1 of 17

Basingstoke Town Football Club

Cllr Simon Bound, Cabinet Member for Communities and Community Safety

Report to Community, Environment and Partnerships Committee

Ward(s): All

Key Decision: No

Appendix 1: Map of Camrose site showing council land ownership

Appendix 2: Parties involved in BTFC

CONFIDENTIAL Appendix 3:

Letter from Lamron Estates Ltd on 25 April 2017 – land enquiry

CONFIDENTIAL Appendix 4:

Conditions in lease relevant to use of the Camrose site

Appendix 5: Local Plan Policy CN8– Community, Leisure and Cultural Facilities

Appendix 6: Ground Grading Comparisons

Appendix 7: List of senior grade football clubs in Hampshire 2017-18

Appendix 8: Submission from D Partridge - Council meeting 30 March 2017 Item 5 – Questions from members of the public

Appendix 9: Submission from Chairman of the IMG “Outline case for Borough Council Support” 23 June 2017

Appendix 10:

Business Plan for a Basingstoke Town Community Football Club 4 July 2017

Papers relied on:

Cabinet 17 March 2015 agenda item 11; Basingstoke Town Football Club – potential new stadium

Cabinet 26 January 2016 agenda item 4/15; Provision of land for a stadium for Basingstoke Town Football Club

2 of 17

Foreword – Cllr Simon Bound, Cabinet Member for Communities and Community Safety

The council is very supportive of football in the Borough at all levels and for all abilities and age groups, both male and female. Following the decision that ruled out the Old Common as a site for Basingstoke Town Football Club (BTFC) in 2016, a further review was carried out by the council but this found no suitable pieces of public land that could be made available for a new football stadium.

It is unrealistic to expect the council to find another piece of public land at no or low cost to what is in effect a private club on which to develop a new stadium, since this would be at the expense of the council tax payer and divert resources that would otherwise fund services provided to residents. I have previously stated, and it remains my view, that the long term sustainability of Basingstoke Town Football Club is best served by the club remaining at the Camrose Stadium. Basron Development Ltd, which has now acquired the freehold of the majority of the Camrose site has nevertheless confirmed their intention to submit a planning application for residential development. The company has also requested that the council sells to them the part of the site in our ownership.

At the time of preparing this report there remain many queries regarding the future of BTFC and the Camrose site, including whether the redevelopment proposals for the Camrose would address planning policy criteria and whether funds from the potential development of the Camrose would be reinvested into the club. There is also considerable financial uncertainty in that the revenue position of the club is perilous – the council understands that the club has needed support of £15,000 per month, however BTFC’s Interim Management Group have informed BDBC that they are working to resolve this. In addition, the owner of the club is apparently wanting to recover £4m-£6m from his expenditure and loans to the club.

It remains my hope that Basron Development Ltd will reconsider its intention to develop the site so that the club may have a sustainable future in Basingstoke at their current ground. It must be clear that the council has no intention to re-provide a new football ground or to fund the future management and operation of the club. The opportunity for the matter to be considered at this Committee is intended to share with councillors and the public the complexities of the situation and the different aspirations of the interested parties. While there are no immediate decisions due on this issue at the present time, the council would be willing to receive a partnership proposal that delivers mutual benefits for the parties and for participation in football. The council is encouraging a collaborative approach involving the newly formed community-owned club committee, the BTFC’s Interim Management Group, and Hampshire FA as our county advocates for football, working together with the fans and community of Basingstoke to develop and deliver a realistic, sustainable and supported plan that allows Basingstoke Town Community Football Club to thrive and that achieves wider community benefits.

3 of 17

Views of the committee are sought on:

The future options for Basingstoke Town Football Club

How the council may support the club to achieve the best outcomes for taxpayers in the borough

Background, corporate objectives and priorities

The council plan priorities Improving residents’ quality of life (Enhance leisure and cultural facilities), and Supporting those that need it (Promote strong communities, Support wellbeing initiatives that improve life chances) support the provision of sporting facilities for the community. The council both directly and indirectly provides, promotes and supports a range of services and organisations that contribute to the achievement of those aims.

