Information regarding planning application 19/00814/FUL

Roedd y cais yn rhannol lwyddiannus.

Dear West Berkshire Council,

Regarding the planning application 19/00814/FUL for the creation of multi-use games areas, gates, fencing and floodlights at Newbury’s football ground at Faraday Road, please can you send me all documents, meeting minutes and correspondence relating to the following:

1. The business case which justifies developing this site.
2. The council's strategy and policies this development complies with.
3. The consultation process and consultees.
4. The stakeholders in the council, sporting bodies and the community.
5. The organisations which the council expects to use the facility and the sports involved.
6. The cost of this work and the nature/costs of further related work.
7. The long-term funding, financial forecast, budget and operating costs.
8. The business plan including how long the facility is expected to exist.

Many thanks.
Yours faithfully,
John Stewart

foi, West Berkshire Council

FoI/2019/516

 

Dear Mr Stewart,

 

Request for information: planning application 19/00814/FUL

 

Thank you for your request received 3^rd May 2019; we will respond within
twenty working days.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

Suzi Kenchington 

Information Compliance Officer

Strategic Support,

West Berkshire Council, Council Offices, Market Street, Newbury, RG14 5LD

email:  [1][email address]

' 01635 519860 (external)      '  2860 (internal)      

P Do you really need to print this email?

 

From: John Stewart [mailto:[FOI #573724 email]]
Sent: 03 May 2019 09:43
To: foi <[West Berkshire Council request email]>
Subject: Freedom of Information request - Information regarding planning
application 19/00814/FUL

 

This is an EXTERNAL EMAIL. STOP. THINK before you CLICK links or OPEN
attachments.

Dear West Berkshire Council,

Regarding the planning application 19/00814/FUL for the creation of
multi-use games areas, gates, fencing and floodlights at Newbury’s
football ground at Faraday Road, please can you send me all documents,
meeting minutes and correspondence relating to the following:

1. The business case which justifies developing this site.
2. The council's strategy and policies this development complies with.
3. The consultation process and consultees.
4. The stakeholders in the council, sporting bodies and the community.
5. The organisations which the council expects to use the facility and the
sports involved.
6. The cost of this work and the nature/costs of further related work.
7. The long-term funding, financial forecast, budget and operating costs.
8. The business plan including how long the facility is expected to exist.

Many thanks.
Yours faithfully,
John Stewart

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Please use this email address for all replies to this request:
[2][FOI #573724 email]

Is [3][West Berkshire Council request email] the wrong address for Freedom of Information
requests to West Berkshire Council? If so, please contact us using this
form:
[4]https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/change_re...

Disclaimer: This message and any reply that you make will be published on
the internet. Our privacy and copyright policies:
[5]https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/help/offi...

For more detailed guidance on safely disclosing information, read the
latest advice from the ICO:
[6]https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/help/ico-...

Please note that in some cases publication of requests and responses will
be delayed.

If you find this service useful as an FOI officer, please ask your web
manager to link to us from your organisation's FOI page.

dangos adrannau a ddyfynnir

foi, West Berkshire Council

FoI/2019/516

 

Dear Mr Stewart,

 

Request for information: planning application 19/00814/FUL

 

Please see below the Council’s response to your request for information.

 

You have asked;

 

Regarding the planning application 19/00814/FUL for the creation of
multi-use games areas, gates, fencing and floodlights at Newbury’s
football ground at Faraday Road, please can you send me all documents,
meeting minutes and correspondence relating to the following:
1. The business case which justifies developing this site.

 

The following is an extract presented to the Executive Committee on
Thursday 30^th May;

 

In terms of business case, the use of the old football ground as a MUGA is
not an attempt to find a more commercially beneficial use but a way of
making this asset available for continued public use until the land is
required for possible redevelopment and make that use available by not
again entering into a new lease. The previous lease arrangement earned the
Council an income of £4,500 per annum.  As and when redevelopment might
come forward, the Council needs to retain freedom of action which is not
well served by entering into another agreement similar to the previous
lease which expired in June 2018 and which the Council made clear for some
time it would not renew.  After set up costs, the aim is for the MUGA to
be cost neutral where maintenance costs are covered by
income.                    

2. The council's strategy and policies this development complies with.

 

The following is an extract that was presented to the Executive Committee
on Thursday 30^th May.

