strategic review of sports centres in brent full … review of sports... · number section p...
TRANSCRIPT
STRATEGIC REVIEW OF SPORTS CENTRES IN BRENT FULL REVIEW VERSION 2.0 JANUARY 2008
www.continuumleisure.co.uk - 1 -
PRODUCED BY:
CONTINUUM SPORT & LEISURE LTD
PRODUCED FOR:
STRATEGIC REVIEW OF SPORTS CENTRES IN BRENT
FULL REVIEW VERSION 2.0
JANUARY 2008
STRATEGIC REVIEW OF SPORTS CENTRES IN BRENT FULL REVIEW VERSION 2.0 JANUARY 2008
www.continuumleisure.co.uk - 2 -
DOCUMENT CONTROL Amendment History Version No. Date Reference Author Comments 1.0 19/11/07 Strategic Review of
Sports Centres in Brent- Full Review Version 1.0 November 2007 (Draft For Comment)
Matt James / Nick Trim
Final version of full study for client review
2.0 22/01/08 Strategic Review of Sports Centres in Brent - Full Review - Version 2.0 January 2008
Matt James / Nick Trim
Final version of full study for client review
Sign-off List Name Position Date Comments Distribution List Name Position Comments Gerry Kiefer Sue Harper
STRATEGIC REVIEW OF SPORTS CENTRES IN BRENT FULL REVIEW VERSION 2.0 JANUARY 2008
www.continuumleisure.co.uk - 3 -
CONTENT
NUMBER SECTION P
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 4
1 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND - THE STUDY 15
2 METHODOLOGY AND APPROACH
20
3 STRATEGIC CONTEXT
23
4 DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE
38
5 LONDON BOROUGH OF BRENT - SPORT AND LEISURE FACILITY OVERVIEW AND ANALYSIS
65
6 STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION
105
7 PLANNING ISSUES AND CONSIDERATIONS
110
8 FINANCIAL OVERVIEW AND FACILITY HEALTH CHECK
122
9 SITE SPECIFIC OPTIONS AND OUTLINE COST APPRAISALS 131
10 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 154
Appendices Appendix 1 - Site Specific Reviews (Under Separate Cover) Appendix 2 - Facilities Planning Model Brief Appendix 3 - LB Brent Grass Pitches Appendix 4 - Planned Sport And Leisure Facility Development
Within Brent’s Neighbouring Boroughs Appendix 5 - Cost Appraisal Assumptions
164 169 171 178
STRATEGIC REVIEW OF SPORTS CENTRES IN BRENT FULL REVIEW VERSION 2.0 JANUARY 2008
www.continuumleisure.co.uk - 4 -
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Continuum Sport and Leisure Ltd were commissioned by the London Borough of
Brent in June 2007, to undertake a strategic review of three of the borough’s council
owned sports centres, Charteris Sports Centre, Bridge Park Community Leisure
Centre and Vale Farm Sports Centre. As stipulated by the Client Team at LB Brent
Willesden Sports Centre was not subject to site specific or financial and design
review due to its recent construction (2006) and successful operation to date. The
impact of Willesden Sports Centre has however been considered within the borough-
wide facility analysis. The centre’s operational data has also been used as a
comparator in relation to financial performance and usage figures of the other three
centres.
In line with the objectives of the client brief, the review has focused on three centres
as detailed above and determined a range of outline development options for all
three sites. The opportunities identified and recommendations made within this
review provide the London Borough of Brent with outline costs of providing modern,
attractive, cost effective facilities which can better serve the leisure needs of local
residents and increase participation levels over the next 10 – 15 years.
The development options proposed have arisen from a comprehensive research
process which has incorporated strategic analysis of relevant policy, strategy and
previous research documentation, consultation with key internal stakeholders, and
both site specific and borough-wide facility analysis. Following financial review of the
current operation of the three centres as well as the key planning issues (and
policies) pertinent to development options under consideration, the research process
culminated with a financial options appraisal providing outline capital cost
implications for future options at all three sites.
The broad strategic review of relevant policy and guidance at national, regional and
local levels highlights the potential of any positive change at all three centres to not
only meet wider social objectives, but also to align with specific priorities of the
Council’s Sport Service and Planning Departments. The demographic profile and
analysis of participation levels across the borough provide further evidence of the
STRATEGIC REVIEW OF SPORTS CENTRES IN BRENT FULL REVIEW VERSION 2.0 JANUARY 2008
www.continuumleisure.co.uk - 5 -
need for improved sports facility provision in or near to the existing sites
(Stonebridge ward in particular) to help tackle major social issues such as poor
health, high incidence of crime and low educational attainment. The socio-economic
status of Brent residents (particularly in the Stonebridge and South Kilburn areas)
emphasises the importance of providing affordable facility provision accessible on a
pay and play basis.
The review acknowledges that participation levels across the borough are some of
the lowest in London and low levels of participation around the three existing centres
provide a further indicator of the need for change and improvement to facility
provision in these areas.
Borough-wide Facility Analysis
The focus of this element of the study has been to determine how any proposed
developments at the three sites would provide appropriate facilities which are
needed across the borough as a whole. It was vital therefore to conduct an outline
analysis of borough-wide facility provision. The facility analysis was also critical in
determining the level of demand for the existing facility mix at each centre. Using a
combination of approaches, Sport England’s Strategic Planning Tools (the Facilities
Planning Model, Actives Places Power) alongside facility catchment mapping, the
analysis has proved conclusive in confirming the need for key facility types currently
accommodated at the three centres.
The review has established specifically that sports hall provision across the borough
is substantial, but accessibility is limited. A number of facilities located at school sites
do not allow community access and an opportunity exists to increase capacity further
by working with schools to allow greater public use. In relation to the three centres
under review, the provision of existing accessible and affordable sports hall space is
highly important, particularly in Stonebridge and Kilburn (Bridge Park Community
Leisure Centre and Charteris Sports Centre) where alternative public provision is
limited. Planned provision including the development of the Wembley and Copland
Academies in central Brent as well as the potential development as part of the South
Kilburn NDC masterplan may help to reduce any future deficit in access to, and in
turn supply of, affordable indoor sports space.
STRATEGIC REVIEW OF SPORTS CENTRES IN BRENT FULL REVIEW VERSION 2.0 JANUARY 2008
www.continuumleisure.co.uk - 6 -
Health and fitness facility provision across Brent is below the London average for
facility provision per 1000 population and there is an evident need to increase the
capacity and quantity of health and fitness stations across the borough, particularly
public access facilities (which often do not require expensive registered membership
for use.) All three centres under review play an important role in providing accessible
and affordable facilities, in or near to areas of income deprivation. Any
redevelopment options or new facility provision at the three main sites should
therefore seek to increase the capacity of this facility type further to meet identified
borough-wide and local needs.
Swimming Provision and Demand for a Third Pool
The study confirms that the provision for swimming across the borough is critically
low with just two community accessible pools currently in operation. Despite the
planned development of additional swimming facilities outside the borough
boundary, the construction of at least one additional community swimming pool
within Brent remains a priority. Whilst the identification of defined locations for new
provision was outside the remit of this study, analysis suggests a third pool in the
north / central area of the borough would appear to serve the greatest levels of
identified demand from Brent residents both now and over the next 10 – 15 years.
Improving and or replacing the swimming pool at Vale Farm Sports Centre are also
regarded as priorities. However, further investigation into the current status, lifespan
and economic viability of the existing pool facility is required to determine likely
timescales and any detailed cost of such development.
Options Appraisal
The options appraisal process, in line with standard practice, applied an initial ‘do
minimum’ cost for all of the three centres. This provides a benchmark of total on-
going costs if just the most necessary ongoing maintenance and improvements were
undertaken.
The options appraisal then proceeded to provide an outline indication of the best
value option at each site (do minimum, refurbishment / redevelopment, new build)
STRATEGIC REVIEW OF SPORTS CENTRES IN BRENT FULL REVIEW VERSION 2.0 JANUARY 2008
www.continuumleisure.co.uk - 7 -
by comparing the total cost position over a 25 year period. At all three sites, because
of the increased income and improved operational efficiency that could be realised
through new build (more so than refurbishment), this otion represented the greatest
value for money by a considerable margin.
Table 1: Total cost position over 25 years for all centres combined:
Option Total Cost Net Present Value
Do Minimum £53.73m £34.82m
Refurbishment £50.59m £33.34m
New Build £28.04m £19.42m
Facility closures N/A N/A
Through consultation and planning policy analysis, the leading issues surrounding
any future development of each of the three sites have been discussed within the
review. Where necessary, the study highlights where further investigations by LB
Brent are required in order to determine and address some of the more complex
issues which will influence the Council’s investment decisions and how each project
can be progressed.
Charteris Sports Centre
The least complex and expensive of the three sites, the preferred option for
development identified involves the new build of the centre in-situ but replacing the
sports hall with a health and fitness facility of greater capacity (which is in demand
locally) alongside a dedicated dance studio. The outline capital cost associated with
this option has been estimated at £1.3 million, and, due to the increased income
generated through improved functionality and operational efficiency, the options
appraisal recognises a the total cost position over 25 years as a slight surplus of
approx £0.73 million.
Public access sports hall provision in this area of the borough is in deficit and to
proceed with this option (to close the sports hall) would require other projects
planned locally to provide suitable replacement facilities for indoor sport. The
STRATEGIC REVIEW OF SPORTS CENTRES IN BRENT FULL REVIEW VERSION 2.0 JANUARY 2008
www.continuumleisure.co.uk - 8 -
development plans of the South Kilburn NDC in particular require further clarification
as to the content of any leisure provision and potential for indoor sports space.
Alongside this is the planned development of St Augustine’s school which would
provide suitable indoor sports hall space in the local catchment of Charteris.
Bridge Park Community Leisure Centre
The review discusses in detail the complexities of the Bridge Park Community Leisure
Centre site. Owned by the Greater London Council, the current covenant for the site
requires further clarification to determine the future requirement for the re-provision
of leisure and community facilities as part of any re-development. Furthermore, the
future plans for the neighbouring derelict Unisys site also have the potential to
heavily influence any future development option taken forward.
Considerable evidence supports the need for a community leisure centre in this area
of the borough. The options appraisal process has identified that new build would
represent the greatest value for money by some margin, with real potential to attract
greater usage in an area of need. The site holds the potential for enabling
development (residential) which could form the central capital funding source for the
project. The estimated cost of this option is £7.6million which could be funded
through a capital receipt of an estimated £9.9million for enabling development of the
land on which Bridge Park Community Leisure Centre stands. Over a 25 year period,
initial estimations suggest that the total cost position would be in the region of a
£1.2 million deficit which, including all lifecycle costs associated with the new facility,
represents notably better value for money.
A number of key issues remain for the Bridge Park Community Leisure Centre site.
Firstly, whether the neighbouring Unisys site should be included (possibly through a
compulsory purchase order) as part of a whole site development, and if so what the
likely impact on costs and timescales would be. Secondly, if the neighbouring Unisys
site remains derelict, will the project see a negative impact on the sale value of any
residential developments at the site, reducing capital contributions and potentially
the overall quality of the scheme. Finally, Bridge Park Community Leisure Centre was
previously owned by the Greater London Council, and full confirmation of the terms
and conditions and financial impact of redeveloping the site is required before any
STRATEGIC REVIEW OF SPORTS CENTRES IN BRENT FULL REVIEW VERSION 2.0 JANUARY 2008
www.continuumleisure.co.uk - 9 -
project can progress. Determining the level of re-provision required for the existing
community facilities and a substantial number of business units at the site are of
central importance.
Vale Farm Sports Centre
The potential to develop a multi-sport hub site at the Vale Farm site is a real
possibility coupled with the lack of swimming pool space in Brent which should
remain a major concern and influence in securing this site for sport. The importance
of protecting the site is emphasised within LB Brent Planning Policy, but this also
prohibits any enabling development and the possibility of any capital receipt for sale
of any part of the site to be used to fund any new leisure development proposed.
Outline capital cost estimates demonstrate that new build, estimated at £12.9
million, would represent greater value for money (and has the potential to attract
greater levels of participation) than any form of refurbishment with the total cost
position over 25 years representing a deficit of approximately £26.9 million for new
build, set against £28.8 million for refurbishment (which would include capital costs
for refurbishment estimated in the region of £6.4 million).
The site holds potential for development as a major community sports centre in West
London and a decision will need to be made as to whether LB Brent can, alongside
other priority projects, afford to pursue the new build option at the site. Whilst the
project requires significant capital investment, in the long-term the new build option
provides better value for money.
How LB Brent Moves Forward – Priorities for Development
The strategic review has focused on the current leisure centres in Brent providing an
outline as to the needs and priorities of LB Brent for future provision and the best
value for money solutions which address local and borough-wide strategic need. The
review process has clearly confirmed that the development of a new swimming pool
facility would address the most urgent shortfall within the borough.
As agreed with the Client Team at LB Brent at the outset of this project, this review
does not provide any detailed analysis of the development of a new pool, having
specifically concentrated on the solutions and options for the three centres. However,
STRATEGIC REVIEW OF SPORTS CENTRES IN BRENT FULL REVIEW VERSION 2.0 JANUARY 2008
www.continuumleisure.co.uk - 10 -
moving forward with the options we have presented for the three centres is of course
influenced by the need for increasing the provision of swimming in Brent and its
impact across the borough in relation to levels of participation and activity.
What follows is the Consultant Team’s priority list for development by LB Brent and a
brief explanation of the key issues which influence both the position of the project on
the priority list and the potential to realise any new development proposed.
Priority Project Facility Type /
Changes Key Issues
1 New Pool New build swimming pool
Borough-wide strategic facility deficiency. Potential to have significant impact upon levels of activity and participation as has been witnessed recently at Willesden Sports Centre. Location remains undetermined but central and north areas of borough show greatest need. Funding and capital costs undetermined at this stage as not part of original strategic review process. Dry side mix and potential for dual use centre has not been investigated but should be considered as a priority. Key issues influencing delivery include
o Identification of a suitable and affordable site.
o LB Brent identifying site specific capital or S106 fund for example to provide funding towards new development.
o Further survey works on current leisure stock (Vale Farm in particular) do not lead to significant budget and funding having to be diverted to keeping current stock viable.
Next Steps Required
STRATEGIC REVIEW OF SPORTS CENTRES IN BRENT FULL REVIEW VERSION 2.0 JANUARY 2008
www.continuumleisure.co.uk - 11 -
Priority Project Facility Type / Changes
Key Issues
1. Fully detailed feasibility study and business plan for the third pool site for decision alongside the leisure stock changes before summer 2008.
2 Bridge Park New build dry side
sport and community facilities
The affordability of the project has been assessed as part of the review and the mixed use development with housing highlights that a new build project is affordable for LB Brent set against the current cost of the facilities in situ. The Consultant Team recommend that due to the complexities of the surrounding area, the Bridge Park site alone is developed for leisure and housing on the understanding with LB Brent planning department that the Unisys site will be given some priority for future development. The development of the Bridge Park site would provide an affordable leisure facility and have a very positive impact upon the quality of facilities on offer for the local catchment and for the borough in general. Key issues influencing delivery include
o Housing valuations and planning can be realised.
o GLC covenant is not prohibitive. o Planning and regeneration team
commit to long term regeneration of Unisys site.
Next Steps Required
1. Fully detailed design and feasibility for the Bridge Park site.
3 Charteris New build health
and fitness facility The smallest of the main sites scoring high on affordability and deliverability. However, it would not have such an impact upon the overall borough-wide levels of provision outside of health and
STRATEGIC REVIEW OF SPORTS CENTRES IN BRENT FULL REVIEW VERSION 2.0 JANUARY 2008
www.continuumleisure.co.uk - 12 -
Priority Project Facility Type / Changes
Key Issues
fitness given its scale, and thus is less of a priority than the leading 2 projects. The continued provision of this local community focused facility is dependent upon the plans being discussed for leisure provision in relation to local needs (and planning priority for indoor space). Key issues influencing delivery include
o Progress and timing of any new developments and provision of indoor sports space, notably the NDC project and St Augustine’s school.
o Budgetary issues for the first 2 priority projects and the potential need to channel site value for Charteris into new pool site as a higher priority project.
Next Steps Required
1. Leisure team to gain a steer on the leisure mix in the NDC project by March 2008.
2. Await detailed outcomes of priority projects 1 and 2 and review site options for Charteris.
4 Vale Farm New build wet and dry side sports complex incorporating outdoor sports facilities
The impact of Vale Farm would be felt across the borough, however it is a longer term vision at present than the needs identified in the review. The needs of the new swimming pool and the affordability of Bridge Park and Charteris place them higher in terms of priorities for LB Brent. Questions remain over the longevity of current building which need to be answered and the key issue is that the on-going provision of swimming in Brent is protected and increased.
STRATEGIC REVIEW OF SPORTS CENTRES IN BRENT FULL REVIEW VERSION 2.0 JANUARY 2008
www.continuumleisure.co.uk - 13 -
Priority Project Facility Type / Changes
Key Issues
Key issues influencing delivery include
o Budgetary issues from the leading priority projects.
o The need to ensure continued service delivery of swimming in particular on the site, given borough-wide shortfall at present.
o Clarity on the longevity of the building and if the immediate to medium term provision for swimming is to be under threat and additional financial resources are required to be diverted to this project.
Next Steps Required
1. Vale Farm intrusive condition survey to determine whether immediate remedial action is required to extend on-going service.
2. A more in depth design and business planning process to determine both the economic life of the facility. More detailed capital costs of the facility changes proposed should be compared with the other 3 projects to assist in decision making for summer 2008.
It is clear that LB Brent has a number of important decisions to make as to how to
progress with the identified and required changes to the current leisure facility stock
and sports centres in the borough.
It is also clear that the current situation does not provide value for money set
against the proposed new build outline costs which have been identified.
The borough as a whole has a significant way to go to both drive up the levels of
participation and also address the facility shortfalls and dated leisure stock which is
currently on offer. As demonstrated by Willesden Sports Centre, modern, fit for
STRATEGIC REVIEW OF SPORTS CENTRES IN BRENT FULL REVIEW VERSION 2.0 JANUARY 2008
www.continuumleisure.co.uk - 14 -
purpose facilities have the potential to make a major impact by attracting
considerably higher usage levels.
The Consultant Team feels that the completion of this review process will enable LB
Brent to achieve further positive change through significant additions and
improvements to the borough’s leisure facility stock.
STRATEGIC REVIEW OF SPORTS CENTRES IN BRENT FULL REVIEW VERSION 2.0 JANUARY 2008
www.continuumleisure.co.uk - 15 -
1. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND The purpose of this review is to evaluate the current status of the three main leisure
centres, namely Charteris Sports Centre, Bridge Park Community Leisure Centre and
Vale Farm Sports Centre, and to determine future development options for these
specific facilities that will best serve the needs of the Brent population over the
forthcoming years. The options devised have been set against an audit and
evaluation of borough-wide facility provision in line with the requirements of the
client brief.
The study concentrates specifically on the current status and future development
options for Charteris, Vale Farm and Bridge Park Leisure Centres. Given its recent
development, a detailed review of Willesden Sports Centre has not been undertaken
but the impact of the new facility has been considered as part of the borough-wide
strategic review of provision and as a useful comparison to evaluate the financial and
usage performance of the other three centres.
Underpinned by a detailed research process of consultation, strategic, facility
provision and financial analysis, the review investigates and explores the
opportunities for redevelopment, demolition, refurbishment or modernisation of
these three main Council operated facilities. Ultimately, the opportunities and
recommendations made within this report have been devised to aid LB Brent in
establishing the need for and outline costs of providing modern, attractive, cost
effective facilities which can better serve the leisure needs of local residents and
increase participation levels over the forthcoming decades.
A short introduction to the three centres follows:
1.1 Bridge Park Community Leisure Centre
Bridge Park Leisure Centre is classified as a mixed use leisure and community centre.
It has a significant amount of community function space and a large number of
business units alongside a five court sports hall, dance studios and two health and
fitness facilities. The facility is located in the South of the borough, within the ward
of Stonebridge, and in close proximity to the North Circular. The Bridge Park site
STRATEGIC REVIEW OF SPORTS CENTRES IN BRENT FULL REVIEW VERSION 2.0 JANUARY 2008
www.continuumleisure.co.uk - 16 -
covers approximately 1.4ha and is bordered by derelict land and disused office
buildings to the south and west and a breakers yard to the south east.
Figure 1.1: Bridge Park Community Leisure Centre
Alongside a good location, the facility has been well maintained internally and the
mix of sporting and non-sporting facilities proves popular with many sectors of the
local community. This is a well liked public facility.
Opened in 1985 as a conversion of a former bus garage, the layout of the sports and
fitness facilities is not typical in terms of size and shape. Changing provision and the
core space occupied by sports facility provision is minimal in relation to the site
footprint. The result is a reduction in the quality of the sports offer, the potential for
income generation and the operational efficiency, in comparison to the design and
function of a ‘typical’ modern centre.
1.2 Vale Farm Sports Centre
Vale Farm Sports Centre is a large mixed use wet and dry-side leisure complex with
considerable outdoor space. Constructed as a leisure centre in 1979 (Synthetic Turf
Pitch [STP] installed afterwards in 1984) it is currently managed by Leisure
Connections who have just commenced a new five year contract.
Located to the West of the borough in the ward of Sudbury, the centre boasts a five
court sports hall, a 25m swimming pool and teaching pool, squash courts, dance
studio space, martial arts dojo and modern health and fitness facilities. Externally
STRATEGIC REVIEW OF SPORTS CENTRES IN BRENT FULL REVIEW VERSION 2.0 JANUARY 2008
www.continuumleisure.co.uk - 17 -
the site contains an STP and a now disused cinder athletics track; it borders the Vale
Farm Sports Ground which contains multiple grass pitches and tennis courts, many
of which are leased to local clubs.
Figure 1.2: Vale Farm Sports Centre
The facility is showing signs of age and despite ongoing refurbishments there are
concerns about its structure. Considerable work is required to improve the
functionality of the existing facility mix and modernise the appearance of the centre’s
interior and exterior.
1.3 Charteris Sports Centre
Charteris Sports Centre can be described as a small, ‘non-standard’ leisure centre
without outdoor facility provision. Located in a residential area in the Kilburn ward to
the South East of the borough, the centre incorporates a small 3 court sports hall,
health and fitness studio and a separate free weights room. The centre is reported to
be 24 years old and a conversion of a former factory.
STRATEGIC REVIEW OF SPORTS CENTRES IN BRENT FULL REVIEW VERSION 2.0 JANUARY 2008
www.continuumleisure.co.uk - 18 -
Figure 1.3: Charteris Sports Centre
Recent investment into the health and fitness studio has ensured that this element of
the centre is modern and good quality and it is the main income generator for
Charteris. On the whole, despite clear evidence of regular maintenance and cleaning,
the site constraints, design and layout inhibit the function of the centre considerably.
Layout and circulation is poor with narrow corridors and no natural light internally.
The reception area is insufficient for the operation of the facility and changing
facilities are too small to serve their purpose. In addition, the activities (and
standards) accommodated within the sports hall are adversely affected by the design
and low roof trusses; concerns over the structural condition have been raised.
A detailed site assessment for each of the three centres which further identifies
strengths, weaknesses and potential for development can be found as Appendix 1
of this report.
1.4 Report Content
The report is presented in ten sections; Section Two provides details on the approach
and methodology, Section Three identifies the national, regional and local policy that
provides the strategic context of the study and underpins any future development.
Section Four provides a detailed demographic profile of the borough alongside a
summary of findings from the most recent Active People survey of sport and leisure
participation levels. Section Five contains a detailed review and analysis of the
borough’s facility stock, highlighting areas of shortfall or surplus in facility provision
across the borough set against the locations of the three centres under review. The
STRATEGIC REVIEW OF SPORTS CENTRES IN BRENT FULL REVIEW VERSION 2.0 JANUARY 2008
www.continuumleisure.co.uk - 19 -
findings of a detailed consultation with key stakeholders is provided within Section
Six and Section Seven provides an overview of the planning issues pertinent to the
potential development of the three centres specifically and sport and leisure facility
development across the borough generally. Section Eight identifies the financial
position and issues facing the three centres inclusive of an analysis of recent levels of
usage. Section Nine presents possible options for development at the three sites
supported by outline cost appraisals. Finally, Section Ten provides the study
conclusion and recommendations including an indication of the leading factors that
LB Brent will need to consider when deciding upon the priorities for any potential
development of sports centres across the borough.
STRATEGIC REVIEW OF SPORTS CENTRES IN BRENT FULL REVIEW VERSION 2.0 JANUARY 2008
www.continuumleisure.co.uk - 20 -
2. METHODOLOGY AND APPROACH In order to ensure a thorough and robust review of and redevelopment options for
three of Brent’s main leisure centres, a comprehensive methodology has been
utilised. The methodological approach is founded upon analysis of strategic context,
an audit and analysis of borough-wide facility provision, consultation with local
stakeholders and reviews of both the physical status and financial performance of the
three leisure centres under review.
This approach has culminated in the proposal of clear options supported by outline
capital cost appraisals, forming a solid basis on which to consider the options for
future development at the three sites.
The approach can be broken down into five key elements:
2.1 Review and Analysis - Studies, Strategy and Policy
The review has been based on a thorough analysis of the strategic context at a
national, regional and local level. Establishing relevant strategic priorities,
particularly at a local level, has provided significant justification for the need to
consider development at each of the three main leisure centre sites. It also provides
an insight into the true potential of a more modern leisure stock in assisting in
meeting wider objectives around health, crime reduction, the local economy,
planning and regeneration within Brent.
A detailed review of the demographic profile of the borough identifies areas of
potential change and incorporates future growth projections. This section highlights
relevant statistics for education and skills, health, crime and safety amongst other
2.1 Review and Analysis - Studies, Strategy and Policy
2.2 Consultation
2.3 Facility Analysis
a. Site Specific
b. Borough-wide
2.4 Options Development and Financial Appraisals
STRATEGIC REVIEW OF SPORTS CENTRES IN BRENT FULL REVIEW VERSION 2.0 JANUARY 2008
www.continuumleisure.co.uk - 21 -
demographic characteristics, both borough-wide and specific to the location of the
three centres.
An important backdrop to the study is provided by an evaluation of the findings of
the 2006 Active People Survey for general and sports specific participation rates,
which are analysed in relation to Brent’s demographic characteristics.
2.2 Consultation
A thorough consultation targeted strategic level stakeholders (via in-depth interview)
and has been critical to the development of facility options that are fully reflective of
high level aspirations, opinion and knowledge. Consultation took place with a number
of key representatives from the council including: Cllr Irwin Van Colle - Lead Member
for Environment and Culture, Richard Saunders - Director Environment & Culture,
Sue Harper - Assistant Director, Environment & Culture, Gerry Kiefer - Head of
Sports Service, Dave Carroll - Head of Planning (Policy & Development), James
Picton - Area Manager, Leisure Connection, Mick McDonnell - Brent PE Advisor, Nitin
Parshotam - Head of Asset Management (Children & Families), Andy Donald - Head
of Regeneration, James Young - Property and Asset Management Services. Key
leisure representatives from Brent’s neighbouring boroughs were also interviewed to
ascertain major planned leisure developments locally.
2.3 Facility Analysis
Undertaken in two phases, the facility analysis has incorporated site assessments for
the three centres alongside a borough-wide audit and analysis of the current levels
of sports facility provision.
Providing evaluation of the key design, layout and operational issues pertinent to
each of the three centres under review has helped to inform the potential for re-
development at each of the sites.
Specific planning issues of critical importance to the development of the three
centres have been reviewed alongside a consideration of the relevant UDP / Local
Development Framework Policy.
STRATEGIC REVIEW OF SPORTS CENTRES IN BRENT FULL REVIEW VERSION 2.0 JANUARY 2008
www.continuumleisure.co.uk - 22 -
In assessing the current and future levels of supply (and in some cases demand) the
borough-wide facility audit has helped to determine the needs case for facility
provision in the areas where the centres are currently situated. The process has also
confirmed clear deficiencies in facility provision elsewhere in the borough, an issue
that LB Brent should be mindful of in moving forward.
2.4 Options Development and Financial Appraisals
The consultation findings, the strategic needs of the Council, the demographic and
participation needs of the borough set against the site specific issues and planning
considerations have all helped to inform the proposal of a range of outline options for
each of the three sites for LB Brent to consider. These options are presented in the
report.
The development options have been subject to a financial options appraisal which
incorporates key factors such as the cost of new build, refurbishment, lifecycle costs
and, where appropriate, capital receipt. The process has established the outline
financial implications for LB Brent over the next 25 years. Comments upon the key
issues for consideration associated with each option have been made alongside clear
recommendations to aid LB Brent in selecting an appropriate direction in which to
make improvements.
STRATEGIC REVIEW OF SPORTS CENTRES IN BRENT FULL REVIEW VERSION 2.0 JANUARY 2008
www.continuumleisure.co.uk - 23 -
3. STRATEGIC CONTEXT
3.1 Introduction
The development of facilities for sport and physical activity should always be set
against a wide reaching strategic context. This section sets out the context for any
development of sport, leisure and physical activity in Brent from a National, regional
and local level perspective, providing a summary of the content of relevant
strategies. The strategic review aims to provide a basis from which the future
development of Brent’s leisure centres is aligned with national, regional and local
strategic objectives wherever possible. The recommendations made in this report
take into full account the wider strategic value of the outcomes which accompany
development.
Throughout this section a number of key themes surface, areas in which the
development and improvement of the sports facility infrastructure in Brent can have
a lasting impact. The Priorities Matrix at the end of the section provides a snapshot
of those themes and the regularity with which they appear within the policy under
analysis.
3.2 National Context
Game Plan (published in December 2002) was produced jointly by the
Government’s Strategy Unit and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport
(DCMS). It is a strategy for delivering the Government's sport and physical activity
objectives and specifically addresses two interlinked areas. Firstly, it aims for a
significant increase in adult participation in sport and physical activity - 70% of the
population to be active by 2020 (participating 3 x 30mins per week). Secondly, it
aims to achieve a sustainable increase in the level of success at international
competition. Support is given to any reform required to achieve these targets.
The subtext of Game Plan is that through sport and physical activity the quality of
life of marginalised groups in society can be improved. It is hoped that a wider
population can become healthier, better educated, gain employment, and can be
diverted from anti-social behaviour.
STRATEGIC REVIEW OF SPORTS CENTRES IN BRENT FULL REVIEW VERSION 2.0 JANUARY 2008
www.continuumleisure.co.uk - 24 -
This underpins a high percentage of strategic policy produced since its publication
and any sports related development must be mindful of these concepts in order to
obtain maximum benefit for the local community as well as support from local and
strategic agencies.
One major development to arise from Game Plan has been the consultation and re-
evaluation exercise by Sport England that has produced the National Framework
for Sport in England: Making England an Active and Successful Sporting
Nation: A Vision for 2020 (2004). This should be regarded as a key document in
relation to future developments. Particular attention should be paid to the seven key
themes represented within it: increasing participation, improving performance,
widening access, improving health and well-being, community safety, education, and
benefiting the economy. Any development involving sporting outputs needs to
address these seven outcomes. These are further detailed later in this section under
the London Regional Plan for Sport.
3.3 Participation and Health
The ‘Choosing Health’ (2004) White Paper, published by the Department of
Health, addresses the factors which contribute to significant inequalities in the
distribution of health. Findings show how socio-economic status, geographical
location and lifestyle issues impact upon levels of physical activity and inactivity (as
echoed by the findings of the Active People survey 2006, and discussed in more
detail within the following section of this report).
Following this, the consultation paper Choosing Health? Choosing Activity?
(March 2005) aimed to identify and promote a variety of physical activities for all to
achieve health benefits. The paper is supportive of the need to increase levels of
physical activity among all people but, like Game Plan, pays particular attention to
under-represented groups. The following section of this review will provide further
clarity upon of the impact of demographic characteristics upon levels of participation,
helping to identify targets in relation to enhanced participation opportunities
generally and more specifically in the context of the three leisure centres under
review.