At the Council meeting of 30 March 2017 a number of questions were raised by Mr Hood under item 5, questions from members of the public. These were answered by the portfolio holder, Cllr Simon Bound. The council voted to consider the future of Basingstoke Town Football Club at a future meeting of the Community, Environment and Partnerships Committee.

This report briefly outlines the recent history regarding BTFC sites, and the current position so far as it is known to the council at the time of writing the report. A number of speakers have accepted an invitation to address the Committee:

BTFC President and Interim Management Group Chairman (Mr Alan Turvey)

BTFC Chief Executive and Company Secretary (Mr David Knight)

BTFC Interim Management Group and Basingstoke Town Community FC (Mr Steve Williams)

Basingstoke Town Supporters Club and Basingstoke Town Community FC (Mr Martin French)

Supporter views (Mr Simon Hood, Mr David Partridge)

Hampshire Football Association Chief Executive (Mr Neil Cassar) Hampshire Football Association Facilities and Investment Manager (Mr Sacha

Nicholas) The BTFC Club Owner (Raffi Razzak) has declined the invitation to speak. Glossary of terms

Term Definition

BTFC Basingstoke Town Football Club

HFA Hampshire Football Association

IMG Interim Management Group of Basingstoke Town Football Club

Supporters Direct

Supporters Direct helps fans to set up democratic cooperatives (known as supporters’ trusts) to gain influence in the running and ownership of their clubs http://www.supporters-direct.org/

4 of 17

Main considerations

1 Summary of recent history

1.1 The potential relocation of the Basingstoke Town Football Club has been a matter under discussion between the Club and the council for many years. In 2012, a potential scheme to build a new football club in the form of a stadium with community facilities on part of the Old Common, Basingstoke was presented to the then Economic, Environment and Prosperity Overview Committee for consideration.

1.2 In March 2012, Cabinet supported the proposal from the landowner perspective, subject to contract and without prejudice and conditional on planning consent.

1.3 In June 2014, when a further report was considered to seek agreement to the heads of terms, there was demand within the council through the call in process for further examination of several aspects of the proposal before any legal commitment could be entered into. At that time a number of residents and local groups expressed concern about the impact of the proposal on the existing use of the Old Common.

1.4 At the meeting on 17 March 2015 Cabinet resolved that a review of land in the Council’s ownership is undertaken in order to establish whether any land is available and appropriate as a potential location for a stadium to accommodate Basingstoke Town Football Club.

1.5 Subsequently at their meeting on 26 January 2016, following the representations made, the Cabinet discussed the following options:

1. Progress negotiation with BTFC regarding a potential relocation to the Old Common site.

2. Continue to review potential site options of land in the council’s ownership for a potential relocation of BTFC.

3. Advise BTFC that there was no available or appropriate land in the council’s ownership for relocation of the stadium and bring a halt to the current consideration of Old Common, whilst confirming support for BTFC at its current location.

1.6 During this debate comments made included:

Unanimous agreement that a decision needed to be taken.

New information had been provided from the usage survey of the Old Common and the sizeable public response from residents opposed to the loss of Old Common, however there had been little reaction from BTFC supporters.

Basingstoke was an aspirational town and football was an aspirational game. BTFC would create something good for the town with multi-use pitches and community space. A new stadium would make the town more attractive whilst the Camrose had little appeal. Sport was an important issue and resources need to be improved.

5 of 17

The Old Common was valuable open space land. The countryside was precious and should only be built on when there are no other alternatives. BTFC does already have a ground.

Football plays an important part in a healthy lifestyle and social skills for young people.

If possible the council would like to help BTFC, other sites had been reviewed but there were no other suitable piece of land and therefore option 2 should not be considered.

There was an increasing awareness of the importance of open space and any loss of open space needed to be balanced against the benefits a new stadium would bring to the town.

1.7 In his summary the Cabinet Member for Finance and Resources stated that

there were clear and tangible benefits of a new football stadium which would help BTFC, provide facilities for the wider community, enable schools to use a multi-use games area and provide investment for a new retail park to be funded entirely from private funds. However he recognised how much residents and councillors valued open space and the Old Common was well used open space in an urban area. His recommendation to Cabinet was to approve option 3 of the report.

