Stadium report: Almost half of Booker supporters from outside district

Wycombe District Council today released a 145-page report into its findings from a six-week public consultation into controversial plans for a 17,500-20,000 capacity community stadium and sports project.

Of the 8,376 responses received by the authority, 74 per cent backed a community stadium at the Wycombe Air Park site, according to the full report.

Of that 74 per cent figure, 35.43 per cent of respondents gave an address in the Wycombe District, while 31.71 gave a location from outside the district.

The remaining 6.89 per cent did not specify an address.

The complete document also states that 71 per cent of those who took part in the written consultation were in favour of a Sports Village development.

The report states that respondents were 'critical of the council's financial involvement' and 'concerned about the detrimental impact on the Green Belt and Chilterns AONB', should the scheme touch down in Booker.

The findings will be put to the Cabinet on January 17, where councillors will be advised to 'proceed to a planning application stage'.

Consultation Figures:

In a table supplied in the report outlining replies to Question 4 of the consultation, 'In relation to the short-list, which site do you think offers the best potential?', 74 per cent of respondents chose Wycombe Air Park.

Of the 74 per cent behind Booker, 35.43 per cent of responses were made up from residents who gave their home address as within the Wycombe District.

Meanwhile, 31.71 per cent were recorded from people who reside outside the district – and a further 6.89 per cent of responses which listed Booker as their preferred site did not specify an address.

Broken down further, the results show that 60 per cent of those who were in favour of the development at Booker, and who gave an address within the district, live in High Wycombe.

7.9 per cent were specified by the report as living in the 'rest of the district', Marlow residents made up1.73 per cent of these responses, while 0.69 per cent residents from Princes Risborough approved a scheme at Booker.

The option to remain at Adams Park gained 14.69 per cent – with 8.43 per cent from inside the district, 4.08 per cent from outside the district and 2.20 per cent from an unspecified location.

'None' of the three shortlisted sites gained almost four per cent of the votes. But the consultation does not ask residents whether they support the idea of a new stadium development – which was noted in the report as a concern from the written responses.

A similar bar graph based on the results to question two, 'which broad option – A, B, C or D – do you support in principle?', revealed 71 per cent want option D, a stadium and full sports village.

34.18 per cent of the respondents from the above figure were made from addresses inside the district, 30 per cent came from outside the district and 6.82 per cent was an 'unspecified address'.

Option A, to retain Adams Park and seek improvements, gained 14.74 of the vote. Of this, 8.89 per cent of votes were cast from inside the district, 3.64 per cent from outside the area and a 2.21 per cent was unspecified.

All other options for both question two and question four each received two per cent or less.

Consultation Comments:

In a summary of the comments and feedback received by the public consultation – the full report states that “great care needs to be taken in interpreting this general expression of support”.

The Cabinet report states in its Executive Summary to members “There is a message emerging from the consultation that the project represents a real opportunity for the district.

“But that it should only take place if a clear community and economic benefits can be demonstrated in detail, a sustainable scheme delivered, access issues addressed and care taken to minimise adverse environmental and other impacts.”

The report states that “written response and focus groups point to general support” but “consultation events and public meetings tended to highlight the negative”.

The document goes on to state: “A major concern from the public consultation centres on the financial involvement of the district council, both to date by funding this consultation and feasibility work, and in the future if the council becomes involved as a landowner in some way...

“...The issues raised by the public about the council's financial involvement will therefore have to be addressed at the appropriate time when the council considers its property role.”

Other concerns raised by the public include the “timing of the project given the economic downturn” and other respondents believe the scheme should be funded by Wycombe Wanderers and London Wasps.

While others said they feared about Wasps' commitment to the project and the impact the project may have on Wanderers' finances.

Fears were raised about the effect any development would have on existing facilities, including the existing Air Park operations, while the transport infrastructure was a cause for concern from respondents.

The feedback shows that some respondents criticised the consultation process – including comments that the process “was not thorough enough”, 'lacked information' and “a 'do nothing' option was not really available among the options”.

The public also “expressed the opinion that staying at Adams Park probably wasn't an option” and it was “noted the site was favoured by the owner of Wanderers and Wasps”.

Comments listed in favour of the plan said the project “would provide a feel good factor to the town”.

Next Step:

The Cabinet report will be put before councillors on January 17, with a recommendation that the council should “proceed by means of a planning application”.

This direction “presents an opportunity to expedite the project in a timely manner whilst incorporating extensive public consultation.”

It adds that any application would “be a departure from the current development plan” but officers believe “there is a good case to be made” that the project could get the go ahead at planning, subject to strategic issues being investigated further.

Further issues - including the future of Air Park, an assessment of the economic and community implications, and detailed transport modelling – would also have to be explored.

WDC leader Lesley Clarke told the BFP tonight: “We have not finished by any stretch of the imagination, there is a lot more to do before this is anywhere near finished.

“We want to tell your readers and residents who feel we aren't listening, that we are listening and we understand their concerns.

“Now we have got to the site, we now have to work out if it is economically viable, is it supportable, and there will be more public consultation.”

To read previous stories on the public consultation results release day, click on the links below.

Reaction to the results will be published on the BFP's website over the weekend and in next week's BFP and BFP Midweek.

To view the full council report, click on the link below.