STRATEGIC REVIEW OF SPORTS CENTRES IN BRENT FULL REVIEW VERSION 2.0 JANUARY 2008
www.continuumleisure.co.uk - 25 -
3.4 Participation and Crime Reduction
A common link can often be made between young people and crime, disengagement
and boredom. National research demonstrates that involvement in sport can engage
people in a positive way, occupying time in a constructive manner and reducing the
likelihood of re-offending. The most important element in engaging young people in
this way is the provision of facilities and activities in which they are keen to
participate from an early age. This concept is noted within ‘Teaming Up – Joint
working between sport and neighbourhood renewal practitioners’ (OPDM
Neighbourhood Renewal Unit 2004):
‘One of the greatest strengths of sport is the role it can play in preventing
future problems. For example, intervening in the life of a young person at
an early stage can reduce the risk that they will get involved in crime or
anti-social behaviour. Preventing this behaviour can reduce repair bills
from vandalism, save police and court time, and lessen the fear of crime.’
As will be established within the following Demographic Profile, Stonebridge and
surrounding wards are identified as crime hotspots within Brent, emphasising the
potential role and importance of sports facility provision to host diversionary
activities within these locations.
3.5 Participation and Education
The National PE, School Sport and Club Links (PESSCL) Strategy (2003) and
Strategy Update (2004) promote the principal of equality through the delivery of
high quality PE and school sport (including dance). The overall objectives of the
strategy are to increase the percentage of 5-16 year olds who spend a minimum of
two hours each week participating in high quality PE and school sport, within and
beyond the curriculum, from 25% in 2002 to 75% in 2006 and 85% in 2008.
Recently the target for all schools has been set higher at 5 hours of sports and
activity. This calls into question the variety, quality and amount of school and
community based facility provision available to meet these targets in and out of
school hours. This Review identifies the important role of Vale Farm, Bridge Park,
and to a lesser extent Charteris in catering for school demand and the suitability of
the existing facility provision should be considered in the context of this demand.
STRATEGIC REVIEW OF SPORTS CENTRES IN BRENT FULL REVIEW VERSION 2.0 JANUARY 2008
www.continuumleisure.co.uk - 26 -
3.6 Planning for Sport
Planning Policy Guidance Note - Sport, Recreation and Open Space PPG 17
(September 2001) refers to the need for local authorities to consult Sport England
about developments that affect land used as playing fields. Sport England has a long
commitment to and involvement in the land use planning system.
Planning objectives acknowledge the importance of open spaces, sport and
recreation and state that ‘well designed and implemented’ planning policies are
‘fundamental to delivering broader Government objectives’. Commonality with
Government and national sports policy is expected, particularly in relation to:
o Promotion of social inclusion and community cohesion – well planned
and maintained open spaces and good quality sports and recreational facilities
can play a major part in improving people’s sense of well being in the place
they live. Any development or re-provision of the three centres has the
potential to increase this sense of well being. Equally, closure has the
potential to reduce social inclusion and community cohesion.
o Health and well being – open spaces, sports and recreational facilities have
a vital role to play in promoting healthy living and preventing illness. Within
the following demographic profile the review identifies health inequalities
across the borough that should be considered in context with planned
investments into the sports facility infrastructure, including parks and open
space.
o Promoting more sustainable development – by ensuring that open
spaces, sports and recreational facilities (particularly in urban areas) are
easily accessible by walking and cycling and that more heavily used or
intensive sports and recreational facilities are planned for locations well
served by public transport. This theme (the need for facility provision to be
locally and easily accessible), in conjunction with the indicators of the CPA
assessment, underpins much of the subsequent analysis of existing facility
provision alongside current and future areas of demand.
STRATEGIC REVIEW OF SPORTS CENTRES IN BRENT FULL REVIEW VERSION 2.0 JANUARY 2008
www.continuumleisure.co.uk - 27 -
3.7 Audit Commission Comprehensive Performance Assessment (CPA) 2005
Every year the Audit Commission assesses the overall performance of each Local
Authority on the basis of how well the Council is run, how its main services are
performing and how it uses resources.
Previously, there had been little performance information on sport and active
recreation included within CPA assessments. Performance indicators for sport and
physical activity (as part of the culture block) have now been developed in line with
the DCMS national participation public service agreement (PSA) targets that are also
reflected in the Framework for Sport and Regional Plans. Data for the following
indicators is now available through the National Benchmarking Service, Active Places
and the Active People survey:
o Participation
o Volunteering
o Equity
o Value for Money
o Choice and Opportunity
The Choice and Opportunity indicator refers specifically to the location and quality of
sports facility provision for local residents and will be discussed in greater detail
within borough-wide facility audit (Section 5) of this report
3.8 Regional Context
Turning to policy targeted toward the development of sport and physical activity
across the capital, the ‘London Plan for Sport and Physical Activity’ (2004) is
one of nine regional plans produced by Sport England as a response to the National
Framework for Sport. The seven key outcomes associated with this plan mirror those
of the National Framework detailed earlier in this section. Sport England advocate
that any new proposal for significant or large-scale sports facility development
should be able to address all seven outcomes directly and, in doing so, has the
potential to make a positive contribution to many of the demographic issues that
Brent faces, as will be emphasised shortly.
STRATEGIC REVIEW OF SPORTS CENTRES IN BRENT FULL REVIEW VERSION 2.0 JANUARY 2008
www.continuumleisure.co.uk - 28 -
The London Plan (2004) is the name given to the Mayor's spatial development
strategy. The theme of sustainable improvement to the quality of life of all who live
and work in London runs through it and this is a concept that applies directly to the
need for improvement to facility provision in Brent.
Pro-Active West London is one of London’s five sub-regional sport and physical
activity Partnerships established in May 2006, with the key aim ‘to coordinate the
delivery of sport and active recreation across the West London sub-region, driving
increased participation in sport and physical activity at all levels for all people in
Brent, Ealing, Hammersmith and Fulham, Harrow, Hillingdon and Hounslow.’ The
over-riding strategic priorities of the Pro-Active West London Partnership apply
directly to key objectives that underpin the need to review sports facility provision in
Brent, they are:
o To increase overall participation by adults in sport and physical activity
o To increase participation by all under-represented groups
o To provide the structures for individuals to realise their sporting potential
The West London Alliance (WLA) comprises the boroughs of Brent, Ealing,
Hammersmith & Fulham, Harrow, Hillingdon and Hounslow. The key aims of the WLA
are:
o To lobby for the interests of the sub-region
o To develop collaborative strategies and initiatives on key issues such as
transport and economic development
o To improve provision of public services in West London through sharing
knowledge, expertise and resources, undertaking joint ventures, and
securing additional resources
Improving sports facilities across the sub-region is a key priority shared by both the
WLA and Pro-active West London. Particular focus is placed upon ensuring that
maximum benefit for local residents and businesses can be secured from the lead up
to and legacy of the 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games. Key objectives include,
amongst others, an increase in participation and achievement in sport among West
London’s residents, developing community sports events, building links with schools
STRATEGIC REVIEW OF SPORTS CENTRES IN BRENT FULL REVIEW VERSION 2.0 JANUARY 2008
www.continuumleisure.co.uk - 29 -
and improving skills and developing training, employment and volunteer
opportunities.
Improving sports facilities in West London is a strategic priority of the region in the
run-up to London 2012 and undoubtedly an opportune moment for LB Brent to
address the quality of its own provision in this area. Support should be sought from
the WLA and Pro-active West London with any developments under consideration.
3.9 Local Policy
As we have seen, much national and regional policy emphasises the positive impact
participation in sport and leisure activity can have on social issues. At a local level,
the potential for sport to achieve some of the borough’s most important social
objectives is emphasised heavily within the key policy documents.
Brent’s Corporate Strategy 2006-2010 sets out the Council’s priorities and
ambitions for LB Brent over the next four years, based upon an over-riding vision of
making Brent a great place to live in and visit. The strategy has been devised
following extensive consultation and needs analysis and a number of the priorities
identified relate closely to the future development of leisure centres. Importantly,
consultation with Brent residents identified ‘more local opportunities for sport and
leisure activities’ as the fourth highest priority for improvement across the Council’s
services.
Key priorities and relevant actions are detailed below and are based upon Making
Brent:
A Safe Place - working to reduce environmental crime, actual crime and the fear of
crime and reducing anti-social behaviour through prevention, diversion and
enforcement activities. An identification of crime hotspots within Brent and in relation
to the three centres under review is presented within the following section.
A clean Place - making Brent cleaner through the ‘Big Brent Clean-up’ campaign in
conjunction with local community groups.
A Green Place - increasing recycling, reducing landfill, improving standards of
provision within Brent’s parks.
STRATEGIC REVIEW OF SPORTS CENTRES IN BRENT FULL REVIEW VERSION 2.0 JANUARY 2008
www.continuumleisure.co.uk - 30 -
A Lively Place - access to high-quality, affordable sports facilities to maintain health
and well-being. Key targets include:
o A 4% increase in adult participation in 3 x 30 minutes per week physical
activity.
o An increase in visits to council-owned facilities by young people,
o An increase in the percentage of 5-16 yr olds engaged in 2 hours of PE per
week
o An increase in the use of sports centres and attendance at sports activities
by looked after children and disabled young people in line with LAA
targets.
Local Employment and enterprise - making Brent a location where businesses
want to locate and can succeed and improving the employability of Brent residents
through enhanced skills and experience.
Health and well-being - encouraging and supporting local people to make healthier
choices including increased participation in physical activities.
Help when you need it - providing support to those who require it.
Settled Homes - maintaining the supply of affordable new housing and bringing
more empty properties back into use.
Early Excellence - providing every young child in Brent with the best start to life.
Civic Leadership - championing the interests of Brent and its communities at all
levels.
Community Engagement - working with local people to give them a greater say in
local choices and wishes.
Building our Capacity - planning for an adequate and well-skilled Council
workforce.
A Strategy for Sport and Physical Activity in Brent 2004 - 2009 was produced
with the objective of co-ordinating the delivery of key services and agreeing key
priorities to maximise the opportunities and benefits associated with the
development of sport and physical activity in Brent.
Priorities and actions detailed within the strategy revolve around six key themes
(actions of relevance to the development of the three centres under review are
STRATEGIC REVIEW OF SPORTS CENTRES IN BRENT FULL REVIEW VERSION 2.0 JANUARY 2008
www.continuumleisure.co.uk - 31 -
detailed below and should be considered in context with the remainder of this
review):
Key Theme 1: Promoting the health benefits of an active lifestyle
o Link programmes at Lift projects - particularly at vale Farm.
o Develop and promote opportunities for informal recreation.
Key Theme 2: Increasing awareness of sports opportunities
o Develop online bookings for sports facilities.
Key Theme 3: Ensuring sports facilities are fit for purpose
o Influence regeneration proposals for South Kilburn area to ensure
development of new facilities.
o Provide third swimming pool in Kingsbury area (north of the borough).
o Work with schools / education to ensure improved facilities and enhanced
community use.
o Produce overall plan for facilities (including track) at Vale Farm.
Key Theme 4: Reducing barriers to participation and ensuring equity in
sport
o Promote Brent Leisure card use.
o Ensure DDA compliance.
o Improve access and awareness of access via public transport.
Key Theme 5: Supporting and developing local sports clubs
Key Theme 6: Increasing sports opportunities for young people
o Work with the police and the YOT’s to provide diversionary activitie..
Priority target groups set out within the strategy include: young people, older
people, black and ethnic minority groups, people with disabilities, and women and
girls. Further consideration of the participation levels of these priority groups and the
demographic profile of the borough will take place within the following section.
Success in Brent - Regeneration Annual Review 2005-2006 identifies the main
aim of the Brent Regeneration team to improve the quality of life of all of Brent’s
residents, workers and visitors. Regeneration work is focused within 5 key areas:
Stonebridge (in which Bridge Park Sports Centre is located), Harlesden, St Raphael’s,
Brentfield and Mitchell Brook, Church End and South Kilburn (Charteris Sports Centre
STRATEGIC REVIEW OF SPORTS CENTRES IN BRENT FULL REVIEW VERSION 2.0 JANUARY 2008
www.continuumleisure.co.uk - 32 -
is located further north within the Kilburn ward). Priorities and issues identified
within the Action Plan and focus areas for future development include the following:
o Promoting employment opportunities.
o Promoting renewal in our priority neighbourhoods.
o Reducing fear of crime within priority areas.
o Delivering Wembley.
The following demographic profile (Section Four) provides further clarification of the
above issues and the potential impact of improved facility provision across the
borough.
The Brent Parks Strategy 2004 - 2006 sets out a policy framework for the
development of Brent’s parks over the next five years, linking in with the Council’s
wider strategic priorities. Whilst the remit of this review is to focus upon the potential
development of Brent’s Council-owned leisure centres, the following section
considers the importance of public open space in contributing to increases in informal
(and formal) participation, which is pertinent to our overall review.
The scope of the Parks Strategy includes public parks, public open spaces, children’s
play areas and allotments. The four key themes with associated objectives that have
emerged are provision of parks, maintenance, funding and participation.
Guidance on planning and providing for playing fields for team sports within Brent up
until 2008 is provided within the Brent Playing Pitch Strategy 2003 - 2008.
Projections for future demand have been made using sports development targets
and a 10% growth in the current Team Generation Rates and should be considered
in the context of borough-wide need. The document makes specific reference within
its key recommendations to the demand case for sports pitch provision at the Vale
Farm Sports Ground:
o All pitches to be retained.
o Additional pitches need to be created in East and South of Brent.
o Schools need to have access to pitches within walking distance and
with affordable prices.
o Brent needs to work with clubs and governing bodies to create more
STRATEGIC REVIEW OF SPORTS CENTRES IN BRENT FULL REVIEW VERSION 2.0 JANUARY 2008
www.continuumleisure.co.uk - 33 -
opportunities for participation.
o The existing Council owned pitches and ancillary facilities in most need
of improvements and upgrading in Brent includes Vale Farm Sports
Ground.
3.10 Sports and Facility Specific Policy
In August 2006, Consultants were instructed to produce a review of Vale Farm Sport
Ground with respect to determining its future management and use. The Vale Farm
Sports Ground Review made a number of key recommendations that are of much
relevance to the future development of the Vale Farm Sports Centre and as
such,have been acknowledged and considered within our own review. The key and
relevant recommendations and issues taken from the Action Plan within the appendix
of the Sports Ground review are set out below:
1) The need to create a consultative forum for the Vale Farm Sports Ground.
2) Increase public awareness of the VF Sports Ground and accessibility as public
open space and install pathways to support additional, jogging, walking and
cycling.
3) Ensure pitch changing facilities (and Sudbury Court Pavilion) are DDA
compliant, fit for purpose and suitable for junior and female use.
4) Further consultation on the markings for the (currently disused) athletics
track from local schools.
5) Explore the potential development of additional facility provision at Vale Farm
Sports Ground including:
a. playground
b. multi-use games area(s)
c. netball centre
d. community football centre (as referenced within the following FA
facilities strategy)
A Masterplan for the Regeneration of South Kilburn:
Charteris Sports Centre, located in the Kilburn ward, sits on the boundary of the
South Kilburn New Deals for Communities area. The South Kilburn Masterplan
identifies the need for an additional sports centre within this area of the borough, the
STRATEGIC REVIEW OF SPORTS CENTRES IN BRENT FULL REVIEW VERSION 2.0 JANUARY 2008
www.continuumleisure.co.uk - 34 -
development of which would have a significant impact on the future options for
Charteris Sports Centre.
Specifically, the South Kilburn Masterplan identifies the Sports Centre to be:
‘a key feature of the existing masterplan and is the most aspirational new
community facility proposed. It would provide an accessible and high quality
venue for both new and existing communities to come together within South
Kilburn.’
The masterplan estimates that the capital cost of a dry-side sports centre with the
facilities envisaged will be in the region of £9 million (based on current day
estimates) with no obvious funding sources identified nor timescales for possible
completion. The South Kilburn NDC recognises that another approach could be to
consider whether there will be any benefit from a combined sports facility with either
a new school or the healthy living centre (both proposed within the Masterplan).
However, the document states that initial work indicates that both options would
severely constrain the type of facility that is deliverable.
3.11 National Governing Body Facility Strategies
The re-development of sports facility provision needs to be aligned to the high level
strategic priorities of the sporting infrastructure. To achieve this, a brief review of the
key objectives and specific priorities of relevant National Governing Body Facility
Strategies is beneficial.
Table 3.1: NGB Strategy Summaries
NGB Strategy Objectives Priorities Amateur Swimming Association
From Armbands to Gold Medals: The National Facilities Strategy for Swimming
• To promote a strategic approach to the development and management of swimming facilities
• To ensure capital and revenue
resources, including National Lottery funds are used effectively to deliver the sports development objectives of the ASA
• To meet the recreational needs of the
community in general
• One 8 lane 50m pool in each quadrant area bounded by the M25 which should be flexible to the needs of the local community
STRATEGIC REVIEW OF SPORTS CENTRES IN BRENT FULL REVIEW VERSION 2.0 JANUARY 2008
www.continuumleisure.co.uk - 35 -
NGB Strategy Objectives Priorities Badminton England
National Badminton Facilities Strategy
• The creation of a network of ‘accredited’ badminton facilities across the country
• To ensue quality facilities exist for
those playing at higher levels of the game alongside structured opportunities for those wishing to learn, play and develop at all levels of the sport
• Optimum facility provision will involve a minimum of one Performance and Development Centre per County and 1 Development Centre per 50,000 population and / or within a 15 minute drive time of anyone within an urban/semi urban area or 20 minutes within a rural are
England Basketball
England Basketball Facilities Strategy (2005 – 2009)
• ‘User Affordability’ • The empowerment of clubs • Clubs are being encouraged to
develop all facets of their organisation to ensure they can continue to not only survive but also to develop in line with National policy for Basketball and sport in general
• Provision of club managed two-basketball court facilities which offer a minimum of 25 peak time hours for basketball at affordable rates
• Developing one
basketball specific facility for each of the eight identified districts in London
England Volleyball
England Volleyball Association Facilities Strategy
• To encourage the building of new centres in areas where few or no existing facilities are available, as part of network provision
• To encourage existing venues to upgrade their facilities
• To identify the need for Regional
Volleyball Centres
• Make volleyball more accessible to greater numbers of young people and also make particular provision for the development of high performance volleyball
The Football Association
The Greater London, London Football Partnership, Facilities Strategy
• Direct investment to areas of greatest need and to where it will provide best value for money
• The definition of areas of greatest need covers locations where there is evidence of economic and football facility deprivation
• The establishment of hub sites known as Community Football Centres in each London borough
British Gymnastics
British Gymnastics Facilities Strategy (June 2006)
• Ensure that the right facilities are provided in the right place at the right time to satisfy the right demand
• 20 HPC/IPC (Performance) clubs with a total of 200 gymnasts training 25-30 hours per week in each discipline
• Each of the HPC/IPC
(Performance) clubsto be based in an international standard facility with affordable
STRATEGIC REVIEW OF SPORTS CENTRES IN BRENT FULL REVIEW VERSION 2.0 JANUARY 2008
www.continuumleisure.co.uk - 36 -
NGB Strategy Objectives Priorities access for a minimum of 25-30 hours priority Performance training per week
UK Athletics Athletics Facilities Planning and Delivery (2007 – 2012)
• To help facility providers (LA’s, schools, colleges, universities and others) recognise what facilities are required, where they should be located and how they might be funded
• To help governing bodies, education
establishments and athletics clubs focus on recognising where there are gaps in provision and how these gaps might be filled
• Providing new facilities that will help to improve participation in Athletics through the provision of modern facilities and equipment
• One outdoor synthetic
track (6 or 8 lanes) per 250, 000 within 20 minutes drives (45 minutes in rural areas)
• One indoor training
centre per 500, 000 people living within 30 minutes drive (45 minutes in rural areas)
3.12 Summaries and Key Themes Matrix
A review of relevant policy and guidance at national, regional and local levels has
highlighted the potential of enhanced sports facility provision across Brent to meet
numerous social objectives across Brent. The importance of the three existing
centres and the justification for any potential improvements are recognised at a
strategic level and specific references to the need for improvements occur regularly
within local policy.
In making any potential improvements to the sport and leisure facility infrastructure
(and providing increased opportunity to participate) any modernisation of the leisure
centre sites would contribute towards a number of social objectives and policies
within Brent. The key themes and regularity with which they occur within the
national, regional and local policy are set out below within Table 3.2. The potential
to make an impact upon these key themes should be considered as the strategic
backdrop for any decision made in context with the future of facility provision in
Brent.
Table 3.2: Strategic Analysis (frequency of key themes occurring in National,
Regional and Local Policy)
STRATEGIC REVIEW OF SPORTS CENTRES IN BRENT FULL REVIEW VERSION 2.0 JANUARY 2008
www.continuumleisure.co.uk - 37 -
Rank Theme Frequency
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
1
Improving Health &
Well Being
2
Economic
Development
3
Education, Children &
Young People
4
Increasing
Participation
5
Building Physical
Capacity
6
Environment,
Regeneration &
Building Communities
7 Reducing Crime
8
Building Human
Capacity
9
Improving Levels of
Performance
10 Improving Skills
11 Talent ID
12 Investment in Sport
13 Active Workplaces
Key
National Strategies
Regional Strategies
Local Strategies
STRATEGIC REVIEW OF SPORTS CENTRES IN BRENT FULL REVIEW VERSION 2.0 JANUARY 2008
www.continuumleisure.co.uk - 38 -
4. DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE This section of the report sets out the demographic profile of Brent and considers
how that profile may change as the population increases. Ensuring a complete
understanding of the demographic issues faced by local residents is important in
considering how to maximise accessibility, prevent barriers to participation and
capitalise upon the wider value that sport and leisure has to offer. This information
provides vital context to ensure any future development of the three main centres
under review takes place in a manner that reflects local need most appropriately.
Valuable analysis of recent participation findings obtained as part of Sport England’s
Active People Survey (2006) is also presented at the end of this section. Analysis of
the participation profile of Brent includes an evaluation of the impact of key
demographic issues. In particular this helps to determine which social groups are,
and are not, participating in sport and physical activity. This is important in the
context of any potential future development of Charteris, Vale Farm and Bridge Park
specifically and the aim to increase participation more generally across Brent.
4.1 London Borough of Brent - Ward Mapping and Facility Location
Before embarking on a review of the demographic profile of the borough, it is first
useful to identify the locations of the three centres under review. Figure 4.1 below
demonstrates those locations and the wards of Brent.
To provide further context, the location of Willesden Sports Centre has also been
identified. However, the demographic profile focuses on the demographic
characteristics and social issues faced by the borough as a whole and specific to the
local areas surrounding the three centres under specific review. The demography of
the area surrounding Willesden Sports Centre has not been profiled as it was not a
specific focus for this study. Moreover, much of the following data is based upon
2001 census findings, which was collected well in advance of the opening of the
Willesden Sports Centre in 2006.
STRATEGIC REVIEW OF SPORTS CENTRES IN BRENT FULL REVIEW VERSION 2.0 JANUARY 2008
www.continuumleisure.co.uk - 39 -
Figure 4.1: London Borough of Brent wards and the locations of Vale Farm Sports
Centre, Charteris Sports Centre and Bridge Park Community Leisure Centre
4.2 London Borough of Brent - Total Population and Population Projections
At the last census (2001) Brent’s population was recorded as 263, 464, growing at a
rate of 3.2% since 1991. This was an increase of 9,014 from the projected mid year
population figure for 2000, placing Brent second only to Tower Hamlets in terms of
population gain. The 2006 mid-year estimate for London Boroughs measured Brent’s
population at 271,400.
4.3 Housing, Key Growth Areas and Population Projections
Recognised by the Government as a Housing Opportunity Borough with substantial
capacity to provide more homes, the 2004 Housing Capacity Study undertaken by
the Mayor of London and LB Brent Planning Department identified the potential
development of an additional 9,146 homes in the period between 2007 and 2017
(using only brownfield sites and existing buildings). A large proportion of this housing
(approximately 1400 affordable homes) are to be located on and around the
STRATEGIC REVIEW OF SPORTS CENTRES IN BRENT FULL REVIEW VERSION 2.0 JANUARY 2008
www.continuumleisure.co.uk - 40 -
Wembley Stadium site. A further 1,500 homes have also been approved as part of
the regeneration strategy for South Kilburn which has the potential to generate
significant increased demand for leisure provision in this area of the borough.
If the plans for additional housing are realised, the impact on the total Brent
Population will be significant. GLA projections estimate the population to grow to
305,400 by 2016 - an increase of approximately 11%. Estimations of ward level
population projections have not been made to date.
4.4 Population Distribution and Density
The demographic maps below (figures 4.2 & 4.3) illustrate how the distribution of
population within Brent changed between 1991 and 2001. These maps are useful as
indicators of population density at a ward level, though the size of the individual
ward must also be taken into account. Where wards are marked in the darkest
shade, 5.5 – 6.1% of Brent’s population reside there, which is the highest band of
population distribution. Population distribution should be taken into account when
assessing levels of demand for facility provision in the borough. Later within this
report (Section 5) cross-referencing population density with current facility provision
(capacity ratio analysis) will help to further identify the particular areas in which
there are too few sport and leisure facilities in comparison with the current density of
residents.
Source: Census 2001 – Ward Profiles for Brent (www.brent.gov.uk/demographic.nsf)
Figure 4.3: Brent Population Density 1991 Figure 4.2: Brent Population Density 2001
STRATEGIC REVIEW OF SPORTS CENTRES IN BRENT FULL REVIEW VERSION 2.0 JANUARY 2008
www.continuumleisure.co.uk - 41 -
As displayed above, the wards with a large population in relation to their
geographical extent include Queensbury, Kilburn, Stonebridge, Mapesbury and
Dudden Hill. The changes in population density between 1991 and the most recent
census in 2001 indicate Stonebridge (south central) in particular as a ward in which a
large number of Brent residents have and continue to reside (15,943 residents in
2001 making it the largest of all Brent wards). Despite a considerably smaller than
average area, Kilburn, to the South East of the borough, contains the second largest
population (14,712) making it the most densely populated ward within the Brent. To
the west, Sudbury contained a total population of 12, 307 in 2001.
4.5 Age Structure
There is a strong correlation between participation in sport and physical activity and
age. Typically participation falls away as people grow older. Brent has a relatively
young population with 25% falling within the 0 to 19 range and 37% in the 20 to 39
range. Conversely, Brent’s pensioners make up 14% of the population, lower than
the Greater London average of 15.5% and the England and Wales average of 18%.
The high proportion of under 40 year olds in Brent (62% of the total population)
provides a large target group for sport and leisure providers, activities and
programming. Stonebridge in particular has the highest percentage of U16 year olds
(27.7%), which, as a key user group, would suggest significant demand for sport
and leisure provision. Interestingly, Sudbury contains the lowest number of residents
in the 16 - 24 age range at present.
4.6 Black and Ethnic Minority Groups
Brent is one of the most culturally diverse boroughs in London. Black and Minority
Ethnic groups (BME) now make up the majority of the population in Brent at 54.7%,
according to GLA projections. This is the second highest of all the London Boroughs
behind Newham. Figures 4.4 and 4.5 below present the distribution of Black and
Minority Ethnic groups across the wards of Brent. BME groups comprise over 70% of
the population in Queensbury, Wembley Central and Alperton. There is a clear
geographical divide; the wards in the south-east corner of Brent are less ethnically
diverse than the rest of the borough, with BME groups making up 33 – 39% of the
population in Mapesbury Brondesbury Park and Queen’s Park (the least ethnically
STRATEGIC REVIEW OF SPORTS CENTRES IN BRENT FULL REVIEW VERSION 2.0 JANUARY 2008
www.continuumleisure.co.uk - 42 -
diverse wards in Brent). In Kilburn the BME population density is less than the
borough average at 39 – 49%, whereas in both Stonebridge and Sudbury the figure
is higher at 60 – 69%.
Figure 4.4: Densities of BME residents
Figure 4.5: Densities of white residents
Source: Census 2001 – Ward Profiles for Brent (www.brent.gov.uk/demographic.nsf)
STRATEGIC REVIEW OF SPORTS CENTRES IN BRENT FULL REVIEW VERSION 2.0 JANUARY 2008
www.continuumleisure.co.uk - 43 -
4.8 Education and Skills
Approximately a quarter of the Brent population possess no qualifications at present.
Figure 4.6 below highlights the wards in which a particularly high percentage of the
population (aged 16 – 74) have no qualifications. In Stonebridge, Harlesden and
Wembley central 29 – 33% of people have no qualifications. 32.6% of Stonebridge
residents have no qualifications, whilst the figure is lower for Kilburn (24.3%) and
Sudbury (24.2%). This can be directly linked, as a contributing factor, to high levels
of unemployment in Stonebridge and Harlesden. The wards with the highest
percentage (over 35%) of residents with a degree or higher qualifications are
Northwick Park to the west and Mapesbury and Brondesbury Park to the south east.
Figure 4.6: Density of Brent residents aged 16 - 74 with no qualifications
Source: Census 2001 – Ward Profiles for Brent (www.brent.gov.uk/demographic.nsf)
4.9 Economic Activity
The previous section (Strategic Context) emphasises that participation in sport and
physical activity has considerable potential to reduce unemployment, both directly
through the creation of new jobs and indirectly through improving physical health
and well being and enhancing valuable skills (communication skills, leadership etc.)
Across Brent 65.5% of residents aged 16-74 were registered as economically active,
5% of whom were unemployed. Figure 4.7 below indicates areas of Brent in which
unemployment levels are particularly high. In 2001, unemployment among males in
STRATEGIC REVIEW OF SPORTS CENTRES IN BRENT FULL REVIEW VERSION 2.0 JANUARY 2008
www.continuumleisure.co.uk - 44 -
Stonebridge (9.8%) was the highest in the borough. Kilburn also showed high levels
of male unemployment at 8.7%, whilst the figure was lower in Sudbury at 5.6%. The
figures for female unemployment again reveal that Stonebridge has the highest
levels in Brent (6.2%) and Kilburn is ranked third in the borough in this respect
(4.5%).
Figure 4.7: Densities of unemployment within Brent
Source: Census 2001 – Ward Profiles for Brent (www.brent.gov.uk/demographic.nsf)
4.10 Income Deprivation
Figures 4.8 and 4.9 below, taken from the 2007 NHS Health Profile for Brent
(www.communityhealthprofiles.info), show the variation in the percentage of people
on low incomes compared to national trends and within the borough itself. In relation
to the whole of England Brent is an income-deprived borough, with the majority of
wards falling within the 20% most income-deprived areas in England.
STRATEGIC REVIEW OF SPORTS CENTRES IN BRENT FULL REVIEW VERSION 2.0 JANUARY 2008
www.continuumleisure.co.uk - 45 -
Figure 4.8: Income deprivation - national
Figure 4.9: Income deprivation - local
Within Brent the most income-deprived areas in 2003 were the Stonebridge and
Harlesden wards, as well as parts of Kilburn, Kensal Green and Willesden Green.
These areas made up the most income-deprived fifth of Brent. To ensure that cost
does not become a barrier to participation, it is vital that pricing policies for facilities
currently located or planned for these areas are reflective of the socio-economic
status of local residents.
STRATEGIC REVIEW OF SPORTS CENTRES IN BRENT FULL REVIEW VERSION 2.0 JANUARY 2008
www.continuumleisure.co.uk - 46 -
4.11 Health Status
The previous section (Strategic Context) discussed in greater detail the major impact
that participation in sport and physical activity can have on health and well being.
The 2001 Census found that 70% of Brent’s population is in good health, with 21%
rated fairly good and 9% as not good. In the Wembley Central ward over 36% of
households have one or more persons with a limiting or long term illness, which is
the highest in the borough (as shown within Figure 4.11). Within Queensbury and
Stonebridge the figure is also high at approximately 34 – 36%.
Areas such as these, where a large proportion of people suffer from serious health
problems, would certainly benefit from the improvement of sports facilities and
increased participation in physical activity. Figure 4.12 shows the wards in which
high levels of obesity are estimated (based upon the demographic profile rather than
the actual prevalence) and as can be seen, this is something of an issue for the
Stonebridge ward in particular. In the context of facility provision, the benefits of
locating a facility in areas of poor health quality have the potential to add
considerable social and economic value, not least through the reduction of healthcare
costs and by lowering sick days lost through ill health.