1.8 Cabinet unanimously resolved to advise Basingstoke Town Football Club that there is no available or appropriate land in the council’s ownership for relocation of the stadium and that no further consideration will be given to Old Common as a potential site.

1.9 The reasons for that decision were:

Consideration of statutory consultation responses, usage surveys and council policies on open space provision and protection indicate Old Common site is required for use as public open space.

If Basingstoke Town Football Club were to relocate to Old Common many of the valuable features of the site for public use, informal recreation walking and access to a semi-rural environment would be lost.

Alternative Open Space would be a greater distance from some residential areas.

1.10 The previous work by the council which examined site options for a new stadium in the borough were set out in the appendices to the Cabinet report in January 2016.

2 Basingstoke Town Football Club site

2.1 It has been confirmed that Rafi Razzak, chairman of BTFC and owner of 71% of the freehold, intends to leave the club and that the Camrose ground would be sold for redevelopment, with part of the funds from this sale being used to help the club move forward at a new home.

2.2 The remaining 29% of the freehold is owned by BDBC and leased to BTFC, as shown in the plan at Appendix 1.

6 of 17

2.3 In late 2016 and 2017 the council was approached by the Interim Management Group (IMG) of BTFC to have informal discussions about the future of the club, and senior officers and the portfolio holder have made themselves available to meet club and supporter representatives over recent weeks to understand the current position and the relationships within the BTFC organisational structure, which is complex.

2.4 The diagram at Appendix 2 seeks to illustrate the different parties and interests within BTFC, and shows that clarity is needed about the relevant part of the organisation when referring to BTFC.

2.5 The IMG have been posting updates on the club website under the heading “plan B” http://basingstoketown.net/plan-b/ It has stated that discussions were taking place on options for a new ground, and that, having explored a provisional ground-share arrangement for 2017-18 with Farnborough FC, the club would remain playing at the Camrose site for the start of the next season. In a further statement on the BTFC website (20 June 2017) it was confirmed that a Community Owned Club has been formally registered. A business plan for the Community Owned Club has now been received by the council - this is referred to in paragraph 4.7.

2.6 On 25 April, the council received a letter from Lamron Estates Ltd confirming that a planning application is to be submitted for development of the Camrose site, and requesting the council to sell the land in its ownership that is currently leased to BTFC. This letter is attached at Confidential Appendix 3, and an extract from the Lease is shown at Confidential Appendix 4.

2.7 A letter was also received from Lamron Estates Ltd in May 2017 with a planning enquiry; further correspondence clarifying the position regarding continued use of the ground for football during the planning process has since been exchanged between the parties. Lamron Estates have also been advised that any planning application for alternative uses of the Camrose site will need to be assessed against relevant Local Plan policies, including Policy CN 8 Community, Leisure and Cultural Facilities.

2.8 Policy CN 8 only supports the loss of existing facilities where specific criteria are met. In particular this policy states:

“Any development proposals that would result in the loss of community, leisure and cultural facilities must be accompanied by an assessment which clearly shows the facility or land to be surplus to requirements. As a minimum the assessment must evaluate the quantity and quality of existing facilities in the locality and assess the need and value to the community. The views of the local community on any loss must be sought as part of this assessment.”

2.9 A copy of the relevant policy is attached at Appendix 5. This will require any future planning application to redevelop the site for alternative uses to address these criteria. To date no planning application had been received neither has there been a formal request for pre application advice to be provided by the council as Local Planning Authority.

