Call-in of the decision to Lease the site at Braywick Park to Maidenhead United FC

The result of last nights O&S Panel was that the call-in by the Independent Councillors was successful and the decision has been sent back to the officer to commission a revised valuation, conduct a more thorough consultation, review the lease details and report back.

1. REASON(S) FOR CALL IN
   1.1 The call-in notice, received on 11th April 2023, stated the following reasons for calling in the decision:

• Lack of meaningful consultation with the public in order for them to express their view/objections.
• Lack of true consideration given to the local communities needs.
• Concern that the land is being leased below it’s true value.
• No real evidence that MUFC will struggle with its existing facilities.
• The loss of publicly accessible communal space within the park should this go ahead, had not been given appropriate consideration.
• Communication between the parties affected by this decision, who stand to lose their own facilities, has been poor.
• No evidence that Sports England’s views have been considered.

1. COUNCILLORS CALLING IN THE REPORT
   2.1 The call-in notice was signed by the following Councillors:

• Councillor Helen Taylor
• Councillor Geoff Hill
• Councillor Jon Davey

The RBWM Constitution states that Councillors have 5 days to call in a decision to the Overview & Scrutiny (O&S) Panel. This requires 1 panel member plus 2 others to sign the call-in papers.

Which essentially means you have to move quickly and when we read a decision notice, a call-in was the logical response. 

The following was published on the 4th April.

Lease of the site at Braywick Park to Maidenhead United FC

That the Executive Director of Place Services having due regard to the objections received in relation to the Public Open Space Disposal Notice and, subject to the granting of planning permission for a new stadium, agrees to proceed with the lease of the site.

Knowing it was in Oldfield ward I liaised with Helen Taylor & Geoff Hill to call it in.

Nothing can happen until planning permission is granted and the planning meeting where that could happen is months away, even so there were questions as to why this is being pushed through so close to an election. It made sense to call-in and debate at the O&S Panel.

I was first to speak…

What I said in my opening statement is below.

MUFC Move to Braywick Call-in

My father-in-law got married at St Ethelbert’s Church in Slough, now surrounded by the new space age lozenger library and a shopping centre, he often laments about Slough Council destroying Herschel’s observatory that is now an office block opposite Slough Police Station… near The Office of Ricky Jevais fame.

Wikipedia tells us – Maidenhead United Football Club is a semi-professional football club based in Maidenhead. Currently members of the National League, the fifth tier of English football, and have played at York Road since 1871, making it the ‘oldest senior football ground continuously used by the same club’ in the world.

• Lack of meaningful consultation with the public in order for them to express their view/objections. 

5.3 The site has been identified as the most suitable relocation for MUFC based on the collective sports and leisure focus at Braywick Park.

But a newspaper report states “the rugby club would lose almost half of its pitches at a time when they are growing in numbers and currently have about 600 children playing the sport on Sundays.”

Football has 500+ kids so they are equally important but it would seem the Rugby Club haven’t been consulted. The letters of objection are testimony to that, most are from those interested in saving Maidenhead Great Park, not rugby mums & dads furious that their kids are being deprived of their sports facilities.

3.5 talks of rugby club and athletics not being affected. How can that even be remotely true? Forgetting the removal of that free to all space 24×7, the build would take a year or more! 

• Lack of true consideration given to the local communities’ needs. 

The very new RBWM Sports and Leisure Strategy talks of disparity between rich and poor and the impact this has on health inequalities for those in areas of deprivation like Oldfield.

RBWM PLAYING PITCH STRATEGY

We have a strategy which surely must carry weight. This protects all our football, hockey, cricket, rugby, all our sports pitches.

On page 44 it states… Pitches at Braywick Park used by Maidenhead RFC may be under threat as a result of proposed development plans for the site and need to be protected.

• Concern that the land is being leased below its true value. 

The Football Club is a private business and should stand on its own two feet and not benefit from a covenant that they are disrespecting.

• No real evidence that MUFC will struggle with its existing facilities. 

The current ground has a capacity of 4500 (inc 550 seats) with attendance of just over 1,000 seemingly struggling financially but have visions that a 5,000 seater stadium at Braywick will make them a better team on the pitch!

• The loss of publicly accessible communal space within the park should this go ahead, had not been given appropriate consideration. 

Most of the objections talk about this and yet they are ignored even though this is not in keeping with our corporate plan.

The new vision talks of … More residents feel inspired to be more active, more often in indoor and outdoor spaces that are environmentally and financially sustainable 

Does this mean they have to pay to play, like with the tennis courts, or is it saying don’t build on the green spaces and let residents make the most of them?

• Communication between the parties affected by this decision, who stand to lose their own facilities, has been poor. 

The rugby club tells us there has been little or no communication and it is fair to assume this is true for all unless it can be demonstrated otherwise.

• No evidence that Sports England’s views have been considered.

Sports England are not in favour

• Climate emergency
• Sustainable transport for home & away fans
• Public health – standing is better than sitting 
• Social & economic – Pub and eateries for pre & post match
• Braywick’s green space, free to use at the point of access has already been eaten up by a school & sports centre
• Rugby & athletics track open 24×7 for those looking to train
• Seemingly plans to destroy the Olympic legacy outdoor gym 
• Surely the football club should be a Non-designated heritage asset (NDHA)?

There are repeated mentions in the letters of objection and in various news sources talking of a covenant on the ground. Can we see a copy of William Grenfell’s conditions of sale?

If these were planning objections then they would have to be considered by officers and the relevant legal points pulled out and addressed. Why is this not being preempted in this process?

The National Planning Policy Framework States

The ‘promoting healthy communities’ theme identifies that planning policies should be based on robust and up-to-date assessments of the needs for open space, sports and recreation facilities and opportunities for new provision. Specific needs and quantitative or qualitative deficiencies or surpluses in local areas should also be identified. This information should be used to inform what provision is required in an area. As a prerequisite the NPPF states existing open space, sports and recreation buildings and land, including playing fields, should not be built on unless:  An assessment has been undertaken, which has clearly shown that the open space, buildings or land is surplus to requirements.  The loss resulting from the proposed development would be replaced by equivalent or better provision in terms of quantity and quality in a suitable location.  The development is for alternative sports and recreational provision, the needs for which clearly outweigh the loss. In order for planning policies to be ‘sound’ local authorities are required to carry out a robust assessment of need for open space, sport and recreation facilities. 

Non-designated heritage asset (NDHA)

This would add weight to protecting the Football Club at York Road.

Criteria for identifying buildings or features of local significance.

If to be considered at least two of the following criteria should be met:

1)      Has architectural interest or quality

2)      Is a landmark feature

3)      Has a relationship with adjacent designated heritage assets in age, materials or in any other historically significant way

4)      Individually, or as part of a group, should illustrate the development of the local area

5)      Has significant historic associations with features such as a historic road layout,  a park or a landscape feature (designed or natural)

6)      Has historic associations with important people or past events

7)      Reflects the traditional functional character or former uses of the area

8)      Contributes positively to the character or appearance of the area

I had a couple of ideas for what I’d like to see resulting from the call-in but one was not relevant to the meeting, the other I shared later in the proceedings was essentially around having a more thorough consultation and this will now happen.

Thank you.

Jon Davey

Independent

Clewer & Dedworth West