Source: Census 2001 – Ward Profiles for Brent (www.brent.gov.uk/demographic.nsf)
Figure 4.11: Densities of Brent population with a long-term limiting illness
STRATEGIC REVIEW OF SPORTS CENTRES IN BRENT FULL REVIEW VERSION 2.0 JANUARY 2008
www.continuumleisure.co.uk - 47 -
Figure 4.12: Synthetic Estimates of Obesity
Source: Office for National Statistics (www.statistics.gov.uk)
4.12 Car Ownership
Car ownership levels in Brent are relatively low (approximately 37% of households
do not own a vehicle) with some areas of the borough in which vehicle ownership is
very low.
Table 4.1: Car Ownership in Brent
Number of Cars per Household in Brent (2001)
% ownership
No Car 37.3%
1 Car 42.6% 2 Car 16.2%
3+ Cars 3.9%
The highest level of ‘non’ car ownership can be found in Kilburn where over half of
households (56.5%) do not own a vehicle at present. Car ownership in Stonebridge
is also considerably lower than the borough average with 47.8% of households
without access to a vehicle. Fewer Sudbury residents are without access to a car,
33.6% in total, though this remains a considerable proportion of the ward
population.
STRATEGIC REVIEW OF SPORTS CENTRES IN BRENT FULL REVIEW VERSION 2.0 JANUARY 2008
www.continuumleisure.co.uk - 48 -
Levels of car ownership raise important issues about access to sport and leisure
facilities, increasing the need for both quality public transport links and facility
provision in locations that are easily accessible by foot or cycle. The importance of
facility provision within an acceptable walking distance is significant and has the
potential to have a considerable impact on the usage of facilities. To emphasise the
point (which will be discussed in greater detail within Section 5) facility provision
within a walking catchment (1 mile / 20 minute walk) is an indicator used within the
CPA assessment.
Further evaluation of the relationship between facility access, public transport links
and attendance by foot will be made as part of the site specific reviews detailed
within Section Six of this report.
4.13 Crime and Safety
In the period August 2006 -7 the Metropolitan Police recorded a total of 28, 710
crimes in Brent, a 15.3% decrease from the previous year’s total of 33, 910 total
offences. There has been a significant reduction in ‘violence against the person’ and
just two cases of homicide in comparison with six in the previous year. Across all
London boroughs, Brent is ranked about mid way in terms of rates of crime per 1000
of the population. Town centres tend to witness higher levels of crime, meaning that
areas such as Wembley, Harlesden, Neasden and Kilburn are specific crime hotspots.
More crime takes place in the most deprived areas of Brent, for example the
Stonebridge, Harlesden and Carlton wards. An important statistic linked to the issue
of crime and safety is that young people in Brent are over-represented as both
victims and offenders. As mentioned previously, research has highlighted the strong
and direct link between participation in sport and physical activity and the reduction
of crime and the causes of crime. From this perspective, demand for increased
opportunities is greatest in those deprived wards, such as Stonebridge and
Harlesden, where crime levels are high.
STRATEGIC REVIEW OF SPORTS CENTRES IN BRENT FULL REVIEW VERSION 2.0 JANUARY 2008
www.continuumleisure.co.uk - 49 -
4.14 Participation in Sport and Leisure Activities
Having reviewed the demographic profile of the borough, this report now turns to
levels of participation in sport and leisure activities and the inter relationship with the
demographic characteristics of Brent. To provide further clarity of the factors and
issues that may be affecting participation levels locally, analysis and comparison has
been made with Brent’s statistical and geographical neighbours as well as those
London Boroughs which achieve the very highest levels of participation currently.
This section has important implications for facility demand and should be read in
context with the findings of the borough-wide facility audit - Section 5 of this Review.
4.15 Active People Survey (2006) - London Borough of Brent
The recent findings of the Active People Survey (2006), conducted by Sport England,
provide the most up to date assessment of levels of sports participation within the
country and are an excellent resource in helping to inform potential demand for new
facility provision.
A comprehensive survey of 1000 people (over the age of 16) in every Local Authority
Nationwide has produced in-depth findings about sports participation. The over-
arching measure of participation used is the percentage of the population completing
at least 3 x 30 minute sessions of moderate participation in a sport and leisure
activity per week. The government’s optimistic target of achieving 70% participation
by 2020 will be measured on this indicator.
The depth of the survey conducted provided comprehensive findings on a range of
other associated issues including (among others):
o Participation and non-participation
o Sports specific participation
o Volunteering
o Sports Club membership
The findings of the survey can be reviewed against a vast number of demographic
indicators (age, gender, ethnicity, socio-economic activity etc.) to isolate possible
factors that are having an impact on levels of participation within Brent.
STRATEGIC REVIEW OF SPORTS CENTRES IN BRENT FULL REVIEW VERSION 2.0 JANUARY 2008
www.continuumleisure.co.uk - 50 -
Furthermore, findings can be compared against geographically and demographically
similar boroughs to further investigate factors that may be having an impact from
borough to borough.
According to the Active People Survey, Brent had an 18.0% adult participation rate
in 3 x 30 minutes of physical activity per week. This is a low participation rate (3.0%
below the national average and 3.3% below the average for London), placing Brent
in the bottom quartile of all local authorities nationwide. There is clearly much work
to be done with regard to widening participation in sport if Brent is to meet the
government target of 70% participation by 2020.
Figure 4.13: KPI 1 - Brent participation rates in comparison with all Local
Authorities
Unfortunately, statistical participation data is currently unavailable at anything lower
than Local Authority level. The Active People diagnostic tool does however provide
maps of each LA identifying overall participation (3 x 30 mins) at Super Output Area
level. The following map, Figure 4.13 identifies the variances in participation levels
across the borough and, as can be seen, there are some pockets of high and low
participation levels. Figure 4.13 also demonstrates the locations of the three centres
under review alongside an approximate catchment of 1.6km from each centre.
Willesden Sports Centre has not been identified since the centre was not open at the
STRATEGIC REVIEW OF SPORTS CENTRES IN BRENT FULL REVIEW VERSION 2.0 JANUARY 2008
www.continuumleisure.co.uk - 51 -
time of data collection in 2006. It is very likely that the facility will have an impact on
participation levels recorded within the next round of the Active People Survey.
Figure 4.14: London Borough of Brent Participation (3x30) Estimates by Middle
Super Output Area (Location of three centres and 1.6km catchments identified)
Please note: Willesden sports centre has not been included within this map as the
facility was not open at the time of the Active People survey in 2006.
As shown above, there are considerable variances in participation levels with pockets
of high and low participation. Most prominent is the band of low (bottom quartile 10
- 18%) participation that runs as a band directly down the centre of the borough. In
context with three centres under review, the catchments of all three centres cover
areas of the borough in which participation is lowest. This is most notably the case
Vale Farm Sports Centre
Bridge Park Community Leisure Centre
Charteris Sports Centre
STRATEGIC REVIEW OF SPORTS CENTRES IN BRENT FULL REVIEW VERSION 2.0 JANUARY 2008
www.continuumleisure.co.uk - 52 -
with Bridge Park, the entire catchment of which scores within the bottom quartile of
participation (it should be noted however, that not all areas of that particular ward
and the borough are populated). When reviewing the participation map against the
demographic characteristics considered earlier, trends in relation to ethnicity, income
deprivation and unemployment become indicators of low participation. These trends
will be emphasised in greater detail shortly.
4.16 Other Key Performance Indicators (KPI’s)
As established earlier, alongside a measure of weekly participation, the Active People
Survey has recorded data relating to a broad range of other sport and leisure related
indicators. Brent’s scores for Key Performance Indicators 1-6 are set out below
(Table 4.2) against the National and regional averages.
Table 4.2: Brent KPI’s 1-6
KPI’s 1-6 Brent
(LA)
London National
KPI 1 - At least 3 days a week x 30 minutes moderate
participation (all adults)
18.0%
21.3% 21.0%%
KPI 2 - At least 1 hour a week volunteering to support sport (all
adults) 2.7%
3.5% 4.7%
KPI 3 - Club member (all adults) 20.5% 26.2% 25.1%
KPI 4 - Received tuition from an instructor or coach in last 12
months (all adults) 13.4%
19.2% 18.0%
KPI 5 - Taken part in organised competitive sport in last 12
months (all adults) 10.3%
13.1% 15.0%
KPI 6 - Satisfaction with local sports provision (all adults) 52.7% 66.1% 69.5%
Key Performance Indicators 2-6 suggest some reasons why Brent lags behind the
average London and national rates for sports participation. Brent is in the bottom
national quartile for club membership, tuition and competition rates. Also of
importance, satisfaction rates with local sports provision in Brent are very low; just
52.7% of adults were satisfied with provision, 13% less than the London average
and 17% less than the national satisfaction rate. This suggests a very poor public
STRATEGIC REVIEW OF SPORTS CENTRES IN BRENT FULL REVIEW VERSION 2.0 JANUARY 2008
www.continuumleisure.co.uk - 53 -
perception of not just facility provision but activity programming and the sport and
leisure infrastructure generally across the borough. However, as previously noted,
Willesden Sports Centre was not open at the time of the survey and the inclusion of
this state of the art facility is likely to have a positive impact on the ‘satisfaction with
sports provision’ score.
4.17 Zero Days Participation and Demographic Characteristics
A further Key Performance Indicator (Table 4.3 below) that holds much relevance is
‘zero days’ participation - 56.5% of the Brent population had not undertaken any
physical activity within the four weeks preceding the survey. This is considerably
greater than both the regional (49.5%) and national averages (50.6%), and provides
both an indicator of the size of a key target group and a stark reminder of the
difficulty of the task ahead if Government targets of 70% of the population are to be
physically active 3 x30 minutes a week by 2020.
Table 4.3: London Borough of Brent - Zero Days Participation
Zero days - 30 mins moderate participation (all adults) Brent (LA) London
(REG)
National
All 56.5% 49.5% 50.6%
Male 52.3% 44.7% 45.8%
Female 60.7% 54.2% 55.2%
16 to 34 45.6% 36.6% 33.7%
35 to 54 54.7% 45.2% 47.6%
55 and over 75.1% 71.8% 71.0%
White 51.8% 47.5% 50.3%
Non white 61.1% 55.2% 54.5%
Limiting disability 76.6% 76.8% 76.5%
No limiting disability 54.0% 45.5% 45.7%
NS-SEC 1, 1.1, 1.2, 2 (A) 48.8% 40.2% 42.1%
NS-SEC 3 (B) 63.2% 54.4% 51.9%
NS-SEC 4 (C1) 52.9% 48.4% 50.9%
NS-SEC 5,6,7,8 (C2DE) 66.9% 63.4% 60.0%
STRATEGIC REVIEW OF SPORTS CENTRES IN BRENT FULL REVIEW VERSION 2.0 JANUARY 2008
www.continuumleisure.co.uk - 54 -
A demographic breakdown of participation levels in Brent provides further illustration
of the particular groups which a drive to widen participation should target. Female
non-participation is particularly high at 60.7% (in comparison with 54% across the
capital) and, as will be discussed in more detail shortly, socio-economic status
provides a clear indicator of non-participation, with some 66% of social classes C2DE
having not participated in any sport or leisure activity for 30 minutes in the four
weeks preceding interview. Across all socio-economic groups the Brent population
exceeds the regional and national averages for non-participation. The socio-economic
group B is certainly a potential target group for increasing participation since at
63.2% non-participation it is well above regional and national levels for ‘zero days’
participation.
Ethnicity also has a considerable affect on participation. The percentage of the non-
white adult population of Brent not participating (61.1%) is considerably higher than
the regional (55.2%) and national (54.5%) rates of non-participation for BME
groups.
4.18 Satisfaction with Sports Provision and Demographic Characteristics
Returning to satisfaction with sports provision, and applying the same demographic
breakdown reveals an anomaly in participation levels and satisfaction. Those groups
that participate least frequently appear to be most satisfied with the existing
provision. Satisfaction with local provision is highest with social classes C2DE
however, as identified above, less than a third of this sector of the community had
participated in any activity in the weeks preceding survey. The indication is that
without knowledge of the quality of local provision, respondents are unable and
unlikely to record their dissatisfaction. This trend is also evident from the regional
and national figures which show that the highest satisfaction levels come from
groups that participate less, such as those aged 55 and over and the less wealthy
socio-economic groups.
Table 4.4: Satisfaction with Local Sports Provision
KPI 6 - Satisfaction with local sports provision (all
adults)
Brent (LA) London
(REG)
National
All 52.7% 66.1% 69.5%
STRATEGIC REVIEW OF SPORTS CENTRES IN BRENT FULL REVIEW VERSION 2.0 JANUARY 2008
www.continuumleisure.co.uk - 55 -
KPI 6 - Satisfaction with local sports provision (all
adults)
Brent (LA) London
(REG)
National
Male 55.8% 65.2% 69.2%
Female 49.6% 67.0% 69.9%
16 to 34 53.8% 64.1% 65.8%
35 to 54 49.0% 64.6% 68.5%
55 and over 57.5% 72.5% 74.8%
White 50.7% 66.2% 70.0%
Non white 54.4% 65.6% 64.8%
Limiting disability 45.7% 63.4% 66.0%
No limiting disability 53.4% 66.4% 70.1%
NS-SEC 1, 1.1, 1.2, 2 (A) 46.0% 64.0% 68.9%
NS-SEC 3 (B) 49.3% 66.4% 69.6%
NS-SEC 4 (C1) 57.0% 69.0% 70.8%
NS-SEC 5,6,7,8 (C2DE) 59.0% 68.8% 70.2%
The C2DE socio-economic group represents an excellent opportunity for the future
evaluation of the quality of sport and facility provision across Brent. As a clear
priority group to target to increase participation levels - satisfaction with sports
provision amongst classes C2DE should remain the same or increase as users gain
experience of and are therefore better placed to pass judgement.
4.18 Brent’s Geographical and Statistical Neighbours
The Active People survey allows an analysis of Brent’s geographical and statistical
neighbours, those with similar scores on the Indices of Multiple Deprivation, to see
how Brent compares.
4.18.1 Geographical Neighbours
Brent’s participation rate is lower than those of the neighbouring local authorities
(LA’s). Table 4.5 below identifies that only Harrow has similarly low levels of
participation whilst Hammersmith and Fulham, Kensington and Chelsea, Westminster
and Camden score considerably higher.
Table 4.5: KPI 1 - London Borough of Brent - Geographical Neighbours
STRATEGIC REVIEW OF SPORTS CENTRES IN BRENT FULL REVIEW VERSION 2.0 JANUARY 2008
www.continuumleisure.co.uk - 56 -
KPI 1 - At least 3 days a week x 30 minutes moderate
participation (all adults)
Percent
Kensington & Chelsea (LA) 27.9
Hammersmith & Fulham (LA) 25.4
Westminster (LA) 25.1
Camden (LA) 24.6
Barnet (LA) 21.7
Ealing (LA) 21.2
Harrow (LA) 18.6
Brent (LA) 18
London (REG) 21.3
National (NAT) 21
A number of important factors contribute to the variation from borough to borough,
not least demographics - wealth, social and ethnicity as well as numerous other
factors - facility provision, community sport infrastructure, transport links and open
space to name but a few. Further analysis of theses key factors and the potential
impact on participation in Brent will take place shortly.
4.18.2 Statistical Neighbours
Turning to Brent’s statistical neighbours (based on IMD score), Table 4.6 below
demonstrates that Brent has the lowest participation rate across this particular
grouping. Sefton and Blyth Valley, despite sharing similar deprivation scores with
Brent, have participation rates above the national and London averages.
Table 4.6: KPI 1 - London Borough of Brent – Statistical Neighbours
KPI 1 - At least 3 days a week x 30 minutes moderate
participation (all adults)
Percent
Sefton (LA) 21.7
STRATEGIC REVIEW OF SPORTS CENTRES IN BRENT FULL REVIEW VERSION 2.0 JANUARY 2008
www.continuumleisure.co.uk - 57 -
KPI 1 - At least 3 days a week x 30 minutes moderate
participation (all adults)
Blyth Valley (LA) 21.5
North Tyneside (LA) 20.7
Kirklees (LA) 18.7
Brent (LA) 18
London (REG) 21.3
National (NAT) 21
This situation can be explained in part by Brent’s comparatively low club membership
rates. As demonstrated within Table 4.7 below, club membership in Brent is
considerably lower than the four closest statistical neighbours.
Table 4.7: KPI 3 - London Borough of Brent – Statistical Neighbours
KPI 3 - Club member (all adults)
Percent
Sefton (LA) 28.2
North Tyneside (LA) 26.9
Blyth Valley (LA) 25.8
Kirklees (LA) 24.8
Brent (LA) 20.3
London (REG) 21.3
National (NAT) 21
As identified above, a key element of Brent’s Active People Survey results is the lack
of satisfaction with local sports provision. This point is further emphasised by a
comparison with satisfaction among IMD neighbours. The satisfaction rate in Brent is
significantly less than that of all five IMD neighbours and remains a critical point for
improvement. Kirkless and Blyth Valley have satisfaction rates well above the
national average and 20-25% above that of Brent, which is clearly a very large
margin.
STRATEGIC REVIEW OF SPORTS CENTRES IN BRENT FULL REVIEW VERSION 2.0 JANUARY 2008
www.continuumleisure.co.uk - 58 -
4.19 Participation Rates and Top Scoring London Boroughs
Brent is currently ranked 31st of 33 London boroughs in relation to overall
participation levels, a full 11.8% below the participation rate of top-scoring
Richmond. In London only Barking & Dagenham and Newham have fewer adults
taking part in 3 x 30 minutes of physical activity per week. This is obviously an area
of concern for Brent which must be addressed in the future. To help understand the
issues the borough faces it is useful to consider some of the influencing factors that
may contribute to higher levels of participation, factors that LB Brent should consider
when planning to achieve future increases in participation levels.
4.19.1 Facility Stock and Satisfaction with Provision
The following section of this report (Borough-wide Facility Audit) reviews in detail,
the current status of sports facility provision in Brent. Resident satisfaction with
sports facility provision is below average which may be having an impact on
participation rates. Table 4.8 below compares satisfaction with facility provision
against the London boroughs scoring highest for participation.
Table 4.8: Top scoring London boroughs and satisfaction with local sports provision
Local Authority
AP Score Satisfaction
Richmond upon Thames (LA) 29.8 72.8
Kingston upon Thames (LA) 25.0 71.1
Wandsworth (LA) 27.2 69.2
Westminster (LA) 25.1 68.7
Kensington & Chelsea (LA) 27.9 68.1
Brent (LA) 18.0 52.7
Table 4.8 clearly illustrates a strong correlation between satisfaction with sports
provision and levels of participation. Top scoring Richmond has the highest level of
satisfaction (72.8%), and as a general rule satisfaction levels increase with adult
participation rates.
STRATEGIC REVIEW OF SPORTS CENTRES IN BRENT FULL REVIEW VERSION 2.0 JANUARY 2008
www.continuumleisure.co.uk - 59 -
It should be noted that the reverse of this trend does not apply so clearly and it does
not follow that low participation always equates to poor satisfaction with provision.
For example the London Borough of Newham has a 3 x 30 Active People score of just
14.5% yet satisfaction with sports provision stands at 72%.
In Brent, participation and satisfaction rates are both notably low and future
improvements in satisfaction with sports provision should correlate with an increase
in participation. These two indicators are closely related since both are to a large
extent dictated by facility provision at borough level. When few people are
participating in sport and physical activity it is often the case that quality facilities
are not readily available, and the level of satisfaction with local sports provision is
correspondingly low. In Brent, at the time of the Active People survey in 2006, the
new Willesden Sports Centre had not yet been opened, leaving only one community
accessible swimming pool available. It seems highly likely that the opening of this
facility will have had a significant impact on both satisfaction with sports provision
and participation levels generally.
4.19.2 Green space
Clearly, leisure facility stock and satisfaction with sports facility provision are
important in determining participation levels. However, the impact of poor facility
provision can only affect those residents who have access to or do use leisure
facilities.
When the Active People Survey was produced, some 56% of the Brent population
had not undertaken 30 minutes of moderate participation in the 4 weeks preceding
interview. Thus, this group of people must become engaged in physical activity first
and foremost, a task which should not be viewed simply in terms of improving
existing facilities. To achieve higher levels of participation there may be a real need
to move away from the more traditional forms of sport and leisure activity.
London’s parks and open spaces play host to a diverse range of formal and informal
activities. Merit therefore lies in analysing the correlation between green space and
participation levels to determine future priorities for LB Brent.
STRATEGIC REVIEW OF SPORTS CENTRES IN BRENT FULL REVIEW VERSION 2.0 JANUARY 2008
www.continuumleisure.co.uk - 60 -
Table 4.9: Green space and participation rates
Per person Borough Population AP
score
Total Area
(m2)
Green
space
% of
Total
area
Parks &
Open
Space (m2)
Green
space
Parks &
open
space
Richmond 172,395 29.8 58,552,790 29,721,240 50.8 5,170,000 172m2 29m2
Kensington 159,001 27.9 12,366,600 1,868,890 15.1 406,000 12 m2 2.5m2
Wandsworth 260, 503 27.2 34,850,660 9,383,920 26.9 3,400,000 36m2 13m2
Lambeth 266,336 25.6 26,980,960 4,655,500 17.3 2,632,000 17m2 9.8 m2
Brent 263, 464 18.0 43,314,730 9,504,730 22.0 4,555,000 36m2 17.2m2
As Table 4.9 demonstrates, there is a considerable amount of green and open space
across Brent. In relation to the top scoring boroughs, only Richmond has a higher
area of parks and open space per person. This reinforces the importance of this
resource and the need to promote physical activity and leisure activities, whether
informal or formal, within local parks and open spaces.
4.19.3 Cycling
Continuing the review of factors with potential influence over participation levels,
there is value in reviewing cycling levels within Brent, again against the top-scoring
London Boroughs.
Table 4.10: percentage of the population completing a 30 minute continuous cycle
ride in the 4 weeks preceding interview
Completed one 30 min continuous cycle in the 4
weeks preceding interview
Local Authority %
Richmond upon Thames (LA) 20.9
Hammersmith & Fulham (LA) 17.0
Kingston upon Thames (LA) 16.4
Lambeth (LA) 16.2
Wandsworth (LA) 15.2
STRATEGIC REVIEW OF SPORTS CENTRES IN BRENT FULL REVIEW VERSION 2.0 JANUARY 2008
www.continuumleisure.co.uk - 61 -
Completed one 30 min continuous cycle in the 4
weeks preceding interview
Kensington & Chelsea (LA) 11.9
Merton (LA) 11.4
Brent (LA) 9.2
As can be seen, there is a pronounced difference between cycling levels in Brent and
those in the top scoring London Boroughs. As table 4.10 demonstrates, in Richmond,
more than twice as many people as in Brent had completed a one 30 minute cycle in
the four weeks preceding interview. Like Brent, other low scoring London boroughs
have low cycling levels. For example in five of the six lowest scoring London
boroughs for overall participation, less than 10% of the population met the same 30
minute cycling indicator.
Improving cycling networks across Brent and increasing access to facilities (not just
sports facilities) via cycle may prove an important means of increasing participation
(in both cycling and other forms of physical activity). Thus cycling is not only a
rewarding sporting activity, but also a means of increasing accessibility to other
forms of activity. It should therefore be an area high on Brent’s list of priorities for
developing participation and facility provision within the borough. Close working
between the LB Brent Sports Service department and the Planning and Transport
teams at Brent should be conducted to co-ordinate improvements in context with the
development of new leisure facilities.
4.20 Brent - Sports Specific Participation Levels
Having reviewed potential factors generally, it is now useful to turn to specific sports
participation levels. The Active People survey provides a comprehensive review of
sports specific participation levels, identifying the percentage of the population at a
national, regional and local (authority) level that had participated in a particular
sport within the 4 weeks preceding survey.
The findings are highly valuable in helping to provide an indication of the demand for
specific activities and so demand for specific sports facilities. The findings should
therefore be considered in context with the catchment analysis (Section Five) of this
STRATEGIC REVIEW OF SPORTS CENTRES IN BRENT FULL REVIEW VERSION 2.0 JANUARY 2008
www.continuumleisure.co.uk - 62 -
report. Table 4.11 below sets out the findings against the National and regional
averages.
Table 4.11: Sports specific participation Levels – sports accommodated in sports
hall and swimming pools
Participation in 'Badminton' in last four weeks
Participation in 'Basketball' in last four weeks
Participation in ‘Volleyball’ in last four weeks
Percent Percent Percent A National
(NAT) 2.2 A National
(NAT) 0.7 A National
(NAT) 0.2 B London
(REG) 1.9 B London
(REG) 1.1 B London
(REG) 0.2 C Brent
(LA) 0.9 C Brent
(LA) 1.5 C Brent
(LA) 0.2
Participation in 'Football (include 5 and 6-a-side) [indoors & outdoors]' in last four weeks
Participation in 'Swimming / Diving [INDOORS]' in last four weeks
Percent Percent A National
(NAT) 7.8 A National
(NAT) 12.2 B London
(REG) 7.6 B London
(REG) 11.5 C Brent
(LA) 7.1 C Brent
(LA) 9.5
As the figures show, at a borough-wide level Brent is on the whole below average in
terms of participation in key sports accommodated within the major facility types at
the three centres: sports halls, swimming pools and health and fitness studios (and
STP’s). Basketball has the highest participation levels in Brent, at double the national
average and also above the London average. Patterns of swimming, football and
volleyball in general reflect national and regional trends, though the score for
badminton comes in at less than half the national and regional benchmark.
Table 4.12 below sets out the participation levels within the borough for key health
and fitness activities and dance studio based exercise.
STRATEGIC REVIEW OF SPORTS CENTRES IN BRENT FULL REVIEW VERSION 2.0 JANUARY 2008
www.continuumleisure.co.uk - 63 -
Table 4.12: Sports specific participation – health and fitness / dance studio based
activities
Participation in Health & Fitness based activities
Participation in dance studio based activities
Percent Percent A National
(NAT) 4.2 A National
(NAT) 5.8 B London
(REG) 4.2 B London
(REG) 6.8 C Brent
(LA) 4.7 C Brent
(LA) 7.1
Brent scores above the national and London averages for involvement in both health
and fitness and dance based activities. Participation in dance based activities is
greater in London than the nation as a whole and greater still in Brent at 7.1%.
Please note: Active People provides numerous sub-categories for these activity areas
and the following have been combined to provide overall participation figures.
Health and Fitness Activities Dance Studio Activities
Body building
Cross training
Exercise bike / exercise machine /
spinning class
Health and Fitness
Keepfit / keep fit / sit ups
Step machine Weight training
Weightlifting
Aerobics
Body combat / cardio kick
Body pump
Conditioning activities / circuit training
Dance exercise
Keepfit / keep fit / sit ups
Pilates / Yogalates
Yoga
4.21 Demographic Profile and Participation Summary
Brent is a large borough with a population that is set to grow considerably over the
forthcoming years. Current population densities vary with the highest level found in
Stonebridge.
The current population of Brent is highly diverse, and a younger than average
population provides an immediate and obvious target group for increasing
participation in sport and leisure activities. The importance of encouraging greater
levels of activity amongst Brent’s elderly residents should also not be overlooked.
STRATEGIC REVIEW OF SPORTS CENTRES IN BRENT FULL REVIEW VERSION 2.0 JANUARY 2008
www.continuumleisure.co.uk - 64 -
The borough faces higher than average levels of unemployment whilst academic
achievement in some areas of the borough remains an issue. Both are contributing
factors to high levels of income deprivation in some of the less privileged areas of
Brent. Significant health inequalities exist in Brent, pockets in which mortality rates
and ill health are well above average are clearly apparent. Increased emphasis on
the importance of participation opportunities for formal and informal activities to
combat ill health should remain a key priority.
In relation to the location of the existing centres, the importance of publicly
accessible facilities in Stonebridge (currently Bridge Park Leisure Centre) in particular
is of high importance. Stonebridge (and the neighbouring wards of Harlesden,
Alperton and Toykington) contain high levels of crime, higher than average
unemployment, low levels of qualifications and income. Poor health is also a major
problem in this area. The south of Kilburn (Charteris Sports Centre) also faces
problems with crime, unemployment and high levels of income deprivation.
As has been demonstrated, many of the demographic characteristics correlate with
low levels of participation emphasising the strategic need for facility provision in
these locations and the positive benefits that increased activity can bring through
improving participation levels. Equally, an understanding of the demographics and
impact on participation levels borough-wide emphasises the importance of ensuring
that those facilities reflect the specific needs of the local population and are fully
affordable, accessible and popular with local people.
STRATEGIC REVIEW OF SPORTS CENTRES IN BRENT FULL REVIEW VERSION 2.0 JANUARY 2008
www.continuumleisure.co.uk - 65 -
5. LONDON BOROUGH OF BRENT - SPORT AND LEISURE FACILITY
OVERVIEW AND ANALYSIS
5.1 Introduction
Section 4 of this Review considered the demographic profile of the borough,
participation levels and the manner in which the two interlink. Throughout, this has
been set in context with the location of the three council owned facilities under
review.
This process has identified various factors in relation to the perceived demand for the
three centres in-situ but there are of course a number of other facilities borough-
wide that are accessible to Brent residents (not least the Willesden Sports Centre
which, because of its recent construction, has not been directly reviewed as part of
this study).
A strategic review of the impact and effectiveness of the three centres would not be
possible without considering borough-wide facility provision. An analysis of current
and planned sources of facility supply within this section of the report provides a
theoretical assessment of the demand for the three centres in context with other
facilities within the borough.
5.2 Approach
This Review utilises strategic tools (Active Places Power Capacity Ratios) and reviews
the findings of the Sport England Facilities Planning Model (which was commissioned
alongside this Review and the findings of which are incorporated into this report) to
provide a comprehensive picture of facility provision now and in the forthcoming
years as the Brent population (and therefore demand for facility provision) changes.
Throughout, facility provision has also been reviewed in context with the Choice and
Opportunity Indicator of the CPA Assessment.
Through the combination of these sources this Review considers issues regarding the
current levels of supply (and in some cases demand). In doing so, this section of the
report reviews the existing site locations of the three centres strategically and
considers the potential impact and need for any re-development of facilities in-situ
STRATEGIC REVIEW OF SPORTS CENTRES IN BRENT FULL REVIEW VERSION 2.0 JANUARY 2008
www.continuumleisure.co.uk - 66 -
and in context with existing and planned facilities elsewhere in the borough (and
where relevant, neighbouring boroughs).
5.2.1 Active Places Power - Capacity Ratio’s
Sport England’s comprehensive nationwide database of sports facilities ‘Active Places
Power’ allows the generation of a capacity ratio based upon the frequency of a
particular facility per every 1000 population within a particular local authority ward
or borough. The capacity ratio generated gives an indication of current provision
levels in relation to the existing population, which can then be compared against
local, regional and national averages. For the purposes of this study, the following
sports facility types have been analysed:
1. Sports halls
2. Swimming pools
3. Health and fitness facilities
4. Indoor tennis courts
5. Athletics tracks
6. Indoor bowls rinks
7. Synthetic turf pitches
8. Grass pitches (capacity ratio analysis unavailable)
Calculating a capacity ratio on the basis of future population projections also
provides a useful insight into future levels of deficiency or surplus for a particular
facility type (assuming no further investment into provision was to take place). It
should be noted that the future capacity calculated will be compared against current
regional averages for facility provision - there are no projections for future facility
provision at a regional or national level. A future rise in regional levels of provision
has the potential to exacerbate a deficiency or reduce any level of surplus. This
analysis also assumes that the Active Places Power database is up to date in terms of
those facilities which are included. As a result, this information alone cannot be
utilised to fully inform strategic priorities. It is, however, extremely beneficial in
highlighting any particular current (and future) anomalies in relation to levels of
provision that may require further consideration and redress.