7 of 17

2.10 Following a meeting in June 2017, and based on the assumption that the Camrose site would be sold for redevelopment, the IMG presented the minimum specification for a ground that they consider to be suitable for the club in the future. This would be of a considerably lower specification than that proposed in the past for the Old Common site as described below, which makes reference to the potential use of the council’s facilities at Winklebury. The IMG stated:

“In simple terms, the key requirements for a permanent home can be summarised as:

An approved 3G pitch (though the club could utilise the existing grass pitch at Winklebury with temporary seating hired in and provision in a porta cabin for various things including hospitality)

Ground capacity of 1950 (though the club’s average attendance is 360 -400). Minimum covered accommodation of 500 (250 seated)

Specific provision for Teams and Officials Changing rooms, Boardroom, Hospitality, Medical room, Public toilets

Car parking (no additional car parking would be required at Winklebury)

3 turnstiles”

2.11 The size of the Camrose ground could accommodate 6,000 spectators, although the current safety capacity is 2,400 as agreed with the HCC safety advisory group, including covered seating for 650. The highest recorded attendance for a home match in the 2016 - 2017 season was 617; the lowest was 127, with the average for home games being 382. These figures comprise home and away fans.

3 Winklebury Football Complex

3.1 The IMG have approached the Hampshire Football Association (HFA), who have their headquarters at the Winklebury Football Complex, about the prospect of working together on the Winklebury site.

3.2 The Winklebury Football Complex, located on Winklebury Way, was developed in 2007, with the stadium provided for the primary purpose of meeting an identified deficiency of football facilities able to accommodate fixtures of Wessex league and cup final standards in the Borough. As availability of the pitch permits, the facilities also serve football development requirements at borough and county level.

3.3 The Complex comprises:

Enclosed floodlit grass pitch and stadium (Wessex League ground grading standard - ground capacity 1500) with turnstile control, spectator stand (64 seats), changing rooms, meeting room, public toilets, store and access to shared kiosk (with HFA); funded by BDBC and Football Foundation; owned and maintained by BDBC, use managed by HFA under a management agreement since 2011

8 of 17

Winklebury Playing Fields - grass pitches (2 x 11v11; 2 x 9v9); multi-use games area, changing pavilion – owned, maintained and managed by BDBC

William Pickford House – Hampshire FA’s Administrative offices and conference facility; funded by HFA and under HFA control under a ground lease arrangement

Car park – capacity approximately 100 spaces including 9 accessible parking bays (3 located adjacent to HFA building), available for all users of the Football Complex.

3.4 HFA is the body responsible for the oversight of football across Hampshire, the Isle of Wight and Bournemouth and for delivering the National Game Strategy of the Football Association. Details of its governance arrangements, rules and operations can be found in its Handbook at: http://esports.flipboxapp.net/Hampshire-FA-Website/html5forpc.html?page=0

3.5 HFA have presented the council with a proposal for the transfer of the Winklebury stadium facilities from the council to HFA on a long lease, including plans to deliver an artificial pitch. The council’s Playing Pitch Strategy sets out an action to support HFA to secure funding to provide an Artificial Grass Pitch with community use to replace the grass pitch as the main stadium pitch at Winklebury Football Complex by 2020. This would significantly increase the opportunities for football participation at the site, since use of the grass pitch is currently limited to a maximum of 3 fixtures per week over the winter and 4 fixtures in the spring. This playing frequency, which includes use for matches, development activity and tournaments, is intended to protect the standard of the grass pitch for all parties and enable the grounds maintenance staff to treat and mark out the pitch.

3.6 No decision on the HFA proposal has yet been made by the council, although the HFA has been informed that the principle of leasing assets to community organisations is generally welcomed. The fundamental requirement for a long-lease arrangement is that the asset is protected and promoted for the community use for which it was provided, and that the organisation taking on responsibility can demonstrate the capability for sound management and stewardship of the property.

3.7 The development of the Winklebury Football Complex, excluding the HFA premises, was part funded with a grant from the Football Foundation. Under the conditions of the grant, the council would have to ‘give written notice to the Foundation a reasonable period before it enters into any sale, transfer, lease, disposal or change of use or any agreement for the same.’ This would be relevant to any change to the council’s ownership of the facilities.

3.8 HFA have made a significant financial investment in the office building and the later conference facility extension to provide a home and identity for county football at Winklebury. In this context, and being under the assumption that BTFC were seeking an alternative home equivalent to the Camrose ground for the men’s first team meaning they would require priority and regular use of the pitch, HFA have stated that they do not see BTFC’s future being at the

9 of 17

Winklebury Complex. No further discussions between the parties has taken place at the time of writing this report.

