THE controversial proposal to create a 3G football pitch in Laurel Park – since abandoned – continued to provoke questions.
At the start of the meeting, residents has their say, while councillors chipped in as the evening wore on.
Al Neal, who is a Lib Dem councillor on Earley Town Council, pointed out that a letter from council leader John Halsall to residents said no formal decision had been made as to the location of the proposed pitch but the executive meeting on June 24 last year approved expenditure on the project for £300,000; this has increased to £600,000 in the financial plan approved by the council in February.
“How can this be reconciled?” he asked.
Responding, council leader John Halsall said: “In order for any project like this to be considered it needs to be included in the medium-term financial plan. This an essential and necessary precondition.
“Thereafter, it will need elaboration into a business plan, a planning application will be required and various consultations with residents and other interested parties.
“Only when all these steps have been concluded satisfactorily authorisation will be given to proceed.”
Responding, Mr Neal said he was at the meeting as “just an Earley resident, no other capacity”, and said he wanted to know if there had been any formal decision on this, rather than a letter that had been circulated on social media.
Cllr Halsall said the public had a right to be angry over the way the Laurel Park proposal had been made, and the Lib Dem opposition had promoted the scheme, accusing the party’s leader Cllr Clive Jones of “ploughing on clandestinely”, and wasting officers team in the process.
“We could be wreaking havoc on outside relationships which the borough needs,” he said.
Judith Clark wanted to know more about a proposal to site the pitch at Maiden Erlegh school.
Cllr Halsall said that Ms Clark was an Earley town councillor, to which Ms Clark said he was mistaking her for another Judith Clark. He added that no formal decision had been made on a site, and the council listened to its residents.
“A possibility is upgrading current facilities at Maiden Erlegh school or using facilities in Bearwood as an alternative. If these are not feasible, then maybe there is no suitable site in Lower Earley,” he said.
Ms Clark then asked how, if Maiden Erlegh School was selected, would the site be managed as it was an academy.
“This discussion is premature, because there’s no such plan existing,” Cllr Halsall said.
Anne Morris, who lives in Avalon Road, near to Maiden Erlegh School said the suggested site “would have serious implications for residents of my area with regard to noise, traffic congestion, parking, light pollution from the floodlights and so a heavy impact on the environment”.
Cllr Halsall promised that any site would be chosen after a business case and consultation had taken place.
“As I’ve said before, there may not be a suitable site in Earley,” Cllr Halsall said.
A petition was presented by Cllr Andrew Mickelburgh, signed by 380 residents who supported improved sports facilities, but didn’t feel Laurel Park was suitable for a 3G pitch. They wanted the council to evaluate all possible sites and undertake a full public consultation in advance of any planning application.
“The number and variety of questions at this and the previous council meeting have clearly identified significant problems in the way the proposals have been handed, and a strong wish of many residents that lessons have been learnt and mistakes will not be repeated,” he said.
Later in the meeting, Cllr Mickleburgh wanted to know if it was “good practice” for mass circulation letters or emails, such as the letter from Cllr Halsall about the 3G pitch proposals, to be sent to ward councillors as well as affected residents, or posted on social media.
Responding, Cllr Halsall said: “This administration is here for one purpose alone and that is to serve the residents by being open and transparent.”
He added: “The recent debate over Laurel Park has regrettably shown us wanting. There is ample evidence that the proposal to site a 3G pitch at Laurel Park was in the public domain in and before March 2021, when it was advertised in the Executive Forward Plan.
“The proposal was first promoted by Cllr Jones in in December 2020 followed up by many other discussions. There were no member or public questions on this proposal until February 2022, when residents en masse questioned the Council.”
He added: “There is ample evidence that Earley Town Council enthusiastically supported the decision until very recently, when they found the local residents were against it. I understand that conversations were being held to implement this 3G pitch in September 2021.”
Cllr Mickelburgh said this was not the way the council should be communicating, and the answer was not for the question that was asked.
“How many times have councillors deliberately not been forwarded important correspondence from yourself that directed affected their wards? A simple numerical answer would suffice.”
Cllr Halsall responded by saying, “The requirement for honesty and integrity means the false flag initiatives designed to put the administration in disrepute does nothing to enhance the reputation of this council.
“On the eighth of December 2020, the day after Cantley Park 3G pitch was announced, Cllr Clive Jones wrote to Borough Council,” he continued, saying funding to revamp Cantley Park was “very good news” and added: “How are discussions going with them about Laurel Park? It would be great to have something similar there.
“Can we have an update chat?”
Cllr Halsall said that Cllr Jones’ discussions with the borough council went on throughout last year.
“The fact you didn’t know about it is really not a matter for me,” he said.
As this was a councillor question, Cllr Jones had no right of reply.
Cllr David Hare asked a question to Cllr Parry Batth, the executive member for environment and leisure, how involved he was in the decision to discount Laurel Park. However, Cllr Halsall responded, to the anger of Cllr Hare.
Cllr Halsall said saying that he was “intimately involved” in the decision, and as leader of the council he took responsibility for what happened in the council. “As President Truman said, the buck stops here.”
Cllr Hare said that the answer did not answer his question, and wanted to know when the council would consult with residents before applying for planning permission “so local people’s views” were known.
Responding, Cllr Halsall said that this question was “absolute nonsense” as no planning application had been prepared, no business case made.
“All the Earley (Lib Dem councillors) have done is managed to sink the proposal (to build a 3G pitch in Earley) and … virtue signal. The petition was absolute nonsense.”
Cllr Jones did ask a question during the evening, again related to the letter that Cllr Halsall had published announcing Laurel Park would not be built on.
He asked for a copy of the review of the Laurel Park decision to be published, including “details of the process by which it was conducted, factors considered and when this review started and ended”.
Cllr Halsall responded by saying “This must be your darkest hour.
“You clearly promoted the project to build a 3G pitch in Laurel Park. But you must have done so clandestinely without discussing it with your colleagues in Earley town council nor in Wokingham Borough Council.
“Why you should do this I cannot fathom It appears, that you certainly did not take the residents into your confidence whose views are not opaque. They are very clear that they value Laurel Park as the amenity it is now.
“Once you understood that the proposal would be unpopular you clearly positioned yourself to be against it, but you seem to not understand Borough Council processes. A full consultation had not taken place but would be necessary. You know that; I know that.”
He then accused Cllr Jones of “trying to mislead the public”.
Cllr Jones said: “I would just like an answer to my question”, and again called for a copy of the review to be made public.
Cllr Halsall responded by asking Cllr Jones for a copy of his review, for details of who he discussed the 3G pitch with: Earley town councillors or Wokingham Borough councillors, and when.
Cllr Ferris made a point of order saying that it was not appropriate for the leader of the council to ask a question to a member who had asked a question, but due to the time of the meeting coming to an end, he withdraw his challenge, to allow Cllr Halsall to continue his response.
Because it was an answer to a member’s question, Cllr Jones had no right of reply.