STRATEGIC REVIEW OF SPORTS CENTRES IN BRENT FULL REVIEW VERSION 2.0 JANUARY 2008
www.continuumleisure.co.uk - 67 -
5.2.2 Facilities Planning Model / Active Places Power - Supply and Demand
Sport England’s Facilities Planning Model (FPM) provides a step further in relation to
analysis of facility provision. The FPM evaluates the capacity and availability of each
facility during opening hours and sets this against the demographic profile of the
population (and therefore the propensity of a percentage of the population to
participate) within a recognised catchment of the facility (1.6km). In doing so, a
measure of the level of demand met can be established. Conversely, the resulting
level of ‘unmet demand’ (population that cannot get access to a sports hall whether
as a result of location or programming) proves valuable in evaluating the need for
further sports facility provision and the locations in which that need is greatest.
This measurement is not restricted to borough boundaries. FPM modelling applies to
a designated study area (typically the neighbouring boroughs of the borough in
which the FPM is being run) and takes into account the likely import and export of
demand cross borough. In addition, the facilities planning model allows analysis of
different scenarios such as the impact of planned facility provision or the closure of
existing facilities (please see Appendix 2 for the FPM brief providing details of the
requested scenarios and planned facilities included for future modelling for this
review).
The supply and demand function of Active Places Power runs on a similar yet less
comprehensive premise. Whilst it does provide a useful snapshot of supply versus
demand within a particular ward or borough, it does not take into account export and
import of demand cross borough, nor does it allow the application of differing
scenarios.
5.2.3 The CPA Assessment - Choice and Opportunity Indicator
The Choice and Opportunity Indicator of the CPA Assessment is underpinned by one
of the core aims of Sport England’s Framework for Sport - increasing the opportunity
for people to become more active. The indicator looks at choice in terms of travel
time to a range of different quality facilities, using a walking catchment of 1.6km (1
mile) in urban areas. This distance has been selected on the basis of previous
surveys which have identified that the majority of facility users will travel for up to
20 minutes by foot in urban areas.
STRATEGIC REVIEW OF SPORTS CENTRES IN BRENT FULL REVIEW VERSION 2.0 JANUARY 2008
www.continuumleisure.co.uk - 68 -
The indicator measures the percentage of the population that are within 1.6km of at
least three different facility types (from a list of six types) of which one must meet a
recognised quality assurance standard (Quest, ISO 9001:2000, Investors in
Excellence, Charter Mark or Green Flag). Within the six facility types are a number of
key facilities proposed as part of the existing / proposed mix of facilities at the three
centres under review:
o Swimming pools
o Sports halls
o Health and fitness suites
o Grass Pitches
o STP’s
o Golf courses
The current distribution of accredited facilities across Brent and surrounding
boroughs is set out below within Figure 5.1. It is anticipated by LB Brent that both
Bridge Park and Willesden Sport Centre will gain Quest accreditation by the end of
2007. As can be seen, all three centres under review are significant in catering for a
sizeable catchment of Brent. The central and north areas of the borough contain an
obvious shortfall of accredited provision at present and in fact, as will be
demonstrated shortly, provision of any type.
Figure 5.1: Sport England Venues and accredited sites plus Bridge Park and
Willesden Sports Centre
STRATEGIC REVIEW OF SPORTS CENTRES IN BRENT FULL REVIEW VERSION 2.0 JANUARY 2008
www.continuumleisure.co.uk - 69 -
Whilst the Choice and Opportunity indicator is clearly of importance, it is the
underpinning concept of a broad ranging facility provision that is locally accessible to
all residents (ideally by foot) that is key to the following analysis.
5.3 London Borough of Brent - Facilities Audit and Analysis
5.3.1 Sports Halls
Turning to the existing stock of sports facilities across the borough, Brent currently
contains 29 sports hall (inclusive of all halls - one badminton court upwards) venues
providing a combined total of 18023m2 or 115 badminton courts. The geographical
distribution of those facilities is set out within Figure 5.2 below. Within the following
map (and all subsequent maps) a 1.6km catchment has been applied to each facility,
where facility provision is accessible on a pay and play basis, the catchment is
displayed with a light blue infill. Catchments for those facilities that are for private
use only are displayed with an orange catchment. The corresponding table (Table
5.1) provides further detail.
Figure 5.2: All Brent sports halls, 1.6km catchments and facility access identified
STRATEGIC REVIEW OF SPORTS CENTRES IN BRENT FULL REVIEW VERSION 2.0 JANUARY 2008
www.continuumleisure.co.uk - 70 -
Table 5.1: All Brent sports halls - further detail
Map Point Facility Name Postcode Ward Courts Ownership Access
A VALE FARM SPORTS CENTRE HA0 3HG Sudbury Ward 5 Local Authority Pay and Play
B BRIDGE PARK COMMUNITY LEISURE CENTRE
NW10 0RG
Stonebridge Ward 5
Local Authority Pay and Play
C WILLESDEN SPORTS CENTRE NW10 3QX
Willesden Green Ward 6
Local Authority Pay and Play
D CHARTERIS SPORTS CENTRE NW6 7ET Kilburn Ward 3 Local Authority Pay and Play
1
MOBERLY SPORTS & EDUCATION CENTRE (temporarily closed) W10 4AH
Queens Park Ward 6
Local Authority
Sports Club / Community Association
2 CHALKHILL PRIMARY SCHOOL SPORTS HALL HA9 9YP Barnhill Ward 2
Community school Pay and Play
3 JOHN KELLY BOYS' TECHNOLOGY COLLEGE NW2 7SN Dollis Hill Ward 3
Foundation School Private Use
4 OAKINGTON MANOR SCHOOL HA9 6NF
Tokyngton Ward 4
Foundation School Pay and Play
5 MENORAH HIGH SCHOOL FOR GIRLS NW2 7BZ Dollis Hill Ward 3
Other Independent School Private Use
6 PRESTON MANOR HIGH SCHOOL HA9 8NA Preston Ward 2
Foundation School Pay and Play
7 THE COPLAND COMMUNITY SCHOOL HA9 7DU
Wembley Central Ward 5
Foundation School Pay and Play
8 JFS SCHOOL HA3 9TE Barnhill Ward 12
Voluntary Aided School
Sports Club / Community Association
9 KINGSBURY HIGH SCHOOL (LOWER SITE) NW9 9AT Fryent Ward 5
Foundation School
Sports Club / Community Association
10 CONVENT OF JESUS AND MARY LANGUAGE COLLEGE NW10 4EP
Kensal Green Ward 4
Voluntary Aided School Private Use
11 GROVE PARK SCHOOL NW9 0JY Queensbury Ward -
Community Special School Private Use
12 HAY LANE SCHOOL NW9 0JY Queensbury Ward 2
Community Special School Private Use
13 CLAREMONT HIGH SCHOOL HA3 0UH Kenton Ward 2 Foundation School Pay and Play
14 ALPERTON COMMUNITY SCHOOL STANLEY AVENUE HA0 4JE Alperton Ward 1
Foundation School Private Use
STRATEGIC REVIEW OF SPORTS CENTRES IN BRENT FULL REVIEW VERSION 2.0 JANUARY 2008
www.continuumleisure.co.uk - 71 -
Map Point Facility Name Postcode Ward Courts Ownership Access
15 CARDINAL HINSLEY HIGH SCHOOL NW10 3RN
Kensal Green Ward 3
Voluntary Aided School Private Use
16 CAPITAL CITY ACADEMY SPORTS FACILITIES NW10 3ST
Willesden Green Ward 6 Academies
Sports Club / Community Association
17 WEMBLEY HIGH TECHNOLOGY COLLEGE HA0 3NT
Northwick Park Ward 4
Community school Private Use
18 BARHAM PRIMARY SCHOOL SPORTS HALL HA0 4RQ Sudbury Ward 2
Community school
Sports Club / Community Association
19 ALPERTON COMMUNITY SCHOOL (Lower) HA0 4PW
Wembley Central Ward 8
Foundation School Pay and Play
20 QUEENS PARK COMMUNITY SCHOOL NW6 7BQ
Brondesbury Park Ward 5
Foundation School Private Use
21 AL-SADIQ AND AL-ZAHRA SCHOOLS NW6 6PF
Queens Park Ward 2
Other Independent School Private Use
22 UNIVERSITY OF WESTMINSTER (HARROW SITE) HA1 3TP
Northwick Park Ward 4
Higher Education Institutions Pay and Play
23 ISLAMIA GIRLS HIGH SCHOOL NW6 6PE
Queens Park Ward 1
Other Independent School
Sports Club / Community Association
24 KINGSBURY HIGH SCHOOL (Upper) NW9 9JR
Queensbury Ward 5
Other Independent School
Sports Club / Community Association
25 CHALKHILL YOUTH CENTRE (temporarily closed) HA9 9DB Barnhill Ward 4 + 1
Local Authority Pay and Play
TOTALS 115
12 x P&P 10 X private use 7 x sports club / community ass.
The breakdown of facility access is set out above and as can be seen, only 12 of 27
facilities (two of the 29 sites are shown as temporarily closed) are considered to be
accessible to the public on a pay and play basis, whilst ten facilities (predominantly
based at school sites) are currently categorised for private use only.
Despite this, many Brent residents do live within a 1.6km catchment of a sports hall
facility accessible on a pay and play basis. The only area in which this does not
STRATEGIC REVIEW OF SPORTS CENTRES IN BRENT FULL REVIEW VERSION 2.0 JANUARY 2008
www.continuumleisure.co.uk - 72 -
appear to be the case is the East central and North areas of the borough – areas in
which facilities exist (particularly at school sites) but are not currently accessible to
residents on a pay and play basis. The limited public access to sports hall provision
does have an impact on levels of unmet demand, as will be discussed within the
findings of the FPM later in this section.
5.3.2 Sports Hall Analysis – Capacity Ratios
The following table (Table 5.2) sets out the current supply of sports hall space across
the borough, firstly inclusive of private facility space, and secondly just those
facilities that are accessible to the public on a pay and play basis or to sports Club
and community associations.
As can be seen, this distinction between accessibility has a significant impact upon
the borough-wide capacity ratio. For all facilities this equates to a current capacity
ratio of 68.3m2 per 1000 population. This is higher than the current London average
of 57.14 and in comparison this equates to a current surplus of provision of
approximately 16.5 badminton courts currently, increasing to a marginal surplus of
3.2 courts by 2016 (it should be noted that the figures do not take into account the
planned changes in facility provision, through the Building Schools for the Future
[BSF] programme for example).
As identified previously, a considerable proportion of the boroughs sports halls are
not accessible to the public and as shown in Table 5.2, isolating those public access
sports halls has a marked impact upon the capacity ratio. Unfortunately, it is not
possible to compare these figures with the London average, as Active Places Power
does not provide a capacity ratio for just public access facilities across the capital.
Table 5.2: LB Brent Sports Hall Capacity Ratios
OVERVIEW
CURRENT
PROVISION
CAPACITY RATIO ( Facility type per 1000
population)
DEFICIENCY / SURPLUS (In comparison with
London average) FACILITY TYPE FACILITIES TOTAL
(m2) 2001 (263507)
2011 (293900)
2016 (305400)
London average
Current (2001)
Mid (2011)
Future (2016)
ALL SPORTS HALLS 27 18023 68.39 61.32 59.01 57.14
+16.5 courts
+6.8 courts
+3.2 courts
PUBLIC ACCESSIBLE 19 12466 47.30 42.41 40.81 NA NA NA NA
STRATEGIC REVIEW OF SPORTS CENTRES IN BRENT FULL REVIEW VERSION 2.0 JANUARY 2008
www.continuumleisure.co.uk - 73 -
The calculations therefore suggest that the existing level of sports hall provision
across Brent is marginally in excess of the London average however, whilst capacity
may be high, accessibility may be a major factor in reducing levels of met demand.
This notion will be investigated further within a review of the Facilities Planning
Model in this section.
Alongside this snapshot of borough-wide facility provision, capacity ratio analysis can
be used to determine levels of provision across a more localised area. This
information is valuable in context with provision levels at the existing three centres
and the potential impact of not including the existing facilities in the calculations.
Table 5.3 below sets out those calculations alongside commentary relevant to
potential developments at each of the three sites.
Table 5.3: sports hall capacity ratios for Sudbury, Stonebridge and Kilburn and
neighbouring wards
Ward Total Area In m² of All Halls
Total Population (2001)
Capacity Ratio Per 1000
Surplus / deficit to London Average (m2)
Surplus / deficit to London Average (courts)
VALE FARM Northwick Park Ward 1206 12169 99.104 510.66 2.8 Preston Ward 360 12821 28.079 -372.59 -2.1 Sudbury Ward 1199 12314 97.369 495.38 2.8 Wembley Central Ward 1989 11010 180.654 1359.89 7.6 All Facilities 4754 48314 98.40 1993.34 11.1 Public Access 4142 48314 85.73 NA NA Sudbury and surrounding wards will not be a priority area of need for additional investment. Levels of supply, based upon capacity ratio analysis, show that this area of the borough contains a surplus of approximately 11 publicly accessible badminton courts in total. Provision of five courts at Vale Farm is critical to this supply. BRIDGE PARK Stonebridge Ward 600 15941 37.639 -310.87 -1.7 Tokyngton 594 11839 50.173 -82.48 -0.5
STRATEGIC REVIEW OF SPORTS CENTRES IN BRENT FULL REVIEW VERSION 2.0 JANUARY 2008
www.continuumleisure.co.uk - 74 -
Ward Total Area In m² of All Halls
Total Population (2001)
Capacity Ratio Per 1000
Surplus / deficit to London Average (m2)
Surplus / deficit to London Average (courts)
Ward Alperton Ward 180 12340 14.587 -525.10 -2.9 Harlesden Ward 0 12250 0 -699.97 -3.9 All Facilities 1374 52370 26.24 -1618.42 -9.0 Public access facilities 1194 52370 22.80
NA NA
Based on an evaluation of supply alone, ward level capacity analysis identifies a shortfall of approximately 9 badminton courts (in comparison with the London average) across Stonebridge and the neighbouring wards of Alperton and Harlesden, both of which contain particularly low levels of provision currently adding to the important role of Bridge Park in providing community sports facility provision in this area of the borough. CHARTERIS Kilburn Ward 486 14137 34.378 -321.79 -1.8 Queens Park Ward 1404 12385 113.363 696.32 3.9 Brondesbury Park Ward 861 11664 73.817 194.52 1.1 Mapesbury Ward 0 13263 0 -757.85 -4.2 All facilities 2751 51449 53.47 -188.80 -1.0 Public access 1590 51449 30.90 NA NA At a local level, in Kilburn and surrounding wards, capacity ratios identify an oversupply of facility provision but much of the provision is private (located at school sites) generating high levels of unmet demand. Future developments under consideration include the possible construction of a sports centre as part of the regeneration of the South Kilburn NDC. Timescales and funding for this project are undetermined at this stage.
In summary, in relation to the three centres, capacity ratio analysis identifies a
shortfall of sports hall provision in (or near to) the current location of both Bridge
Park and Charteris. Sudbury and neighbouring wards contain a slight oversupply, but
Vale Farm is highly important to that sports hall stock as publicly accessible pay and
play sports hall space.
STRATEGIC REVIEW OF SPORTS CENTRES IN BRENT FULL REVIEW VERSION 2.0 JANUARY 2008
www.continuumleisure.co.uk - 75 -
5.3.3 Sports Halls Supply vs Demand – Facilities Planning Model Findings
The above capacity ratio analysis provides an important review of current levels of
supply and suggests that a slight over provision exists at borough-wide level but
shortfalls in supply are clearly evident within pockets of the borough.
A more comprehensive assessment of levels of both supply and demand has been
made using Sport England’s Facilities Planning Model (FPM). As discussed within the
introduction, this strategic facility planning tool allows an estimation of demand
across a set study area (Brent and neighbouring boroughs) against the current and
future level of provision. Calculating how supply vs demand changes dependant on
key scenarios, notably changes in facility stock and increases in population, allows a
prediction of the future issues in relation to sports hall provision across the area.
5.3.4 Sports Halls Run 1- key findings - current population and provision
The findings of the FPM align with the above capacity ration analysis. Run 1 identifies
that the capacity of Brent’s sports halls is above the London average. In fact, it is the
second highest level of sports hall capacity across the study area (Brent and
surrounding boroughs). However, because of issues of accessibility, demand
outstrips capacity considerably across the study area as a whole.
Currently within Brent, unmet demand stands at 28.6% of the population - this
equates to approximately 18 badminton courts. The South East of the borough
demonstrates the highest shortage at present and 17% of satisfied demand is
imported from Westminster, with 15% of demand imported from Kensington &
Chelsea (both of which are located south of Brent). Some residents living in a Central
East location of the borough fall outside a 1 mile catchment of a sports hall and this
situation is unlikely to change with the facility provision proposed. An opportunity
does however exist to increase access to existing provision located at school sites,
and should be explored in context with improvements in quality and access to sports
facility provision as part of the BSF programme.
Figures 5.3 and 5.4 below provide a visual representation of those facilities included
within the analysis alongside the distribution of unmet demand. It should be noted
that the FPM analysis is only inclusive of publicly accessible sports hall space.
STRATEGIC REVIEW OF SPORTS CENTRES IN BRENT FULL REVIEW VERSION 2.0 JANUARY 2008
www.continuumleisure.co.uk - 76 -
Figure 5.3 Brent FPM – 2007 Operational Sports Halls
Figure 5.4: Brent FPM – Unmet Demand 2016 Operational Halls
STRATEGIC REVIEW OF SPORTS CENTRES IN BRENT FULL REVIEW VERSION 2.0 JANUARY 2008
www.continuumleisure.co.uk - 77 -
5.3.5 Sports Halls Run 2 – projected population and provision (2016)
By 2016 an additional four sports hall sites should be accessible across Brent.
Copland School, Wembley Academy and the re-opening of the currently closed sports
halls at Chalk Hill Youth Centre and Moberly Education Centre will provide this sports
hall space.
Assuming the existing facilities remain open, the projected increase in sports hall
capacity by 2016 would be a highly significant 48.2%. Over the same timeframe, the
projected demand increase (caused by population change) is an additional 3.7%. The
location of the proposed facilities and the increase in capacity would eradicate most
but not all unmet demand and on the whole the findings suggest the need for a
marginal 2-3 additional badminton courts borough-wide by 2016.
Figure 5.5 Brent FPM – Unmet Demand 2016 Operational Halls
STRATEGIC REVIEW OF SPORTS CENTRES IN BRENT FULL REVIEW VERSION 2.0 JANUARY 2008
www.continuumleisure.co.uk - 78 -
5.3.6 Sports Halls - FPM Summary and Key Issues
The findings indicate that in comparison with the study area, Brent currently has a
good stock of sports hall provision which will be increased by a sizeable amount
leading up to 2016. Despite this, levels of unmet demand remain significant,
indicating issues of facility access and quality.
Again in context with the three leisure centres under review, the very South East of
the borough (location of Charteris) contains the highest level of unmet demand
(from within and outside Brent). Any changes to sports hall provision (both now and
leading in to 2016), whether through any redevelopment of Charteris or the
development of new facilities in this area (South Kilburn NDC in particular), can help
to alleviate the unmet demand further. Any closure of Charteris without local re-
provision would of course increase the level of unmet demand further. Increasing the
accessibility of school sports hall facilities and improving the quality (particularly
through the BSF programme) may also be considered as a means of increasing
provision. However, this needs to be realistically planned in terms of timing for
schools and management.
Bridge Park Community Leisure Centre and Vale Farm Sports Centre appear to play
an important role in satisfying demand now and the future provision of facilities at
Wembley Academy and Copland (which overlap with the catchments of Bridge Park
and Vale Farm to some degree) will help to satisfy additional demand across the
catchments as the population increases.
To the north of the borough, JFS and Kingsbury school sports halls are considered to
be insufficient to meet demand both now and leading into 2016, and the need for
additional facilities (possibly in conjunction with the exploration of an additional
swimming pool site combined with dry provision) should be given further
consideration.
5.3.7 SPORTS HALLS – SUMMARY AND IMPACT ON THE LEISURE CENTRES
Reviewing the findings of the FPM review and the capacity ratio analysis suggests
that Brent has a considerable stock of sports hall provision that is currently not being
used to maximum effect.
STRATEGIC REVIEW OF SPORTS CENTRES IN BRENT FULL REVIEW VERSION 2.0 JANUARY 2008
www.continuumleisure.co.uk - 79 -
In context with the three leisure centres under review, we have seen through
capacity ratio analysis that all three facilities play an important role in both borough-
wide and local provision. Reduction of sports halls through facility closure would have
a significant impact on supply levels.
Access to existing facilities is a major issue for the south east of the borough with
the deficit in sports hall provision considerable once private (non community pay and
play access) facility provision is removed from the calculations. This makes the
current leisure stock even more essential.
Re-provision and replacement, whether through new-build or increased access of
existing school facilities (that are fit for purpose), would be an essential factor if any
closure of one of the three main leisure centres was to be considered by LB Brent as
a priority.
5.4 SWIMMING POOLS
Figure 5.6 below indicates the distribution of swimming pools across the borough. As
before, a 1.6km catchment has been applied; publicly accessible facilities are
denoted with a blue catchment radius, private facilities are denoted with an orange
catchment. Grove Park School – Map-point 4 – is considered as a community
swimming pool by Sport England. Our consultation, however, has established that
community use of the pool is extremely limited. The corresponding table (Table 5.4)
provides further detail of the existing facilities. Please note, the location of all leisure
centres under review has been included.
STRATEGIC REVIEW OF SPORTS CENTRES IN BRENT FULL REVIEW VERSION 2.0 JANUARY 2008
www.continuumleisure.co.uk - 80 -
Figure 5.6: All Brent swimming pools, 1.6km catchments and facility access
identified (location of Bridge Park and Willesden Sports Centre also identified)
Table 5.4: All Brent swimming pools - further detail
Map point Facility Name Postcode Ward Lanes Ownership Access
Facility Age
A VALE FARM SPORTS CENTRE HA0 3HG
Sudbury Ward 6
Local Authority
Pay and Play 1979
C WILLESDEN SPORTS CENTRE NW10 3QX
Willesden Green Ward -
Local Authority
Pay and Play 2006
B
BRIDGE PARK COMMUNITY LEISURE CENTRE NW10 0RG
Stonebridge Ward
No Pool
D CHARTERIS SPORTS CENTRE NW6 7ET
Kilburn Ward
No Pool
1
LIVINGWELL HEALTH CLUB (WEMBLEY) HA9 8DS
Tokyngton Ward - Commercial
Registered Membership
use 1994
2
CANNONS HEALTH CLUB (BRONDESBURY PARK) NW2 5JY
Brondesbury Park Ward 3 Commercial
Registered Membership
use 2002
STRATEGIC REVIEW OF SPORTS CENTRES IN BRENT FULL REVIEW VERSION 2.0 JANUARY 2008
www.continuumleisure.co.uk - 81 -
Map point Facility Name Postcode Ward Lanes Ownership Access
Facility Age
3
MANOR HEALTH & LEISURE CLUB (CRICKLEWOOD) NW2 6PG
Mapesbury Ward - Commercial
Registered Membership
use 2001
4 GROVE PARK SCHOOL NW9 0JY
Queensbury Ward 3
Community Special School
Sports Club /
Community Association 1977
On geographical distribution alone, provision for swimming immediately appears to
be insufficient. The majority of Brent’s residents live outside the recommended
catchment of any swimming pool and only a small minority live within a 1.6km
catchment of one of the two pools accessible on a pay and play basis. The central,
north (west) and south central areas of the borough lack provision most at present.
5.4.1 Swimming Pool Analysis – Capacity Ratios
Brent has a significant deficit of water space in comparison with other London
Boroughs and the London average. The current provision of 6 pools across the
borough equates to 1292m2 of water space in total (private and public) generating a
capacity ratio of around 4.8 m2 per 1000 population. To match the London average,
the borough currently requires an additional 3098m2. This could rise to almost
3,606m2 by 2016 if no additional provision is made and population growth occurs as
projected, as detailed in Table 5.16 below. When discounting private water space
from the calculations, the capacity ratio falls to just 3.26m2 per 1000 population.
Table 5.5: LB Brent Swimming Pool Capacity Ratios
OVERVIEW
CURRENT
PROVISION
CAPACITY RATIO ( Facility type per 1000 population)
DEFICIENCY / SURPLUS (In comparison with
London average) FACILITY TYPE FACILITIES TOTAL
(m2) 2001 (263507)
2011 (293900)
2016 (305400)
London average
Current (2001)
Mid (2011)
Future (2016)
ALL SWIMMING POOLS 6 1522 5.76 5.57 5.18 16.16 -3002m2 -3524m2 -3721m2 PUBLIC ACCESS
2 860 3.26 2.92 2.81 NA NA NA NA
Narrowing the analysis to a more local level allows an evaluation of facility provision
in context with the three leisure centres under review. In context with Vale Farm,
this analysis provides an indication of the importance of the swimming pool facility at
this location, and for the other two facilities (Bridge Park and Charteris) this analysis
STRATEGIC REVIEW OF SPORTS CENTRES IN BRENT FULL REVIEW VERSION 2.0 JANUARY 2008
www.continuumleisure.co.uk - 82 -
helps to identify whether additional swimming facility provision in these two locations
is also in demand.
Table 5.6: Swimming pool capacity ratios for Sudbury, Stonebridge and Kilburn and
neighbouring wards.
Ward Total Area In m² of All Halls
Total Population Capacity Ratio Per 1000
Surplus / deficit to London Average (m2)
Vale Farm Northwick Park Ward 0 12169 0 -196.65 Preston Ward 0 12821 0 -207.19 Sudbury Ward 430 12314 34.92 231.01 Wembley Central Ward 0 11010 0 -177.92 All Facilities 430 48314 8.90 -350.75 Public access 430 48314 8.90 NA Local to Vale Farm (Sudbury and neighbouring wards) analysis of capacity ratios shows a shortfall of water space. The implications therefore are that the water space at Vale Farm is insufficient for this area of the borough and clearly critical provision for swimming within Brent overall. The following FPM analysis will identify the demand for swimming pools further. Bridge Park Stonebridge Ward 0 15941 0 -257.61 Tokyngton Ward 136 11839 11.487 -55.32 Alperton Ward 0 12340 0 -199.41 Harlesden Ward 0 12250 0 -197.96 Combined 136 52370 2.60 -710.30 Public Access 0 52370 0.00 NA Stonebridge and surrounding wards are also underprovided for. Capacity ratio analysis identifies the need for an additional 710m2 of water space (in excess of 6 lane 25m pool) to bring this region of the borough into line with the London average. Charteris Kilburn Ward 0 14137 0 -228.45 Queens Park Ward 0 12385 0 -200.14 Brondesbury Park Ward 160 11664 13.717 -28.50 Mapesbury Ward 204 13263 15.381 -10.33 Combined 364 51449 7.07 -467.42 Public Access 0 51449 0.00 NA Capacity ratio analysis confirms that provision of water space across this area of the borough is significantly below the London average, equating to a shortfall of some 462m2 per 1000 population. Although not within a neighbouring ward of Kilburn the 430m2 of water space located at the Willesden Sports Centre is within reasonable proximity and demand for swimming is likely to be exported there or across the borough boundary to pools within neighbouring boroughs.
STRATEGIC REVIEW OF SPORTS CENTRES IN BRENT FULL REVIEW VERSION 2.0 JANUARY 2008
www.continuumleisure.co.uk - 83 -
As demonstrated above, the current levels of swimming provision are such that
based on capacity ratio analysis, additional pool space is required at each of the
three locations (and surrounding wards) of the three leisure centres. Again, this
analysis is neither inclusive of facilities planned nor the potential impact of facility
provision across the borough boundary in neighbouring boroughs. For a more
comprehensive analysis of these factors alongside an evaluation of demand as well
as supply we turn to the findings of the FPM.
5.4.2 Swimming pools supply versus demand –Facilities Planning Model
In alignment with the capacity ratio analysis, the findings of the FPM show a major
deficiency swimming pool provision across the borough.
5.4.3 Swimming Pools Run 1 - Current population and provision
The first scenario based upon current population and facility provision showed Brent
to have the lowest number of pool sites and capacity across the entire study area.
Predictably, given the geographical locations, a high percentage (just under 50%) of
the Brent population does not live within a 1.6km catchment of a pool site. A
considerable proportion of Brent’s satisfied demand for swimming is exported to
neighbouring Ealing and Harrow - both of which have higher capacity than
demand. Despite this, and a critical factor in the case for additional pool provision
within Brent, residents across a large area of central and northern Brent are outside
the catchment area of any pool. Figure 5.7 below identifies the current densities of
unmet demand across the borough and surrounding areas. The central, north central
and southern areas of the borough suffer from the highest levels of unmet demand
currently.
STRATEGIC REVIEW OF SPORTS CENTRES IN BRENT FULL REVIEW VERSION 2.0 JANUARY 2008
www.continuumleisure.co.uk - 84 -
Figure 5.7: Brent FPM – Unmet Demand 2007 Operational Pools
5.4.4 Swimming pools Run 2 – Project population and provision (2016)
The second scenario demonstrates the impact on satisfied demand through an
increase in pool provision by a further 3 pools planned for development across the
study area (all outside the borough). The findings show that the increase in capacity
of visits is greater than the projected increase in demand. However, as the increase
in capacity is to occur outside the borough boundary, unmet demand in Brent
remains high and is predicted to be virtually the same in 2016 as in 2007. As with
run 1, given that there are no confirmed developments for additional water space in
Brent, a massive percentage of the borough’s residents will remain outside the
recommended catchment. The projected population growth will contribute to an
increase in demand (and therefore unmet demand) for swimming. Figure 5.8 below
identifies those key areas of unmet demand as the north central, central and south
central areas of the borough.
Highest area of unmet demand
STRATEGIC REVIEW OF SPORTS CENTRES IN BRENT FULL REVIEW VERSION 2.0 JANUARY 2008
www.continuumleisure.co.uk - 85 -
Figure 5.8: Brent FPM – Unmet Demand 2016 operational pools
5.4.5 Demand for a Third Pool
Whilst the focus of this review is specifically on the development options for three
existing sports centres, comment upon the needs case for additional swimming
provision is necessary given the identified shortfall and the facility analysis
confirming investment into additional water-space to be LB Brent’s number one
priority.
The findings of the FPM demonstrate (figure 5.8 above) clearly that the greatest
areas of unmet demand in Brent, both now and leading in to 2017, can be found
within the central areas of the borough. To satisfy the current and future levels of
demand, further investigations into a suitable site should be made by LB Brent in this
location. Undoubtedly, given the low levels of pool provision currently, additional
facility provision within the north / central area of the borough would prove hugely
beneficial. Further discussion of the implications and the priority of developing a third
Highest area of unmet demand
STRATEGIC REVIEW OF SPORTS CENTRES IN BRENT FULL REVIEW VERSION 2.0 JANUARY 2008
www.continuumleisure.co.uk - 86 -
pool in relation to the options for development at the three centres is considered
within the conclusion of this review.
As well as confirming the need to maintain the Vale Farm pool, it should be noted
that the FPM and capacity ratio analysis does identify the need for additional water
space provision and shows levels of unmet demand apparent in the south east of the
borough. This stems predominantly from the current level of water space in Brent
being so low and further deficiencies outside the borough border which spread into
the South East of Brent. The Consultant Team are of the opinion that the focus must
remain on providing additional water space in the areas of greatest unmet demand
with most impact on Brent residents. Alongside this the Consultant Team would not
advocate any additional swimming provision in the Kilburn area given the proximity
to Willesden Sports Centre.
Furthermore, should the swimming pool at Vale Farm be considered for
redevelopment, this will decrease the level of unmet demand within the central areas
of the borough, adding to the needs case for an additional pool further north.
Throughout the research process, comments about the demand for and suitable
location of a third swimming pool in Brent have been commonplace. Much focus has
been placed upon the need for the development of a facility in the north of the
borough.
5.4.6 SWIMMING POOLS - SUMMARY AND IMPACT ON THE LEISURE
CENTRES
Brent swimming pool capacity is extremely low but water space within neighbouring
boroughs is significant and much demand is exported out of the borough. Residents
living within the central areas of the borough fall outside a 1.6km catchment of a
swimming pool and mapping shows unmet demand to be high in these areas.
