To report any issues with the information below please email executivecycle@westberks.gov.uk.

Agenda item

Newbury Sports Ground Update (Urgent Item)

Purpose:

1.1         To update on progress with the development of a sports ground in Newbury.

1.2         To seek approval from the Executive for the Head of Public Protection and Culture, in consultation with the Portfolio Holder for Leisure and Culture, to enter into the detailed negotiations on the heads of terms with the Newbury Rugby Club in relation to the Newbury Sports Ground project.

1.3         To make provision for the financial implications of the proposed development within the 2021/22 capital budget and the 2021/22-2024 Medium Term Financial Strategy.

Minutes:

The Executive considered a report (Agenda Item 7) concerning an update on progress with the development of a sports ground in Newbury. It also sought approval from the Executive for the Head of Public Protection and Culture, in consultation with the Portfolio Holder for Leisure and Culture, to enter into the detailed negotiations on the heads of terms with the Newbury Rugby Club in relation to the Newbury Sports Ground project. Provision for the financial implications of the proposed development within the 2021/22 Capital budget and the 2021/2022-24 Medium Term Financial Strategy would also be required.

Councillor Howard Woollaston in introducing the report stated that it could already be seen from the sheer quantity of public questions that there was considerable interest in this proposal.

The report purely sought approval for Officers to agree terms within parameters and was not a final sign off. This would hopefully happen in April 2021. He was sure that most of the issues had been addressed in the public questions that had already been answered earlier in the evening.

Councillor Woollaston added that the proposal addressed the requirements the Council agreed to as part of the London Road Industrial Estate Regeneration in that it was in an ideal position, it cemented community sporting in Newbury, it would provide a facility which the community could be proud of as a town and allow Newbury’s men’s and ladies teams to scale the ladders of their respective leagues. The scheme was future-proofed to a Step 5 facility with relatively minimal additional expenditure required. The Council would be commencing a public consultation exercise which he hoped would endorse the proposal and he was delighted to recommend the report.

Councillor Lynne Doherty seconded the report. She was very exciting about this new option as she had grown up living in Newbury. The Playing Pitch Strategy set out that the Council needed to seek a replacement for the Faraday Road site. Putting together a site analysis and identifying the preferred options at the same time as the pandemic had not been an easy task. However, public consultation had been undertaken to seek the views of members of the public and key stakeholders and the results of that consultation had been taken into consideration. The proposed site at Newbury Rugby Club was not in the Council’s ownership but it was a promising option which the Council would continue to pursue whilst at the same time continuing to develop a Plan B. She was therefore happy to second the report which would be a positive step for Newbury provided that all parties were willing to collaborate.

Councillor Richard Somner was also supportive of the proposal. Reading Football Club and London Irish Rugby Team had shared a ground for a number of years and this was becoming a popular and successful option for a lot of clubs.

Councillor Lee Dillon responded that the Playing Pitch Strategy showed that there was a lack of 3G sports provision in the area and therefore this proposal should be welcomed. However, he was struggling to equate the provision of one 3G pitch with the loss of two pitches at the Faraday Road site as it was not comparable. He welcomed the consultation that had taken place but he felt that Plan B for The Diamond at Pigeon’s Farm was not a suitable site and he had been surprised to see it included in the report as a failsafe. Councillor Dillon suggested that indicative costings around the proposed provision could be made available in time for the consultation. However, Councillor Lynne Doherty stated that that information was commercially sensitive at this time.

Councillor Howard Woollaston responded to the point made about one 3G pitch replacing two pitches and he said that the 3G pitch would be able to be used more extensively. The Council were looking to provide further 3G pitches over the next few years. Sports England recommended only using grass pitches four times a week. 

Councillor Jeff Brooks asked for clarity around what impact would moving Newbury Football Club up to Pinchington Lane have on the Town Centre – had any assessment been done. Councillor Howard Woollaston confirmed that no assessment of that had been carried out at this stage as it was premature. The site was within a 20 minute walk of the Town Centre.

Councillor Tony Vickers stated that there were a number of red lights around this project and he felt that the Council was unlikely to achieve its objective. Football and Rugby communities did not tend to get on. He noted that there was no planning consent in place for the demolition of the football club in Faraday Road and there was no planning policy in place for the London Road Industrial Estate. He was in favour of redevelopment and felt that there was nothing wrong with retaining the football ground in the Town Centre. He asked whether Sports England or the Football Association could veto all of the proposal if they did not give their approval. Councillor Howard Woollaston responded that all the views received to date had been very positive and there was no reason for them not to support the proposal. Councillor Ross Mackinnon stated that planning permission for the facility would be considered on its own merits and the application for consent to demolish the Faraday Road site was on its way to planning.

