Agenda item

Purpose: To provide a response to issues raised by Mr Paul Morgan in relation to the Faraday Road Football Ground.

The Commission considered a report concerning the Response to the Faraday Road Football Ground queries (Agenda Item 7).

It was noted that the questions had come from Mr Paul Morgan. The Chairman proposed to suspend standing orders to allow Mr Morgan to speak at the meeting to outline his concerns, and to ask a supplementary question if necessary. This was seconded by Councillor Jeremy Cottam. At the vote, the motion was passed.

Mr Morgan was invited to address the Commission. His full representation can be viewed here: Scrutiny Commission, Tuesday 26 November 2024 - YouTube

Councillor Nigel Foot (Executive Portfolio Holder - Culture, Leisure, Sport and Countryside) and Mr Jon Winstanley (Service Director – Environment) presented the report.

The following points were raised in the debate:

·       It was noted that a spend of £230,000 was referenced in the report, but at Executive on 7^th November 2024, in response to a question from Mr Alan Pearce, Councillor Jeff Brooks had confirmed that £395,000 had been spent, and he had provided a detailed breakdown. Mr Morgan had subsequently indicated that the figure was now £430,000. It was confirmed that the figure in the report related to what had been spent in Phase 1, which was the question asked by Mr Morgan. Officers did not have the figure to hand for the amount spent on the current phase.

·       Members also asked if there were additional costs associated with doing the project in phases. Officers responded that the scheme had been designed so elements provided as part of the initial phases would not need to be replaced in subsequent phases, so there would be no additional cost incurred by doing it this way.

·       Members asked why football was currently being played at Henwick Worthy rather than Faraday Road. It was confirmed that a senior match had been played at Faraday Road, but work was needed to enlarge the changing rooms. Also, the project was being delivered in phases - Phase 1 was complete, and Phase 2 was underway.

·       A question was asked about why changing rooms had been built that did not meet the football league’s requirements. It was explained that the first game of the season had been earlier than expected, which had left no time for a league inspection. Facilities were like-for-like replacements for those previously on the site. However, the football league had subsequently ruled that they were to be treated as new facilities, which meant that larger floorspace standards applied.

·       Members asked how many hours of football had been played on the restored pitch at Faraday Road. Officers were unable to confirm this.

Action: Officers to confirm hours of football played at Faraday Road.

·       Members asked why the pitch could not be booked by members of the public. It was explained that because it was a grass pitch, the number of games had to be limited. Also, the pitch was still being prepared and availability would change over time. It was indicated that members of the public could book the pitch through Newbury Community Football Group (NCFG).

Action: Officers to investigate concerns about members of the public being unable to book the football pitches at Faraday Road and Linear Park, and to confirm whether bookings for Faraday Road had to be made through NCFG.

·       It was queried whether Faraday Road was benefiting NCFG and Newbury Football Club (NFC) rather than local residents. It was confirmed that the aspiration was to have NFC playing at Faraday Road and the Council was working towards this. Members noted that this was different to having football back in the community.

Councillor Jeremy Cottam declared an interest by virtue of the fact that he was Lead Member for Recreation when the ground had been handed to Ecchinswell when Newbury Football Club had failed previously.

·       It was noted that when Henwick Worthy had been established, it had taken six months to make it suitable for play.

·       It was confirmed that WBC used Continental Landscapes to prepare all their pitches. They had been through a competitive procurement process, and they had passed all necessary quality checks. Individual pieces of work could be called off through the contract.

·       It was noted that White Horse Contractors did not appear to have the same level of health and safety policies as Volker Highways. Officers confirmed that tender responses were assessed in terms of both quality and cost. If contractors did not satisfy minimum requirements, their tenders would not be accepted.

·       It was confirmed that they had previously undertaken trenching, ducting and fencing work on behalf of WBC.

·       It was confirmed that palisade fencing had been supplied by Volker Highways.

·       Members asked about the difference in spend mentioned in the report and in reply to the public question at Executive on 7 November 2024. It was confirmed that the figure of £230K related to expenditure incurred up to February 2024, as per Mr Morgan’s question. Further work had taken place since then, which was included in the figure quoted at Executive.

Action: Officers to provide additional detail on costs and timescales of the project phases.

·       Members asked if the project could have been delivered at a lower cost if there had not been pressure to deliver it so quickly. Officers felt that this was a difficult question to answer. All tender assessments took account of price and quality aspects, and the latter may include speed of delivery. Use of the Volker term contact was considered to be the best option in terms of providing value for money and what the Council wanted to deliver.

Mr Morgan was asked if he had a supplementary question arising directly out of the answers provided to his original questions. Mr Morgan asked the following supplementary question:

“Do you not think now, after 18 months of messing about with this, the time is now to get a firm project plan with a firm project objective to rebuild the football stadium back to what it was prior to 2018?”

The Portfolio Holder answered that there was a plan that the Council was working on, and he was happy that there was a project objective. He indicated that he would be happy to provide a further update to a future meeting.

Action: Councillor Nigel Foot to provide details of the project plan and objectives for Faraday Road.

Councillor Jeremy Cottam proposed to resume standing orders. This was seconded by Councillor Chris Read. At the vote, the motion was carried.

RESOLVED to note the report.