Newbury sports hub saga: Hard hitting report criticises council over football facilities

A hard hitting report suggests West Berkshire Council should refer itself to the local government ombudsman for the way it has handled the Faraday Road Football Pitch and the Monks Lane Sports Hub.

But the lengthy and detailed look at the the whole fiasco has caused uproar - with the current leader of the opposition Tories shouting libel, and the leader of the council refusing to publish it.

So the authors of the report have made it public anyway, causing a bit of a spat.

The report has been authored by a specially set up task and finish group looking into whether all the effort, and cash, put in to the now abandoned Sports Hub was worth it.

“The council should have the courage to abandon a project if it is apparent that more cost effective options are available,” says the report, which is fairly damning of the management of the whole thing, citing poor project management processes, lack of communication and contradicting and poorly filed briefing documents.

“What is in no doubt is that reliable and consistent advice was not given to members about the project to assist them in their decision-making roles. This is unacceptable and must not happen again. It has eroded trust in the council,” adds the report.

Ross Mackinnon was the Conservative portfolio holder for finance when millions was allocated for the Monks Lane facility, and he told the Scrutiny Commission meeting last week that the report libels him for his involvement in some of the decision making.

The report has been written by the council’s own scrutiny task and finish group looking into whether the council wasted money, and misled the council and the electorate.

And it bluntly claims that reopening Faraday Road would have provided better value for money than the Sports Hub, but that there is no evidence that the council ever considered this as an option.

The report, and the Scrutiny Commission, is headed by the Green Party’s Carolynne Culver, who also tried to get the report accepted at last Thursday’s scrutiny panel.

She was put in the role by the Lib Dem council leader Jeff Brooks, who at the time, felt it best that an opposition councillor chair the checks and balances committee - to keep things honest.

But the Lib Dem majority contingent on that committee also blocked the report, claiming the task group hadn’t interviewed all the key people, and that it was not ‘balanced’.

So the whole thing now gets its own committee meeting to discuss it at a date to be confirmed.

Mr Brooks has accused the scrutiny chair, Ms Culver, of not following due process, and that she should have followed a proper sign off procedure with her team, rather than doing it on WhatsApp.

“It's quite clear that I didn’t believe it was balanced, because people that had been referred to in the report had not been interviewed in the report,” he said. “The chairman needs to reopen the task group. Then we will publish the council report.”

Ms Culver stands by her report, and says the council leader needs to tell her who he thinks she hasn’t interviewed.

So what’s this all about?

Well, it goes back to 2020, when the then Tory-led council adopted a playing pitch strategy for the district to move football from Faraday Road to a new 3G pitch on one of the existing rugby pitches at Monks Lane.

At this point, there were plans to build flats on the Faraday Road pitch, as part of the London Road Industrial Estate development. That is a whole other story.

But the flats idea pitch was queered because an earlier proposal to build on the old newspaper printing hall got refused - as it is prone to flooding.

The report suggests the new Playing Pitch Strategy - currently being undertaken by more consultants and due in the summer - should look at all options including agricultural land and the North-East Thatcham area where large scale development is planned.

“If members ask in future what options have been considered, there should be documentary proof including cost comparisons,” the report recommends.

Back to the timeline - and in November 2021, Sport England objected to the rugby club plans if the scheme were to be treated as a replacement for Faraday Road, but no objections if it was stand alone.

In December that year, the council approved the allocation of £3.35m to complete the development of the sports hub.

But the objectors to this, mostly in favour of keeping football at Faraday Road, formed up, with one making a legal challenge on the decision.

But the court sided with the council, agreeing the proposal was a stand alone and not a replacement for Faraday Road.

Still with me?

Track forward to March 2023, and the council executive team (still the Tories) approved the allocation of £3.87m to build the sport hub.

Then the Lib Dems took control of the council in local government elections, and binned the sports hub, and made good on a manifesto commitment to bring football back to Faraday Road.

It really is a game of two halves.

But out on the wings throughout the whole thing sits the Newbury Community Football Group.

It submitted a document to the task and finish group, claiming that the total cost of ownership of the Sports Hub to the council, excluding loan interest, over a 40-year period was a minimum of £11.580m including capital construction, lease premium, annual rent, sinking fund, annual subsidy and grass pitch loss mitigation.

While Newbury Community Football Group was supportive of the Sports Hub as a standalone facility, they did not consider the Sports Hub to have the capacity to be a replacement for Faraday Road, and therefore did not agree that it met the number one priority of the Playing Pitch Strategy.

They said that there was a planning restriction preventing football matches being played on Saturdays if there was also a rugby match being played. And peak time for children’s football was Sunday morning, which would not have been permitted under the lease agreement.

They made the case that the council could meet its target of six new 3G sports pitches in a five-year period, for the same cost as the Sports Hub project.

The NCFG claimed that ‘over the 40-year lease period and excluding any inflationary increases, this as minimum would equate to £3.6m, which would be much better spent on addressing the facility needs across West Berkshire’.

Sport England also said the £41,000 rent was extremely high and asked whether this was sustainable - to quote: ‘Over the 40 years lease as a minimum (excluding rent reviews/increases) this would equate to £1.64m income to the rugby club, as well as the free use of the 3G’. In a second response in November 2021, Sport England said they had consulted the FA and RFU who both had concerns about the project’s reliance on council subsidy.

The Sports Hub project would have represented considerable financial benefit for Newbury Rugby Club.

Providing funds to the rugby club to help keep it afloat was viewed as a bonus by the council. Payments due to be made to the rugby club included an initial payment of £250,000 and £41,000 per annum for 40 years once the pitch was playable.

The rugby club witness confirmed that the project came into being because they had been approached by the council. The council was stuck, and this option was the last resort, which the rugby club considered in its negotiations.

During all of the above, the NCFG obtained full planning permission for a 3G pitch and outline permission for a clubhouse. However, at the time of giving evidence to the task and finish group, these planning permissions were about to expire.

The council owned the site and had made it clear that the planning permission would not be utilised.

As mentioned, the new playing pitch strategy - looking at where to put the number of pitches needed in the district, is due to report in the summer.

Meanwhile, political football continues with the unofficial report, written by the council’s own scrutineers, a way off from getting its place in the pantheon of other council documents about the Sports Hub and Faraday Road.