3.9 HFA and the Portfolio Holder for Communities and Community Safety have been involved in discussions about whether the site could be suitable for the BTFC Ladies team, who now play in the FA Women’s Premier League. There are some ground modifications that would be required to enable the Ladies team to hire Winklebury Stadium to play at this level of competition, which have been factored in to the HFA business model for leasing the facilities.

3.10 Recent discussions have also been held between HFA and with youth workers from the Winklebury Youth facility about the possibility of HFA hiring the youth centre which is adjacent to Winklebury stadium and managed by Sycamore Halls Community Association, to serve refreshments for ladies team fixtures.

3.11 At a meeting with council representatives on 13 June, HFA confirmed that in the event the BTFC men’s team is no longer able to play at the current level of competition because the costs of operating the team are unsustainable and/or there is no alternative site which meets the ground grading requirements, then it would be possible for a ‘phoenix’ men’s team to play at Winklebury stadium under the same arrangements as the ladies team. The team could play at up to Step 6 of the FA Men’s Pyramid of Football, commensurate with the standard of facilities that could be achieved to enable the Ladies team to play at Winklebury. The BTFC men’s team currently play at Step 3 of the League Pyramid, which requires a higher standard of ground grading.

3.12 HFA advised they had been contacted by a representative from the supporters’ forum to seek a meeting to explore a phoenix club scenario further, but this had not yet been progressed.

3.13 It should be noted that if a men’s team did play at Step 6 and were successful in achieving promotion to the next league, they would not be able to continue to play at Winklebury Stadium, resulting in a similar situation for the team as now faced by BTFC.

3.14 For information, a comparison of the Winklebury site and the key standards required for Women’s premier League and Men’s League Step 3 are shown at Appendix 6. Appendix 7 shows the different steps in the leagues and the clubs within the HFA jurisdiction competing at those levels.

3.15 HFA confirmed that their officers would support BTFC, if requested, in the same way as it supports other clubs in the county to achieve the FA Charter Standard as a community club, and could signpost to appropriate legal advice on governance and management structures.

3.16 The council is to hold further discussions with HFA regarding their proposals in the context of the wider issues presented in this report. Any decision on the future disposal of Winklebury under a long lease would be taken by the Portfolio Holders for Property and Development and for Communities and Community Safety.

10 of 17

4 Commercial and financial considerations

4.1 The commercial and financial arrangements at BTFC appear complex and opaque. At the current time these have not been explained clearly and transparently to the council. There are various parties with interests that are either primarily financially or football driven, and this report attempts to illustrate the arrangement so far as they are known to the council. Members may like to explore these arrangements at committee with the invited speakers.

4.2 So far as the council understand, Rafi Razzak is the 100% shareholder in Basingstoke Town Ltd, essentially the football club. Currently the club is managed by the IMG under the oversight of Mr Razzak.

4.3 The IMG are working to find a solution to the future of the club. Members of the IMG are:

Alan Turvey - Chairman (Club President)

David Knight - Chief Executive and Company Secretary BTFC limited

Steve Williams - Strategy & Projects (including Community Owned Club and securing permanent ground)

Will Wilkinson - Digital & Marketing

Mark Lane (Accountant ) - Finance

Ian Halloway - Stadium Operations& Safety

Sarah Parsons - Events & Hospitality

Mark Jones - Ark Cancer Charity, effectively Non Executive adviser.

James Mathie - Supporters Direct advisory role on Community Owned Club

Terry Brown - First Team Manager

4.4 Members of the club whose primary interest is the football, and the spectators/ supporters of the teams, are very concerned to ensure a successful future for BTFC. However those who now hold the interest in the club for financial purposes have overall control. The reason the club is at risk is due to the decision of the Chairman to now recover funds previously made available to support the club. This risk is compounded by the fact that the club is not operating on a sustainable business model. There is no feasible alternative site for the club to play at its current level of league competition within Basingstoke.

4.5 The IMG have verbally stated that the club has, to date, required revenue support in the order of £15,000 per month and that Mr Razzak is looking to regain between £4m and £6m from his exit from the club.