 

The MUGA development is related to the Council’s long term plans for
regenerating the London Road Industrial Estate. Regeneration of the London
Road Industrial Estate, including the football ground, has been a publicly
known aspiration of the Council via the Newbury Vision (first published
Oct 2005) and the issue has been addressed at the last three Vision
Conferences.  In addition to this the Council held meetings with
interested parties back in 2016 explaining its intentions to regenerate
the London Road Industrial Estate, including the football ground, and that
it would not enter into a new lease with another organisation in order for
the Council to take back control of the land and thereby maximise its
freedom of action should development come forward.  Strategically the
Council believes that the wider public benefit of regenerating the whole
LRIE, including the football ground, will substantially outweigh the loss
of the ground on the LRIE.  The Council fully understands it will have to
make that case as and when any planning application goes in for the LRIE
regeneration.

 

3. The consultation process and consultees’

In relation to the redevelopment of the London Road Industrial Estate, the
Council held public consultation meetings and wrote to tenants of the
industrial estate to update them and invite them to meet the developer. In
addition to this the Council held meetings with interested parties back in
2016 explaining its intentions to regenerate the London Road Industrial
Estate, including the football ground, and that it would not enter into a
new lease with another organisation in order for the Council to take back
control of the land and thereby maximise its freedom of action should
development come forward.

 

In regards to planning application 19/00814/FUL, consultation is taking
place via the normal planning process, whereby members of the public can
submit comments to the Council.

 

Documents relating to this can be found on the Council’s website here;
[1]https://publicaccess.westberks.gov.uk/on...

4. The stakeholders in the council, sporting bodies and the community.

It is not clear from this question what information you are requesting.

 

Please can you clarify what you mean by ‘all documents, meeting minutes
and correspondence relating to the stakeholders in the council, sporting
bodies and the community’?

5. The organisations which the council expects to use the facility and the
sports involved.

This is not a request for recorded information.

6. The cost of this work and the nature/costs of further related work.

Current costs to date- £2,400

 

£1520 for a general clean up and removal of some metal barriers round the
pitch, and boarding up of windows and doors on the clubhouse.

 

£462 for the planning application fee

 

£440 for security.

7. The long-term funding, financial forecast, budget and operating costs.

There is no recorded information to respond to this question at this time,
as the Council is currently going through the procurement stage in
relation to the maintenance costs for this site. Therefore, the Council
does not record the construction and other capital costs at this stage.

8. The business plan including how long the facility is expected to exist.
The Council does not hold a business plan for the site, as it is not
intended to be an income generator. Any income received will go towards
the maintenance costs for this site. The site will remain open until the
land is required for redevelopment.

 

If you are unhappy with the way your request has been handled or the
outcome of your request, you may ask for an internal review. You should
contact The FoI Reviewing Officer, Strategic Support, Council Offices,
Market Street, Newbury RG14 5LD, email [2][email address] , within 40
working days, if you wish to request a review.

 

If you are not content with the outcome of the internal review, you have
the right to apply directly to the Information Commissioner for a
decision. The Information Commissioner can be contacted at:

Information Commissioner’s Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow,
Cheshire SK9 5AF

 

Yours sincerely,

 

Suzi Kenchington 

Information Compliance Officer

Strategic Support,

West Berkshire Council, Council Offices, Market Street, Newbury, RG14 5LD

email:  [3][email address]

' 01635 519860 (external)      '  2860 (internal)      

P Do you really need to print this email?

 

From: John Stewart [[4]mailto:[FOI #573724 email]]
Sent: 03 May 2019 09:43
To: foi <[5][West Berkshire Council request email]>
Subject: Freedom of Information request - Information regarding planning
application 19/00814/FUL

 

This is an EXTERNAL EMAIL. STOP. THINK before you CLICK links or OPEN
attachments.

Dear West Berkshire Council,

Regarding the planning application 19/00814/FUL for the creation of
multi-use games areas, gates, fencing and floodlights at Newbury’s
football ground at Faraday Road, please can you send me all documents,
meeting minutes and correspondence relating to the following:

1. The business case which justifies developing this site.
2. The council's strategy and policies this development complies with.
3. The consultation process and consultees.
4. The stakeholders in the council, sporting bodies and the community.
5. The organisations which the council expects to use the facility and the
sports involved.
6. The cost of this work and the nature/costs of further related work.
7. The long-term funding, financial forecast, budget and operating costs.
8. The business plan including how long the facility is expected to exist.

