This is an HTML version of an attachment to the Freedom of Information request 'Correspondence and communication between Sport England and West Berkshire Council'.

From:
To:
xxxxxxxxxxx@xxxx.xx
Cc:
"
Subject:
RE: WBC"s search for a new football ground and demolition of the existing one
Date:
Wednesday, September 16, 2020 7:49:00 AM
Attachments:
App Ref 2001966COMIND - Faraday Road - Sport England Ref PA20SEWB56404.msg
Good morning 
 
Sorry for the delay, but we are just coming out of A/L season and so is the rest of the
world.
 
I try and answer your questions.
 
Sport England have no powers to prevent demolition nor do we have to be notified. 
This is an on-going issue we have been lobbying to get changed.
 
Regarding the demolition of the buildings if Sport England had been consulted, I
would have asked to see the dilapidations survey and if it meant spending more
money than they would get form the hire of the facilities, I may have supported the
demolition, the converse is true and I would have objected to the demolition.
 
However,  in this instance the re-provision is committed to in the West Berks PPS,
along with the playing field.  I have had a few face to face meetings over this site with
the LA, possibly more than any other site in my career at Sport England.  I have no
reason to dis-believe their commitment to relocate the facilities.  In a recent meeting I
did raise the management of the new facility which is something they will be
addressing.
 
Thank you for the comments about the interaction between yourselves and West
Berks, I am on the outside , a 110 miles away give or take, and only got involved
about 4 years ago., whereas, as you point out have been at this for sometime and
you are local.  I just want to share my experience challenging and then working with a
local authority.
 
I have no doubt the redevelopment will take place as it has gone through due process
with planning as has the playing pitch strategy. 
 
Sport England is happy to support the continued use of the existing until the
replacement site is operational.  However we will be unlikely to commit funding to it.
 
I have just commented on your recent planning application which was flawed and
confusing on a number of fronts, which I don’t think helps your case.  I am attaching a
copy of my response. 
 
Please note you will not get public money unless you have a long term lease of the
property affected.
 
I have seen your passion and commitment over this and I am sorry I am unable to



Is this still an incomplete draft version? Can it be rectified? Are there milestones when you will check with
WBC for progress? Knowing the council as we do, we think this might be a loophole their number one
priority could slip through. While we wait for an alternative ground to become available, would you support
re-opening Faraday Road until firm dates are set?
 
You have to remember that for the last 10 years at least this council has avoided committing to a PPS
and has wanted rid of the ground without replacing it. Indeed, your SE predecessors warned them about
this in 2014. The Chief Executive also insisted previously to us they had no obligation to replace the
existing football ground in Faraday Road (when they did!).
 
I admire your optimism about the PPS holding WBC to replacing the ground and can understand why you
may be reluctant to object to any demolition planning applications, but you should also concede that we
have valid reasons for being more skeptical. Therefore we would urge you to warn the council not to slow
down the replacement ground process as you are closely monitoring the situation – we are relying on SE
to police this. Please don’t let their commitment to the PPS kid you into thinking they’ll definitely deliver it.
 
Of course, we will be objecting to the demolition of the existing club house and changing rooms because
they are part of our ACV and we feel the council owes us back the ground they took away and should do
what they can to make up for the damage they have done to local football aspirations over the last 10
years.
 
Regarding an “existing sports ground” being chosen and a possible planning case being made,
unsurprisingly, we haven’t got too much from WBC. Are you able to tell us what’s been discussed with
them so far?
 
We have offered the council partnership on numerous occasions and every time we start a dialogue the
council’s Executive steps in and deters its councilors and officers from engaging with us, typically 
 and 
 who we had a productive meeting with over 18 months ago and since then no
return meetings as promised to discuss local football requirements or the PPS launch. 
 has also
pulled out of two Newbury Town Council meetings. The current portfolio holder for health and wellbeing
Howard Woollaston, who has been more approachable than others, asked us to send him our proposals
for a cost-effective plan to bring Faraday Road back to step 7 with a view to using it in the interim while
the London Road Industrial Estate master plan becomes real (or not). After hours of collating the material
and submitting the details he ignored it and later flatly refused to discuss the reopening of the ground! Nor
has the council shared a copy of the 3 alternative football ground surveys by Surfacing Standards Ltd or
the condition survey reports on the ground when it closed in June 2018 (before they let it become
derelict). Now they are dismantling it bit-by-bit and you wonder why we aren’t happy with them! Have you
followed up with WBC, seen the SSL report and are you able to share it with us?
 
