Agenda item

Purpose: This report presents the findings of the Sports Hub Task and Finish Group, which sought to determine whether there was a strategically and financially sound business case for the Monks Lane Sports Hub, whether the project was well managed, and whether reliable and consistent advice was given to members about the project to assist them in their decision-making roles. The report makes recommendations based on the evidence gathered, which (if implemented) would help to inform the Council’s approach to future sports and leisure projects.

The Committee considered the report (Agenda Item 10a) which presented the findings of the Sports Hub Task and Finish Group (the Task Group). The Task Group had sought to determine whether there was a strategically and financially sound business case for the Monks Lane Sports Hub, whether the project was well managed, and whether reliable and consistent advice was given to Members about the project to assist them in their decision making roles.

The report proposed recommendations based on the evidence gathered which, if implemented, would help to inform the Council’s approach to future sports and leisure projects.

Councillor Carolyne Culver presented the report and started with thanking her fellow Members of the Task Group: Councillors Jeremy Cottam, Paul Dick, David Marsh and Chris Read. She also thanked Gordon Oliver, the Clerk to the Task Group, and the internal and external witnesses who gave evidence to the Task Group.

Objective One: To determine whether the Sports Hub project was value for money

The Playing Pitch Strategy (PPS), adopted in February 2020, identified the relocation of the Faraday Road pitch as a top priority. The budget to do so (£5.6m) proved to be insufficient and, as a result, the alternative was to create six new 3g pitches over a five year period.

Costs were analysed by the Task Group as was information provided by Newbury Community Football Group (NCFG). The NCFG suggested a more cost effective approach could have been achieved. They had a business case to reopen Faraday Road approved by Sport England for £1.1m. Sport England and the Football Foundation had offered to fund 75% of the cost of works.

The Council had invested £214k-£219k into the Sports Hub but this outlay had been lost.

The Task Group felt that reopening Faraday Road would have been better value for money than the Sports Hub project.

Objective Two: To determine whether the project would have delivered on the Council’s strategic objectives

The Task Group felt that there was greater potential to progress the PPS via the use of Faraday Road. The Sports Hub facility did not have the same potential as Faraday Road in terms of the level of football (tier of football) that could be achieved.

There was concern over limited public consultation.

Objective Three: To determine whether the project was well managed

Councillor Read outlined the concern that lessons identified as part of previous scrutiny reviews had not been learnt, i.e. from the London Road Industrial Estate (LRIE). There had also been a particular difficulty in being provided with a timeline for the Sports Hub project.

These were points that would be reflected upon as part of the Project Management Task and Finish Group.

Objective Four: To determine whether reliable and consistent advice was given to Members about the project to assist them in their decision-making roles

In summary, the Task Group did not feel that reliable and consistent advice was provided to Members at planning committees or meetings of the Executive.

A particular concern was the changing advice on whether or not there was a need to replace the Faraday Road pitch or whether the Sports Hub should be considered as a standalone project.

Sport England had stated that they would have objected to the Sports Hub proposal if it was to be a replacement for Faraday Road as it would not achieve the same standard. However, their consideration was restricted to the Sports Hub as a standalone project as that was how it was progressed through the planning process.

Objective Five: To determine whether the Council’s decision to abandon the project in its original form was a strategically and financially sound decision

The Task Group was concerned that the Sports Hub project had been taken forward and that monies had been spent unnecessarily. They felt that the funding would have been more efficiently used in reopening Faraday Road and/or other aspects of the PPS.

Objective Six: To establish whether the Council intends to deliver any elements of the original project at Monks Lane (bearing in mind planning permission remains and project funds are being carried forward)

No recommendations were arising from this objective.

Councillor Marsh took the opportunity to thank Councillor Culver for her dedication in Chairing the Task Group, and added thanks to the other Members on the Task Group and Gordon Oliver for their work.

He felt the 27 recommendations provided a set of robust proposals that would result in improvements with future project management.

Councillor Howard Woollaston voiced his concern with the report, feeling it did not take account of the plans put in place by the former Administration for the Faraday Road site and the Sports Hub. The proposals for the Faraday Road site would have brought many positive factors, including economic regeneration of the area, affordable housing provision and financial benefits to the Council. He felt these points had been ignored.

Councillor Woollaston acknowledged that improvements were needed in project management.

A clear business case had been produced for the Sports Hub by the organisation who had since become the Council’s leisure contractor. The Sports Hub proposal would have enabled greater use than at Faraday Road and would have been available for use at a much earlier stage. He praised the superb changing room and social area facility that was proposed for the Sports Hub.

Councillor Woollaston felt the report was one sided and the Task Group would have benefited from including a Member from the previous Administration.

Councillor Culver pointed out that Councillor Woollaston had been invited as a witness as the previous Portfolio Holder, but explained that it was not permitted to have a previous Portfolio Holder (decision maker) on the Task Group.

She added, in response to the point about changing room facilities, the view from the Task Group that the provision formally at Faraday Road should not have been allowed to deteriorate, with much of that former facility lost. This should have been maintained.

Councillor Woollaston felt that it would have been useful to return to a Task Group meeting as a witness on another occasion so that points could be clarified. Councillor Culver explained that this was not current practice for task and finish groups, but added that the scope of these groups was being reviewed.