Unmet demand to the west of the borough (location of Vale Farm) is low and set to
decrease with the completion of additional pool provision in neighbouring Ealing. The
increase in water space across the study area, as detailed in the FPM Run 2, will
satisfy some local demand but many residents will remain outside the catchment of a
STRATEGIC REVIEW OF SPORTS CENTRES IN BRENT FULL REVIEW VERSION 2.0 JANUARY 2008
www.continuumleisure.co.uk - 87 -
swimming pool. Therefore, the impact of the new developments outside of Brent
does not have that notable an impact on many Brent residents and on local level
provision.
Overall, the FPM clearly emphasises that the development of pool space in the
central areas of the borough should be a regarded as a priority. The location of
existing facilities determines that residents in the north central areas of the borough
live the furthest from existing water space within Brent, providing evidence
supporting the development of additional pool space in this location first and
foremost. Unmet demand outside the borough to the north is also significant and a
pool developed in this location may attract use from Barnet residents. Any
development of the swimming pool at Vale Farm will decrease the levels of unmet
demand within the south / central areas of the borough adding to the needs case to
an additional pool further north.
5.5 HEALTH AND FITNESS FACILITIES
Sport England defines health and fitness suites as those facilities providing fitness
stations for both cardio-vascular and strength training. On this basis, Brent contains
a total of 19 main venues in which health and fitness facilities are accommodated.
Figure 5.9 below demonstrates the geographical distribution of those existing
facilities with 1.6km catchments identified for each facility (blue catchments denote
facilities accessible on a pay and play basis, orange catchments denote private /
registered membership for use facilities).
STRATEGIC REVIEW OF SPORTS CENTRES IN BRENT FULL REVIEW VERSION 2.0 JANUARY 2008
www.continuumleisure.co.uk - 88 -
Figure 5.9: All Brent health & facilities, 1.6km catchments and facility access
identified
Table 5.7: All Brent Health and Fitness Facilities - Further detail
Map point Site Name Postcode Ward Stations Ownership Access Year Built
A VALE FARM SPORTS CENTRE HA0 3HG
Sudbury Ward 73
Local Authority
Pay and Play 1979
B
BRIDGE PARK COMMUNITY LEISURE CENTRE
NW10 0RG
Stonebridge Ward 40
Local Authority
Pay and Play -
C WILLESDEN SPORTS CENTRE
NW10 3QX
Willesden Green Ward 120
Local Authority
Pay and Play 2006
D
CHARTERIS SPORTS CENTRE NW6 7ET Kilburn Ward 40
Local Authority
Pay and Play 1983
1 OAKINGTON MANOR SCHOOL HA9 6NF
Tokyngton Ward 11
Foundation School
Registered Membershi
p use 2004
2 LIVINGWELL HEALTH CLUB (WEMBLEY) HA9 8DS
Tokyngton Ward 21
Commercial
Registered Membershi
p use 1994
3 ENERGIE FITNESS CLUB (WEMBLEY) HA9 6DE
Tokyngton Ward 77
Commercial
Registered Membershi
p use 2004
STRATEGIC REVIEW OF SPORTS CENTRES IN BRENT FULL REVIEW VERSION 2.0 JANUARY 2008
www.continuumleisure.co.uk - 89 -
Map point Site Name Postcode Ward Stations Ownership Access Year Built
4
CONVENT OF JESUS AND MARY LANGUAGE COLLEGE NW10 4EP
Kensal Green Ward 6
Voluntary Aided School Private Use 1995
5 FITNESS FIRST HEALTH CLUB (ALPERTON) HA0 4LW
Alperton Ward 126
Commercial
Registered Membershi
p use 2000
6 JFS SCHOOL HA3 9TE Barnhill Ward 6
Voluntary Aided School Private Use 2003
7
CAPITAL CITY ACADEMY SPORTS FACILITIES NW10 3ST
Willesden Green Ward 10
Academies Private Use 2003
8 FITNESS FIRST HEALTH CLUB (KINGSBURY) NW9 9HN
Queensbury Ward 110
Commercial
Registered Membershi
p use 1998
9
MANOR HEALTH & LEISURE CLUB (CRICKLEWOOD) NW2 6PG
Mapesbury Ward 270
Commercial
Registered Membershi
p use 2001
10
CANNONS HEALTH CLUB (BRONDESBURY PARK) NW2 5JY
Brondesbury Park Ward 70
Commercial
Registered Membershi
p use 2002
11 GENESIS GYM & FITNESS STUDIO HA0 1EF
Alperton Ward 60
Commercial
Pay and Play 1996
12 UNIQ HEALTH & FITNESS HA1 3TZ Northwick Park Ward 50
Commercial
Pay and Play 2006
13
UNIVERSITY OF WESTMINSTER (HARROW SITE) HA1 3TP
Northwick Park Ward 24
Higher Education Institutions
Pay and Play 1970
14 FITNESS FIRST HEALTH CLUB (KILBURN) NW6 6RG
Queens Park Ward 126
Commercial
Registered Membershi
p use 1998
15 MOBERLY SPORTS & EDUCATION CENTRE W10 4AH
Queens Park Ward 32
Local Authority
Pay and Play 1997
1217
8 x P&P 11 x RMU / Private
A total of nineteen venues provide a combined 1217 health and fitness stations
across the borough. Eight venues are accessible on a pay and play basis and the
remaining eleven require registered membership for use and may not be affordable
and therefore accessible to all sectors of the local community. In addition, some
private facilities do not allow public access at all (e.g. those located at school sites).
As demonstrated above, the distribution of publicly accessible facilities is very much
focussed toward the southern periphery of the borough.
STRATEGIC REVIEW OF SPORTS CENTRES IN BRENT FULL REVIEW VERSION 2.0 JANUARY 2008
www.continuumleisure.co.uk - 90 -
5.5.1 Health and Fitness Facility Analysis - Capacity Ratios
A calculation of capacity ratio shows there are 4.82 stations per 1000 population, a
ratio that is below the London average of 6.19. To bring the current level of provision
in health and fitness facilities into line with the London average, Brent would require
an additional 359 stations across the borough now, and by 2016, without further
investment, the shortfall could fall to 618 stations. Table 5.17 below sets out those
calculations alongside the capacity ratio of public access pay and play facilities alone.
Table 5.8: LB Brent Health and Fitness Facilities - Capacity Ratios
OVERVIEW
CURRENT PROVISION
CAPACITY RATIO ( Facility type per 1000
population)
DEFICIENCY / SURPLUS (In comparison with
London average) FACILITY TYPE
FACILITIES TOTAL Stations
2001 (263507)
2011 (293900)
2016 (305400)
London average
Current (2001)
Mid (2011)
Future (2016)
ALL HEALTH & FITNESS
19 1272 4.82 4.32 4.16 6.19 -359 stations
-547 stations
-618 stations
PUBLIC ACCESS 8 439 1.66 1.49 1.43 NA NA NA NA
Table 5.8 serves to emphasise the shortfall in publicly accessible health and fitness
stations across the borough. It is also important to note that the existing pay and
play facilities accommodate an average of 54 stations per facility, whereas private
sector facilities accommodate in excess of 75 stations per facility. Most modern
facilities would seek to accommodate in excess of 100 stations and increasing
capacity at any redeveloped or new built health and fitness facility in Brent should be
regarded as a priority.
As before, by isolating facility provision at the location and in the surrounding area of
the three leisure centres under review, it is possible to establish the surplus /
shortfall of facility provision in these locations which can be used to help inform the
future demand for facility provision.
Table 5.9: Health and Fitness capacity ratios for Sudbury, Stonebridge and Kilburn
and neighbouring wards.
Ward Total Stations Current population (2001)
Capacity Ratio Per 1000
Surplus / deficit to London Average (stations)
Vale Farm
STRATEGIC REVIEW OF SPORTS CENTRES IN BRENT FULL REVIEW VERSION 2.0 JANUARY 2008
www.continuumleisure.co.uk - 91 -
Ward Total Stations Current population (2001)
Capacity Ratio Per 1000
Surplus / deficit to London Average (stations)
Northwick Park Ward 74 12169 6.081 -1 Preston Ward 0 12821 0 -79 Sudbury Ward 73 12314 4.304 -3 Wembley Central Ward 0 11010 0 -68 All Facilities 147 48314 3.04 -152 Public access 147 48314 3.04 NA Vale Farm (Sudbury) provides the main bulk of health and fitness provision accessible on a pay & play basis for the west of the borough. Uniq Health to the south is just over 1km away and provides 50 stations, but beyond this pay and play provision within the centre and northern areas of the borough is limited. This is reflected in the capacity ratio analysis (stations per 1000 population) which shows that provision across Sudbury and surrounding wards is well below the London average. The findings suggest the need for an additional 152 stations now to bring levels up to the standard for the requirement of the current population (a need that is set to increase with population growth). Bridge Park Stonebridge Ward 40 15941 2.509 -58.68 Tokyngton Ward 109 11839 9.207 35.72 Alperton Ward 186 12340 15.073 109.62 Harlesden Ward 0 12250 0 -75.83 All Facilities 335 52370 6.40 10.83 Public access 100 52370 1.91 NA Bridge Park Community Leisure Centre accommodates vital public access (pay and play) health and fitness stations within the south central area of the borough. Two facilities fall within a 1.6km catchment of the site, Energie Fitness Club - providing approximately 77 stations for registered membership use only and Oakington Manor School which provides 11 stations which are not accessible to the public. Across Stonebridge and surrounding wards, capacity ratio analysis inclusive of all access facility provision suggests a minor surplus of stations (approximately 10 stations). Much of this provision is located at private health and fitness clubs; discounting those private health clubs from the analysis results in an extremely low capacity ratio of 1.91 stations per 1000 population. Charteris Kilburn Ward 40 14137 2.829 -47.51 Queens Park Ward 158 12385 12.757 81.33 Brondesbury Park Ward 70 11664 6.001 -2.20 Mapesbury Ward 270 13263 20.357 187.90 All Facilities 538 51449 10.46 219.53 Public access 72 51449 1.40 NA Across Kilburn and surrounding wards, the vast majority of provision is private sector or private access (e.g. school facilities). Capacity ratio analysis for Kilburn and neighbouring wards shows an over supply of approximately 220 stations but the capacity ratio for pay and play facilities
STRATEGIC REVIEW OF SPORTS CENTRES IN BRENT FULL REVIEW VERSION 2.0 JANUARY 2008
www.continuumleisure.co.uk - 92 -
Ward Total Stations Current population (2001)
Capacity Ratio Per 1000
Surplus / deficit to London Average (stations)
only falls to 1.4 stations per 1000 population, emphasising the important role Charteris Sports Centre plays in providing an affordable and accessible health and fitness facility.
5.5.2 HEALTH AND FITNESS FACILITIES - SUMMARY AND IMPACT ON THE
LEISURE CENTRES
The findings of the above analysis demonstrate there is an under provision of health
and fitness facilities and a clear need to increase the provision of accessible and
affordable health and fitness facilities across the borough.
Local to the three centres, the potential to increase the capacity through re-
development should be fully explored, particularly in the case of Bridge Park and
Charteris where the socio-economic status of local residents dictates a demand for
provision that is not private sector to ensure affordability. Mapping of existing provision
shows clear shortfalls in public access provision in the central, north central and east
areas of the borough and any leisure development proposed within these areas should
seek to accommodate a significant stock of health and fitness stations.
5.6 SYNTHETIC TURF PITCHES
5.6.1 Brent Synthetic Turf Pitches - Existing Provision
Although there is no actual minimum size for a synthetic turf pitch (STP,) within
Active Places, a STP is recognised to be a floodlit playing pitch surfaced with
synthetic turf and, for the purposes of the database, with minimum dimensions of 75
x 45m. The following map (Figure 5.10) demonstrates the geographical location of
existing pitch provision with catchments of the facilities identifying their access as
before. The locations of the Bridge Park and Charteris centres have been included on
the map for reference. The corresponding table (Table 5.10) provides further detail
of the facilities.
STRATEGIC REVIEW OF SPORTS CENTRES IN BRENT FULL REVIEW VERSION 2.0 JANUARY 2008
www.continuumleisure.co.uk - 93 -
Figure 5.10: All Brent Synthetic Turf Pitches, 1.6km catchments and facility access
identified (where possible)
TABLE 5.10: All Brent Synthetic Turf Pitches - Further Detail
Map point Site Name Postcode Ward Pitches
Ownership Type
Access Type
Management
Type Year Built
A VALE FARM SPORTS CENTRE HA0 3HG
Sudbury Ward 1
Local Authority
Pay and Play
Commercial Manageme
nt 1984
B
BRIDGE PARK COMMUNITY LEISURE CENTRE NW10 0RG
Stonebridge Ward No Pitch
D CHARTERIS SPORTS CENTRE NW6 7ET
Kilburn Ward No Pitch
1 WEMBLEY HIGH SCHOOL HA0 3NT
Sudbury Ward
1 3G (not floodlit) School
2
THE PAVILION AT STONEBRIDGE RECREATION GROUND NW10 8LW
Stonebridge Ward 1 3G Other
Pay and Play Trust 1980
3
CAPITAL CITY ACADEMY SPORTS FACILITIES NW10 3ST
Willesden Green Ward 1 Academies
Sports Club /
Community Association
School/College/University
(in house) 2003
4 JFS SCHOOL HA3 9TE Barnhill Ward 1
Voluntary Aided School
Sports Club /
Community Association
School/College/University
(in house) 2003
STRATEGIC REVIEW OF SPORTS CENTRES IN BRENT FULL REVIEW VERSION 2.0 JANUARY 2008
www.continuumleisure.co.uk - 94 -
As presented in Figure 5.19, a considerable number of the borough’s residents live
outside the catchment of an accessible STP. However, the frequency with which this
type of facility appears is much lower than some of the other facility types reviewed
and, as will be shown, regional capacity ratios are much lower. The geographical
distribution of the facilities favours the southern and eastern periphery of the
borough at present and the centre of the borough appears to be a key area of need
(although open space may be at a premium in central areas).
5.6.2 Synthetic Turf Pitches - Capacity Ratio Analysis
Currently across the borough, four facilities meet Sport England’s criteria for STP’s.
Wembley High School is not floodlight and is therefore not excluded from the Active
Places Power database. However, through consultation it was established that
Wembley High School is a key facility in the Sudbury ward (location of Vale Farm)
and it has therefore been factored into the capacity ratio calculations, giving a total
of five facilities in the borough. Brent’s STP capacity ratio stands at 0.019 pitches per
1000 population against the London average of 0.02, which signifies a marginal
deficit in provision at present across the borough (less than one pitch). By 2016,
assuming population growth (and independent of changes in the London average),
the capacity ratio analysis forecasts a deficit of approximately 1.2 pitches in total.
Table 5.11: LB Brent STP’s - Capacity Ratios
OVERVIEW
CURRENT PROVISION
CAPACITY RATIO ( Facility type per 1000 population)
DEFICIENCY / SURPLUS (In comparison with
London average) FACILITY TYPE FACILITIES TOTAL
(pitches) 2001 (263507)
2011 (293900)
2016 (305400)
London average
Current (2001)
Mid (2011)
Future (2016)
STP’s 5 5 0.019 0.017 0.016 0.02
-0.3 pitches
-0.9 pitches
-1.2 pitches
An analysis of provision in proximity to the three leisure centres under review helps
to inform the needs case for the future development of and facility mix under
consideration at these three sites. The findings are set out below within Table 5.12.
Table 5.12: Health and Fitness capacity ratios Sudbury, Stonebridge and Kilburn
and neighbouring wards.
STRATEGIC REVIEW OF SPORTS CENTRES IN BRENT FULL REVIEW VERSION 2.0 JANUARY 2008
www.continuumleisure.co.uk - 95 -
Ward Total Pitches Total Population (2001) Capacity Ratio Per 1000
Surplus / deficit to London Average (pitches)
Vale Farm Northwick Park Ward 0 12169 0 -0.24 Preston Ward 0 12821 0 -0.26 Sudbury Ward 2 12314 0.16 1.72 Wembley Central Ward
0 11010 0 -0.22
All facilities 1 48314 0.02 1.03 Public Access 1 48314 NA NA The position across Sudbury and surrounding wards is a slight oversupply, attributable to pitch provision at Vale Farm and a private pitch at Wembley Technology College (which is without floodlighting). As will be identified in greater detail within the following section, the STP at Vale Farm requires considerable refurbishment and repair of the perimeter fencing. The pitch itself was most recently resurfaced in 2001 and the current condition should be reviewed. If the Wembley Technology pitch remains both private and non-floodlit the perceived needs case for the existing pitch at Vale Farm is considerable. Bridge Park Stonebridge Ward 1 15941 0.063 0.69 Tokyngton Ward 0 11839 0 -0.24 Alperton Ward 0 12340 0 -0.25 Harlesden Ward 0 12250 0 -0.25 Combined 1 52370 0.02 -0.05 Public Access 1 52370 NA NA Provision within Stonebridge and surrounding areas is slightly deficient, suggesting the need for an additional 0.5 pitches to match current levels of provision across the capital. The Pavilion at Stonebridge Rec, under 1km from Bridge Park, boasts a full size floodlit 3G pitch and demand for the inclusion of a similar facility at the Bridge Park site would require further investigation. Charteris Kilburn Ward 0 14137 0 -0.28 Queens Park Ward 0 12385 0 -0.25 Brondesbury Park Ward
0 11664 0 -0.23
Mapesbury Ward 0 13263 0 -0.27 Combined 0 51449 0.00 -1.03 Public Access 0 51449 NA NA Kilburn and surrounding wards are without any STP facilities at present and capacity ratio analysis combined across this area identifies a perceived shortfall of one pitch to bring this into line with the London average. Whilst the Charteris site would not allow the development of a pitch on-site, the development of an STP locally could be a possible avenue for investment into sports facility provision.
5.6.3 SYNTHETIC TURF PITCHES - SUMMARY AND IMPACT ON THE LEISURE
CENTRES
In comparison with the London average, levels of STP supply across Brent are
STRATEGIC REVIEW OF SPORTS CENTRES IN BRENT FULL REVIEW VERSION 2.0 JANUARY 2008
www.continuumleisure.co.uk - 96 -
slightly deficient and existing pitches should be protected, notably for this review
Vale Farm.
The future development of synthetic turf pitches at school sites and through BSF
(possibly with partnership funding from Football Foundation) should remain a
consideration. As identified within the Brent Playing Pitch Strategy 2003 - 2008, only
two of Brent’s existing pitches are suitable for hockey and although no hockey teams
exist currently, 12 teams should according to Team Generation Rates. The limitations
of facility provision for hockey may be significant and should be a consideration for
new STP’s developed.
It should be noted that this analysis does not take into account provision in
neighbouring boroughs and the potential export of demand to those facilities should
be considered prior to future investment within Brent. Furthermore, other types of
floodlit pitch provision - MUGA’s, 5-a-side and 7-a-side pitches (for example, the
commercial Goals 5-a-side football centre in Alperton and the Moberly Sports
Centre.) which are not included due to their dimensions within the Active Places
Power database but are still used frequently. Likewise, facilities (full size STP’s and
other) located within neighbouring boroughs but in an acceptable proximity for Brent
residents to use, have also not been included. Such facilities may be serving an
important purpose and the location and impact upon demand of these facilities
should be reviewed in more detail prior to any future investment.
5.7 GRASS PITCHES
The geographical distribution of grass pitches across Brent is demonstrated within
Figure 5.11 below. The current distribution is such that all Brent residents live within
a 1.6km catchment of some type of grass pitch facility. Further detail of the type,
quantity and access to the pitches can be found within Appendix 3
STRATEGIC REVIEW OF SPORTS CENTRES IN BRENT FULL REVIEW VERSION 2.0 JANUARY 2008
www.continuumleisure.co.uk - 97 -
Figure 5.11: All Brent Grass Pitches (Active Places Power database)
5.7.1 Grass Pitches - Capacity Ratio’s
Although audited as part of the Active Places Power database, a calculation of pitches
per 1000 population is currently unavailable. Whilst it is relatively simple to generate
our own calculation of pitches per 1000 population, there is no benchmark on which
to compare it for London as there is with other facilities. Instead, it is useful to
return to the Brent Playing Pitch Strategy 2003 - 2008 which provides an assessment
of pitch provision against existing and future demand.
5.7.2 Current Pitch Supply
In 2003, 81 pitches were available for community team sports use of which 53 were
council owned. The majority of pitches (57) are football pitches and only 8% of
pitches located on school sites were used for community purposes.
5.7.2.1 Existing and Future Pitch Demand (By sport)
Football – Based on an assumption of a 10% growth in football participation as
forecast between 2003 and 2008, a current oversupply of pitches would reduce to 4
(if un-required senior pitches were converted for junior and mini-soccer purposes).
STRATEGIC REVIEW OF SPORTS CENTRES IN BRENT FULL REVIEW VERSION 2.0 JANUARY 2008
www.continuumleisure.co.uk - 98 -
Cricket - Projections for participation growth and the possibility of existing teams
returning to the borough to play home games would reduce a surplus of pitch
provision to one by 2008.
Hockey – Currently there are no hockey teams in Brent and TGR calculations
suggest 12 should exist. No longer a sport played on grass, the lack of suitable STP
provision is a limiting factor as discussed above.
Rugby - Seven existing teams are based at two clubs. A 10% growth in participation
would require 3 additional pitches leaving a shortfall of one.
Gaelic Football - Five Gaelic football clubs support six active teams across the
borough. Currently, five Gaelic football pitches accommodate the needs of the
existing clubs.
5.7.3 Grass Pitches Summary And Impact On The Leisure Centres
As identified within Section Three, the recommendations of the Playing Pitch Strategy
dictate the need for all pitches borough-wide to be retained, with additional pitches
to be created in the south and east of the borough. Pitch and ancillary improvements
at Vale Farm Sports Ground are regarded as a major priority. The Vale Farm Sports
Ground Review (2006) echoes those sentiments, emphasising the importance of
improvements to existing team changing facilities at the Vale Farm Sports Centre
and advocating the potential development of the site as a Community Football
Centre, in accordance with the development objectives of the FA. Improvements to
the Vale Farm Sports Ground will be referenced in greater detail within the options
for development to be taken forward within Section Ten of this review.
5.8 ATHLETICS TRACKS
Athletics tracks included within the Active Places database are those that are
permanently constructed all weather 400m running tracks with a minimum of four
lanes. On that basis, Brent contains one facility - a 6 lane synthetic track located at
the Willesden Leisure Centre. Figure 5.12 below demonstrates the geographical
location and catchment of the WSC facility but also the catchment of the Vale Farm
STRATEGIC REVIEW OF SPORTS CENTRES IN BRENT FULL REVIEW VERSION 2.0 JANUARY 2008
www.continuumleisure.co.uk - 99 -
facility (a disused cinder track). Understandably athletics tracks do not appear
frequently and whilst the catchment identified provides guidance in relation to
residents living within a 1.6km catchment, it is widely accepted that users are willing
to travel considerably further to use facility provision given the scarcity.
Figure 5.12: Brent Athletics Tracks
Table 5.12: Athletics Tracks - Further Detail
Map point Site Name Postcode Ward
Number of Lanes
Ownership Type
Access Type
Management Type
Year Built
C
WILLESDEN SPORTS CENTRE NW10 3QX
Willesden Green Ward 6
Local Authority
Pay and Play
Commercial Management 2006
A
VALE FARM SPORTS CENTRE HA0 3HG
Sudbury Ward
Disused cinder track
Willesden Sports Centre provides a modern synthetic 6 lane athletics track with
spectator viewing alongside equipment provision for field events. In addition, the
centre benefits from a 60m indoor sprint track and associated ancillary facilities.
These facilities undoubtedly provide the focal point for athletics development,
training and competition within Brent. Usage, however, is currently very low.
STRATEGIC REVIEW OF SPORTS CENTRES IN BRENT FULL REVIEW VERSION 2.0 JANUARY 2008
www.continuumleisure.co.uk - 100 -
5.8.1 LB Brent Athletics Tracks - Capacity Ratios
Whilst the current provision for athletics revolves around the facilities at Willesden
Sports Centre, there is value in evaluating how this level of provision measures up
against the regional average. The six lane track equates to a capacity ratio of 0.023
lanes per 1000 population, below the London average of 0.04. To match the London
average (and regardless of demand and provision outside the borough), the borough
would require a further 4.5 lanes now and 6.2 lanes by 2016.
Table 5.13: Athletics Tracks - Capacity Ratios
OVERVIEW
CURRENT PROVISION
CAPACITY RATIO ( Facility type per 1000 population)
DEFICIENCY / SURPLUS (In comparison with
London average) FACILITY TYPE
FACILITIES TOTAL (lanes)
2001 (263507)
2011 (293900)
2016 (305400)
London average
Current (2001)
Mid (2011)
Future (2016)
ATHLETICS TRACKS 1 6 0.023 0.020 0.020 0.04
-4.5 lanes
-5.8 lanes
-6.2 lanes
5.8.2 ATHLETICS TRACKS – SUMMARY AND IMPACT ON LEISURE CENTRES
There is no real value in calculating capacity ratios at a more local level. The issue in
relation to the three centres is specific to the Vale Farm site and the existence of a
disused cinder track in this location. Whilst the borough-wide calculations identify the
need for additional provision (approximately 6 lanes by 2016) the demand for the
provision of an additional facility (or the refurbishment of the existing Vale Farm site)
appears to be non-existent currently. Usage at the Willesden Sport Centre remains
low and significant capacity to accommodate additional athletics exists at this site.
Whilst Active Places analysis shows that demand may not be in existence at present,
long term strategic thought should be given to the potential for increased demand in
the future. The Consultant Team note there are other facilities within close proximity
but outside the borough boundary which may be able to cater for additional demand
in Brent. The lower prevalence of this facility type dictates that users are willing to
travel greater distances, including trips outside the borough boundary, reducing the
need for a second athletics track in Brent further still.
5.9 INDOOR TENNIS COURTS
According to Sport England, Indoor Tennis Centres included within the Active Places
database include purpose built stand alone tennis centres as well as indoor courts
STRATEGIC REVIEW OF SPORTS CENTRES IN BRENT FULL REVIEW VERSION 2.0 JANUARY 2008
www.continuumleisure.co.uk - 101 -
connected to other sports facilities, such as sports clubs. At present there are no
facilities of this type within Brent.
5.9.1 LB Brent Indoor Tennis Courts - Capacity Ratios
Based on the current level of population, eight courts would be required to bring
Brent into line with the London average.
Table 5.14: Indoor Tennis courts - Capacity Ratios
OVERVIEW
CURRENT PROVISION
CAPACITY RATIO ( Facility type per 1000 population)
DEFICIENCY / SURPLUS (In comparison with
London average) FACILITY TYPE
FACILITIES TOTAL (courts )
2001 (263507)
2011 (293900)
2016 (305400)
London average
Current (2001)
Mid (2011)
Future (2016)
INDOOR TENNIS 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03
-7.9 courts
-8.8 courts
-9.2 courts
5.9.2 INDOOR TENNIS COURTS – SUMMARY AND IMPACT ON THE LEISURE
CENTRES
The Lawn Tennis Association strongly advocates the development of indoor tennis
courts. Within ‘ The Need for Covered Courts’ (1998) the LTA emphasises that
opportunity to play tennis all year round and for longer periods every day increases
the quantity and diversity of regular participation within the sport. Of the three
centres under review the Vale Farm Sports Centre site has the most obvious
potential for a development of this type. Site constraints at Charteris certainly and
also probably at Bridge Park would prove prohibitive.
Within the Vale Farm Sports Ground Review (2006) the issue of local user sports
clubs is brought into question, and in context with indoor tennis courts, the Parkside
Tennis Club. The Sports Ground Review confirms that the club play at a recreational
level using existing hard courts, grass courts and a small pavilion situated next to
the Vale Farm Sports Centre. The club’s lease for the existing facilities has now
expired and the future of the club is somewhat uncertain. Whilst demand locally
would be vital to determine the strategic value, viability and development of indoor
tennis courts within Brent, the semblance of an infrastructure for tennis development
that exists in this location may prove a worthwhile starting point for further
investigation.
STRATEGIC REVIEW OF SPORTS CENTRES IN BRENT FULL REVIEW VERSION 2.0 JANUARY 2008
www.continuumleisure.co.uk - 102 -
5.10 INDOOR BOWLS
Facility provision for indoor bowls within Brent consists of a single indoor bowls rink
at the Century Indoor Bowls Club. This facility is located to the north west of the
borough within the Preston ward, as demonstrated in Figure 5.13 below.
Figure 5.13: Brent indoor bowls rinks
Table 5.15: Brent Indoor Bowls Rinks - Further Detail
Map point Site Name Postcode Ward
Number of Rinks Access Type
Year Built Refurbished
1
CENTURY INDOOR BOWLS CLUB HA9 8PY
Preston Ward 6
Sports Club / Community Association 1928 1980
5.10.1 LB Brent Indoor Bowls - Capacity Ratios
Table 5.16 below identifies that the solitary bowls rink contributes to a level of
supply that is marginally above the London average (approximately 0.7 rinks per
1000 population). Based upon this capacity ratio analysis future needs do not appear
to be a priority.
STRATEGIC REVIEW OF SPORTS CENTRES IN BRENT FULL REVIEW VERSION 2.0 JANUARY 2008
www.continuumleisure.co.uk - 103 -
Table 5.16: Indoor Bowls - Capacity Ratios
OVERVIEW
CURRENT PROVISION
CAPACITY RATIO ( Facility type per 1000 population)
DEFICIENCY / SURPLUS (In comparison with
London average) FACILITY TYPE
FACILITIES TOTAL (rinks )
2001 (263507)
2011 (293900)
2016 (305400)
London average
Current (2001)
Mid (2011)
Future (2016)
INDOOR BOWLS 1 6 0.023 0.020 0.020 0.02
+0.7 rinks
+0.1 rinks
-0.1 rinks
5.10.2 INDOOR BOWLS RINKS – SUMMARY AND IMPACT ON THE LEISURE
CENTRES
The needs case for the development of additional facilities for indoor bowls should be
considered on a case by case basis and in context with an audit of the location,
quality and demand for indoor bowls facilities within neighbouring boroughs and
outdoor provision within Brent.
5.11 THE LONDON BOROUGH OF BRENT - OVERVIEW OF FACILITY PROVISION
This section of the report has highlighted the importance of the main leisure facilities
in providing much needed publicly accessible facilities for sport and leisure activities.
The current undersupply of swimming pools within Brent is a central issue for the
borough, further underlining the importance of Vale Farm (and Willesden Sports
Centre) as the only accessible water space within the borough. The FPM has
determined the central areas of the borough to face the highest levels of unmet
demand at present with residents living within the north centre of the borough
suffering from the furthest travel times to a swimming pool in Brent at present.
Public access to both indoor sports space and health and fitness facilities is also an
issue across the borough, with notable shortfalls again to the central north of the
borough, making this a potential location for the development of any new facilities
inclusive of a swimming pool, sports hall space, health and fitness provision and
possibly outdoor pitch space. Further research into the demand for this type of
facility should consider the potential impact of existing and planned investments into
facility provision across the borough boundary into neighbouring boroughs. This
review does recognise that the impact of swimming pool developments in
STRATEGIC REVIEW OF SPORTS CENTRES IN BRENT FULL REVIEW VERSION 2.0 JANUARY 2008
www.continuumleisure.co.uk - 104 -
neighbouring boroughs is unlikely to have a major impact on the position for Brent
residents living within the central and northern areas of the borough.
In context with the three centres under review and set against the demographic
profile of the borough, this research has identified a specific needs case for
affordable and accessible core facilities at (or near to) the current location of Bridge
Park, Vale Farm and Charteris. Location and facility mix alone is however insufficient
to maintain and increase participation in areas of need and as we have seen within
the demographic profile, satisfaction with sports facility provision remains an issue
for LB Brent. Modern fit for purpose sports facilities have the potential to make a
significant impact, as demonstrated by the high levels of usage at Willesden Sports
Centre following re-opening in 2006. It is in this context that the potential need to
redevelop the three main leisure centres needs further consideration as LB Brent
continue to try to drive up levels of participation.
STRATEGIC REVIEW OF SPORTS CENTRES IN BRENT FULL REVIEW VERSION 2.0 JANUARY 2008
www.continuumleisure.co.uk - 105 -
6. STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION
6.1 Consultees
In this section the main findings from our interaction with consultees are presented.
