sports facility planning and development neil allen, naa paul cox, worthing college
TRANSCRIPT
Agenda
10.30 - Welcome and introductions 11.00-12.00 - The facility planning and
development process 12.00 - Case Study (Worthing College)
12.30 - Lunch
1.45 - Practical exercise 2.45 - Management and funding 3.45 - Wrap-up and summary
Welcome and Introductions
• Ice Breaker
• Your background and facility issues / challenges?
• What are you looking to get out of the day?
Why we are here......
• ‘Taking part in sport positively impacts the students experience, adds value to the academic qualification and directly impacts the employability of graduates’ (Sports Industry Research Centre 2013)
• One in five respondents to the Sport England Sport in Colleges survey said that the sporting opportunities offered by a College were influential in their decision to apply....
Introduction and Context
2013/14 Sport in Colleges key facts.
Colleges provide ‘fit for purpose’ facilities for an average of 13 sports per College
Colleges provide facilities for clubs, community use and public group – 88% sports halls, 91% AGPs accessible
100 Colleges (30%) planning to develop new sports facilities
Sector makes significant contribution to community sport through facility provision – role to increase.............
Introduction and Context
Key College driver is curriculum and student needs
Part of Estate master-planning process
BUT...............
Crucial Colleges connect with the community, central to the LEP agenda, Colleges at the heart
Key to success – positioning developments as part of wider sporting community
Critical to planning and funding
Planning for Sport
Local Planning Authority (LPA) set the policy context
Local Plan in line with National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)
Developments assessed in line with policy and sports priorities:
Sports development strategy, sports facility strategy, playing pitch strategy
National Governing Body (NGB) priorities
Developing a shared vision
Planning for Sport
Sport England crucial role – key consultee and advisor to LPA
Statutory consultee on all playing fields applications
2012-17 Strategy – Creating a Sporting Habit for Life
Priority to increase participation in sport
Early consultation with Sport England regional planners
National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)
Planning for Sport
NPPF paragraphs 73 and 74 – robust and up-to-date assessments of need
Two new Sport England methodologies to deliver:
Assessing Needs and Opportunities Guide (ANOG)
Playing Pitch Strategy methodology (PPS)
‘How to do’ needs assessment for indoor and outdoor sport
Undertake ANOG / PPS to support strategy development, planning application,
Planning for Sport
Sport England’s planning for sport principles: Protect - Protect existing facilities Enhance - Enhance the quality, accessibility and
management of existing facilities Provide - Provide new facilities to meet demand
Seek to deliver these principles through: Forward Planning Development Management Strategy for meeting needs
Planning for Sport
Principles of ANOG and PPS:
Develop aims, define scope, strategic context
Supply and demand analysis
Consultation
Needs assessment
Will guide Sport England and NGBs approach to strategic planning – strategies, priorities, applications, funding......
Methodologies aimed at Local Authorities and planning led
But applicable to all including Colleges and SE will expect all to undertake ANOG / PPS to support planning policy, strategy development, planning applications, funding
Aim to help local authorities meet paragraph 73 and 74 of the NPPF
Process applicable for other audiences e.g. Colleges, NGBs, clubs etc to help make the case for a single sport or facility type
Process document, which is equally applicable to a range of different sports and facilities at all geographical levels
Same process but proportionate to scale of analysis
Seeks to utilise the same terminology and approach as advocated in other relevant sports planning guidance most notably PPS
Not just ‘what to do’ in terms of developing a needs assessment for indoor and outdoor sport BUT also how to apply and implement the needs assessment work once it has been developed................