Councillor Ross Mackinnon made a number of comments on the report. He disputed the point made that the Council was obliged to replace the Faraday Road pitch, although Sport England could request a replacement or object through the planning process. He felt the Council could choose to close a facility it owned and use the site for another purpose.

Councillor Mackinnon felt that the report did not adequately explain the roles the Council held as Local Planning Authority and as the developer for Faraday Road.

He then questioned the cost information considered by the Task Group. As stated in the report the cost of the proposed Sports Hub was £3.878m. Alongside this, the NCFG submitted documentation which outlined the cost of the Sports Hub, over a 40 year period, as being a minimum of £11.58m. The NCFG business case for Faraday Road gave initial costs of £1.1m, but not costs over a 40 year period. He did not therefore feel there had been a like for like comparison and questioned if there had been due diligence of the NCFG financial information. Councillor Mackinnon did not feel there was evidence to show that use of Faraday Road as a football pitch was better value for money than the Sports Hub as had been claimed in the Task Group’s report.

Councillor Mackinnon did not feel there was evidence to support some of the claims made in the report. He questioned whether there was evidence to show that trust had been eroded in the Council as had been stated.

Turning to the consultation, Councillor Mackinnon questioned the suggestion that the consultation questions had been formed in order to obtain favourable answers and identified question one as an example where this was not the case. He did not think it appropriate to describe the consultation response as being patchy, this needed evidence. The consultation did not include questions relating to use of Faraday Road as a football pitch as the site had been identified for commercial use.

He also responded to the point made that Council Members did not have chance to seriously consider the Sports Hub plans until the planning committee meetings. He pointed out that two reports went to the Executive in 2021, prior to the planning committees, giving Members a chance to look at the proposals and ask questions.

Councillor Mackinnon concluded his comments by giving his view that the evidence of some witnesses to the Task Group had been given greater weight than others.

Councillor Culver stated that the need to replace the Faraday Road pitch was based on advice from the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) that it should be replaced by an equivalent or better facility.

On the cost information, the figures provided by the NCFG included the expectation that the Council would need to subsidise the Sports Hub for many years to come and these costs had not been recognised. The NCFG had also confirmed that they could obtain financial assistance with their proposal.

Continuation of meeting - in accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Part 3, point 10.8, the Committee supported the motion that the remaining business could be concluded by 10.30pm, and therefore proceeded with the meeting.

Councillor Culver felt that there had been a loss of trust in the Council among the external witnesses to the review. There had been numerous questions asked of the Council and the Executive in an effort to obtain further information. The Task Group also held the view that the Council could have done more to improve the relationship with the NCFG.

Councillor Marsh explained that the Task Group did form the view that the consultation questions were largely leading questions about whether respondents wanted to see better facilities. There was also concern that only one public consultation was held and that was at an early stage of the process.

Councillor Read added that the main bodies to the review, the NCFG and the Rugby Club, did not feel they were a partner to the Council in the project.

Councillor Mackinnon noted that the loss of trust had been raised by witnesses to the review and felt it would have been useful to clarify this in the report.

Councillor Mackinnon acknowledged that the NPPF might have requested a replacement facility but did not have the ability to insist the Council took action to achieve that end. Councillor Culver responded that if the need for a replacement facility had been made clear, then this would have given interested parties grounds on which to challenge the closure of Faraday Road without a replacement.

Councillor Mackinnon commented that the NCFG did not help with forming a positive relationship, referring to comments the group had posted on social media.

Councillor Erik Pattenden felt the Task Group had undertaken a useful exercise that had identified many valuable recommendations. His only comment was that if would have been useful for the timeline to include the date the Sports Hub project was cancelled. Councillor Culver agreed this could be added.

Action: the timeline would include the date that the Sports Hub project was cancelled.

Councillor Pattenden then proposed an amendment to the Task Group’s recommendations, proposing that recommendations 23 and 25 be removed. Recommendation 23 referred to whether or not it was appropriate for Executive Members to participate on Council applications at planning committees, and Councillor Alan Macro gave the view that Members were subject to the Council’s Code of Conduct and therefore needed to abide by planning law which gave clear advice on participation. Councillor Culver clarified the Task Group view that, in cases where the Council was the sponsor of a project, Executive Members should not speak to the item at a planning committee.

Recommendation 25 suggested that the Council should refer itself to the Local Government Ombudsman (LGO) and ask them to consider this report. Councillor Macro felt this step was unnecessary, as much had been learnt from this process, and felt that such a referral would not achieve anything further. Councillor Culver commented that individual Members would be able to reserve the right to make a referral to the LGO if they wished to.

The amendment was seconded by Councillor Antony Amirtharaj and put to the vote.

RESOLVED that the Amendment be approved. Recommendations 23 and 25 would be removed.

Councillor Jeff Brooks made it clear that the Sports Hub project was run by the Conservatives while they were in Administration and was not overseen by the current Liberal Democrat Administration.

Councillor Brooks then queried the absence of other witnesses, i.e. the former Leader (former Councillor Lynne Doherty) and the former Chief Executive of the Council (Nick Carter). In response, Councillor Culver explained that Councillor Woollaston was identified as the most appropriate witness as the former Portfolio Holder for this area of activity.

RESOLVED that with the exception of Recommendations 23 and 25, the Task Group’s recommendations would be referred to the Executive for consideration.