Many thanks.
Yours faithfully,
John Stewart

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Please use this email address for all replies to this request:
[6][FOI #573724 email]

Is [7][West Berkshire Council request email] the wrong address for Freedom of Information
requests to West Berkshire Council? If so, please contact us using this
form:
[8]https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/change_re...

Disclaimer: This message and any reply that you make will be published on
the internet. Our privacy and copyright policies:
[9]https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/help/offi...

For more detailed guidance on safely disclosing information, read the
latest advice from the ICO:
[10]https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/help/ico-...

Please note that in some cases publication of requests and responses will
be delayed.

If you find this service useful as an FOI officer, please ask your web
manager to link to us from your organisation's FOI page.

dangos adrannau a ddyfynnir

Dear Suzi,

Thank you for responding, but it appears that WBC has offered you little of what I asked for so as the deadline has passed, I am forced to escalate the matter.

Below are my replies to your responses which prompt for the missing documentation:

1. The business case which justifies developing this site.

The FOI request did not ask about the old lease. Your response makes no attempt to provide any documents or minutes that a business case was actually provided in preparation for and in support of planning application 19/00814/FUL.
If there is no business case and no supporting documentation please confirm that this is in fact the case.
In your response you state that, “ After set up costs, the aim is for the MUGA to be cost neutral where maintenance costs are covered by income”, so if that is the case please provide the following information that supports these assertions:
- what are the “set up costs” that your statement is based on?
- what are the “maintenance costs” that your statement is based on?
- what is the “income” forecast that your statement is based on and what source / evidence did you use to determine this income forecast?
The only relevance of old lease is to serve as a benchmark. As you say the previous lease provided the Council with a guaranteed income of £4500 pa with no associated costs. If a business case has been produced it should detail what new income will replace the old, by whom and by when.
I would expect that a business case should cover at the least the following key points:
- Overview and objectives of the project, the strategic context, key drivers for the council, options considered, evidence utilised, external factors and why the particular option was chosen over alternatives.
- Contain well developed costings (upfront and ongoing) and potential source of revenue (who will use the facility, what will they pay, how often will it be used etc.)
- Contain clear estimates of timescales involved.
- Identify the benefits that will be delivered (hard and soft benefits).
- Outline the most suitable procurement route.
The request to you was to provide to me with all documents, meeting minutes and correspondence relating to the business case which justifies developing the Faraday Road Football Ground as defined in planning application 19/00814/FUL. In response to this request you have not provided any documents, meeting minutes and correspondence. The only thing you have provided is information held in a previous lease which we already know and reference to an extract of a transcript made by Cllr Rick Jones to a public question at the Executive Meeting held on 30th May 2019. With respect to the Cllr Jones transcript he also stated that the set-up cost would be £88,000? When it was pointed out to him that this £88,000 was for a prior MUGA proposal he seemed a bit uncertain. In fact the £88,000 figure was originally provided by Cllr Hilary Cole to a much smaller MUGA proposal (originally from Cllr James Fredrickson) in Executive Q&As on 20 December 2018. Cllr Jones confirmed that the £88,000 was for the March 2019 planning application. Are WBC really stating that it is just a coincidence that both schemes as responded to by Cllrs Cole and Jones for two totally different schemes at least 6 months apart are exactly the same in terms of set up costs? Also please can you explain why you have not provided any details / correspondence under my FOI request pertaining to the £88,000 as referenced by Cllr Jones on 30th May 2019?

2. The council's strategy and policies this development complies with.

Again, this was part of the public answer at the above mentioned meeting; I am expecting to see some written references to core strategy, green infrastructure and how this MUGA, in some way, justifies retaining the area as a sports ground complying with Sport England policies.

3. The consultation process and consultees.

The multi-sports ground idea is nearly 2 years old, so I am asking what consultation has occurred. Clearly those consultation facts mentioned in your initial response to the above are for the LRIE and pre-date any concept of there being some kind of sports ground open (the council’s idea was to stop the tenants playing there and get vacant possession).

4. The stakeholders in the council, sporting bodies and the community.

What I mean is who at WBC (Councillors and staff) was involved with the decision to propose a MUGA, which sporting bodies (e.g. Sport England), professional advisors (sporting consultancies) and local clubs/organisations did they talk to – notes from meetings, letters supporting/against etc.