ANOG Principles
Stage 1 – Prepare and tailor your assessment
Stage 2 – Gather information on supply and demand
Stage 3 – Assessment, bring the information together
ANOG Process
Purpose and Objectives
Proportionate
Sporting Scope (formal sports) – local determination
Geographical Scope
Strategic Context
Project Management
Stage 1 – Prepare and Tailor the Approach
Establish a full picture covering all elements of the supply of facilities in the area
Establish a clear understanding of the current and future demand
Consult on supply and demand
Stage 2 – Gathering Information
Relevant facility types across all sectors Ownership of facilities should therefore be captured as
part of the audit process For all provision the audit should cover and capture
information on quantity of provision, quality, access and availability
Any new facilities which are planned, along with any forthcoming closures or enhancements which are due to come on stream
The audit should capture information on provision neighbouring the study area and the relevant catchment area
Supply Principles
Quantity - what facilities there are in the area, how many you have?
Quality - how good they are? (condition and fit for purpose)
Accessibility - where they are located? Availability - how available are they?
Relationship between all four elements critical
Supply Analysis
Demographic Profile
Sports Participation Profile – national and local
Unmet, latent and future demand
Sports specific priorities
Local area priorities
Use national (Sport England) and local data – Local Sports Profile, Active People and Market Segmentation
Relationship between all drivers critical
Demand Drivers
Build a picture of the level of provision
Layering information to build up the picture
Drawing the assessment together from information gained in stage one and stage two combined
Utilising planning tools as appropriate to support the assessment
Considering consultation findings to support the assessment
Stage 3 Assessment – Bringing the Information Together
Setting out the key facility issues and priorities
Concluding the assessment by demonstrating how findings clearly relate to all evidence gathered and will drive participation in sport
Developing policy priorities: provide, protect, enhance to deliver the identified priorities
Series of key Questions............
Stage 3 Assessment – Bringing the Information Together
Quantity - What facilities there are in your area? How many do you have? Do you have enough? How much capacity is there?
Quality – Are the facilities ‘fit for purpose’ for the users? Do the facilities provide the level of play needed? Does the quality meet the user expectations?
Stage 3 – Key Questions
Accessibility – Where are the facilities located? Are they in the right physical location for users? Are there any geographical gaps in the supply of facilities?
Availability – Are the facilities available to users who want to use them, when they want to use them? How are facilities being used?
Stage 3 – Key Questions
Examples
Categories Quantity Quality Accessibility Availability (mgmt and usage) Protect, Enhance, Provide
Sports Halls
Provision compares favourably with comparative areas using the tools.
There are no planned closures or new provision (including cross-boundary), which will impact on this.
This is confirmed through consultation.
Population growth will however put pressure on quantity of provision in particular areas of the district.
England Basketball considers the area a priority for basketball development and there is a strong club infra-structure and long-held local priority to develop the sport, including new provision at ‘x’ location.
The quality is good, a lot of the stock is modern built on school sites over the past 10-years and meets modern day requirements.
This is confirmed through consultation and site visits.
The current sports hall stock is not however ‘fit for purpose’ for performance sport, the halls are not the ideal dimensions and there is no spectator provision.
There are however areas of the borough where there are gaps in provision based on catchment area analysis.
These gaps are confirmed through consultation.
The projected population growth aligns with the areas of provision gaps. Analysis of market segmentation data also shows these are the areas of the higher latent demand for hall sports across the area.
Nearly all the sports hall stock is however located on school sites with no daytime access and variable community use policies.
Most halls appear under-utilised and are not full however consultation reveals difficulty in gaining access due to management, programming and cost barriers.
This is confirmed through consultation and site visits.
Clubs and specific sports struggle to get access over general ‘pay and play’. Basketball particularly struggles for time. Therefore usage of existing stock could potentially be increased.
The priority would appear to be to seek to enhance general sport and recreation usage of sports halls through the development of management and usage agreements in partnership with schools, whilst providing new provision to meet accessibility gaps.
Potential of new provision to focus on needs of basketball, ensuring facilities meet the sport needs in terms of technical specifications.
Examples
Categories Quantity Quality Accessibility Availability (mgmt and usage) Protect, Enhance, Provide
Athletics The audit of quantity shows there are no synthetic athletics tracks in the local authority area however there are a number of tracks located in neighbouring authority areas. There are no closure plans.