Councillor Adrian Abbs stated that he, along with Councillor Vickers, was a Ward Member for Wash Common and he was also a member of the Parish Council and had not been consulted on the proposals. He had also not been consulted on the plan to use The Diamond as a fallback position. This would not be a suitable site and would not be popular with people who used this valuable community asset. He asked if the Parish Council and the local community could be involved in any future decisions.

Councillor Alan Macro noted that it was proposed to start construction in mid-late 2021 and that it would open in March 2022. This sounded like a very ambitious timescale and he queried how confident was the Council that this could be achieved. Councillor Woollaston accepted that it was stretching but that it would be achievable.

Councillor David Marsh was concerned that the Council was jumping the gun and entering into detailed negotiations prior to any consultation having taken place. What if there were members of the community or key stakeholders who were against this proposal – how much of that would be taken into account if negotiations had already commenced. Councillor Woollaston confirmed that the Council had already been in contact with local football clubs and had received positive feedback. Councillor Lynne Doherty confirmed that the consultation would be meaningful and that part of the consultation would include a plan of the proposed facility.

Councillor Erik Pattenden confirmed that he was a Ward Member for Greenham and agreed that The Diamond was not suitable as a Plan B site. It was too small, had limited access and parking and would be a loss to the local community. It should therefore not be included as a backup. He asked what additional risk would be placed on the project with no suitable Plan B in place. Councillor Woollaston replied that discussions with the Rugby Club were positive and it was not anticipated that there would be any need to have a backup in place.

Councillor Steve Masters raised a number of points. He acknowledged that the timeframe was tight and was therefore a risk which could bring reputational harm to the Council. He referred to paragraph 4.7 of the report where he noted that it was proposed to bring in external project management and he asked whether that was a reflection of a lack of confidence that this could be delivered internally. The site was located adjacent to the proposed Sandleford development site and he asked whether any traffic modelling had been undertaken to consider the impact of that. He was concerned that the site would be a 25-30 minute walk into the Town Centre whereas the Faraday Road site was within a five minute walk. Councillor Masters asked how many meetings had taken place with Sport England and the Football Association in the last few months and whether the assurances received had been verbal or in writing. He also asked if stakeholders would be part of the working group going forward.

Councillor Howard Woollaston responded that it was necessary to decouple what had happened in the past. It would be necessary to appoint a specialist Project Manager and the appointment to that post should be confirmed soon. He felt that the proposal would not create a huge increase in traffic volume. Councillor Lynne Doherty added that the proposal had yet to go through the planning process when a lot of these queries would be addressed. There would be a risk register in place for the project.

Councillor Phil Barnett had a number of concerns particularly in relation to traffic generation. He gave an example of the sports ground at Henwick Lane which generated quite a bit of additional traffic. The site at Pigeon’s Farm wold not be able to accommodate that level of increase and he would not want to see the current activities which took place on that site lost. All of these points needed to be considered. 

RESOLVED that:

(1)       A public consultation be carried out in relation to the proposed provision to develop a new sports ground with facilities at Newbury Rugby Club.

(2)       The allocation of funds (as detailed in the Part 2 Report) in the 2021/22 Capital Programme be approved and recommended to the Council meeting on 2nd March 2021 (as part of the Budgetary framework).

(3)       The findings of the Consult QRD report be acknowledged and the allocation of funds (as detailed in the Part 2 Report) to the 2021/22 Revenue Budget to the Council meeting on 2nd March 2021 (as part of the Budgetary framework) be approved and recommended to operate the site for the term of the lease, once negotiated.

(4)       The draft heads of terms (as detailed in the Part 2 Report) with the Newbury Rugby Club be approved.

(5)       Delegated authority be given to the Head of Public Protection and Culture, in consultation with the Portfolio Holder for Leisure and Culture, to enter into detailed negotiation on the heads of terms with the Newbury Rugby Club with final documents to be considered by the Executive.  

Other options considered:

The Council commissioned feasibility studies at three locations where the Council was the land owner; Northcroft, Henwick, and The Diamond. Each were deliverable to varying degree. Northcroft was considered too risky to proceed given observations about planning issues. Henwick was deliverable but was discounted by Operations Board because it was outside the Newbury settlement and The Diamond site was seen as a satisfactory but not ideal location.

Redevelop Faraday Road – the option to retain a sports ground at this location had been discounted through the London Road Industrial Estate Project Board given the wider regeneration aspirations of the Council which had been in place for nearly 20 years.

Locate a new sports ground at ‘The Diamond’ at Pigeons Farm, Newbury. This site was not considered as desirable by the Project Board and had more issues to contend with based on the SSL report commissioned. The site was owned by the Council and could accommodate a step 6 facility.

Supporting documents: