Sports Facility Planning and
Development
Neil Allen, naa
Paul Cox, Worthing
College
Agenda
 10.30
 11.00-12.00
-
 12.00
-
Welcome and introductions
The facility planning and
development process
Case Study (Worthing College)
 12.30
-
Lunch
 1.45
 2.45
 3.45
-
Practical exercise
Management and funding
Wrap-up and summary
Welcome and Introductions
Welcome and Introductions
• Ice Breaker
• Your background and facility issues /
challenges?
• What are you looking to get out of the day?
The Facility Planning and
Development Process
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
Build it and they will
come.......?!
Underestimated Demand......?!
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
ANOG Principles
 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 Process
 Stage 1 – Prepare and tailor your assessment
 Stage 2 – Gather information on supply and demand
 Stage 3 – Assessment, bring the information together
Stage 1 – Prepare and Tailor the
Approach
 Purpose and Objectives
 Proportionate
 Sporting Scope (formal sports) – local determination
 Geographical Scope
 Strategic Context
 Project Management
Stage 2 – Gathering Information
 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
Supply Principles
 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 Analysis
 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
Demand Drivers
 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
Stage 3 Assessment – Bringing the
Information Together
 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 – Key Questions
 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?
Supply
Demand
Consultation
Tools
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?
Supply
Demand
Consultation
Tools
Examples
Categories
Quantity
Sports
Halls
Provision compares favourably The quality is good, a lot of the
with comparative areas using the stock is modern built on school
tools.
sites over the past 10-years and
meets modern day requirements.
There are no planned closures
or new provision (including This is confirmed through
cross-boundary),
which
will consultation and site visits.
impact on this.
The current sports hall stock is
This is confirmed through not however ‘fit for purpose’ for
consultation.
performance sport, the halls are
not the ideal dimensions and
Population growth will however there is no spectator provision.
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.
Quality
Accessibility
Availability (mgmt and usage)
Protect, Enhance, Provide
There are however areas of the
borough where there are gaps in
provision based on catchment
area analysis.
Nearly all the sports hall stock is
however located on school sites
with no daytime access and
variable community use policies.
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.
These gaps are
through consultation.
confirmed Most halls appear under-utilised
and are not full however
consultation reveals difficulty in
The projected population growth gaining
access
due
to
aligns with the areas of provision management, programming and
gaps.
Analysis
of
market cost barriers.
segmentation data also shows
these are the areas of the higher This is confirmed through
latent demand for hall sports consultation and site visits.
across the area.
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.
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 quality suggests
neighbouring tracks are all good
quality
meeting
relevant
England Athletics standards.
The catchment areas for the
neighbouring tracks cover all the
local authority area, there are no
provision gaps based on
accessibility catchments.
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 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.
This is confirmed through
consultation. Consultation with This is confirmed
England
Athletics
Facility consultation.
Development Officer confirms
the tracks in the area are ‘fit for
purpose’ to meet the sports
needs.
through
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.
Key Findings and Prioritising
Issues
 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...........
Review and Monitoring
 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
ANOG Applications
 Planning policy development
 Development management
 Infrastructure development plan/CIL
 Sport and recreation facility strategy
 Developing evidence for funding bids
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
PPS Process
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.
Common Misconceptions
College no
longer
require the
pitch?
We are
building a
sports hall
so all is ok?
The area
in question
does not
contain a
pitch?
The pitch is
disused?
The site is
a private
site?
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
Case Study (Worthing
College)
Case Study
The Context
In 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.
Case Study Recommended Action: 1
RED
No options
analysis
completed
AMBER
1-2 alternative
options
considered
GREEN
Full options
analysis
completed
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.
Case Study Recommended Action: 2
Sports Strategy Page: 5-8
RED
Strong internal will for the
project but no external
partners
AMBER
Strong internal will and
coalition of local partners
GREEN
Strong internal will,
coalition of local partners
and key regional / national
partners engaged
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
Case Study Recommended Action: 3
RED
No ANOG process completed
AMBER
Internal ANOG process
completed
GREEN
Comprehensive ANOG
process completed within
agreed geographical scope
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
An excellent
environment with
extensive outdoor space,
sports pitches, access to
the South Downs and
space for future
expansion
A College environment fit for
21st Century education with
good size teaching rooms,
service areas and staff and
student facilities
New
Worthing
College at
The Warren
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
Lost, Gained and Mantained
Sports Strategy Page: 17-19
Top Tip: Your LGM analysis must be wholly linked to your ANOG outcomes
Case Study Recommended Action: 4
RED
No lost, gained and
maintained analysis
completed
AMBER
Partial lost, gained and
maintained analysis
completed
GREEN
Comprehensive lost,
gained and maintained
analysis in place
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.
Case Study Recommended Action: 5
RED
No sports strategy
completed (take a look at
fesport.co.uk)
AMBER
Sports strategy is out of
date or does not include all
elements covered today
GREEN
Comprehensive sports
strategy is in place
The Warren site (1)
The Warren site (2)
The Warren site (3)
The Warren site (4)
Lunch
Practical Exercise
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............
Management and Funding
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
•
Potential for control and
focus
Could involve students and
relevant Departments
Retains significant influence
over
management
and
operation
•
•
•
•
New College Company
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Do they possess the
necessary
sports
management expertise
Understanding of the market
and sector?
Will they maximise income
and opportunities?
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 crosssubsidise – 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
college sector
Mixed Economy Franchising
•
Experts
delivering
specialist areas
•
Could be difficulties of coordination
Loose control and flexibility
May be giving away the
‘crown jewels’
in
•
•
in
the
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
Wrap-up and Summary
Wrap-up and Summary
 Tbc......
Contact Details
• Neil Allen, naa
mail@neilallenassociates.co.uk
• Paul Cox, Worthing College
P.Cox@worthing.ac.uk
• Thank-you........