5. The organisations which the council expects to use the facility and the sports involved.

What evidence has been relied on that a MUGA facility at Faraday Road will actually be used? If no evidence has been sought by WBC then please state this is the case. If evidence has been used please provide documentary details.
In WBC’s plan, there must be evidence of who this MUGA is aimed at and that it is actually needed? What clubs/organisations will WBC target and publicise to? Otherwise, how do you know anyone will use it?

6. The cost of this work and the nature/costs of further related work.

Are you saying that £2400 is the TOTAL amount that WBC has spent on the Faraday Road ground since the lease was ended in June 2018 up to May 2019? If yes, please provide the evidence.
The FOI request specifically asks you to provide all documents, meeting minutes and correspondence relating to planning application 19/00814/FUL which you have failed to do.
Also there is no reference in your response to the £88,000 quoted by Cllr Rick Jones on 30th May and by Cllr Hilary Cole’s statement about the £88,000 estimate cost from the Executive Meeting on 20 December 2018 – see public question (n) on http://decisionmaking.westberks.gov.uk/d...
As stated above we know that the £88,000 relates to a previous proposal for a MUGA submitted in December 2018 and not for the planning application in March 2019 which specifies fencing, gates, floodlights and pylons. The estimated cost of purchasing and erecting these must be many times the £88,000 mentioned at the above meeting (but omitted in your reply). Please provide evidence that the £88,000 budget is for the previous MUGA option and not for the planning application submitted in March 2019 or whether the total should be raised to take it into account.

7. The long-term funding, financial forecast, budget and operating costs.

Are you confirming that no business case with associated costings has been produced for planning application 19/00814/FUL?

8. The business plan including how long the facility is expected to exist.

Rather like item 1, the council doesn’t seem to know who is, or how many people are, going to use it so saying there is no information implies that there are no written planning meeting minutes which justify this expenditure. Surely this can't be right?

In conclusion, I am not happy with the reply so far as it seems the council has conjured up this planning application without any approval checks or financial balances and as this seems an irresponsible use of time and public money, I have requested an internal review.

Many thanks in anticipation of a fuller response.

Yours sincerely,
John Stewart

foi, West Berkshire Council

FoI/IR/2019/10

 

Dear Mr Stewart,

 

Request for a Review: Information regarding planning application
19/00814/FUL

 

Thank you for your email received ^ 11^th June 2019. This has been passed
to the FoI Reviewing Officer to process as a request for an Internal
Review.

 

A response will be provided within twenty working days, by no later than
9^th July.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

Suzi Kenchington 

Information Compliance Officer

Legal and Strategic Support,

West Berkshire Council, Council Offices, Market Street, Newbury, RG14 5LD

email:  [1][email address]

' 01635 519860 (external)      '  2860 (internal)      

P Do you really need to print this email?

 

From: John Stewart [mailto:[FOI #573724 email]]
Sent: 11 June 2019 17:40
To: foi <[West Berkshire Council request email]>
Subject: Internal review of Freedom of Information request - Information
regarding planning application 19/00814/FUL

 

This is an EXTERNAL EMAIL. STOP. THINK before you CLICK links or OPEN
attachments.

Dear Suzi,

Thank you for responding, but it appears that WBC has offered you little
of what I asked for so as the deadline has passed, I am forced to escalate
the matter.

Below are my replies to your responses which prompt for the missing
documentation:

1. The business case which justifies developing this site.

The FOI request did not ask about the old lease. Your response makes no
attempt to provide any documents or minutes that a business case was
actually provided in preparation for and in support of planning
application 19/00814/FUL.
If there is no business case and no supporting documentation please
confirm that this is in fact the case.
In your response you state that, “ After set up costs, the aim is for the
MUGA to be cost neutral where maintenance costs are covered by income”, so
if that is the case please provide the following information that supports
these assertions:
- what are the “set up costs” that your statement is based on?
- what are the “maintenance costs” that your statement is based on?
- what is the “income” forecast that your statement is based on and what
source / evidence did you use to determine this income forecast?
The only relevance of old lease is to serve as a benchmark. As you say the
previous lease provided the Council with a guaranteed income of £4500 pa
with no associated costs. If a business case has been produced it should
detail what new income will replace the old, by whom and by when.
I would expect that a business case should cover at the least the
following key points:
- Overview and objectives of the project, the strategic context, key
drivers for the council, options considered, evidence utilised, external
factors and why the particular option was chosen over alternatives.
- Contain well developed costings (upfront and ongoing) and potential
source of revenue (who will use the facility, what will they pay, how
often will it be used etc.)
- Contain clear estimates of timescales involved.
- Identify the benefits that will be delivered (hard and soft benefits).
- Outline the most suitable procurement route.
The request to you was to provide to me with all documents, meeting
minutes and correspondence relating to the business case which justifies
developing the Faraday Road Football Ground as defined in planning
application 19/00814/FUL. In response to this request you have not
provided any documents, meeting minutes and correspondence. The only thing
you have provided is information held in a previous lease which we already
know and reference to an extract of a transcript made by Cllr Rick Jones
to a public question at the Executive Meeting held on 30th May 2019. With
respect to the Cllr Jones transcript he also stated that the set-up cost
would be £88,000? When it was pointed out to him that this £88,000 was for
a prior MUGA proposal he seemed a bit uncertain. In fact the £88,000
figure was originally provided by Cllr Hilary Cole to a much smaller MUGA
proposal (originally from Cllr James Fredrickson) in Executive Q&As on 20
December 2018. Cllr Jones confirmed that the £88,000 was for the March
2019 planning application. Are WBC really stating that it is just a
coincidence that both schemes as responded to by Cllrs Cole and Jones for
two totally different schemes at least 6 months apart are exactly the same
in terms of set up costs? Also please can you explain why you have not
provided any details / correspondence under my FOI request pertaining to
the £88,000 as referenced by Cllr Jones on 30th May 2019?

2. The council's strategy and policies this development complies with.

Again, this was part of the public answer at the above mentioned meeting;
I am expecting to see some written references to core strategy, green
infrastructure and how this MUGA, in some way, justifies retaining the
area as a sports ground complying with Sport England policies.

3. The consultation process and consultees.

The multi-sports ground idea is nearly 2 years old, so I am asking what
consultation has occurred. Clearly those consultation facts mentioned in
your initial response to the above are for the LRIE and pre-date any
concept of there being some kind of sports ground open (the council’s idea
was to stop the tenants playing there and get vacant possession).

4. The stakeholders in the council, sporting bodies and the community.

What I mean is who at WBC (Councillors and staff) was involved with the
decision to propose a MUGA, which sporting bodies (e.g. Sport England),
professional advisors (sporting consultancies) and local
clubs/organisations did they talk to – notes from meetings, letters
supporting/against etc.

5. The organisations which the council expects to use the facility and the
sports involved.

What evidence has been relied on that a MUGA facility at Faraday Road will
actually be used? If no evidence has been sought by WBC then please state
this is the case. If evidence has been used please provide documentary
details.
In WBC’s plan, there must be evidence of who this MUGA is aimed at and
that it is actually needed? What clubs/organisations will WBC target and
publicise to? Otherwise, how do you know anyone will use it?

6. The cost of this work and the nature/costs of further related work.

Are you saying that £2400 is the TOTAL amount that WBC has spent on the
Faraday Road ground since the lease was ended in June 2018 up to May 2019?
If yes, please provide the evidence.
The FOI request specifically asks you to provide all documents, meeting
minutes and correspondence relating to planning application 19/00814/FUL
which you have failed to do.
Also there is no reference in your response to the £88,000 quoted by Cllr
Rick Jones on 30th May and by Cllr Hilary Cole’s statement about the
£88,000 estimate cost from the Executive Meeting on 20 December 2018 – see
public question (n) on
[2]http://decisionmaking.westberks.gov.uk/d... and
Answers 20th-Dec-2018 17.00 Executive.pdf?T=9
As stated above we know that the £88,000 relates to a previous proposal
for a MUGA submitted in December 2018 and not for the planning application
in March 2019 which specifies fencing, gates, floodlights and pylons. The
estimated cost of purchasing and erecting these must be many times the
£88,000 mentioned at the above meeting (but omitted in your reply). Please
provide evidence that the £88,000 budget is for the previous MUGA option
and not for the planning application submitted in March 2019 or whether
the total should be raised to take it into account.