4.6 In terms of land ownership of the Camrose site Basron Ltd are the majority landowner. Mr Razzak is a 50% shareholder in Basron Ltd, with Mr M McPhail the other 50% shareholder. The council owns the balance of the land on the club’s current site as shown at Appendix 1.

4.7 The IMG had expressed a desire to pursue a community ownership option for the club and following discussion with Supporters Direct, have announced on its website (20 June 2017) that a Community Owned Club has been formally

11 of 17

registered. The statement continues ‘This is a big first step in having a club controlled by its members (one member, one vote), independent of the current regime. The community owned club is a separate legal entity, in readiness for the smooth transfer of ownership. It is recognised by the Financial Services Authority and known as Basingstoke Town Community FC’.

4.8 In late June the IMG presented the council with the paper at Appendix 9 setting out the ‘Outline Case for Borough Council Support’. A Business Plan for the Community Owned Club was received in early July, which is attached at Appendix 10.

5 Council policy and practice for supporting sports organisations

5.1 The vision in the council’s Strategic Plan for Sport and Recreation 2012-2025 is ‘to have an enhanced infrastructure of facilities and a strong network of people that supports participation in sport and recreation activity within local communities and to make the most of opportunities to achieve outcomes of local, district and borough wide significance.’

5.2 The council supports organisations to maintain and enhance their playing facilities in accordance with the objectives and priorities in its sports strategies. The Strategic Plan refers to facilities that are highly valued by the community, which is defined as those that:

are recognised for their contribution to community activity and amenity

can evidence customer demand, a track record of well attended community activity and sound management

5.3 Such facilities may be owned by parish councils, schools and voluntary sector organisations; investment is also made in council owned facilities for community benefit. For sports clubs/facility providers to be eligible for council support, their constitution or governance document should include that the organisation shall:

promote amateur sports participation

have an open membership

reinvest any profits into the club rather than pay its members

have a dissolution clause that states any surplus profits must be reinvested into another community amateur sports club, Charity or the relevant Governing Body

5.4 Clubs may have paid staff, generally for coaching, management and administration functions, but most clubs will rely heavily on volunteers as Trustees and to fulfil roles within the club.

5.5 Support to sports clubs and other facility providers is mainly in the form of guidance on producing a business plan, undertaking feasibility studies, engaging with the community, producing a sports participation plan, preparing planning applications, and making funding applications. Potential sources of funding include S106, LIF, Sport England, national governing bodies of sport, local charitable trusts etc. These schemes generally arise where clubs own or have a long term lease for their facilities.

12 of 17

6 Council action – option analysis

6.1 In essence the main courses of action available to the council are summarised, with their implications, in the table below:

High level option analysis

Option Advantages Disadvantages Commentary

1

Encourage the freeholders to put the interests of football and the residents of Basingstoke first and allow BTFC to continue to play at the Camrose or enable partial redevelopment as presented as an option by BTFC

The men’s team would be able to continue to play at the current league level, subject to the Camrose ground meeting the standards required for competing in the league structure.

There would be continued uncertainty about the long term security of tenure for the BTFC while the current freeholders remain in control; requires significant investment in ground improvements

The ideal solution from BDBC perspective if a long term commitment could be achieved; not the view of the club owner and landowner

2

Support BTFC to become a community owned (not for profit) club

A not-for-profit community owned club structure may bring new investment opportunities and mitigate risks associated with an owner involved for financial benefit

Would not in itself secure the future of the men’s team at the Camrose or at an alternative ground without significant financial backing and a sustainable business model

Attractive proposition, and would be a better fit with council policy and practice in terms of supporting community sport. No budget is currently available. A ground remains a significant challenge.

3.

The club in its present format is wound up. The Council provides a degree of future support to focus on community grassroots and lower league participation

A ‘phoenix’ men’s team could be established; there would be potential for men’s and ladies’ teams to play at Winklebury Stadium with youth and community programmes at different sites. Examples of support for this could take the form of potential grant applications from the new groups and/or allowing such games to be played at existing Council-owned sites.