Whilst the findings naturally represent the thoughts of the individuals taking part
they do nevertheless help us significantly in building up the picture of current and
future sport and leisure provision in and around the London Borough of Brent.
The consultation exercise featured face to face discussions with leading
representatives from key departments within the Council, together with telephone
interviews with the Chief Leisure Officers (or their nominated representatives) of the
seven local authorities that neighbour Brent. These were as follows:
London Borough of Brent Consultees
Cllr Irwin Van Colle - Lead Member for Environment and Culture
Richard Saunders - Director Environment & Culture
Sue Harper - Assistant Director, Environment & Culture
Gerry Kiefer - Head of Sports Service
Dave Carroll - Head of Planning (Policy & Development)
James Picton - Area Manager, Leisure Connection
Mick McDonnell - Brent PE Advisor
Nitin Parshotam - Head of Asset Management (Children & Families)
Andy Donald - Head of Regeneration
James Young - Property and Asset Management Services
Neighbouring Borough Consultees
Hamish Pringle - Head of Leisure and Arts, Kensington & Chelsea
Steve Powell - Contracts Manager, Barnet
John Norton - Interim Head of Leisure, Camden
Jonathan Kirby - Head of Major Projects, Ealing
Terry See - Head of Sport, Hammersmith & Fulham
Clifton Jackson - Head of Sport, Harrow
Richard Barker - Leisure Services Manager, Westminster
STRATEGIC REVIEW OF SPORTS CENTRES IN BRENT FULL REVIEW VERSION 2.0 JANUARY 2008
www.continuumleisure.co.uk - 106 -
The detailed views of the lead officers from the neighbouring boroughs focused
predominantly on planned facility provision within neighbouring boroughs. This
proved vital context for the development of the FPM Brief. Full details of the facilities
planned for investment can be found within Appendix 4 of this document.
6.2 Key general points made by LB Brent consultees
The following points illustrate the main themes identified during detailed
conversations held with LB Brent consultees:
o The central aim of the council is to make Brent a destination of choice,
moving away from the transient nature of a large percentage of the borough’s
current population; good sport and leisure facilities attract and retain people.
o The priority is the development of a third pool, particularly as swimming is a
popular form of exercise and a curricular requirement. Ideally it should be
located in the north east of the borough – the Row Green Park site would fit
in with regeneration plans for Colindale, but there would be a need to get
Kingsbury School fully on board.
o There is a commonly held view that the three focus centres should be
redeveloped entirely.
o Partnerships are critical - either through education (particularly via Building
Schools for the Future and the ‘unlocking’ of school facilities), health and
housing - in order to realise the best sport and leisure facility offer.
o Funding – there is currently a limited capital budget, though a degree of
political support for additional funding could be secured if the case was made
well. The department is geared up to realise funding initiatives and
opportunities as, when and where they arise.
o Parks in the borough are generally of good quality but sport within them is
not currently a priority; outdoor facilities (e.g. football pitches, Synthetic Turf
Pitches, tennis courts) are generally of poor quality, although a playing pitch
strategy is in place and programmes are beginning to be delivered against it.
o Although there are currently weak club structures and poor school-club links,
informal recreation and physical activity is moving up the agenda.
o Wembley National Stadium: after 5 years of operating 1% of turnover
(c.£750k p/a) will go to charitable causes – Brent intends to lobby that a
STRATEGIC REVIEW OF SPORTS CENTRES IN BRENT FULL REVIEW VERSION 2.0 JANUARY 2008
www.continuumleisure.co.uk - 107 -
significant percentage of any money realised should go towards sport and
leisure provision within the borough.
o Better communication is needed across the authority: community facilities are
built but then often other departments fail to consult on sports usage;
piecemeal development creates problems.
o The Council wants growth in terms of housing and sport/leisure facilities to be
better linked, so the Planning Department is developing a s.106 Standard
Charge, which will secure a standard amount of funding for sport and open
spaces – planned to be introduced from September 2007 onwards (as part of
wider Supplementary Planning Document).
o Various s106 pots exist for sport and leisure development, and there is the
opportunity to combine them into one development as opposed to spreading
them thinly across the borough – a strong strategic case would need to be
made, however.
o Planners expect to realise around £6000 in s106 from the development of
each of the proposed 10,000 new homes but the majority of this would go on
transport infrastructure, schools etc leaving only around £1m to £2m
available for leisure/sport.
o Making leisure facilities more affordable, allowing schools to tap in to facility
‘down time’, better programming – all would help maximise usage, but there
may always be a tension between management contractors making a profit
and wider school usage. Better access to parks and open spaces for schools is
needed; new facilities could help improve the borough’s currently poor club
structure.
o Development of sport and leisure services is integral to the regeneration
agenda, but this has yet to be fully realised at the strategic level – there is
good interaction between sports and regeneration teams at the local level,
however.
o Public sector asset management – there is a need to ensure that public realm
facilities match future growth projections.
6.3 Specific views with regard to the three focus centres
The following comments highlight the majority views of LB Brent consultees with
regard to each of the three focus centres.
STRATEGIC REVIEW OF SPORTS CENTRES IN BRENT FULL REVIEW VERSION 2.0 JANUARY 2008
www.continuumleisure.co.uk - 108 -
6.3.1 Charteris
o Small, wrong scale, not fit for purpose, and on a poorly accessible site
o The south Kilburn area is already well served by Willesden and facilities in
neighbouring boroughs and hard to justify maintaining or renewing provision
o Not well known or used by school groups, and has a limited range of provision
o Currently has problems with cracks to the main hall floor
6.3.2 Vale Farm
o Not fit for purpose, poor layout, in need of repair (as a minimum the facility
needs re-roofing) - demolition and re-build would be the best solution
o The Centre’s location is not ideal but there is scope for rebuilding on a
modified site
o Need to make most of the park as well as the sports centre site (cf Willesden
Centre’s positive interaction with its neighbouring park)
o Redevelopment would need to attract significant funding as ‘enabling’
development (such as new housing) is not possible
o Good schools use currently so would be a key user group
6.3.3 Bridge Park
o Performs a good local function but the building has never been fully fit for
purpose; the scope of its uses should be reduced
o The suggestion is that the adjacent Unisys buildings be demolished and
replaced with a new sports centre, then demolish Bridge Park and redevelop
as housing. However, the site is land banked and the current owners (of the
Unisys site) are waiting for the best possible price before sale is likely
o Potentially a problem with flooding from nearby River Brent (the extent of this
risk is yet to be established)
o The Stonebridge area faces some difficult social and socio-economic issues
and a question mark remains over the potential for a new / re-developed
facility to generate significantly higher usage
STRATEGIC REVIEW OF SPORTS CENTRES IN BRENT FULL REVIEW VERSION 2.0 JANUARY 2008
www.continuumleisure.co.uk - 109 -
6.4 Summary
The consultation process established a clear consensus that all three facilities require
action. The design, layout, condition (and to a lesser degree, location) of all three
centres received regular comment. Throughout the consultation the need to improve
and enhance the existing facility stock has been well emphasised. A number of
complex issues specific to the three sites (Bridge Park in particular) have been raised
which require further consideration. These will be discussed in greater detail within
Section Seven – Planning and the Options appraisal – Section Nine.
STRATEGIC REVIEW OF SPORTS CENTRES IN BRENT FULL REVIEW VERSION 2.0 JANUARY 2008
www.continuumleisure.co.uk - 110 -
7. PLANNING ISSUES AND CONSIDERATIONS
7.1 Introduction
This section sets out the planning issues and considerations in review of Bridge Park
Community Leisure Centre, Charteris Sports Centre and Vale Farm Sports Centre in
Brent. This section considers views (from Brent officials and plan documents) on any
potential development proposals for provision of sports facilities at the three sites.
Justification for these views and wider planning validation comes from:
• Brent Unitary Development Plan and Local Development Framework Planning
Polices and reasoned justification - relevant to the proposed sites/sports and
recreation provision
• Further consultation with the Brent Planning Department
7.2 Bridge Park Community Leisure Centre - Proposals for Development
As previously established, the centre is now over 20 years old and as a conversion of
a bus centre, was not designed/laid out for the specific function of an indoor sports,
fitness and recreation facility. Significant investment (in excess of £1m million by
end 2008) will have been spent on making the facility fit for purpose.
Initial consultations with LB Brent have identified support for the retention and
further development of an indoor sports and recreation facility on this site. The
type/scale of provision and projected level/type of use to meet defined Borough
sports, health and recreational policy objectives needs to be fully determined.
However, the findings of the facility analysis (Section Five) do emphasise the need
for provision of sports facility of similar mix with a larger health and fitness facility
providing greater capacity.
7.2.1 Project Justification Planning Policy: Unitary Development Plan (2004)
In terms of planning policy the Brent Unitary Development Plan has supportive
polices for the provision of indoor sports hall provision and associated health and
fitness provision at the Bridge Park location.
STRATEGIC REVIEW OF SPORTS CENTRES IN BRENT FULL REVIEW VERSION 2.0 JANUARY 2008
www.continuumleisure.co.uk - 111 -
As we have seen in Section Five, capacity ratio analysis confirms the Stonebridge
ward and neighbouring wards to have a current deficit of sports hall space in part
due to the high population. As the population increases the existing deficit will be
exacerbated. In addition, the percentage of the population in the Stonebridge ward
in the 0 – 19 age group are above the Brent Borough average in each age group.
(Source Brent demographic profile of residents 2001 Census Stonebridge ward).
Arguably these are the most important age groups in terms of providing sporting and
recreational opportunities. Participation levels are typically higher at a younger age
and sport and leisure participation (for all age groups) has the potential to create a
healthy lifestyle, tackle obesity and other health problems and provide sporting
opportunities to promote self confidence and values of sharing and team working.
The combination of an increasing population, high density of young people and
current deficit in sports hall provision reinforces the demand for access to sporting
and recreation opportunities at the Bridge Park Leisure Centre location.
There is a presumption in favour of protection of sports facilities which meet a
defined need and to ensure adequate provision across the borough. As established,
there is an existing deficit in supply of sports hall provision across this area of the
borough. Consequently, the provision of an indoor sports facility at Bridge Park
meets the policy of ensuring there is adequate provision of indoor sports facilities
across the borough.
There is a reversal in the population decline in Brent and a 14% growth in households over the 2001-2016 period from 101,500 households in 2001 to 112,000 in 2016 (Source UDP Part 1 Strategy para 2.4.2 ).
In order to ensure the adequate provision of locally and strategically important sports facilities in North West London, development which leads to a loss of sports facilities will be refused, other than in those exceptional circumstances defined within the UDP (Source UDP Part 1 Strategy chapter STR policy 34 para 2.5.23).
STRATEGIC REVIEW OF SPORTS CENTRES IN BRENT FULL REVIEW VERSION 2.0 JANUARY 2008
www.continuumleisure.co.uk - 112 -
As demonstrated within Section Four (Demographic Profile), the number of
households in Brent who do not have access to a car or van is 36.2% of all
households. However in the Stonebridge Ward it is a very high 47.8% of all
households. (Source Brent demographic profile of residents 2001 Census
Stonebridge ward).
The Bridge Park Leisure centre has good public transport access which is clearly
important given the percentage of local residents dependent on public transport to
access sporting and recreational facilities.
The combination of these findings increases the need to retain the Bridge Park centre
at its present location, or facilities commensurate with the current provision close to
its current location as it complies with the UDP Transport policy.
7.2.2 Project Justification Local Development Framework and Site Specific
Allocations Preferred Options (Former Unisys site)
To reduce the need to travel, especially by private car. To promote social inclusion by planning for houses, jobs and local facilities in close proximity and ensuring access for the whole community to development, whilst minimising severance of communities by traffic; (Source UDP Chapter 6 Transport Policy objectives para 6.4.1.2)
Improvements to the Borough's public open spaces and sports facilities will be promoted, especially in those areas with a deficiency of quality facilities. (Source UDP Part 1 Strategy chapter STR policy 35 para 2.5.23)
It is recognised that opportunities for new community facilities are generally limited, as they cannot compete financially on equal terms with land uses such as commercial, residential or mixed use developments, which attract higher land values. To secure the provision of these key facilities and prevent the loss or re-development to other higher value uses, all existing community facilities will be protected, unless they can be appropriately replaced or provided for elsewhere (Source Brent Local Development Framework Core Strategy Preferred Options Ch 10 Enabling Community Facilities para 10.0.3)
STRATEGIC REVIEW OF SPORTS CENTRES IN BRENT FULL REVIEW VERSION 2.0 JANUARY 2008
www.continuumleisure.co.uk - 113 -
This policy recognises the need to protect and retain existing community facility sites
because the opportunity to develop new sites/projects is not as financially attractive
as other land uses. In addition, there is scope to develop some of the existing site for
commercial uses and new housing which will generate land values to support the
development of new sports facilities at the Bridge Park site.
Furthermore, it is noted that the Brent’s Sec. 106 policy for new housing
development is projected to generate around £6,000 per new house, some 11,000
new dwellings up to 2016.
This per house figure is low in relation to Sec 106 sums being generated for new
housing developments elsewhere, for example in Milton Keynes the figure stands at
£17,000 per house and in Newcastle (which includes Pathfinder Housing Renewal
Areas), £10,000 per house.
In both Milton Keynes and Newcastle the sums secured for sports and community
facility provision is around 30 – 40% of the per house sum. The Newcastle approach
is overcoming some of the limitations acknowledged in the Brent policy, namely that
sporting and community facilities cannot generate sufficient land values to provide
new facilities.
If this is the case, then in Newcastle the development of a strong and robust
evidence and needs analysis of sports participation coupled with strong and high
importance attached to this type of provision through community consultation is
“making a successful case with evidence” for a higher allocation of Sec. 106 funding
to sport and recreation. In short, there may be potential to develop the needs and
evidence base which can be applied in planning policy and form the basis of SPD,
Sec. 106 evidence and justification for investment.
7.2.3 Site Specific Issues
Justification within Planning Policy and desire within Brent Council to retain sports
(and some community) facility provision at the Bridge Park site is clearly evident.
STRATEGIC REVIEW OF SPORTS CENTRES IN BRENT FULL REVIEW VERSION 2.0 JANUARY 2008
www.continuumleisure.co.uk - 114 -
There are however a number of complex issues with the Bridge Park and adjacent
Unisys site which any future development options must reflect.
The Unisys site (office blocks) are privately owned and are now in poor condition
having been derelict for some 8 years whilst the current owners hold out for a high
sale value. The identification of the site as an area of flood risk by the Environment
Agency has added a further issue regarding land values. The planning department
recognise the need for change on this site but are at this stage reluctant to progress
a Compulsory Purchase Order given the likelihood of it being contested by Unisys
and the resulting time and financial implications of ongoing legal costs.
The land valuation ranges significantly from £12million (LBBPD recent estimation) to
£24 million (housing developer offer rejected by current site owners in 2004). The
valuation range has predominantly been influenced by the extent and range of
residential development at the site.
The Bridge Park Leisure Centre site itself was previously owned by the Greater
London Council (GLC). The GLC covenants for this building dictate that any change
of use or disposal would require the council to pay back 7/18th of the open market
value which is potentially highly significant.
Initial indications suggest it to be highly unlikely that the GLC administrators would
waiver this fee; however the re-provision of leisure facility provision at the site may
be a feasible means of avoiding this charge. Further clarification of the terms and
conditions of this covenant (the potential to re-provide and the scale of the re-
provision) is a critical next step for the development of this site.
Current site valuations value the Bridge Park land at a range of £12.6 - £17 million
(initial outline LB Brent Planning Department valuations). From a Brent planning
perspective, justification for the closure and re-location of the sports centre would be
acceptable as long as re-provision of the sports and some community facilities were
made, however, a suitable alternative site location may prove difficult to find and the
process would result in additional costs.
STRATEGIC REVIEW OF SPORTS CENTRES IN BRENT FULL REVIEW VERSION 2.0 JANUARY 2008
www.continuumleisure.co.uk - 115 -
The planning department have explored the development of a mixed use residential /
leisure / community complex with current estimations suggesting that the footprint
could accommodate housing equivalent to a land value of £9million, alongside a
sports centre of approx 2000m2. Plans for the inclusion of existing community
facilities would need further context with the issues already detailed.
7.3 Charteris Sports Centre - Proposals for Development
The masterplan for the Kilburn NDC area includes the development / retention of
sport and leisure provision as a priority which has the potential to impact upon the
future of the Charteris Sports Centre.
7.3.1 Site Specific Issues
As established in Section Seven, future development options at the existing site
appear to be limited. The layout is unconventional and the site is totally constrained,
there also appears no real opportunity to acquire land or change the land uses
immediately surrounding the centre.
Within Section Five, the assessment of facility need established an oversupply of
facility provision within Kilburn and surrounding wards but because much of the
provision is private (located at school sites) generating high levels of unmet demand.
Clearly, closure of the Charteris sports centre would increase this deficit in provision
further by three badminton courts. As identified in Section Seven however, the
quality of the existing sports hall is questionable, the ceiling height is restricted by
trusses which prohibit its use for competitive sport raising a considerable question
over the existing facility quality against the potential to obtain the capital receipt for
the site and re-invest in better quality sports facility provision elsewhere. The
existing site is assessed to have a land value of between £500-000 - £900,000
(LBPD estimations 2005) based on the development of fourteen residential units.
The potential for re-investment of this capital receipt will be discussed shortly.
Demand for additional ‘pay and play’ sports hall space in the Kilburn area does exist
and there is a continuing and increasing need to provide a sports hall of around 4
badminton court size to cater for the most popular sports and recreational activity at
STRATEGIC REVIEW OF SPORTS CENTRES IN BRENT FULL REVIEW VERSION 2.0 JANUARY 2008
www.continuumleisure.co.uk - 116 -
The provision of accessible community facilities that meet the needs of present and future generations will be encouraged while maintaining existing amenity, enabling equal opportunities for the visual and performing arts, music and drama, learning, health, social care and general well being. Existing facilities will be protected or appropriately replaced to allow for the future needs of the community. Relevant major and significant applications will be required to make contributions towards, or provision for, new or improved facilities to meet the needs of a growing population. (Source LDF Enabling Community Facilities chapter, para 10.0.2 page 68)
the local neighbourhood level. Future developments under consideration include the
possible construction of a sports centre as part of the regeneration of the South
Kilburn NDC and also through schools involved within the Building Schools for the
Future programme (notably, St Augustine’s). Timescales and funding for either
project is undetermined at this stage.
7.3.2 Project Justification Planning Policy: Unitary Development Plan (2004)
In terms of planning policy the Brent Unitary Development Plan does have supportive
polices for the provision of indoor sports hall provision and associated health and
fitness provision in the Kilburn Ward.
The specific UDP policies and LDF policy framework which supports the provision of
sports and recreational facilities in the Kilburn ward are as follows:
7.3.3 Project Justification Local Development Framework
Proposals for community facilities serving a neighbourhood or district function should be located in or adjoining a town or local centre. Where there are no suitable sites in these areas, small-scale community facilities should be located on a site with moderate or better public transport accessibility which is easily & safely accessible by cycling and walking. Proposals for community facilities serving local catchments may also be located elsewhere within residential areas outside centres, subject to the protection of neighbourhood amenity. (Source Brent UDP Chapter 11 policy CF 2 para 11.6.2 page 224)
Proposals for small-scale tourist, visitor and ACE uses should be located in or adjoining town or district centres. Where this is not appropriate, small-scale tourist, visitor and ACE uses should be located on sites with moderate or better public transport accessibility and which are easily and safely accessible by cycling and walking. When proposed within residential areas or in mixed- use schemes with residential accommodation, this is subject to the protection of neighbourhood amenity. (Source Brent UDP Chapter 9 policy TE&S 2 para 9.6.4 page 197)
STRATEGIC REVIEW OF SPORTS CENTRES IN BRENT FULL REVIEW VERSION 2.0 JANUARY 2008
www.continuumleisure.co.uk - 117 -
The above two UDP policies and the emerging policy under the Local Development
Framework chapter on enabling local community facilities all illustrate the importance
that sports and recreational facilities are located to maximise opportunities for access
to public transport and in existing centres.
The need to consider and comply with these policies in any development or re-
location of the Charteris sports centre is underlined by car ownership statistics in the
Kilburn ward. In terms of household who do not have access to a car or van some
56.5% household in the Kilburn ward do not have access to a car or van (compared
to a borough average of 36.2%)
In summary and in terms of UDP and LDF Planning polices, both documents protect
current local provision and the justification for the redevelopment of Charteris Sports
Centre must be built on a number of key issues highlighted below.
Planning policy supports the need to retain existing sports and community sports
centres where there is a demonstrated need, either in their existing location or in a
location which maintains local neighbourhood access.
There is a growing population in the Kilburn ward and the Kilburn ward is the ward
with the second highest population in Brent at 14,100 people which will exacerbate
the existing deficit of sport halls provision. Re-provision of sports hall space following
the closure of Charteris will be required unless sufficient increase in sports hall
capacity can be achieved through the development of planned projects locally.
Any sufficient increase in sports hall provision locally through the development of
other projects may provide justification for the investment of any potential capital
receipt from Charteris Sports Centre into a suitable sports development package
deemed appropriate by the planning department in conjunction with the Sport
Services Team in the Environment and Culture Directorate.
7.4 Vale Farm Sports Centre - UDP Proposals
The Vale Farm Sports Centre site is allocated as public open space in the 2004 UDP
and the Brent Local Development Framework site allocations list (project 9 page 71.
STRATEGIC REVIEW OF SPORTS CENTRES IN BRENT FULL REVIEW VERSION 2.0 JANUARY 2008
www.continuumleisure.co.uk - 118 -
2007) has produced an outline site allocation description, options and project
justification for the site. In brief, this outlines a proposal to retain (and possibly re-
develop) the existing sports facilities and reinstate the athletics track. The existing
land classification prohibits enabling development at the site.
7.4.1 Project Justification Planning Policy: Unitary Development Plan (2004)
Sports Halls and Swimming Pools
The UDP policies provide an unequivocal policy and reasoned justification for
supporting the retention of the Vale Farm indoor sports and recreation centre on the
existing site. In 2003 a sports and leisure development framework for Brent
identified the need for new and enhanced facilities based on residents and users
priorities.
This Strategy examined potential locations for indoor facilities requiring extensive
site areas, and which need to be co-located with outdoor sports facilities (as they
share changing facilities and have indoor and outdoor elements to the same sport),
in accordance with the sequential approach. It should be noted the sequential
approach is where the location of sports and recreation uses should generally accord
with a sequential approach of: first consideration being given to town centres; then
edge of town centres, district centres; and only then out-of-town sites with good
public transport access.
As an outcome of this work it was determined and decided that the Vale Farm site
does pass the sequential test and there is no better location in terms of locating the
sports hall and swimming pool within the sequential test sequence.
This led to the policy in the UDP specifically citing Vale Farm. The policy is set out
below:
The Council has set out site specific proposals for the provision of indoor (with some outdoor) facilities at Vale Farm and Kingsbury. It will also bring forward proposals for the re-provision of Willesden Sports Centre and Athletics Stadium. These proposals require extensive site areas. In each case there are no sequentially preferable locations and the proposals are included in the Plan on that basis. (Source UDP Chapter 10 Open Space, Sport and Recreation policy OS 20 page 214)
STRATEGIC REVIEW OF SPORTS CENTRES IN BRENT FULL REVIEW VERSION 2.0 JANUARY 2008
www.continuumleisure.co.uk - 119 -
7.4.2 Playing Fields Assessment of Need
The Brent Playing Pitch Strategy 2003 - 2008 provides guidance on planning and
providing for playing fields for team sports within Brent up until 2008. Projections
for future demand have been made using sports development targets and a 10%
growth in the current Team Generation Rates.
The current pitch supply audit showed that in 2003, 81 pitches were available for
community team sports use of which 53 were council owned. The majority of pitches
(57) are football pitches and only 8% of pitches located on school sites, were used
for community purposes.
In terms of looking at the existing and future pitch demand at Vale Farm (but only
looking at football because that is the current use of the all weather pitch) and based
on an assumption of a 10% growth in football participation, as forecast between
2003 - 2008, a current oversupply of pitches would reduce to 4 (if un-required senior
pitches were converted for junior and mini-soccer purposes)
In summary, the assessment of need for playing fields in relation to Vale Farm and
the Brent Playing Pitch Strategy identifies:
• A 10% increase in team generation rates
• Additional pitches need to be created in East and South of Brent and schools
need to have access to pitches within walking distance and with affordable
prices
• Brent needs to work with clubs and governing bodies to create more
opportunities for participation
• The existing Council owned pitches and ancillary facilities in most need of
improvements and upgrading in Brent include Vale Farm Sports Ground
7.4.3 Project Justification Planning Policy: Unitary Development Plan (2004)
Playing Fields
The UDP policies in respect of open space, sport and recreation support the playing
pitch strategy of retaining pitches despite their being a projected surplus of 4 football
pitches by 2008. The UDP goes further in protecting existing playing fields; policies
and justification are as follows:
STRATEGIC REVIEW OF SPORTS CENTRES IN BRENT FULL REVIEW VERSION 2.0 JANUARY 2008
www.continuumleisure.co.uk - 120 -
The justification for this plan policy is significant:
In summary, the UDP plan polices and justification support the retention and
development of the playing fields at Vale Farm for football despite their being a
projected surplus of four football pitches in Brent by 2008 and the current grass
pitch being in disuse.
To summarise the current position in relation to the Vale Farm Sports Centre and
the central planning issues:
• There is a strong needs assessment which supports the retention and
further development of all these individual facility types at (at least) the
present scale of provision for sports halls, water space and outdoor
pitches.
The development of sports grounds (including non pitch based facilities and ancillary facilities) or open space will not be permitted in areas of local public open space deficiency. Elsewhere, the development of sports grounds will only be permitted where the development of a small part (the minimum required) is essential to safeguard or improve the remainder and overall sports provision is not lost (Source UDP Chapter 10 Open Space, Sport and Recreation policy OS 8 paras 10.8.1 – 10.8. 6 page 208)
Brent is significantly below the National Playing Fields Association (NPFA) standards on pitch provision. The Council’s experience shows that a shortage of hirable quality pitches exists for all sports leading to many of the pitches the Council manages being over-used. The diversity of cultures in the Borough means that an appropriate level of provision for Brent would exceed the Sports Council’s standards. The Council will have regard to these sports pitch requirement figures which it will calculate for the Borough when applications are made concerning the development of sports grounds. (Source UDP Chapter 10 Open Space, Sport and recreation para 10.8.1 page 208)
PPG3 on Housing supports Brent’s approach. It notes that clear evidence should be provided that adequate local provision of playing fields remains before development of sports grounds should be considered. Given Brent’s current pitch shortages (other than in football) a policy of protecting sports grounds is required. The policy also applies to former sports grounds, or parts of sports grounds, which are currently dis-used or under-used. (Source UDP Chapter 10 Open Space, Sport and recreation para 10.8.3 page 208)
STRATEGIC REVIEW OF SPORTS CENTRES IN BRENT FULL REVIEW VERSION 2.0 JANUARY 2008
www.continuumleisure.co.uk - 121 -
• The UDP polices are unequivocal in saying these facility types should be
protected and not lost to development.
• The UDP polices state that a sequential test has been undertaken and the
Vale Farm site is an acceptable site for retaining a sports facility under the
sequential test. Furthermore the UDP has an actual policy that cites the
Vale Farm site as the location for future development of a sports and
recreation centre.
• Brent has produced a SPD document setting out the status, preferred
option and justification for the future Vale Farm Leisure centre.
STRATEGIC REVIEW OF SPORTS CENTRES IN BRENT FULL REVIEW VERSION 2.0 JANUARY 2008
www.continuumleisure.co.uk - 122 -
8. FINANCIAL OVERVIEW AND FACILITY HEALTH CHECK
8.1 Introduction
This section of the report provides an overview of the current financial position of the
three centres under review, inclusive of an evaluation of recent usage figures and
customer satisfaction.
8.2 Overview of Facility Management
LB Brent operates its leisure stock directly and indirectly via management contracts
for the four leisure centres as follows:
• Bridge Park – a large dry leisure centre converted from a former bus garage
in 1985 and operated in house
• Charteris – a small dry leisure centre built in 1983 and operated in house
• Vale Farm – a wet and dry leisure centre built in 1979 and operated by
Leisure Connection
• Willesden Leisure Centre – a new wet and dry leisure centre which opened in
2006 to replace a pool closed in 2004 and operated by Leisure Connection1
8.3 Usage of the Centres
Overall usage of Brent’s leisure centres has risen by over 400,000 visits per annum
(69%) since the opening of the new centre in Willesden in 2006. The rise in usage,
even taking into account usage of Willesden from people outside of the Borough,
should have a significant impact on the overall sport and active recreation
participation rate for the Borough, which was in the bottom quartile at 18% in the
most recent Active People Survey.
On an equally positive note the opening of Willesden has not had a significantly
detrimental impact on the other leisure centres with overall usage of the other 3
centres falling by just 5,000 (1%) on the previous year. This impact suggests that
there was considerable latent demand for community leisure facilities within Brent. It
is however possible that usage may have arisen as a result of a decrease or transfer
1 The Willesden Leisure Centre is operated under a 25 year PFI Contract which commenced in 2006. It is not part of the financial overview of the review but is considered as part of the overall strategic demand and needs assessment.
STRATEGIC REVIEW OF SPORTS CENTRES IN BRENT FULL REVIEW VERSION 2.0 JANUARY 2008
www.continuumleisure.co.uk - 123 -
of use from private facilities within the borough or facilities outside the borough
boundary.
Figure 8.1: Total Sports Visits
Total Sports Visits
0
200,000
400,000
600,000
800,000
1,000,000
1,200,000
Charteri
s
Vale Farm
Bridge
Park
Willesd
enTota
l
Visi
ts p
.a.
2004/052005/062006/07
The analysis also confirms that usage patterns are largely based on localised
catchments with most users (circa 75%) coming from within 2 miles of a centre,
although the most recent NBS survey indicates a growth in users travelling further
distances by car to use the Centres.
Usage of the centres by black and ethnic minorities, low income groups and young
people largely reflects the make up of the Borough and the centres score well on
these measures against NBS comparators.
Disabled usage is low across all of the centres and needs to be addressed. As the site
assessments denoted (see Appendix 1), this may be difficult given the physical and
design constraints of some of the buildings.
8.3.1 Bridge Park Usage
Bridge Park usage was lower in 2006/07 though this appears to be due to new
methods for counting users and a fall in usage from non sports activities. Sports
visits however have increased from 72,000 in 2005/06 to 84,000 last year.
STRATEGIC REVIEW OF SPORTS CENTRES IN BRENT FULL REVIEW VERSION 2.0 JANUARY 2008
www.continuumleisure.co.uk - 124 -
8.3.2 Charteris Usage
Charteris only generated 49,000 visits in 2006/07, down from 57,000 the previous
year. This was due to the closure of the centre for refurbishment and improvement
during the year and more accurate usage monitoring. The Centre missed its usage
targets by 20% (12,000 visits).
The management and operations of Charteris were brought back in house in
November 2006. The LB Brent brought the service back in house to help achieve
strategic and corporate objectives, which include maximising the use of all sports
facilities by the diverse population of the borough, whilst offering value for money to
all users.
8.3.3 Vale Farm Usage
Vale Farm shows a small fall in swimming in 2006/07 which could be partly
attributable to swimmers choosing to swim at the new Willesden Leisure Centre. The
distance between the two facilities is however recognised to be significant. On the
dry side, usage has increased as improvements to the programme and bookings
system have been made. Overall usage for 2006/07 is slightly up on 2005/06.
8.4 Financial Performance
The LB Brent supported the 3 leisure centres with a net annual subsidy of
approximately £746k in 2006/072. These figures exclude net non sports income
from the centres which would significantly reduce the overall subsidy. According to
the figures provided by Brent the deficit for 2005/06 was £1.28m. However this
figure includes a significant amount of capital investment by the leisure management
contractor at Vale Farm. The deficit in 2004/05 was £510k, excluding any
accounting and debt charges. There are also significant costs associated with a
depreciation and renewals fund which can skew operating costs from one period to
the next.
