework. It would also provide the information to inform responses to proposals and to assist when dealing with Statutory Consultees on matters impacting on playing pitches. It was stressed that this was a district wide document and not just a Council strategy and Councillor Jones welcomed its publication.

Councillor Steve Ardagh-Walter agreed that this was an extensive and  polished strategy with a lot of depth which would provide a rationale when considering proposals. Councillor Rick Jones added that for the first time a survey had been undertaken to consider what pitches were good and what could be improved. It would be a valuable tool for the Planners to use and which could be embedded into new developments. It would also inform Council decisions around need in the Capital Strategy. Cricket and hockey pitches appeared to be well provided and there was high demand for football and rugby pitches. Adult usage was declining but use by younger children was increasing. It would therefore be necessary to work with schools in terms of provision as more artificial pitches were required.

Councillor Dominic Boeck was pleased to see that a further £40m would be spent enhancing schools and their facilities and he felt that the Playing Pitch Strategy would mirror that. He did question the ability to deliver as it was not possible for the Council to do it all. The Council only owned 30% of football sites. The Council did unlock grant funding where it could and hopefully this could be used to fund 3G pitches whilst working with schools to make sure that this happened.

Councillor Richard Somner asked what would happen next but he noted that the number one priority would be to replace the football provision at Faraday Road. Councillor Rick Jones stated that the Playing Pitch Strategy would input into the Leisure Strategy. The Council would start discussions with schools around the 3G provision. The next stage would be to engage with partners on where the need was and to also put the Strategy into the Planning process.

Councillor Erik Pattenden noted that the Strategy highlighted the fact that there was a large deficit of pitches and he therefore questioned whether the closure of Faraday Road now seemed to be a good idea. He also asked when the action plan would be implemented. Councillor Rick Jones responded that the Playing Pitch Strategy illustrated that one additional pitch alone would not address the problem. The action plan committed the Council to follow the Strategy and a large number of the actions the Council would not be able to do on its own. As mentioned previously a lot of the recreation grounds and pitches were not actually owned by the Council.

Councillor Lee Dillon referred to page 354 which mentioned Henwick Worthy Sports Ground and the fact that a master plan would be required for the site. However, this site was co-owned by Thatcham Town Council and that had not been referenced in the Strategy. The site was currently at capacity and it would be necessary to prioritise the different sports which were played on that site. He was aware of the practicalities as he was a member of the Management Committee.

Councillor Adrian Abbs stated that the one thing that the Council had control of it had closed. Councillor Rick Jones confirmed that he had answered that question on numerous occasions. It had been necessary to work to a brief which said that Faraday Road was not available. Councillor Lynne Doherty agreed that this was an issue that had been going on for a long period of time and multiple discussions had taken place on it. Councillor David Marsh responded that despite a number of discussions taking place in respect of Faraday Road there had still not been an acceptable answer. He also referred to page 33 of the Strategy which stated that the replacement site for Faraday Road would be no more than a 20 minute drive away. A 20 minute drive might differ depending on the time of the day and could potentially be a long way away from Newbury. Councillor Rick Jones replied that this was the requirement from Sports England and was not the standard that the Council had adopted. Debate had taken place and it had been agreed that the best location was not right in the town centre due to traffic congestion but on the other hand it should not be too far away and therefore a balance would need to be struck although there was a limit as to what was available.

Councillor Tony Vickers said that high level sport was going to Brimpton and the community use to Northcroft (which was currently flooded). He asked if Northcroft could be discounted. Councillor Rick Jones advised that Brimpton was not figured in the way that it had been interpreted and he also understood the issues around the use of Northcroft.

RESOLVED that the Playing Pitch Strategy for West Berkshire be approved.

Other options considered: Not adopting the Playing Pitch Strategy – this would lead to a positon whereby independently acquired evidence could not be used to support actions in relation to proposals – leading to more issues in relation to statutory consultations (especially with Sport England) and increased risk of challenge to decisions. The alternative would be to pay for evidence to be collected on a case by case basis which would increase cost and not allow proposals and their impact to be viewed on a district wide level.