Agenda item

The information in this case is exempt in that it falls within the following prescribed categories:

3. Information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person (including the authority holding that information)

and since it is considered that, in all the circumstances of the case, the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information, in that a negotiation is ongoing and would prejudice the position of the authority in the process of that negotiation and the Council’s standing generally in relation to such matters in future, to the detriment of the Council’s ability properly to discharge its fiduciary and other duties as a public authority.

Annex X containing exempt information under the above paragraph is attached.

The report on the engagement exercise regarding the proposal from Oxford United Football Club to the County Council as landowner will be considered by Cabinet at its meeting on 19 September 2023.

Cllr Liz Leffman, the Leader of the Council, and Martin Reeves, Chief Executive, have been invited to present the report and to answer the Committee’s questions.  Invitations have also been extended to Cllr Calum Miller, Cabinet Member for Finance, and Cllr Glynis Phillips, Cabinet Member for Corporate Performance, as well as to Vic Kurzeja, Director of Property Services, and Susannah Wintersgill, Director of Communications, Strategy, and Insight.

The Committee is recommended to consider the report, to ask any questions, and to AGREE any recommendations it wishes to make to Cabinet arising from the report and discussion.

The Committee had invited Cllr Liz Leffman, Leader of the Council, Cllr Calum Miller, Cabinet member for Finance, and Cllr Glynis Phillips, Cabinet member for Performance and Corporate Services to attend to present the report on the proposal from Oxford United Football Club to Oxfordshire County Council as Landowner that it should acquire the site on the edge of Kidlington known as The Triangle. 

The Committee had also invited Martin Reeves, Chief Executive, Vic Kurzeja, Director of Property Services, Susannah Wintersgill, Director of Communications, Strategy, and Insight, Carole Stow, Engagement Consultation Manager, and Paul Grant, Head of Legal, to attend.  The Committee welcomed representatives of Westco Communications (Westco), the independent company who undertook the engagement exercise on the Council’s behalf, Simon Jenkins, Director of Communications, and Rishi Moulton, Head of Insight and Data, to explain how the engagement process was undertaken and to answer technical question on it.

Anita Bradley, Director of Law & Governance and Monitoring Officer, attended to provide the Committee with in-person legal advice.

The Chair reminded the Committee that the purpose of this item was not to agree whether or not the new stadium should be built but, rather, to consider whether due process had been followed; whether a case had been made for sale or leasehold; whether the seven strategic priorities had been adequately assessed.

The Committee and those attending were reminded that the Committee was not a Planning Committee, and that indeed the Council was not the relevant Planning Authority. As an advisory Committee, no legal decisions could be taken by the Committee itself but there was benefit and public interest in highlighting to Cabinet particular aspects of the issues under consideration which would help further inform its decision. Topics for members to keep in mind were whether the engagement was fair, whether the Council had missed anything, and whether the papers were a fair and balanced representation of the evidence.

The Committee was taken through the consultation findings by Westco, a communications and engagement company commissioned by the Council to undertake the engagement on the extent to which the Council’s seven strategic priorities for a possible land transfer would be addressed. All aspects of the engagement, from question design, coding, analysing and reporting on results , were the responsibility of Westco on behalf of the Council. Measures had been taken to verify the data to ensure its robustness and accuracy.  There had been 5441 responses with 71% of responses being from Oxfordshire residents, 31% of whom lived within a two mile radius of the proposed site.

The Committee was presented with data showing that the assessment by respondents of whether OUFC’s proposals would address the different strategic priorities were sharply divided, with those living closest to the Triangle being doubtful, and those living further away being in agreement. The greatest areas of doubt expressed by local residents were whether the green barrier between Oxford and Kidlington would be retained, and whether the proposals would significantly improve the infrastructure and connectivity of the area. OUFC supporters and those living outside a two-mile radius were supportive of the football club’s proposals in relation to how well they would address the Council’s strategic priorities. Free text comments in the engagement were primarily (in descending order): expressions of support, concerns over traffic and congestion, loss of green belt and the impact on nature, statements setting out the importance of supporting OUFC for the benefit of Oxford and the county, and parking concerns for local people.

The Committee was reminded that the Council had been undertaking engagement on this issue for the past two and a half years, with over 3700 people and organisations having been engaged in 2021 prior to the most recent exercise. It was clear that strong but disparate views were held on both sides and that officers were highly cognisant of this fact and respectful of the wide range of opinions.

It was explained that OUFC had approached the Council in March 2021 with a proposal to build a new stadium on land owned by the Council near Kidlington. The licence for the club’s current home, the Kassam Stadium, would run out in June 2026. The Council had not considered divesting itself of the Triangle prior to the club’s approach. The Council identified six strategic priorities against which to test the club’s proposal. Following feedback from the public and stakeholders, these were updated and extended to seven. For clarity, the degree to which the club’s proposal would address the council’s priorities would inform the decision whether to progress the proposed land transaction; they would not form any part of the Planning process, which would be undertaken separately by Cherwell District Council as the local planning authority.