2 These figures exclude an additional £200k per annum held by the client for repairs, maintenance and improvements at Vale Farm and Charteris.
STRATEGIC REVIEW OF SPORTS CENTRES IN BRENT FULL REVIEW VERSION 2.0 JANUARY 2008
www.continuumleisure.co.uk - 125 -
Net Costs
200,000
0
200,000
400,000
600,000
800,000
1,000,000
1,200,000
1,400,000
Charteris Vale Farm Bridge Park Total
2004/052005/062006/07
Non discounted user charges are quite high across the centres, in relation to the
quality of the buildings. However more users are taking up the Council’s leisure card
‘BActive’ which provides for generous discounts and concessions to both residents
and non-residents.
Further analysis of the income projections would be required to determine
performance across activities and areas, such as health and fitness and swimming, to
identify areas for improvement as part of any more detailed feasibility study of Vale
Farm. For instance, there are only 153 fitness stations across the 3 centres and as
the main income generators there may be more scope to increase usage and income
in these areas. The introduction of 120 fitness stations at Willesden will have
catered for a sizeable proportion of latent demand but as recognised within the
facility analysis, there remains scope to increase provision in those centres outside
the Willesden catchment.
8.4.1 Bridge Park Figures
The latest NBS figures for Bridge Park in 2006/07 show a subsidy of £388k on a
turnover of £550k with costs of £938k. These figures are consistent with the
previous year (2005/06) showing a subsidy of £383k on a turnover of £534k with
costs of £921k. In 2004/05 the subsidy was £413k on similar costs and income
which indicates a consistent level of financial performance.
STRATEGIC REVIEW OF SPORTS CENTRES IN BRENT FULL REVIEW VERSION 2.0 JANUARY 2008
www.continuumleisure.co.uk - 126 -
These costs do not include the net income position arising from non sports activities
at the centre such as community events. These suggest that that non sports usage
and income is falling whilst income from sports activities is rising. The Sport England
NBS comparisons indicate that due to the size of the facility and the relatively low
number of users the facility is not very efficient in recovering its costs. The centre’s
performance is measured against similar in house managed facilities which
themselves tend to be less efficient at recovering costs than those managed by the
private sector or by not for profit organisations.
The different operating cost items for the Centre as a percentage of turnover are
high for a dry facility compared with typical ratios for local authority facilities. Usage
and income generation ratios are also poor which means the deficit for what is
essentially a dry side sports facility is considered to be relatively high.
8.4.2 Charteris Figures
The latest figures for the Charteris centre show a small net subsidy requirement of
just £3.5k. The performance is a significant improvement on the previous year’s
subsidy of £56k and is in part attributable to a period of closure for repairs and
improvements. The Centre is close to returning to the net surplus position it enjoyed
in 2004/05. However projections for the current year show a significant increase in
staff costs as staff are brought onto LB Brent terms and conditions with the move
back to in house management.
As the centre is quite small it scores quite well on the NBS for income generation per
square metre and cost recovery measures. However overall income and usage is
quite low and staff costs as a percentage of overall costs are quite high for a dry side
facility.
8.4.3 Vale Farm Figures
Vale Farm is managed by Leisure Connection under a new long term contract. The
management fee is fixed at £355k per annum which compares well with the figures
for previous years of an estimated deficit of £837k based on a projected turnover of
£838k and costs of £1.68m. However these costs included a proportion of one off
capital improvements implemented at the end of the previous leisure management
STRATEGIC REVIEW OF SPORTS CENTRES IN BRENT FULL REVIEW VERSION 2.0 JANUARY 2008
www.continuumleisure.co.uk - 127 -
contract. The year before (2004/05) showed a deficit of just £145k on turnover of
£956k and costs of £1,101k.
The Centre does not perform badly against its NBS comparators and its pricing
structure allows it to offset lower performance on some of the efficiency measures.
However measured against newer types of facility is does not perform very well, with
low usage levels and hence income generation.
8.5 User Satisfaction
Overall user satisfaction with the 3 Brent Leisure Centres is relatively high at 83%,
although there are the usual problems found across the country with the cleanliness
of changing facilities and, according to a more recent on line survey, children’s
facilities.
All three centres witnessed a slight drop in user satisfaction last year, largely related
to dissatisfaction with cleanliness, particularly in the changing facilities which is a
common problem in the leisure industry.
Users seem to be pleased with the staff and the facilities, the opening hours and feel
they are getting value for money, though users feel costs are high at Vale Farm.
8.5.1 Charteris User Satisfaction
Charteris enjoys high levels of user satisfaction although there was a slight drop in
satisfaction last year, again relating to cleanliness.
STRATEGIC REVIEW OF SPORTS CENTRES IN BRENT FULL REVIEW VERSION 2.0 JANUARY 2008
www.continuumleisure.co.uk - 128 -
Graph to show percentage of survey respondents that were overall satisfied with their visit to Charteris Sports Centre
75.0%
80.0%
85.0%
90.0%
95.0%
100.0%
2003 2004 2006 Charteris
Survey yearsSatisfied
8.5.2 Bridge Park User Satisfaction
Bridge Park enjoys relatively high levels of user satisfaction and although they
dropped slightly last year they are still at 89%. From the most recent NBS survey
cleanliness appeared to be the main contributory factor to the fall in satisfaction
levels.
Graph to show percentage of survey respondents that were overall satisfied with their visit to Bridge Park Community
Leisure Centre
75.0%
80.0%
85.0%
90.0%
95.0%
2003 2004 2006 2007
Survey yearsSatisfied
8.5.3 Vale Farm User Satisfaction
After increasing levels of user satisfaction in previous years, Vale Farm dropped back
significantly in 2007 with a significant fall in satisfaction levels from 93% to 74%.
STRATEGIC REVIEW OF SPORTS CENTRES IN BRENT FULL REVIEW VERSION 2.0 JANUARY 2008
www.continuumleisure.co.uk - 129 -
Satisfaction fell in most areas but overall cleanliness and pool water quality were key
areas of user dissatisfaction.
Graph to show percentage of survey respondents that were overall satisfied with their visit to Vale Farm Sports Centre
0.0%
20.0%
40.0%
60.0%
80.0%
100.0%
2003 2004 2006 2007
Survey yearsSatisfied
8.6 Summary of Financial Position
From our analysis of the most recent Sport England National Benchmark surveys and
other data provided by LB Brent the 3 leisure centres do not appear to operate cost
effectively. Whilst the NBS data suggests the Centres are relatively cost effective
this is more a result of high levels of income generation from user charges as
opposed to operational efficiency efficiencies. Indeed some of the cost measures are
poor, such as high repair and maintenance costs.
Also the non standard nature of two of the centres (Bridge Park and Charteris)
makes direct comparison with other centres difficult3. Once the income and costs
relating to community and other non sports activities are factored in the performance
of these centres is much improved with Bridge Park moving towards a ‘no net cost’
position to the Council.
The centres enjoy reasonable standards of user satisfaction and the usage profile
largely reflects the ethnic and social mix within the Borough, with most users coming
from within a 2 mile radius. The centres are also well used by young people.
3 The data analysis has wherever possible extracted non sports related income and costs.
STRATEGIC REVIEW OF SPORTS CENTRES IN BRENT FULL REVIEW VERSION 2.0 JANUARY 2008
www.continuumleisure.co.uk - 130 -
There appears however to be room for significant improvement in terms of
increasing the overall usage of the facilities, particularly from under represented
groups, particularly disabled users. The success of the new Willesden Centre, which
has increased overall usage of the Borough’s leisure centres by 69% in its first year
of operations and has far exceeded all expectations, indicates that there is significant
unmet demand for high quality community leisure facilities and services within Brent.
The previous year showed a more modest yet significant increase in visits of 55,000
(10%) over the previous year.
The physical state of the facilities is likely to be a limiting factor in enabling the
Council to significantly increase participation and generate any meaningful efficiency
savings. Despite some refurbishment and investment in recent years the 3 centres,
which are some 22-28 years old, are likely to become more expensive to operate and
maintain as they reach the end of their useful economic life. With no provision for
lifecycle investment apparent in the figures provided, the true long term operating
costs of the centres will be higher than those currently shown. As a result the cost
effectiveness of the centres will worsen in the near future and with limited ability to
increase prices for an inferior product, usage and customer satisfaction is likely to
fall.
A better value for money solution in the long term could be, subject to the
availability of alternative sites and the ability to realise a capital receipt from the sale
of surplus sites, to replace the centres with new efficient and flexible facilities
capable of catering for a wider range of users and generating more income. This is
discussed in more detail in Sections 10 and 11 of this report.
STRATEGIC REVIEW OF SPORTS CENTRES IN BRENT FULL REVIEW VERSION 2.0 JANUARY 2008
www.continuumleisure.co.uk - 131 -
9. SITE SPECIFIC OPTIONS AND OUTLINE COST APPRAISALS
9.1 Introduction
This section of the Review details the outline options for each of the three study
sites. This section also presents a financial options appraisal which evaluates the
financial implications of each of the options presented in relation to the key issues of
borough-wide and local needs, value for money and long-term planning. The
process is designed to assist Brent Council in selecting a best fit solution for each of
the three centres. The completion of the research detailed to date and set out within
this Review ensures that the following options for consideration are built upon a solid
evidence base.
9.2 Options Appraisal Best Practise
Following accepted best practice in options appraisals a ‘Do Minimum’ option has
been considered to test whether any significant change and investment is worthwhile
in the long term. A range of further options involving varying levels of investment
have also been considered specific to each centre with financial appraisal where
possible.
Each option has been modelled on a 25 year whole life cost basis to allow for a truer
comparison of the costs of each option over the expected life of a leisure building.
Each option has been discounted back to the Net Present Value, again as per HM
Treasury best practice for investment options appraisals. Key assumptions made in
the options appraisal process are detailed within Appendix 5 of this report.
9.2.1 Capital Costs
Quantity Surveyors Davis Langdon have compiled outline estimates associated with
the new build options based upon an average cost per m2 calculated across a
number of recent leisure centre developments across London.
Mid to upper range new build costs have been used within the options appraisal
process to ensure conservative estimates. The benchmarking process used to inform
the capital costs for the new build options that will be identified shortly and all
STRATEGIC REVIEW OF SPORTS CENTRES IN BRENT FULL REVIEW VERSION 2.0 JANUARY 2008
www.continuumleisure.co.uk - 132 -
associated exclusions and assumptions are detailed within Appendix 5 of this
report.
9.3 Definitions
Each option presents a breakdown of costs as set out within Table 9.1. To ensure
clarity, a definition of each element is provided below. Income and expenditure
figures are based upon 25 year lifecycles. Figures provided by LB Brent form the
income and expenditure figures presented within the options for each of the centres.
Table 9.1: Cost Breakdown and Definitions
Terms Definitions Capital Capital cost associated with undertaking the option
Enabling Development
Potential to develop the site for residential, commercial or other purposes which could result in capital gains for the council that could be invested into the project.
Council Contribution
Investment required from the council to cover the capital costs associated with the option
Income Projected income over 25 years Expenditure Projected expenditure over 25 years
Lifecycle
Total cost of ownership inclusive of utility, operations, maintenance, periodic and other costs across the lifespan of the project (based upon 1.25% - 2% of initial construction costs per annum)
Finance Costs The costs associated with any Council contributions financed through prudential borrowing (at 4.82% over 25 years)
Total Costs/Surplus Total cost position after 25 years
NPV Net Present Value (present values of the annual cash flows minus the initial investment)
Projected Current Spend
Current spend on the three centres revenue inflated by RPI over 25 years, providing a sensible baseline of costs.
9.4 Bridge Park Community Sports Centre
The Bridge Park site faces many complex issues but, out of the three study sites, has
potential for enabling development that could help raise significant capital to fund
any future proposals at the site. As identified within Sections 4 and 5, a publicly
accessible facility in Stonebridge is highly important. The area faces considerable
social issues, crime, unemployment and poor health and there is an identified
shortfall of sports facility provision in this part of Brent.
STRATEGIC REVIEW OF SPORTS CENTRES IN BRENT FULL REVIEW VERSION 2.0 JANUARY 2008
www.continuumleisure.co.uk - 133 -
Participation in this area of the borough is low, and clearly, despite recent
investments into the Bridge Park Community Leisure Centre itself, the design and
layout of the sports facilities are not conducive to generating and increasing
participation in area of identified need in order to reflect and combat broad-ranging
socio-economic issues.
The options proposed identify the financial implications of re-providing a fit for
purpose leisure centre as part of the redevelopment of a mixed use site. This review
has focused upon the demand and options for the sports facility element alone with
some potential re-provision of limited community facilities The future of the larger
community facilities and business units would require further investigation (in
conjunction with discussions with the GLC to confirm the details of the covenants as
discussed within Section Eight).
Inclusion of the adjacent Unisys site within any project taken forward would seem
the most attractive outcome in terms of regeneration within Brent, however, the
undetermined variables (purchase of the land, the flood risk in particular), and our
consultation with Brent Planning Department, have prevented a full financial
appraisal of this option. The options for Bridge Park are discussed below.
9.4.1 Option 1: Do Minimum
This option involves undertaking the minimum amount of works to meet current
health and safety and DDA requirements where necessary and also deal with any
immediate and urgent backlog maintenance issues which have been identified. This
option does not involve any significant improvements in the layout or functionality of
the facilities and therefore does not represent an opportunity to increase
participation and tackle local social issues.
The estimated capital costs at current 2007 prices of this option are approximately
£1.68m. A full condition survey will need to be carried out, to confirm any further
DDA works, health and safety and remedial works that need to be undertaken. This
option assumes at least part closure of the centre for 12 months.
STRATEGIC REVIEW OF SPORTS CENTRES IN BRENT FULL REVIEW VERSION 2.0 JANUARY 2008
www.continuumleisure.co.uk - 134 -
Table 9.2 Bridge Park Option 1 - Outline Costs
Bridge Park Option 1 Do Minimum Capital 1,680,000 Enabling Development 0 Council Contribution 1,680,000 Income 19,703,399 Expenditure 33,436,444 Lifecycle 6,931,804 Finance Costs 2,920,550 Total Costs/Surplus 23,585,399 NPV 15,250,827
This option results in total costs of £23.5 million over 25 years. Whilst the facility is
undoubtedly popular with the local community, this option makes no impact on the
quality of facility provision or layout and although sports visits have increased
recently, the Project Team is of the view that the generation of additional usage and
income over the long term is unlikely.
Bridge Park Option 1 For Against + minimal disruption to existing operation
and no impact on community facility mix
+ facility well liked locally + current level of subsidy consistent
- income generation poor for a dry-side centre
- no impact on issues with facility design and layout and limited opportunity to increase participation in an area of need
- doesn’t represent value for money in the long term
- maintenance costs likely to increase as facility ages
- doesn’t address Unisys site issue
9.4.2 Option 2: Refurbish Existing Facility Mix
This option involves undertaking the necessary amount of works to meet current
health and safety and DDA requirements where necessary and deal with the most
significant immediate and urgent backlog maintenance issues, and is inclusive of
improvements in the layout and functionality of the facilities to improve the income
generation potential. The estimated capital costs at current 2007 prices are
approximately £3.8m. A full conditions survey would need to be carried out and a
detailed design brief and refurbishment schedule would need to be drawn up to
confirm any further DDA works, health and safety and remedial works that need to
STRATEGIC REVIEW OF SPORTS CENTRES IN BRENT FULL REVIEW VERSION 2.0 JANUARY 2008
www.continuumleisure.co.uk - 135 -
be undertaken and to gain a much greater degree of certainty regarding
refurbishment costs. This option assumes at least part closure of the centre for 12
months.
Table 9.3: Bridge Park Option 2 - Outline Costs
Bridge Park Option 2 Refurbishment Capital 3,849,750 Enabling Development 0 Council Contribution 3,849,750 Income 24,260,519 Expenditure 33,747,503 Lifecycle 5,545,443 Finance Costs 6,692,492 Total Costs/Surplus 21,724,919 NPV 14,212,603
The total costs over 25 years are estimated at £21.7 million; however the scale of
refurbishment has the potential to impact significantly on both the capital costs and
the income generated through improvements. As stated, further investigative works
are required.
Bridge Park Option 2 For Against + potential for some improvements to
the centre design and function (which may increase usage)
+ facility well liked locally + current level of subsidy consistent + no (or minimal) impact on existing
community facility mix
- income generation poor for a dry-side centre
- impact on facility design and layout through refurbishment may not be sufficient increase participation (and income generation)
- doesn’t represent value for money in the long term
- maintenance costs likely to increase as facility ages
- doesn’t address Unisys site issue - requires facility closure
9.4.3 Option 3: New build – Bridge Park site
This option involves the provision of a new 3,000sqm dry leisure centre elsewhere
within the overall Bridge Park site. This would allow the existing centre to be retained
and then demolished once the new centre becomes operational. This will allow
continuity of provision and minimise inconvenience to users.
STRATEGIC REVIEW OF SPORTS CENTRES IN BRENT FULL REVIEW VERSION 2.0 JANUARY 2008
www.continuumleisure.co.uk - 136 -
The centre will consist of sports hall, large gym, aerobics studios, community café,
changing and meeting rooms/flexible spaces for community use. It is not proposed
that the new build re-provides any of the business enterprise spaces or the larger
events and functions facilities. It also assumes that the terms and conditions of the
GLC covenant would be overcome through the provision of leisure (but not the
community facilities which would require further clarification as to whether this
meets the covenant fully).
The estimated costs of this option are £7.6 million. The reduction in the footprint of
the Bridge Park Leisure Centre (reducing down to leisure provision alone) would free
up a portion of the site for enabling development as discussed with Brent Planning
Department. The estimated valuation for this is £9,900,000 assuming 1 hectare of
the existing site was made available for development (mid range of LB Brent
Planning Department recent outline estimations) and constitutes the funding source
for the new build centre. However part of the development of residential units on
the site would require the re-location of the Breakers Yard currently adjacent to the
Bridge Park site. Brent Planning Department estimate that this would result in a cost
of £2million.
Table 9.4 Bridge Park Option 3 - Outline Costs
Bridge Park Option 3 New Build Capital 7,699,500 Enabling Development 9,900,000 Council Contribution 2,200,500 Income 28,716,842 Expenditure 29,543,745 Lifecycle 4,159,082 Finance Costs 3,777,291 Total Costs/Surplus 1,208,694 NPV 1,370,511
Option 3 represents a deficit of £1.2 million over 25 years, taking into account
lifecycle costs over the same period. The capital costs are inclusive of the costs
associated with relocation of the breakers yard.
Bridge Park Option 3
STRATEGIC REVIEW OF SPORTS CENTRES IN BRENT FULL REVIEW VERSION 2.0 JANUARY 2008
www.continuumleisure.co.uk - 137 -
Bridge Park Option 3 For Against + potential to develop modern centre
with fit for purpose facility mix and design which could increase usage and participation (and income) in an area of need
+ project could be funded in part or all through enabling development
+ construction of new facility whilst existing centre in operation would reduce disruption
+ greater potential to meet the terms and conditions of the GLC covenants
+ represents better value for money
- doesn’t address Unisys site issue - impact and future of community
facilities requires determining ( and re-provision may be a requirement of GLC covenant)
- size of the sports centre may be restricted by they scale of the residential development
9.4.4 Option 4: Re- development of total site (including Unisys site)
including new build leisure centre
This option would see the acquisition of the neighbouring Unisys site and the total
area developed as a mixed use including a substantial number of residential units.
The proposals would include the re-provision of a dry side leisure centre as identified
within Option 3. However a financial appraisal is not possible given the variables
identified at the outset of the Bridge Park options.
Incorporating the Unisys site into the development would be considered a major
positive of this option alongside the positive outcomes associated with the
development of a purpose built leisure centre established within Option 3 above. LB
Brent has established that the Unisys building remains a negative image for the
borough and a solution whereby the site is redeveloped would be of great benefit.
However, as noted already, the complexity of the site issues and the future of the
Unisys building would result in potentially lengthy timescales and considerable
additional costs (site acquisition, legal costs) for the completion of this option.
Bridge Park Option 4 For Against + incorporates Unisys site into the
scheme + potential to develop modern centre
with fit for purpose facility mix and design which could increase usage
- impact and future of community facilities requires determining (and re-provision may be a requirement of GLC covenant)
- complex and difficult issue of future of
STRATEGIC REVIEW OF SPORTS CENTRES IN BRENT FULL REVIEW VERSION 2.0 JANUARY 2008
www.continuumleisure.co.uk - 138 -
Bridge Park Option 4 and participation (and income) in an area of need
+ larger site footprint may be available for sports centre
+ project could be funded in part or all through enabling development
+ construction of new facility whilst existing centre still in operation would reduce disruption
+ greater potential to meet the terms and conditions of the GLC covenants
Unisys site - costs and timescales associates with
CPO (if required) - impact an identified flood risk may
cause further difficulties
9.4.5 Option 5: Facility closure and sale of all or part of the total site for
capital receipt
A final option is the closure of the Bridge Park cite and the sale of the land for
redevelopment. Due to the identified need for sports facility provision in this area,
the closure of Bridge Park would demand re-provision which would require the
identification of a suitable site as well as funding for the development. There is also
the possibility that this option would require payment to the GLC if the terms of the
covenant do not accept re-provision of site. Combined, these factors would make
the financial viability of the option highly questionable. The inclusion of the Unisys
site within this option would be subject to the key issues identified within Option 4.
Bridge Park Option 5 For Against + non- traditional leisure centre with
facility provision inhibited by current design and layout
- financial implications and difficulties associated with re-provision of leisure centre locally
- impact and future of community facilities requires determining (and re-provision may be a requirement of GLC covenant)
- no leisure / community provision on-site would be an unpopular decision publicly
- complex and difficult issue of future of Unisys site
- costs and timescales associates with CPO (if required)
- impact an identified flood risk may cause further difficulties
STRATEGIC REVIEW OF SPORTS CENTRES IN BRENT FULL REVIEW VERSION 2.0 JANUARY 2008
www.continuumleisure.co.uk - 139 -
9.4.6 Bridge Park Summary of Options
Table 9.5 sets out the outline costs for the options presented. The figures indicate
that the do minimum and refurbishment options for Bridge Park do not represent
value for money compared against the new build options.
This is primarily because the new build would greatly increase the levels of income
generation through the provision of more attractive and more efficient facilities.
Coupled with some enabling development this allows revenue savings to be recycled
into supporting the costs of investment.
As confirmed by the pros and cons of each option, Option 3 is the leading option. It
represents the greatest opportunity to redevelop in demand leisure facilities to meet
the needs of the local demographic. Option 3 does not however, provide a solution
for the Unisys site, which, as detailed in Option 4 brings with it significant potential
costs.
Table 9.5 Bridge Park Options 1 to 5 - Outline Costs
Option 1 Do Minimum
Option 2 Refurbishment
Option 3 New Build
Option 4 Re-development of total site
Option 5 Facility Closure and sale of site
Capital 1,680,000 3,849,750 7,699,500 Enabling Development 0 0 9,900,000 Council Contribution 1,680,000 3,849,750 2,200,500 Income 19,703,399 24,260,519 28,716,842 Expenditure 33,436,444 33,747,503 29,543,745 Lifecycle 6,931,804 5,545,443 4,159,082 Finance Costs 2,920,550 6,692,492 3,777,291 Total Costs/Surplus 23,585,399 21,724,919 1,208,694 NPV 15,250,827 14,212,603 1,370,511
Costs undeterminable
at this stage
Costs undeterminable
at this stage
9.5 Charteris Sports Centre
Demand for public access sports hall and pay and play access health and fitness
provision in the Kilburn ward is significant as identified within Section Five of this
Review. The health and fitness facility at Willesden Sports Centre (just over 1 mile
STRATEGIC REVIEW OF SPORTS CENTRES IN BRENT FULL REVIEW VERSION 2.0 JANUARY 2008
www.continuumleisure.co.uk - 140 -
from the Charteris site) is operating at maximum capacity (notably for health and
fitness), providing further evidence of the demand for publicly accessible facility
provision of this type in the South East of the borough. The current design of
Charteris Sports Centre is (by modern standards) not conducive to high usage,
income generation or cost efficiencies. The sports hall in particular is limited in the
activities that it can accommodate. The residential location does however generate
popularity with local Brent residents and the health and fitness facility is well used
and serves an important purpose as an affordable local facility.
As identified within Section 4, the south of Kilburn in particular faces high levels
crime and unemployment and participation opportunities represent an important
means of improving the local area. This recognised need for improved quality and
continued provision of sports facilities is recognised within the South Kilburn NDC
Masterplan and the potential development of this (or other local developments such
as community sports facilities in conjunction with the re-developed St Augustine
school) facility may impact significantly on the most preferable option for
development at the Charteris site.
9.5.1 Option 1: Do minimum
This option involves undertaking the minimum amount of works to meet current
health and safety and any outstanding DDA requirements and also deal with any
immediate and urgent backlog maintenance issues. This option does not involve any
significant improvements in the layout or functionality of the facilities. Without
improvements to the quality and capacity of the centre, increased usage seems
unlikely.
The estimated capital costs at current 2007 prices of this option are £0.33m. A full
conditions survey would need to be carried out, to confirm the need for further DDA,
health and safety and remedial works that need to be undertaken. This option
assumes at least part closure of the centre for 12 months.
Table 9.6 Charteris Option 1 - Outline Costs
Charteris Option 1 Do Minimum
STRATEGIC REVIEW OF SPORTS CENTRES IN BRENT FULL REVIEW VERSION 2.0 JANUARY 2008
www.continuumleisure.co.uk - 141 -
Charteris Option 1 Do Minimum Capital 335,760 Enabling Development 0 Council Contribution 335,760 Income 3,976,560 Expenditure 4,141,331 Lifecycle 1,209,129 Finance Costs 560,345 Total Costs/surplus 1,934,245 NPV 1,270,765
Estimated total costs of £1.9 million over 25 years are considerably higher than
redevelopment and new build costs, as will be demonstrated shortly. Pros and cons
of this option follow.
Charteris Option 1 For Against + facility analysis identifies demand for
existing facility mix (and shortfalls of publicly accessible provision for these facility types)
+ minimal disruption to existing service + high levels of user satisfaction with
existing provision + current running costs low (but likely to
increase as facility ages)
- ancillary facilities not fit for purpose and design and layout poor
- sports hall design issues inhibit use and lack of dance studio space causes conflicts of interest across user groups
- does not represent long term value for money
- facility aging and concerns raised over structural condition
9.5.2 Option 2: Facility Refurbishment
This option involves undertaking the minimum amount of works to meet current
health and safety and DDA requirements where necessary and also deal with any
immediate and urgent backlog maintenance issues. This option also involves some
improvements in the layout and functionality of the facilities and the conversion of
the sports hall to health and fitness to allow for a larger gym capacity alongside
dedicated aerobics and dance studio space. The estimated capital costs at current
2007 prices of this option are £0.67m. A full conditions survey would need to be
carried out, to confirm the minimum amount of DDA, health and safety and remedial
works that need to be undertaken. This option assumes at least part closure of the
centre for 12 months.
STRATEGIC REVIEW OF SPORTS CENTRES IN BRENT FULL REVIEW VERSION 2.0 JANUARY 2008
www.continuumleisure.co.uk - 142 -
Table 9.7: Charteris Option 2 - Outline Costs
Charteris Option 2 Re-development
Capital 671,520 Enabling Development 0 Council Contribution 671,520 Income 8,852,231 Expenditure 6,752,494 Lifecycle 967,303 Finance Costs 1,120,690 Total Costs/surplus 11,744 NPV 109,657
This option generates a small surplus of £11.7k over 25 years predominantly through
the potential to generate increased income through higher quality facilities and a
larger capacity health and fitness studio.
This option assumes that the sports hall will be re-provided in a nearby school (initial
discussions had been held with St Augustine) and opened up to the community
outside of school hours at no costs to the Council, or as part of the planned South
Kilburn NDC leisure centre.
Charteris Option 2 For Against + potential to increase health and
fitness capacity, usage and income generation whilst combating local shortfall of pay and play access facilities
+ anecdotal evidence suggests some users prefer the smaller / local feel of the facility in contrast to a large purpose built leisure centre (e.g. WSC)
+ current design of sports hall limits usage + represents better value for money long
term than ‘do minimum’
- re-development of sports hall dependant on planned developments locally
- capital investment required - scope for refurbishment may be
constrained by existing building - disruption to operation during
refurbishment - site access and lack of car parking
9.5.3 Option 3: New build
This option involves the provision of a new slightly larger 880sqm (assuming some
potential to build upwards) dry leisure centre on the site of the current facility. This
option assumes closure and demolition of the existing centre and a loss of provision
for 18 months. The new centre will consist of a large gym, dance / aerobics studios,
STRATEGIC REVIEW OF SPORTS CENTRES IN BRENT FULL REVIEW VERSION 2.0 JANUARY 2008
www.continuumleisure.co.uk - 143 -
health facilities, changing and a small flexible space for community use. The
estimated costs of this option at current prices are £1.34m.
Table 9.8: Charteris Option 3 - Outline Costs
Charteris Option 3 New Build Capital 1,343,040 Enabling Development 0 Council Contribution 1,343,040 Income 14,007,181 Expenditure 10,254,084 Lifecycle 725,477 Finance Costs 2,296,835 Total costs/surplus 730,784 NPV 275,632
This option projects a notably higher surplus of £730k over 25 years. As with Option
2, this option does not re-provide the sports hall and assumes re-provision would
take place through alternative projects (possibly St Augustine’s / South Kilburn NDC)
and at no cost expense to the Council. A variation on this option would be a new
build inclusive of sports hall space, however, the site constraints and the need to
increase the dimensions of the ancillary facilities and circulation may limit the
dimensions of the hall to 2 badminton courts. This would have a minor impact on the
income generation and capital costs.
Charteris Option 3 For Against + potential to increase health and
fitness capacity, usage and income generation whilst combating local shortfall of pay and play access facilities
+ ensures improvements to design, layout, functionality and operational efficiency of the centre
+ anecdotal evidence suggests some users prefer the smaller / local feel of the facility in contrast to a large purpose built leisure centre
+ current design of sports hall limits usage + represents best value for money long
term
- re-development of sports hall dependant on planned developments locally
- capital investment required - proximity of local residential and
limitations of site may prohibit developments
- site access and lack of car parking - facility closure during construction
9.5.4 Option 4: Facility Closure and Sale of Site for Residential Development
STRATEGIC REVIEW OF SPORTS CENTRES IN BRENT FULL REVIEW VERSION 2.0 JANUARY 2008
www.continuumleisure.co.uk - 144 -
The most recent estimations (2005) for the capital receipt for the site stands at
£900k based on the potential to construct 14 residential units (LB Brent Planning
Department estimations).
Both of the previous options, which remove any dedicated sports hall space, are
dependent upon re-provision within the local area. This is either through the school
provision highlighted (which requires further investigation by Brent) or indeed the
South Kilburn NDC project, which requires clarification over the timescales and final
project mix.
Charteris Option 4 For Against + existing facility mix, design and layout
limits function usage and income generation
+ potential to realise capital receipt for investment into better quality, fit for purpose leisure facility provision
+ concerns over structural condition of the facility and economic life
- facilities whilst not fit for purpose, do serve a purpose and user satisfaction is high
- facility closure and re-investment into another project (e.g. local school) may not be perceived well publicly
9.5.5 Charteris Summary of Options
As with Bridge Park, the figures demonstrate that new build and redevelopment
represents considerably greater value for money than maintaining the facility in its
current condition. Specifically for Charteris the new build cost also provides a better
option for long term financial viability.
Table 9.9 Charteris Options 1 to 4 - Outline Costs
Option 1 Do Minimum
Option 2 Re-development
Option 3 New Build
Option 4 Facility Closure and sale of site
Capital 335,760 671,520 1,343,040 Enabling Development 0 0 0 Council Contribution 335,760 671,520 1,343,040 Income 3,976,560 8,852,231 14,007,181 Expenditure 4,141,331 6,752,494 10,254,084 Lifecycle 1,209,129 967,303 725,477 Finance Costs 560,345 1,120,690 2,296,835 Total Costs/Surplus 1,934,245 11,744 730,784
Potential capital receipt
of £900k combined with lifecycle costs
saving
STRATEGIC REVIEW OF SPORTS CENTRES IN BRENT FULL REVIEW VERSION 2.0 JANUARY 2008
www.continuumleisure.co.uk - 145 -
Option 1 Do Minimum
Option 2 Re-development
Option 3 New Build
Option 4 Facility Closure and sale of site
NPV 1,270,765 109,657 275,632
Charteris Sports Centre is well liked by its current users due to its residential location
and community feel. Improvements to the centre through new build or
redevelopment can enhance efficiency, increase value and local participation further.
