What is the real problem
While it's amusing to bash on about the "taxpayer" giving £ 200,000 to this "poor little rich kid" for a useless website, I think it's a bit of a mistake to focus on the money. For a start, if she's got good accountants, she's probably costing the country more through (perfectly legal) tax avoidance schemes. In the subsidy stakes (such as those given in the energy industry) £ 200,000 doesn't even figure as a rounding error.
Let's take Miss Cole out of the equation and focus on the role of Nesta and whether it's doing its job properly - what are the expected tangible (ie. the number of employees) and intangible benefits of the site? How will they be measured? And how will those allocating the money be held accountable (not necessarily sacked)?
As things stand I think it is perfectly reasonable to suggest that the whole thing was a vehicle to benefit Freud Communications - weren't they associated with another waste-of-time, celebrity (political) website? What is the ownership of the website? What is the proposed business model? More digging along those lines, please.
Oh, and good to see the Freedom of Information Act doing its job.