7. The long-term funding, financial forecast, budget and operating costs.

Are you confirming that no business case with associated costings has been
produced for planning application 19/00814/FUL?

8. The business plan including how long the facility is expected to exist.

Rather like item 1, the council doesn’t seem to know who is, or how many
people are, going to use it so saying there is no information implies that
there are no written planning meeting minutes which justify this
expenditure. Surely this can't be right?

In conclusion, I am not happy with the reply so far as it seems the
council has conjured up this planning application without any approval
checks or financial balances and as this seems an irresponsible use of
time and public money, I have requested an internal review.

Many thanks in anticipation of a fuller response.

Yours sincerely,
John Stewart

dangos adrannau a ddyfynnir

foi, West Berkshire Council

5 Atodiad

Dear Mr Stewart

 

Please find attached my response following the internal review of your
request for information under the Environmental Information Regulations
2004.  I have also attached the following:-

 

Appendix 1: Report submitted to Operations Board on 4 October 2018.

Appendix 2: Minute from the Operations Board meeting of 4 October 2018.

Appendix 3: Options paper for the future management of the former Newbury
Town Football Club.

Appendix 4: Photoshot of the budget set aside for the MUGA.

 

Yours sincerely

 

Rachel Craggs

Principal Policy Officer (Information Management)

Legal & Strategic Support, West Berkshire Council, Council Offices, Market
Street, Newbury RG14 5LD

(01635) 519441  |  Ext 2441  |  [1][email address]

[2]www.westberks.gov.uk

 

From: foi
Sent: 12 June 2019 09:15
To: John Stewart <[FOI #573724 email]>
Subject: FoI/IR/2019/10- Stewart

 

FoI/IR/2019/10

 

Dear Mr Stewart,

 

Request for a Review: Information regarding planning application
19/00814/FUL

 

Thank you for your email received ^ 11^th June 2019. This has been passed
to the FoI Reviewing Officer to process as a request for an Internal
Review.

 

A response will be provided within twenty working days, by no later than
9^th July.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

Suzi Kenchington 

Information Compliance Officer

Legal and Strategic Support,

West Berkshire Council, Council Offices, Market Street, Newbury, RG14 5LD

email:  [3][email address]

' 01635 519860 (external)      '  2860 (internal)      

P Do you really need to print this email?

 

From: John Stewart [[4]mailto:[FOI #573724 email]]
Sent: 11 June 2019 17:40
To: foi <[5][West Berkshire Council request email]>
Subject: Internal review of Freedom of Information request - Information
regarding planning application 19/00814/FUL

 

This is an EXTERNAL EMAIL. STOP. THINK before you CLICK links or OPEN
attachments.

Dear Suzi,

Thank you for responding, but it appears that WBC has offered you little
of what I asked for so as the deadline has passed, I am forced to escalate
the matter.

Below are my replies to your responses which prompt for the missing
documentation:

1. The business case which justifies developing this site.

The FOI request did not ask about the old lease. Your response makes no
attempt to provide any documents or minutes that a business case was
actually provided in preparation for and in support of planning
application 19/00814/FUL.
If there is no business case and no supporting documentation please
confirm that this is in fact the case.
In your response you state that, “ After set up costs, the aim is for the
MUGA to be cost neutral where maintenance costs are covered by income”, so
if that is the case please provide the following information that supports
these assertions:
- what are the “set up costs” that your statement is based on?
- what are the “maintenance costs” that your statement is based on?
- what is the “income” forecast that your statement is based on and what
source / evidence did you use to determine this income forecast?
The only relevance of old lease is to serve as a benchmark. As you say the
previous lease provided the Council with a guaranteed income of £4500 pa
with no associated costs. If a business case has been produced it should
detail what new income will replace the old, by whom and by when.
I would expect that a business case should cover at the least the
following key points:
- Overview and objectives of the project, the strategic context, key
drivers for the council, options considered, evidence utilised, external
factors and why the particular option was chosen over alternatives.
- Contain well developed costings (upfront and ongoing) and potential
source of revenue (who will use the facility, what will they pay, how
often will it be used etc.)
- Contain clear estimates of timescales involved.
- Identify the benefits that will be delivered (hard and soft benefits).
- Outline the most suitable procurement route.
The request to you was to provide to me with all documents, meeting
minutes and correspondence relating to the business case which justifies
developing the Faraday Road Football Ground as defined in planning
application 19/00814/FUL. In response to this request you have not
provided any documents, meeting minutes and correspondence. The only thing
you have provided is information held in a previous lease which we already
know and reference to an extract of a transcript made by Cllr Rick Jones
to a public question at the Executive Meeting held on 30th May 2019. With
respect to the Cllr Jones transcript he also stated that the set-up cost
would be £88,000? When it was pointed out to him that this £88,000 was for
a prior MUGA proposal he seemed a bit uncertain. In fact the £88,000
figure was originally provided by Cllr Hilary Cole to a much smaller MUGA
proposal (originally from Cllr James Fredrickson) in Executive Q&As on 20
December 2018. Cllr Jones confirmed that the £88,000 was for the March
2019 planning application. Are WBC really stating that it is just a
coincidence that both schemes as responded to by Cllrs Cole and Jones for
two totally different schemes at least 6 months apart are exactly the same
in terms of set up costs? Also please can you explain why you have not
provided any details / correspondence under my FOI request pertaining to
the £88,000 as referenced by Cllr Jones on 30th May 2019?