There would be no Basingstoke Town men’s team playing at the current league level

Budget would need to be identified to fund any financial support

Would be a better fit with council policy and practice in terms of supporting community sport.

Some modifications have been proposed at Winklebury by HFA to accommodate the ladies team.

No budget is currently available.

13 of 17

Option Advantages Disadvantages Commentary

4 Sell the council interest in the Camrose site

Would generate a capital receipt and maximise financial benefit for council taxpayers, so long as eventual disposal deal compliant with s123 ‘best value’ provisions.

The council would have no influence on the future use of the site

From a commercial perspective and council tax payer value this is appropriate. Does nothing to secure the future of the club.

5

Consider the matter as being purely that of a private business and do nothing at the present time

This would be consistent with the council’s approach to other private businesses and investors

The council could be regarded as ignoring the desire of some residents and supporters to have a football club of the current level based in the town

From a commercial perspective and council tax payer value this is appropriate. Does nothing to secure the future of the club.

6

The council buys out the current owner’s interest in the BTFC site and subsidises the club operation in the future – the council effectively operates a commercial football club

The future of BTFC at the Camrose would be secured

There are significant unbudgeted financial implications. Council tax payers’ money would be used to pay off a private individual; the council would be putting funds into a commercial business with no prospect of return on investment, and would have to satisfy audit requirements that this was an appropriate use of public funds. This route would also potentially open up requests from other organisations or private businesses for future Council support which may not be sustainable.

No budget is allocated for this approach. The council would be taking on significant financial and reputational risks. Difficult to demonstrate council tax payer value. Not in accordance with current council policy and practice.

14 of 17

Option Advantages Disadvantages Commentary

7

An option raised by BTFC is that Winklebury Stadium be upgraded to facilitate Step 3 (Level B) standard football to enable BTFC to continue playing at its current league level and the site is managed by the Community Owned Club or jointly with HFA

There would be a Basingstoke Town men’s team playing at the current league level

It would help to optimise the use of an artificial pitch throughout the week and weekends.

It should be possible to develop a management arrangement for the site that protects the asset and meets the needs of the local community, Hants FA and BTFC (there are some examples of County FAs ground sharing with town teams elsewhere)

Significant investment in upgrading facilities would be required – it is not clear that the community club would be able to secure the necessary funds;

There are risks associated with securing planning consent for the required upgrades at Winklebury;

The viability and sustainability of the club playing at this level is not certain and is currently regarded as a risk;

This option is less favourable with the grass pitch as availability is limited and BTFC is likely to want priority (it would take 12-18 months to provide an artificial pitch)

It is considered that the funding to upgrade the Winklebury site to facilitate this level of competition would need to be found by BTFC as it would be difficult to demonstrate value for the council tax payer for funding by the council; HFA is unlikely to fund an artificial pitch if BTFC had control of the facilities.

This option would present financial and reputational risk and would not be in accordance with current council policy.

Hants FA has a long term secure presence on the site through the lease for its HQ and would need to be a willing party in a collaborative approach with BTFC.

6.2 The committee is invited to consider the comments of the invited speakers and provide views on these options. Committee is also invited to consider the emerging position of the council as follows:

The council will not re-provide a new ground for BTFC

The council will not underwrite the operation of BTFC

The council will support the establishment of the Basingstoke Town Community Football Club

The council expects Basingstoke Town Community Football Club and Hants FA to work together to explore the feasibility of ground sharing at Winklebury

Any solution regarding the future of Basingstoke Town Community Football Club has evidence of support in the community

The council will consider transferring the lease of the Winklebury stadium pitch and facilities to a third party or consortium that manages and protects the asset, levers in investment for an artificial pitch and maximises community use

15 of 17

Corporate implications

7 Legal Implications

7.1 The Council has a legal interest in land as the freeholder of part of the Camrose site, extending to circa 1.94 acres. This area is shown delineated red on the plan at Appendix 1. Following the grant of a lease by the Council’s predecessor authority in May 1962 and a subsequent registration by the present football club tenant, Basingstoke Town Limited is registered at HM Land Registry as the leaseholder of this land. The main details of this lease are set out in Confidential Appendix 4.