I should point out that NCFG has spent lots of time, effort and money over the past 5 years in ensuring
that a much valued sports facility that has needlessly been taken away from the local community if not
forgotten, and yes, this has included us exploring alternative venues. I very much hope something good
comes of this new ground but we could have told WBC 10 years ago that options for alternative sites in
Newbury were limited. If we had the money and land we would have done something about it! If the
Council had done what they should have done and kept the ground open until a replacement was
operational then our group would not have needed to exist. As it is, we will continue to lobby for the re-
opening of the ground for organised football matches until a firm solution is operational and we hope SE
and the FA will support us with this aim.
 
In my opinion, this is not the traditional, altruistic, cash-strapped council which means well and
collaborates in partnership with its constituents on community sporting matters. This is a council hell bent
on fulfilling its aspirational vision without consultation and evidence of need and never every admits any
mistakes or wrong doing. There are some good officers and councillors but they are constantly being
silenced by the powerful Executive which is extremely frustrating.
 

We are not fighting them at every stage; we just remind them of their obligations to their own local and
everyone’s national rules, pointing out when they contravene them (they probably don’t like this). We
have said we welcome any new like-for-like ground but they should have stuck to their own strategies and
policies and replaced the existing one before closing the old one. We know we are right and they are
stubbornly sticking to their wrong decision.
 
For the moment, our position is:
 
We have a live planning application in place for a new 3G artificial turf facility and club house to prove to
the public that a football ground on the Faraday Road site is possible. Why does WBC exclude the option
of retaining the football ground at its current location as a back-up or even as a “plan B”? We have
submitted a legitimate planning application that we trust/hope SE will support and if the Council does not
come up with an alternative facility, ours becomes the default feasible option.
 
We will back any genuine, viable and deliverable proposal for a new or replacement facility but not
support keeping the current ground closed or turning it into a “general recreational area”. There is no
evidence of need or justification for this type of facility when there is a shortage of top quality pitches for
good footballers to develop. There is no logic or community benefit in destroying a football stadium to
create a grassed area, with no toilets, changing rooms or the ability to book in advance, especially when
all these things existed before. Why are the Council still making decisions behind closed doors and
without any evidence? What is required is a first-class football pitch in a graded, quality ground that can
be used by FA-affiliated clubs from the whole community. That’s what all the evidence points to and what
the PPS clearly states.
 
We gladly support the PPS plans if they provide the community football facilities that Newbury needs on
the basis that the existing ground is re-opened until the new football facility is open for use. Remember,
the recent announcement is very similar to the poorly planned MUGA one made in March 2019.
 
NCFG’s position remains unchanged and we are still happy to engage with the council and all parties in
finding short, medium and long-term solutions, but we need to feel that we are being listened to, that we
(as representatives of the local football community) can make a difference and at least some suggestions
that we provide are rationally considered, respected and acted upon by the council.
 
We are the volunteer amateurs here and we rely on and need the full support of professional sporting
bodies such as SE and the FA to ensure that our sports facilities are protected and enhanced.
 
And finally, you are absolutely right, bureaucracy and administration tend to wear us all down after a while
(especially in this part of the world)!
 
Thanks & regards, 
NCFG Deputy Chair
 
 
On August 27, 2020 at 7:39:16 am +01:00, 
> wrote:
Good morning 
 
Thank you for your email, I’m very well thank you. 
 
In answer to your questions in turn:

1.  The proposed demolition will not trigger an automatic objection
because there is a commitment in the Playing pitch Strategy to
replace facilities when the site is relocated in the future;
2.  The change of title to recreational space does not constitute a
change of use under the SI 2020 no 747 Town and Country Planning
(use Classes) Amendment) (England ) Regulations 2020; and
3.  If an existing sports ground was chosen a planning case would have
to be made.  This has been discussed with WBC.
 
 
Can I too please ask a question?
 
Given the site is to be redeveloped, why hasn’t your group worked with
WDC to identify a suitable site?  Or identified a site on your own.  Forgive
me for referring to King Cnut, but surely it would be better for the game
and community if you worked with the WDC rather than fight them at every
stage? 
 