2. The council's strategy and policies this development complies with.

Again, this was part of the public answer at the above mentioned meeting;
I am expecting to see some written references to core strategy, green
infrastructure and how this MUGA, in some way, justifies retaining the
area as a sports ground complying with Sport England policies.

3. The consultation process and consultees.

The multi-sports ground idea is nearly 2 years old, so I am asking what
consultation has occurred. Clearly those consultation facts mentioned in
your initial response to the above are for the LRIE and pre-date any
concept of there being some kind of sports ground open (the council’s idea
was to stop the tenants playing there and get vacant possession).

4. The stakeholders in the council, sporting bodies and the community.

What I mean is who at WBC (Councillors and staff) was involved with the
decision to propose a MUGA, which sporting bodies (e.g. Sport England),
professional advisors (sporting consultancies) and local
clubs/organisations did they talk to – notes from meetings, letters
supporting/against etc.

5. The organisations which the council expects to use the facility and the
sports involved.

What evidence has been relied on that a MUGA facility at Faraday Road will
actually be used? If no evidence has been sought by WBC then please state
this is the case. If evidence has been used please provide documentary
details.
In WBC’s plan, there must be evidence of who this MUGA is aimed at and
that it is actually needed? What clubs/organisations will WBC target and
publicise to? Otherwise, how do you know anyone will use it?

6. The cost of this work and the nature/costs of further related work.

Are you saying that £2400 is the TOTAL amount that WBC has spent on the
Faraday Road ground since the lease was ended in June 2018 up to May 2019?
If yes, please provide the evidence.
The FOI request specifically asks you to provide all documents, meeting
minutes and correspondence relating to planning application 19/00814/FUL
which you have failed to do.
Also there is no reference in your response to the £88,000 quoted by Cllr
Rick Jones on 30th May and by Cllr Hilary Cole’s statement about the
£88,000 estimate cost from the Executive Meeting on 20 December 2018 – see
public question (n) on
[6]http://decisionmaking.westberks.gov.uk/d... and
Answers 20th-Dec-2018 17.00 Executive.pdf?T=9
As stated above we know that the £88,000 relates to a previous proposal
for a MUGA submitted in December 2018 and not for the planning application
in March 2019 which specifies fencing, gates, floodlights and pylons. The
estimated cost of purchasing and erecting these must be many times the
£88,000 mentioned at the above meeting (but omitted in your reply). Please
provide evidence that the £88,000 budget is for the previous MUGA option
and not for the planning application submitted in March 2019 or whether
the total should be raised to take it into account.

7. The long-term funding, financial forecast, budget and operating costs.

Are you confirming that no business case with associated costings has been
produced for planning application 19/00814/FUL?

8. The business plan including how long the facility is expected to exist.

Rather like item 1, the council doesn’t seem to know who is, or how many
people are, going to use it so saying there is no information implies that
there are no written planning meeting minutes which justify this
expenditure. Surely this can't be right?

In conclusion, I am not happy with the reply so far as it seems the
council has conjured up this planning application without any approval
checks or financial balances and as this seems an irresponsible use of
time and public money, I have requested an internal review.

Many thanks in anticipation of a fuller response.

Yours sincerely,
John Stewart

dangos adrannau a ddyfynnir