7.2 According to information obtained from HM Land Registry in April 2017, the remainder of the Camrose ground site is also held by Basingstoke Town Limited as a registered leaseholder. The freehold of the remainder is owned by Basron Developments Limited, as successor in title to the original granter of the lease, Viscount Camrose. No copy of this lease is held at HM Land Registry, although it is stated to run for 99 years from June 1953. The combined registered leasehold interest held by Basingstoke Town Limited is also subject to two registered Charges and an Option Agreement.

7.3 A submission to the council, attached at Appendix 8, refers to a covenant on the Camrose site and questions the ability of the freeholders to sell the land without making suitable alternative provision1. The submission also raises other issues previously referred to in this report.

7.4 The Committee is invited to consider the Council’s approach to solutions in light of the provisions of the lease as set out in Confidential Appendix 4.

7.5 Any proposal or support which the Council may consider or ultimately offer must comply with the ‘best consideration’ provisions of Section 123 Local Government Act 1972. Appropriate legal advice will be sought by the Council in relation to any such proposals in the future.

8 Financial implications

8.1 None at this stage but any future proposals to dispose of Council owned land will need to comply with the best consideration requirements of Section 123 of the Local Government Act 1972.

8.2 There has been no formal valuation of the freehold part of the Camrose site owned by Rafi Razzak, which would be required if there were to be any consideration by the council to purchase the land; however it is understood that Mr Razzak is seeking to recover between £4-6m.

8.3 Any consideration of the council acquiring the site to secure the operation of the football club would also have significant revenue implications; the current operational costs are believed to be at least £15,000 per month.

1 This remains the subject of legal enquiries

16 of 17

8.4 The council received the management accounts for 2016/17 just prior to this report being finalised; there has been no opportunity to offer an assessment of the accounts and their implications or relevance for the new Community Owned Club for inclusion in the report. The Committee may wish to explore this further with the representatives from BTFC.

9 Risk management

9.1 There is a risk that Basingstoke Town Football Club will cease to exist in its current form. The men’s team currently plays in the Southern League Premier Division for which there are strict ground grading requirements. Camrose is the only football ground within the borough that currently meets the minimum requirements for the current level of league football. There is therefore a high risk that there will be no men’s team playing at the current or higher competitive levels of league football in the town if BTFC do not find a solution.

9.2 There may be implications for other activities of BTFC, such as the Under 21 and youth teams, academy and community programmes, if it ceases to exist in its current form. The Ladies team appears to operate largely independently of the men’s team and its associated management structure and has been in separate discussion about its future with HFA.

9.3 There is a risk that the portion of land at the Camrose owned by the council would become a liability and of no effective community or commercial use if the development of the rest of the Camrose site goes ahead.

9.4 There would be significant financial, operational and reputational risks of the council running a commercial football club.

10 Equalities implications

10.1 An Equality Impact Assessment has been undertaken to consider the impact of the different options for the future of Basingstoke Town Football Club on the protected characteristics groups and the implications for the Public Sector Equality Duty. This assessment concluded that the proposed options would not have a differential impact on any groups and that there are no particular implications for the Duty. However, if any future changes are approved, they should take into account accessibility of both the site and the stadium and should be communicated in a wide variety of ways to ensure that all relevant stakeholders are aware of them.

11 Consultation and communication

11.1 Meetings have been held with representatives of the Interim Management Group of the football club and with Hampshire FA. A Full Council meeting was held in March 2017, which local residents were able to attend. The Cabinet Member for Communities and Community Safety, Cllr Bound, has attended two fans forum meetings to hear views on the club’s future and will listen to the views expressed at the CEP meeting to help inform any further role for the council in the future of BTFC.

17 of 17

12 HR implications

None

Lead officer Chas Bradfield, Head of Borough Development and Implementation

Report author Chas Bradfield/Marion Short

Version Final

Dated 10/7/2017

Status Open

Confidentiality

It is considered that information contained within Appendix 3 and 4 contain exempt information under the meaning of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972, as amended, and therefore cannot be made public.