When my local library system was facing closures and reduced hours
across the board, I organised a borough wide network of groups and while
we fought the closures etc we worked with library staff and were able to
put forward a more sustainable business/usage plan which was adopted
by Sandwell MBC.  I delivered it full council – the first non-officer ever
invited to do so.  The work we did in the 1990s has ensured even today
that the service has not been cut, but had new libraries opened.  As a
result of this, I spoke nationally at events on libraries and was even on the
front page of the Guardian’s educational supplement.  I only had to step
down when I joined Sport England, as they would have been a conflict of
interest.
 
I feel if you could harness your passion to work with the WDC a suitable
solution would come quicker as this is one of many projects the officers
have to work on.
 
I do understand your frustration, but ultimately I believe involved wants the
same thing, unfortunately bureaucracy and administration tend to wear us
all down after a while.
 

Take care
 
 RIBA MRTPI Principal Planning Manager - South Team  T:
  M:
We have updated our Privacy Statement to reflect the recent changes to data protection
law but rest assured, we will continue looking after your personal data just as carefully as
we always have. Our Privacy Statement is published on our website, and our Data
Protection Officer can be contacted by emailing Gaile Walters
 
 
From: xxxxxxxxxxx@xxxx.xx  <xxxxxxxxxxx@xxxx.xx > 
Sent: 26 August 2020 22:43
To: 
>
Cc: 
 <xxxxx@xxxx.xx>; 'NCFG' <xxxxx@xxxx.xx >
Subject: WBC's search for a new football ground and demolition of the existing one
 
Hi 
I hope all is well with you.
 
West Berks Council has issued a press release to local media which poses some
questions we'd like to ask you please.
 
The text reads:
 
Until redevelopment of the London Road Industrial Estate begins, a new temporary
open space will be created on the site of the former Faraday Road sports ground. The
recreational space will be provided for community use only until the land is required for
regeneration. Work is due to begin this autumn with the creation of an area of grass
surrounded by a rail and hard surface. It is expected to open in Spring 2021. Before work
can safely begin, contractors will be appointed to demolish a derelict clubhouse on the
site which is in a dangerous condition and beyond repair.  Contractors will be appointed
and will submit an application for demolition in the coming weeks.

West Berkshire Council is also looking at options to build a new football facility in the

Newbury area. Consultants have completed a feasibility study of three possible sites on
land owned by the Council, and the Council is also looking at other options working with
partners to deliver a new facility. This will create a new sports provision in the area,
providing somewhere for Newbury Football Club to play home games as well as being
available for wider community use. It is hoped that further details about potential sites
will be released in the autumn.

 
We've not seen the Surfacing Standards Ltd report into the 3 WBC-owned alternatives
(Henwick Worthy, Northcroft, Pigeons Farm 'Diamond') yet, but our local paper
reported that it stated none were suitable alternatives for Step 7/6/5 football. We're
waiting to hear more about any additional non-WBC-owned venues.
 
The questions we have for you are:
 
Does this proposed demolition of part of our ACV require planning and would that
trigger an automatic SE objection?
 
Does this proposed creation of a recreational space constitute a change of use and
would that trigger an automatic SE objection?
 
If an existing sports ground, rather than a new site, were to be used for a replacement
facility, would this would fall foul of SE guidelines and would you object when it came
to a planning application? i.e. if an existing sports pitch was used as a replacement
football ground then this would represent a net loss of at least one sports pitch
(Faraday Road) and possibly the loss of the existing pitch’s former use (e.g. Henwick
Worthy has its fields marked out for rugby and football).
 
Thanks & regards,
Deputy Chair
Newbury Community Football Group
The information contained in this e-mail may be subject to public disclosure under the

Freedom of Information Act 2000. Additionally, this email and any attachment are
confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual to whom they are
addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, be advised that you have received this
email and any attachment in error, and that any use, dissemination, forwarding,
printing, or copying, is strictly prohibited. If you voluntarily provide personal data by
email, Sport England will handle the data in accordance with its Privacy Statement.
Sport England’s Privacy Statement may be found here
https://www.sportengland.org/privacy-statement/ If you have any queries about Sport
England’s handling of personal data you can contact Louise Hartley, Sport England’s
Data Protection Officer directly by emailing xxx@xxxxxxxxxxxx.xxx