Facilities per thousand shows the area is well served in comparison to others. There is a strong local club whose home base is one of the local neighbouring tracks. There has however been a long held local aspiration for a track in the local authority area to house the local club.
The England Athletics Strategic Facility Plan (2012-17) does not prioritise the area. Suggests other forms of provision Compact Athletics Models and road and off-road running may be more appropriate for the area.
Area population growth will have negligible impact on athletics participation.
The audit of quality suggests neighbouring tracks are all good quality meeting relevant England Athletics standards.
This is confirmed through consultation. Consultation with England Athletics Facility Development Officer confirms the tracks in the area are ‘fit for purpose’ to meet the sports needs.
The catchment areas for the neighbouring tracks cover all the local authority area, there are no provision gaps based on accessibility catchments.
This is confirmed through consultation.
The track used by the local club is fully accessible and meets the club needs in terms of both training and competition.
There would appear to be no need to provide additional new track provision in the local authority area. There is sufficient accessible provision of good quality to serve the area in neighbouring boroughs.
The local priority should be to develop a Compact Athletics Model potentially in partnership with a school and ensure road and off-road running opportunities are provided. This level of provision will help to grow the sport into the area and help to sustain and the local club.
Develop policies around protect, provide, enhance
Linked to what the evidence says.......
‘Specific needs and opportunities for new provision’ (NPPF para 73)
May be facilities surplus to requirements (NPPF para 74)
NPPF compliant – specific facility needs (as opposed to standards)
Write-up and check and challenge – with partners?
Application...........
Key Findings and PrioritisingIssues
Update needs and evidence base on a regular basis – annual
Monitor and if / when supply and demand changes significantly – full review
3-years as a rule of thumb
Review and Monitoring
Planning policy development
Development management
Infrastructure development plan/CIL
Sport and recreation facility strategy
Developing evidence for funding bids
ANOG Applications
Playing Pitch Strategy (PPS) PPS process
Sport England Playing Fields policy – Policy exceptions E1-E5
Some common misconceptions............
Any development on pitches must undertake a needs assessment in line with NPPF (PPS methodology) and provide a rigorous case in line with Playing Fields Policy
Playing Fields Policy
Sport England will oppose the granting of planning permission for any development which would lead to the loss of, or prejudice the use of all or part of any playing field, unless.....
E1 - An assessment of current and future needs has demonstrated that there is an excess of playing field provision in the catchment, and the site has no special significance to the interests of sport
E2 - The proposed development is ancillary to the principal use of the site as a playing field or playing fields, and does not affect the quantity or quality of pitches or adversely affect their use
Playing Fields Policy
E3 - The proposed development affects only land incapable of forming, or forming part of, a playing pitch, and does not result in the loss of or inability to make use of any playing pitch
E4 - Lost playing fields would be replaced by a playing field or playing fields of an equivalent or better quality and of equivalent or greater quantity, in a suitable location and subject to equivalent or better management arrangements, prior to the commencement of development
E5 - The proposed development is for an indoor or outdoor sports facility, the provision of which would be of sufficient benefit to the development of sport as to outweigh the detriment caused by the loss of the playing field or playing field.
Development Considerations
Following the needs assessment subsequent facility must be ‘fit for purpose’
Assessment of need = master-planning, design, space planning and technical specifications for specific sport
Sport England ‘Developing the Right..........’
Sport England Sports Data Sheets
Summary and Conclusions
Don’t develop in isolation – understand the wider context beyond curriculum and student needs
Early consultation with the LPA – planning policy and local sports policy context
Share your vision with NGBs and local partners – match your priorities to wider sports community ‘win win’
Sport England views critical – will shape and influence the LPA, particularly pitches
Assessment of need in line with NPPF – ANOG / PPS
The ContextIn 1997, the Principal and College Governors reached the position that the existing college estate was not fit for purpose and could not deliver the learning experience needed for 21st Century education. Their conclusion was that the College needed to rebuild.Why?