Further background was provided around the Council’s process of engagement, which began in January 2022, seeking to establish whether there was public support to enter discussions with OUFC about a potential land transfer and whether the Council’s priorities were the right ones. This received over 3,700 responses. The next phase in April and May 2023 involved more targeted stakeholder engagement, when11 independently facilitated stakeholder meetings were held. The most recent phase took place between June and July 2023 following the receipt of more detailed information by OUFC, allowing the public to have their say on whether they felt the council’s priorities had been addressed by the club. To support those without access to digital communications five public exhibitions were held around the area, to which 293 people came. A dedicated website provided updates on the negotiations; the survey and more detailed information was hosted on the Let’s Talk website. Every household within an approximate two-mile radius of the proposed site had been delivered a leaflet with more information.

The process of how the Council had assessed OUFC’s response to the Council’s strategic priorities was explained. In total, eight officers with relevant specialist knowledge and experience had been responsible for assessing the responses and making a judgement on the degree to which they met the strategic priorities. This was different to the judgement that would be made in relation to the statutory planning process and was based solely on the information provided by the club. Where possible, assessments were made on quantifiable information – for example, around biodiversity net gain. Where quantifiable information was not available officers referred to industry standards, where available, and if not, relied on their own professional expertise.

Should the land transfer be approved by Cabinet, the officers’ preferred option would be a freehold transfer as opposed to a leasehold one. The rationale for this was based on a number of factors: best value, avoiding financial risk and removing ongoing management requirements for the Council, all of which would be more problematic under a leasehold arrangement. Particularly, future market conditions could change, and there was always the possibility of non-payment of rent in the future, which introduced uncertainty and risk to the transfer if done on a leasehold basis.

The long-term use of the land was an important consideration and the steps to ensure suitable future use were explained to the Committee. A covenant would set aside the use of the land for football/community sports and leisure/sports stadia in perpetuity, with limited ancillary commercial use (including a conference centre and hotel) within the stadium footprint. The council’s seven priorities would be enforced by being turned into practical, measurable steps, with a timescale for them to be achieved and a timescale for the achievement to be sustained. The steps would be set out in a Collateral Agreement between the Council and OUFC. The Council would impose a requirement (enforced by way of a restriction on the freehold title) that, if the site were sold on to a different owner, the new owner would enter identical obligations with the Council.

Concerning the area of woodland separating the Triangle from land owned by Exeter College to the south, the Council had no intention to sell now or in the future – it would remain a county council asset in perpetuity. Likewise, the site owned by Exeter College did not form part of the stadium plans. This had been confirmed by the club.

The Committee noted the representative of Friends of Stratfield Brake had raised important questions and suggested that Cabinet should ensure it had considered responses to the issues raised.  It was confirmed that any legal agreement would be with Oxford United Football Club as a limited company.

The Committee explored the strategic priorities and the Council’s judgement as to whether OUFC’s proposals addressed them.  There was some doubt that, in the absence of more detailed information, the commitment to achieving 90% sustainable travel modes in due course was realistic. 

The Committee explored the deemed benefit to the local community and the workings of the public engagement.  The Committee also explored how the proposed valuation of the land had been arrived at.

To allow for consideration of those reports which were legally exempt from public disclosure, the Committee entered confidential session, in accordance with Part I of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act, 1972, necessitating the departure of members of the public. Detailed commentary on the nature of the discussion clearly cannot be provided, but the Committee raised questions relating to the financial and legal aspects of the possible transaction in greater depth. In particular, this focused on whether it believed OUFC was unable to remain at the Kassam beyond June 2026.

The Committee was clear in its understanding that it was not making a decision on whether or not OUFC should be permitted to building a new stadium.  Cabinet itself would be making a decision on whether or not to approve transfer of the land to the club but the stadium could only be build if planning permission were granted by Cherwell District Council and if the club met various conditions.

The Committee was satisfied that the engagement process had been thorough, intensive, and extensive.  The Committee considered that the process had been fair and equitable with officers making sound assessments.  The Committee was satisfied that it was true that the club was unable to remain at The Kassam Stadium after June 2026.

In order to ensure that Cabinet was in a position to make a fully-informed and considered decision, the Committee resolved to RECOMMEND:

1.    That Cabinet should fully understand the short-, medium-, and long-term impacts of the covenants proposed, including any future financial risks.

2.    That Cabinet should pay particular attention to the question of whether freehold or leasehold was most appropriate taking account of the difference between legal and reputational risk.