•A range of improvements had already been made and there were limited further improvements that could be made
•The existing buildings were poor quality, timber framed with limited capacity for structural improvements
The Timeline
1998 – 2006 College scheme to rebuild at Bolsover Road based on selling 5 acres to ASDA Stores. The scheme was rejected in 2006 on retail grounds following a Planning Inquiry.
2006 – 2009 The College developed a scheme to rebuild at Bolsover Road. The new £42 million scheme was based on 80% LSC grant, College borrowing of £4 million and sale of 5 acres for housing. First stage LSC approval and full planning permission achieved prior to the collapse of the LSC Capital Programme in June 2009.
2009 – 2012 New Property Strategy developed.
The Options Considered
Following the 2009 collapse of the LSC capital programme a number of options were evaluated:•Base case – a “do nothing” option.•Complete re-build at Bolsover Road based on sale for residential and borrowing.•Refurbishment of Bolsover Road plus 4,000m² new build.•Same as above with cheaper new build.•Alternative site – Lloyds TSB building.•Alternative site – The Warren.
The Importance of Partners
We established a strong coalition of partners that were fully behind and supportive of our project:•Local: Worthing RFC, Worthing Rebels FC (previous pitch hirers at old College), Worthing Golf Club, Worthing and District Netball Association and Angmering School Sports Partnership.•Regional: Chichester University, Sussex FA, Sussex Netball and Active Sussex.•National: AoC.
The Preferred Strategy• The college preference was for a new build on our existing site
but this was unaffordable. From the other options on cost, affordability and a quantitative and qualitative ranking, the preferred option was The Warren site
• Purchase of The Warren site will be funded by sale of Bolsover Road to a Private Sector Partner for housing development, sale of 3 acres of The Warren site for housing development and college borrowing
• Developer to refurbish The Warren site for college use
• The new college will open in Summer 2013 in time for the new academic year
Assessing Needs and Opportunities (ANOG)
We established a comprehensive analysis of the supply of facilities in the area
We had a clear understanding of the current and future demand
We Consulted broadly with a wide stakeholder group about supply and demand
What Did We Gain?
A prestigious location to inspire our staff and students and raise aspirations. A College site that allows us to recruit students in
a very competitive local environment
A College environment fit for 21st Century education with good size teaching rooms, service areas and staff and
student facilities
An opportunity to consolidate and grow our curriculum offer including an Adult
Education programme focused on employers needs
and our Sports Strategy
An opportunity to develop further income streams by attracting visiting international students, increased lettings and partnerships with other organisations
An excellent environment with
extensive outdoor space, sports pitches, access to
the South Downs and space for future
expansion
New Worthing College at
The Warren
Lost, Gained and MantainedSports Strategy Page: 17-19
Top Tip: Your LGM analysis must be wholly linked to your ANOG outcomes
Your Sports Strategy
• A Whole College sports strategy is essential if sport and active leisure is to grow and develop culturally in your College.
• An FE College is a complex organisation and as such successful sports strategies need to transcend the classroom, field and gym if they are to gain traction and support.
• Your sports strategy should tie together ANOG, LGM and key partners.
Practical Exercise
• Looking at delegate examples from this morning
• Into 2 x groups to develop a work plan for tackling the challenges
• Using stages:– Develop a vision – what are you trying to achieve and
why?– Who will you involve and why? Internally and externally– Supply challenges and what you will do?– Demand challenges and what you will do?– What will the outcomes look like............
Funding Opportunities
Sport England and NGBs
Underpinned by robust needs assessment followed through into the development process
Sport England Places People Play Capital Funding Legacy Programmes
‘Fit for Purpose’ schemes based on needs and evidence......
Management Principles
Have a clear vision, strategy and objectives for community use
Community use is not a cash-cow
Long-term comittment and development
Don’t be put-off by common misconceptions that surround opening up facilities
Seek support, don’t try to develop in isolation
By developing your vision with key local partners will ensure you complement rather than compete
Management Principles
Adopt a sustainable management and booking approach appropriate to your vision and likely income levels
Consider all implications of opening up – cleaning energy, marketing etc
Consider all spaces and facilities
Programmes and usage will take time to evolve – be realistic
Get it right and significant impact on profile and role of College
Management Options
Integrated with planning, design and funding process
Management approach adopted must reflect project aims and established need
Ask yourself what you are trying to achieve, what is important and why?
Various options dependent on the above and scale of development and facilities you have
No single solution depends on local circumstances
Management Options
Management via an extended (existing) commercial College company
Establishment of a new College company
Direct management by the College sports team
Direct management by the local authority sports department
Management Options
Management via contract with a specialist sports management operator (outsourcing)
Management via a not-for-profit organisation e.g. an existing local Trust (outsourcing)
Management via an extended community use specialist (outsourcing)
Mixed Economy – incorporating franchising of certain elements e.g. Fitness suite or AGP
Option Analysis
Option Pros Cons
Existing College Company
• Existing track record and processes in place
• Structures in place can just be bolted on
• Could cross-subsidise from other commercial activities across the College
• Retains significant influence over management and operation
• Do they possess the necessary sports management expertise
• Understanding of the market and sector?
• Will they maximise income and opportunities?
New College Company
• Potential for control and focus
• Could involve students and relevant Departments
• Retains significant influence over management and operation
• No sports management expertise or track record
• Liable for all costs and exposed to full operational risks
• Expertise, understanding, maximising opportunities
Option Analysis
Option Pros Cons
Sports Team • Allows control and integration with curriculum delivery
• Maximum flexibility and control
• Opportunities for student employment and volunteering
• May require appointment of external expertise (manager) to co-ordinate and control
• May deflect from core business of teaching
• Liable for all costs and exposed to full operational risks
• Expertise, understanding and maximising opportunities
Option Analysis
Option Pros Cons
Local Authority • Strategic approach with local provision
• Utilises local expertise• Co-ordination as opposed
to competition• Know and understand the
market• Shares risk with external
partner• Reduces risk of financial
failure (dependent on contract)
• Less control more of a partner
• Contract / agreement critical
Option Analysis
Option Pros Cons
Private Sector • Benefits from critical mass of ‘company’ – marketing, know-how, processes and procedures
• Can absorb loss and cross-subsidise – build the business
• Can transfer significant risk to external partner
• Less financial exposure• May be able to invest
capital • Exposes students to wider
opportunities
• Less control more of a partner
• Loose potential income streams, although could profit share?
• College would need to invest in monitoring
• Management fee may be applicable
• May be driven by financial objectives over wider objectives
• Contract / agreement critical• May be difficulties in
apportioning operational costs
Option Analysis
Option Pros Cons
Trust • May be some financial benefits of NNDR and VAT
• Transfer of some operation and financial risk
• Other benefits similar to private sector option but with less critical mass depending on the actual trust
• Less control more of a partner
• College would need to invest in monitoring
• Management fee may be applicable
• Contract / agreement critical• May be difficulties in
apportioning operational costs
• Similar cons to private sector but may be more of a social focus
Option Analysis
Option Pros Cons
Specialist CU vehicle
• Understand the business and challenges of cu
• Limited market in the college sector
Mixed Economy - Franchising
• Experts delivering in specialist areas
• Could be difficulties of co-ordination
• Loose control and flexibility• May be giving away the
‘crown jewels’
Summary and Conclusions
Ensure needs assessment work is followed through in development proposals – ‘fit for purpose’ facilities
Funders will look to support ‘fit for purpose’ schemes based on needs and evidence
Management approach adopted must reflect project aims and established need
Ask yourself what you are trying to achieve, what is important and why?
Various options dependent on the above and scale of development
Contact Details
• Neil Allen, naa [email protected]
• Paul Cox, Worthing [email protected]
• Thank-you........