Equally though, the reinvestment of the capital receipt from the Charteris site into
sports facility provision in other parts of the borough would be beneficial. However,
as identified within Sections Five (facility overview) and Seven (planning), the
development of other planned projects in this locality (notably the South Kilburn
NDC) would influence how any receipt could be reinvested. If the school site or the
NDC plans local to Charteris cannot cover the demand for indoor sports and health
and fitness requirements then closure and sale of the Charteris site would result in a
gap in local provision for this area of Brent.
9.6 Vale Farm Sports Centre
Of the three centres under review, the Vale Farm site has perhaps the most potential
for a multi sport hub-site; however the lack of flexibility on land use results in the
capital costs identified within these options as potentially being solely funded by
Brent Council. As one of only two public access swimming pools in Brent (and given
the identified shortfall in water space) the timings of any options considered are
critical to ensure that the current level of pool space is maintained as a minimum.
The expanse of the site and the status and opportunities for the development of Vale
Farm Sports Ground as part of any future project has not been considered and costs
are not provided within the options presented in this review. The options concentrate
solely on the sports centre itself.
As identified within Section Five, demand for other types of facility provision such as
indoor tennis courts do exist across the borough. The suitability of this location for
the development of a ‘sports village’ concept should be further investigated in
context with other priority areas of need across Brent, particularly if the objectives of
STRATEGIC REVIEW OF SPORTS CENTRES IN BRENT FULL REVIEW VERSION 2.0 JANUARY 2008
www.continuumleisure.co.uk - 146 -
any re-development are to tackle wider social issues. As a destination providing
multi-sport opportunities (ideally in co-ordination with the community sport club
structure of Vale Farm Sports Ground) the Vale Farm Sports Centre has much to
offer.
9.6.1 Option 1: Do minimum
This option involves undertaking the minimum amount of works to meet current
health and safety and DDA requirements where necessary and also deal with any
immediate and urgent backlog maintenance issues. This option does not involve any
significant improvements in the layout or functionality of the indoor facilities or any
investment in the adjoining external facilities. The estimated capital costs at current
2007 prices of this option are £2.58m based upon financial information provided by
Brent. A full conditions survey will need to be carried out, to confirm the minimum
amount of DDA, health and safety and remedial works that need to be undertaken.
This option assumes at least part closure of the centre for 12 months.
Table 9.10: Vale Farm Option 1 - Outline Costs
Vale Farm Option 1 Do Minimum Capital 2,584,951 Enabling Development 0 Council Contribution 2,584,951 Income 34,514,338 Expenditure 46,952,305 Lifecycle 11,636,062 Finance Costs 4,134,238 Total costs/surplus 28,208,267 NPV 18,300,158
This option results in estimated total costs of £28.2 million over 25 years. The site
assessments of this review (Appendix 1) acknowledged the progressive
refurbishment being undertaken at Vale Farm by Leisure Connections. The facility is
however dated and initial indications suggest that the facility may be nearing the end
of its economic life; maintenance costs may increase markedly. The condition survey
is therefore entirely critical to this (and other options) for Vale Farm and will
undoubtedly have an impact on the renewal of any management contract in 2011.
STRATEGIC REVIEW OF SPORTS CENTRES IN BRENT FULL REVIEW VERSION 2.0 JANUARY 2008
www.continuumleisure.co.uk - 147 -
Vale Farm Option 1 For Against + recognised need for existing facility mix
in current location and one of only two public access pools within Brent)
+ school use of facilities substantial + recent investment and progressive
refurbishment improving quality of some aspects of the facility (health and fitness facility in particular)
+ capital investment significant but lowest of all options
- high repair and maintenance costs that are likely to increase
- facility inefficient in current state - some facilities and ancillary facilities
not in demand and not fit for purpose (e.g. squash courts and team changing area)
- usage levels falling (as is customer satisfaction) and potential to increase participation may be limited
- facility reaching the end of economic life
- STP location and condition requires redress
- Future of athletics track and infield undetermined
- some disruption to existing operation and any required maintenance to pool would cause difficulties
9.6.2 Option 2: Refurbish Existing Facility Mix
This option involves undertaking the necessary amount of works to meet current
health and safety and DDA requirements where necessary and also deal with any
major and urgent backlog maintenance issues. This option involves some
improvements in the layout and functionality of the indoor facilities and some
investment into the external facilities to increase the income generation potential.
The estimated capital costs at current 2007 prices of this option are £6.4m.
Refurbishment costs are notably difficult to estimate without full survey data
provided or undertaken. This figure is therefore based upon the lower end estimate
provided for new-build costs from cost consultants Davis Langdon. A full conditions
survey will need to be carried out, to confirm the minimum amount of DDA, health
and safety and remedial works that need to be undertaken. This option assumes at
least part closure of the centre for 12 months, the closure of the swimming pool
would be a requirement for this option and sole reliance on one community pool
(Willesden Sports Centre) would not be an attractive prospect for Brent.
STRATEGIC REVIEW OF SPORTS CENTRES IN BRENT FULL REVIEW VERSION 2.0 JANUARY 2008
www.continuumleisure.co.uk - 148 -
Table 9.11: Vale Farm Option 2 - Outline Costs
Vale Farm Option 2 Refurbishment Capital 6,462,377 Enabling Development 0 Council Contribution 6,462,377 Income 37,511,870 Expenditure 46,749,019 Lifecycle 9,308,850 Finance Costs 10,335,595 Total costs/surplus 28,881,595 NPV 18,815,930
Over 25 years the total costs are slightly higher than Option 1. It is estimated that
the capital costs associated with the refurbishment would be absorbed through an
increase in income as well as an improvement in operation efficiencies. Investment
into the outdoor facility provision (refurbishing STP and developing use for grass
pitches) provides an attractive element to this option.
The scale of refurbishment is difficult to ascertain without the survey information and
full survey information. Therefore capital costs identified in this option would be
subject to further review and detailed investigations.
Vale Farm Option 2 For Against + recognised need for existing facility mix
in current location and one of only two public access pools within Brent)
+ school use of facilities substantial + some increase in usage and income
generation through improved facility provision and centre layout
+ incorporates improvements to the outdoor facilities
+ capital costs significant but lower than new build
- impact on facility efficiency and income generation significantly lower than new for new build
- facility reaching the end of economic life so value for money questionable
- disruption to existing operation and would require closure of pool
9.6.3 Option 3: New Build
This option involves the provision of a new 6,000sqm wet and dry leisure centre next
to the existing centre on the current disused athletics cinder track. The current
sports centres would then be demolished once the new centre becomes operational
and that space returned to outdoor sports space use. This will allow continuity of
STRATEGIC REVIEW OF SPORTS CENTRES IN BRENT FULL REVIEW VERSION 2.0 JANUARY 2008
www.continuumleisure.co.uk - 149 -
provision and minimise inconvenience to users. This option assumes that there is
space to safely construct a new centre whilst keeping the current facility open. The
centre will consist of 25m competition pool, learner/training pool, sports hall, large
gym, aerobics studios, community café, internal and external changing and flexible
spaces for community use. The estimated costs of this option at current prices are
£12.9m.
Table 9.12: Vale Farm Option 3 - Outline Costs
Vale Farm Option 3 New Build Capital 12,924,754 Enabling Development 0 Council Contribution 12,924,754 Income 46,325,300 Expenditure 44,086,142 Lifecycle 6,981,637 Finance Costs 22,166,823 Total costs/surplus 26,909,302 NPV 18,028,110
Over 25 years, the total costs associated with new build are £26.9 million; below the
costs estimated for Options 1 and 2 as a result of increased income generation and
reductions in running costs.
The immediate capital costs associated with the new build are significant and
enabling development at this site is not possible, however alternative sources of
funding may be sought. As identified within the site assessment (Appendix 1)
access and public transport to this facility is not as good as elsewhere; the location
generally is a lesser priority for investment than other areas of the borough.
As identified above, the costs associated with this option are not inclusive of any
capital investment into the Vale Farm Sports Ground and the cost implications of this
should be explored further.
Vale Farm Option 3 For Against + potential to develop modern centre
with fit for purpose facility mix and design which could increase usage and participation (and income)
+ opportunity to explore the
- capital costs significant and no enabling development possible
- not regarded as an ideal location for the development of a major sports facility due to issues around access
STRATEGIC REVIEW OF SPORTS CENTRES IN BRENT FULL REVIEW VERSION 2.0 JANUARY 2008
www.continuumleisure.co.uk - 150 -
development of Vale Farm Sports Ground, moving towards a multi-sport hub site
+ could allow the development of a new facility whilst the existing centre remains open, minimising disruption, particularly to swimming
+ represents best value for money long term
+ regarded as preferred option by LB Brent Planning department
and public transport and in relation to other priority areas of the borough
9.6.4 Option 4: Facility Closure
As identified above, a detailed condition survey and further investigations of the
facility may determine the need for improvements and maintenance that are not
economically viable. This will influence further the consideration by Brent as to the
most cost effective way forward.
The planning constraints on the Vale Farm site result in a limitation of the future use
of the overall site. In this situation, without enabling development the site has little
residual value and whilst facility closure of Vale Farm would result in savings to Brent
for the on-going management and maintenance of the facility, the loss to community
sport (in a borough with notably low participation levels) is considered by the Project
Team a far greater issue. Reducing Brent’s community swimming pool stock to one
from levels that are already critically low should be avoided.
Vale Farm Option 4 For Against + savings in on-going management and
maintenance (which may be significant if the condition survey determines that the facility is not structurally sound
- site protected by planning policy and improvement of facilities recognised as a priority
- currently one of only two public access swimming pools in Brent
- closure would not be a popular decision locally
- future use for the site would require determining, no enabling development possible
STRATEGIC REVIEW OF SPORTS CENTRES IN BRENT FULL REVIEW VERSION 2.0 JANUARY 2008
www.continuumleisure.co.uk - 151 -
9.6.5 Vale Farm Summary of Options
Over 25 years the cost efficiencies and potential for increased income generation
through new build represent a total cost that is below the do minimum and
refurbishment options. The additional benefits are clear of a fit for purpose leisure
centre in relation to increasing participation levels and associated social benefits.
Facility refurbishment would require a period of facility closure which could be
avoided through new build (on the assumption that the development of the new
facility adjacent to existing is feasible).
Table 9.13: Vale Farm Options 1 to 4 - Outline Costs
Option1 Do Minimum
Option 2 Re-development
Option 3 New Build
Option 4 Facility Closure
Capital 2,584,951 6,462,377 12,924,754 Enabling Development 0 0 0 Council Contribution 2,584,951 6,462,377 12,924,754 Income 34,514,338 37,511,870 46,325,300 Expenditure 46,952,305 46,749,019 44,086,142 Lifecycle 11,636,062 9,308,850 6,981,637 Finance Costs 4,134,238 10,335,595 22,166,823 Total Costs/Surplus 28,208,267 28,881,595 26,909,302 NPV 18,300,158 18,815,930 18,028,110
NA
9.7 Combined Summary of Options
Table 9.14 below sets out a summary of the total project costs and a combination of
the figures across the three centres for the various options presented. These are set
against the current projected current spend on the three centres revenue inflated by
RPI over 25 years which provides an useful indicator of baseline costs.
The figures indicate that the do minimum and refurbishment options do not
represent value for money compared against the build options. Combined, new build
options fall below projected current spend. As discussed, this is primarily because
the new build solutions will all greatly increase the levels of income generation at
each of the centres through the provision of more attractive and more efficient
facilities. Coupled with some enabling development, in the case of Bridge Park, this
allows revenue savings to be recycled into supporting the costs of investment.
STRATEGIC REVIEW OF SPORTS CENTRES IN BRENT FULL REVIEW VERSION 2.0 JANUARY 2008
www.continuumleisure.co.uk - 152 -
Table 9.14: Options for Brent Leisure Centres - Combined Outline Costs
Facility / option Total over 25 years
NPV
Bridge Park
Do minimum £23.56m £15.25m
Refurbishment £21.72m £14.21m
New Build £1.21m £1.37m
New build and total site redevelopment NA NA
Facility closure and site redevelopment NA NA
Charteris
Do minimum £1.93m £1.27m
Refurbishment (£12k) £110k
New Build (£731k) (£276k)
Facility closure and site redevelopment (residential)
NA NA
Vale Farm
Do minimum £28.21m £18.30m
Refurbishment £28.88m £18.82m
New Build £26.91m £18.03m
Facility closure NA NA
All Centres Combined
Do Minimum £53.73m £34.82m
Refurbishment £50.59m £33.34m
New Build £28.04m £19.42m
Facility closures NA NA
STRATEGIC REVIEW OF SPORTS CENTRES IN BRENT FULL REVIEW VERSION 2.0 JANUARY 2008
www.continuumleisure.co.uk - 153 -
Facility / option Total over 25 years
NPV
Projected current spend £28.08m £17.63
The following section of this document provides a conclusion to the review alongside
recommendations and next steps for the LB Brent to consider.
STRATEGIC REVIEW OF SPORTS CENTRES IN BRENT FULL REVIEW VERSION 2.0 JANUARY 2008
www.continuumleisure.co.uk - 154 -
10. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
To assist LB Brent in establishing the current status of the centres and to determine
the future requirements, this review has provided borough wide facility analysis, site
specific issues (design and condition, planning and financial), strategic context and
the key issues established through consultation with key stakeholders. The research
has culminated in a number of options for each centre with broad capital costs and
revenue implications identified.
The final section of this review considers the best fit solution for Brent by evaluating
the options under the headings of: Cost Effectiveness, Deliverability and Borough-
wide impact. The review concludes with a priority order to progress the potential
options under consideration.
10.1 Cost Effectiveness
The costs appraisals provide evidence that the do minimum and refurbishment
options for all three centres do not represent value for money compared against the
new build options. The potential for enabling development at the Bridge Park site
makes this a stand out opportunity; however the complexities of the site and the
ownership of the adjacent Unisys site require resolving prior to progression. New
build at Vale Farm would also prove most attractive but there is a lack of enabling
development and a potential conflict for funding over the development of additional
leisure facility elsewhere in the borough (notably the swimming needs within Brent).
Do minimum options at any of the three centres do not represent an opportunity to
improve many of the design, layout and other key issues that are evident at the
three centres and those issues which Brent were keen to overcome at the outset of
this study. The impact over the forthcoming years in relation to participation is
unlikely to do more than match current trends; it is in fact likely to decrease through
further deterioration in facility quality. Dependant on scale, refurbishment has the
potential to increase participation and improve income at all three centres but the
indicative figures do not represent value for money as compared to new build
options. The Consultant Team have utilised high end estimates in the approach to
the provision of outline capital costs for new build options. There is however
recognition of the potential for LB Brent to work with contractors to reduce capital
STRATEGIC REVIEW OF SPORTS CENTRES IN BRENT FULL REVIEW VERSION 2.0 JANUARY 2008
www.continuumleisure.co.uk - 155 -
cost through economies of scale and application of design and build process.
Equally, lower specification build options could represent a means of reducing the
initial capital outlay but this may result in a less sustainable facility with a shorter
lifespan. Long term value for money should be fully investigated for any preferred
development options before progressing in this manner.
The impact of facility closure varies from site to site. Enabling development at Bridge
Park and Charteris represents a potential return for the Council, however in both
cases the need to re-provide (certainly at Bridge Park and possibly with Charteris)
would have a significant impact on the cost effectiveness. Facility closure at Vale
Farm is not seen as preferable given the potential the site has and its importance to
community sport in Brent.
10.2 Deliverability
Deliverability refers predominantly to new build options at each of the three sites.
Understandably, given the variation in potential projects, their issues and
characteristics range considerably.
Across all three centres new build (or major refurbishment) of Charteris is the most
deliverable option available to Brent council. The scale of the project suggests a
shorter timeframe than major developments at Bridge Park or Vale Farm and
following initial review, the site issues are not complex. The critical factor in this case
is the need to determine the level of additional sports hall space to be provided
locally through the development of a project as part of the South Kilburn NDC or at a
school site (possibly St Augustine, through the Building Schools for the Future
programme).
As discussed, the development of the Bridge Park site hinges on the complexities of
the site, not least, the future of the business units and community facilities, the
exact conditions of the GLC covenant and a potential site for re-location of the
neighbouring breakers yard. Delivery of the Bridge Park project without coming to a
conclusion over the Unisys site is a major decision for Brent Council to make before
further progression. The costs of the Unisys site (both in terms of capital outlay and
potential legal costs) do appear prohibitive. However the investment into new
facilities (and possible residential units to fund new development) could be offset by
STRATEGIC REVIEW OF SPORTS CENTRES IN BRENT FULL REVIEW VERSION 2.0 JANUARY 2008
www.continuumleisure.co.uk - 156 -
the poor state of the Unisys buildings and any negative impact it may still have
adjacent to the site.
The key factors relevant to the Vale Farm project revolve around possible sources of
funding. The site does not hold any residual value which could be tapped into to fund
any developments on site. The potential for this wet, dry and outdoor sports complex
(with club partners adjacent to the site) is notable, however this comes at a
significant capital costs, the majority of which would need to be borne from Brent’s
own funds.
10.3 Borough-wide Impact Through capacity ratio analysis and the findings of the FPM, this review has provided
clear evidence of the demand for the existing all three centres in situ; the case for
Bridge Park being notably strong.
Water space at Vale Farm is clearly the most essential element of the facility mix and
if possible, this should be protected at least until additional water space is developed.
In terms of health and fitness, the shortfall of public access provision dictates that
any future development at either one of the three sites should seek to increase
capacity of this element.
Other areas of the borough are heavily deficient in sports facility provision. The
development of another swimming pool (alongside sports hall and health and fitness
facility provision) within the north central area of the borough is regarded to be the
highest priority for the Council. Other opportunities to add to and improve the
boroughs facility stock, such as through BSF, should be fully explored, particularly
local to Charteris Sports Centre.
10.3.1 Third Pool Site
Whilst the review was not commissioned to consider any new facilities across the
borough, it is clear that Brent has a notable shortfall in swimming provision.
STRATEGIC REVIEW OF SPORTS CENTRES IN BRENT FULL REVIEW VERSION 2.0 JANUARY 2008
www.continuumleisure.co.uk - 157 -
The areas of need and the borough-wide analysis, as well as indication from the
consultation process, has identified that the central and north central areas of the
Brent would prove the most effective location for any new facility.
Significant further work is required around planning, site assessments, and feasibility
and in line with the capital costs considerations within the Review, the overall
budgetary impact for the council, before any decisions can be made. Further
investigations should also be conducted in co-ordination with planning for the future
of Vale Farm Sports Centre to determine the lifespan of the existing facility, further
clarification of the capital cost associated with new build or refurbishment at Vale
Farm and the affordability of completing this as well as developing a third pool site
within the borough.
10.4 How Brent Moves Forward – Priorities for Development
The strategic review has focused on the current leisure centres in Brent providing an
outline as to the needs and priorities for Brent for future provision and the best value
for money solutions to meeting identified local and borough wide strategic need. The
review process has however also clearly confirmed that the development of a new
swimming pool facility would address the most prominent needs within the borough
and the shortfalls identified.
As agreed with the Client Team at LB Brent at the outset of this project, this review
does not provide any detailed analysis of the development of a new pool, having
concentrated on the solutions and options for the three study centres specific.
However, moving forward with the options presented for the three centres is of
course influenced by the need for increasing the provision of swimming in Brent and
its impact across the borough in relation to levels of participation and activity.
What follows is the Consultant Team’s priority list for development by LB Brent and a
brief explanation of the key issues which influence both the position of the project on
the priority list and the ability of Brent to realise any new development proposed.
STRATEGIC REVIEW OF SPORTS CENTRES IN BRENT FULL REVIEW VERSION 2.0 JANUARY 2008
www.continuumleisure.co.uk - 158 -
Priority Project Facility Type / Changes
Key Issues
1 New Pool New build swimming pool
Borough wide strategic facility deficiency Potential to have significant impact upon levels of activity and participation as has been witnessed recently at Willesden Sports Centre. Locational factors remain undetermined but central and north areas of borough show greatest need. Funding and capital costs undetermined at this stage as not part of original strategic review process. Dry side mix and potential for dual use centre has not been investigated but should be considered as a priority. Key issues influencing delivery include
o Identification of a suitable and affordable site.
o Brent identifying site specific capital or S106 fund for example to provide funding towards new development.
o Further survey works on current leisure stock (Vale Farm in particular) do not lead to significant budget and funding having to be diverted to keeping current stock viable.
Next Steps Required
2. Fully detailed feasibility study and business plan for the third pool site for decision alongside the leisure stock changes before summer 2008.
2 Bridge Park New build dry side sport and community facilities
The affordability of the project has been assessed as part of the review and the mixed use development with housing highlights that a new build project is affordable for Brent set against the current cost of the facilities in situ.
STRATEGIC REVIEW OF SPORTS CENTRES IN BRENT FULL REVIEW VERSION 2.0 JANUARY 2008
www.continuumleisure.co.uk - 159 -
Priority Project Facility Type / Changes
Key Issues
The Consultant Team recommend that due to the complexities of the surrounding area, the Bridge Park site alone is developed for leisure and housing on the understanding with Brent planning department that the Unisys site will be given some priority for future development. The development of the Bridge Park site would provide an affordable leisure facility and have a very positive impact upon the quality of facilities on offer for the local catchment and for the borough in general. Key issues influencing delivery include
o Housing valuations and planning can be realised
o GLC covenant is not prohibitive o Planning and regeneration team
commit to Unisys site long term regeneration
Next Steps Required
2. Fully detailed design and feasibility for the Bridge Park site.
3 Charteris New build health
and fitness facility The smallest of the main sites scoring high on affordability and deliverability, however it would not have such an impact upon the overall borough wide levels of provision outside of health and fitness, given its scale and thus is less of a priority than the leading 2 projects. The continued provision of this local community focused facility is dependent upon the plans being discussed for leisure provision due to the local needs (and planning priority for indoor space). Key issues influencing delivery include
o Progress and timing of any new
STRATEGIC REVIEW OF SPORTS CENTRES IN BRENT FULL REVIEW VERSION 2.0 JANUARY 2008
www.continuumleisure.co.uk - 160 -
Priority Project Facility Type / Changes
Key Issues
developments and provision of indoor sports space, notably the NDC project and St Augustine’s school.
o Budgetary issues for the first 2 priority projects and the potential need to channel site value for Charteris into new pool site as a higher priority project.
Next Steps Required
3. Leisure team to gain a steer on the leisure mix in the NDC project by March 2008.
4. Await detailed outcomes of priority projects 1 and 2 and review site options for Charteris.
4 Vale Farm New build wet and dry side sports complex incorporating outdoor sports facilities
The impact of Vale Farm would be felt across the borough however it is a longer term vision at present than the needs identified in the review. The needs of the new swimming pool and the affordability of Bridge Park and Charteris place them higher in terms of priorities for Brent. Questions remain over the longevity of current building which need to be answered and the key issues is that the on-going provision of swimming in Brent is protected and increased. Key issues influencing delivery include
o Budgetary issues from the leading priority projects
o The need to ensure continued service delivery of swimming in particular on the site, given borough wide shortfall at present.
o Clarity on the longevity of the building and if the immediate to medium term provision for swimming is to be under threat and additional financial resources are required to be diverted to this
STRATEGIC REVIEW OF SPORTS CENTRES IN BRENT FULL REVIEW VERSION 2.0 JANUARY 2008
www.continuumleisure.co.uk - 161 -
Priority Project Facility Type / Changes
Key Issues
project.
Next Steps Required
3. Vale Farm intrusive condition survey to determine whether immediate remedial action is required to extend on-going service.
4. A more in depth design and business planning process to determine both economic life of facility and more detailed capital cost of the facility changes proposed should be put up alongside the other 3 projects to assist in decision making for summer 2008.
10.5 Recommendations and Further Information Required In order for Brent to gain further clarity on the options as presented within this
Review further technical works are required as touched upon above and presented in
more detail below.
10.5.1 Surveys
Structural condition surveys for all three centres need to be commissioned and
evaluated to further inform the suitability and viability of any option pursued. The
documentation used to inform this Review has allowed outline estimates of capital
investments required and greater detail of the financial implications of repair
maintenance costs over the necessary time frame are vital.
10.5.2 Land and Site Considerations
In relation to Bridge Park in particular, full clarification of the key issues (detailed
previously) should be deemed a priority to provide better clarity. Land valuations for
both Charteris and some further information for Vale Farm also require further
scrutiny.
10.5.3 Capital Cost and Feasibility
STRATEGIC REVIEW OF SPORTS CENTRES IN BRENT FULL REVIEW VERSION 2.0 JANUARY 2008
www.continuumleisure.co.uk - 162 -
Upon receipt of this study report and the agreement of proceeding with any proposed
survey works, facility, investment and management changes, Brent should appoint a
QS Team to assess, review and present further cost analysis of the options presented
to ensure full capital cost certainty. Each individual centre should be then subject to
further financial scrutiny and detailed business planning to inform future decisions
and investments into Brent’s Sports Centres.
10.6 Conclusion
It is clear that LB Brent has a number of important decisions to make as to how to
progress with the identified and required changes to the current leisure facility stock
and sports centres in the borough.
It is also clear that the current situation does not provide value for money set
against the proposed new build outline costs which have been identified.
The borough as a whole has a significant way to go to both drive up the levels of
participation and also address the facility shortfalls and dated leisure stock which is
currently on offer. As demonstrated by Willesden Sports Centre, modern, fit for
purpose facilities have the potential to make a major impact by attracting
considerably higher usage levels.
The Consultant Team feels that the completion of this review process will enable LB
Brent to achieve further positive change through significant additions and
improvements to the borough’s leisure facility stock.
STRATEGIC REVIEW OF SPORTS CENTRES IN BRENT FULL REVIEW VERSION 2.0 JANUARY 2008
www.continuumleisure.co.uk - 163 -
APPENDICES
APPENDIX 1: SITE SPECIFIC REVIEWS (UNDER SEPARATE COVER) APPENDIX 2: FPM BRIEF APPENDIX 3: - LB BRENT GRASS PITCHES (ACTIVE PLACES POWER DATABASE) APPENDIX 4: PLANNED SPORT AND LEISURE FACILITY DEVELOPMENT
WITHIN BRENT’S NEIGHBOURING BOROUGHS
STRATEGIC REVIEW OF SPORTS CENTRES IN BRENT FULL REVIEW VERSION 2.0 JANUARY 2008
www.continuumleisure.co.uk - 164 -
APPENDIX 2: FPM BRIEF LONDON BOROUGH OF BRENT ACTIVE PLACES POWER + BRIEF FOR STRATEGIC PLANNING ASSESSMENT FOR SWIMMING POOLS AND SPORTS HALLS Assessment based on application of Active Places Power + (formerly the Facilities Planning Model) August 2007 Brief Description of Project To assess the future demand and provision of swimming pools and sports halls in Brent, particularly in terms of increasing population and meeting unmet demand within the borough. Alongside Brent, the study area is also to include the London Boroughs of Harrow, Ealing, Hammersmith and Fulham, Kensington and Chelsea, City of Westminster, Camden and Barnet. Assessment of the current demand and supply for swimming pools and sports halls in the study area i.e. 2007. Assessment of the demand and supply in 2016 for swimming pools and sports halls in the study area including all known commitments and closures (detailed below) and utilising the GLA population projections for Brent and the surrounding London Boroughs. Appendix 1 Details of Pools and Halls not included in the Facilities Database to be included. Appendix 2 Policy Implications and Notes for Information SWIMMING POOLS All runs to –
o Include all operational swimming pools available for community use i.e. pay and play, membership, sports club/community association.
o Exclude all swimming pools that are identified as private use only and no public access.
o Exclude all pools where the main tank is less than 20m in length or is less than 160 sqm4.
4 160sqm is equivalent to a 20m x 8m pool. This assumption will exclude small pools such as plunge and hotel pools.
STRATEGIC REVIEW OF SPORTS CENTRES IN BRENT FULL REVIEW VERSION 2.0 JANUARY 2008
www.continuumleisure.co.uk - 165 -
o Exclude all outdoor pools (lidos) o Include national default weightings for swimming pools o Include commitments for new build, refurbishments or known closures of
existing pools where there is an increase or decrease in the existing water space in Brent or the surrounding study area.
o Include IMD score of output areas to be used to limit attractiveness of commercial pools.
o Include GLA population data for London Boroughs Run 1 Swimming Pools – 2007 operational pools This run is to establish the baseline data, current demand and supply, current areas of unmet demand and assist Brent’s future plans to address potential priority locations for future development. This run is to establish the baseline – what is happening now.
o Exclude Grove Park School in Brent (site ID 1201512) o Exclude Kentish Town Sports Centre in Camden (site ID 1002312) currently
closed due to Health and Safety o All swimming pools in the surrounding study area, which meet the
criteria, set out under run assumptions above.
Run 2 Swimming Pools – 2016 operational pools This run is to establish the overall, satisfied and unmet demand for 2016 and is to include all known commitments and closures. This run is to establish the future needs within and surrounding Brent.
o Exclude current Northolt Swimarama (site ID 1002355) o Include new/replacement Northolt Swimarama on same site
Dimensions of new pools: - Main pool 25m x 17m - Training pool 16m x 12m
Community access to pools – - Mon – Fri 6am – 10pm - Sat/Sun 8am – 6pm
o Exclude Grove Park School (site ID 1201512) o Include newly refurbished Kentish Town Sports Centre (change to weighting
only no increase in water space) due to re-open 2010 (site ID 1002312) o Include newly refurbished Marshall Street Leisure Centre (change to weighting
only no increase in water space) refurbishment and opening due 2012 o Include new pool at Holland Park School (site ID 1200381), opening 2012 o Exclude the current Acton Swimming Baths site (site ID 1002193) o Include new 50m pool in Ealing at the current Acton Swimming Baths site
opening in 2012 - Main pool 50m x 25m - Training pool 16m x 12m
Community access to pools – - Mon – Fri 6am – 10pm
STRATEGIC REVIEW OF SPORTS CENTRES IN BRENT FULL REVIEW VERSION 2.0 JANUARY 2008
www.continuumleisure.co.uk - 166 -
- Sat/Sun 8am – 6pm o Include the reduction of Gurnell Pool (site ID 1002281) from 50m to 25m
length. SPORTS HALLS All runs to –
o Include all operational sports halls available for community use i.e. pay and play, membership, sports club/community association.
o Exclude all sports halls that are identified as private use only and no public access.
o Exclude all sports halls smaller than 3 courts o Include national default weightings o Include IMD for commercial sports halls o Include GLA population data for London Boroughs
Run 1 Sports Halls – 2007 operational halls This run is to establish the baseline data, current demand and supply, current areas of unmet demand and assist Brent’s future plans to address potential priority locations for future development. This run is to establish the baseline – what is happening now.
o All sports halls in the surrounding study area, which meet the criteria, set out under run assumptions above.
Run 2 Sports Halls – 2016 operational halls This run is to establish the overall, satisfied and unmet demand for 2016 and is to include all known commitments and closures. This run is to establish the future needs within and surrounding Brent.
o Include replacement of Reynolds Sports Centre, LB Ealing (site ID 1002375) on the current site but with no increase in sports hall space
o Include new indoor sports hall at the New Westminster Academy, LB Westminster
o Include new indoor sports hall at new Pimlico School, LB Westminster o Include new indoor sports hall at Adelaide Road, LB Camden. o Include new sports hall at Greenford Sports Centre, LB Ealing (site ID
1002279)on current site but with no increase in sports hall space o Include new sports hall at Copland School, LB Brent o Include new sports hall at Wembley Academy, LB Brent o All sports halls in the surrounding study area, which meet the criteria,
set out under run assumptions
STRATEGIC REVIEW OF SPORTS CENTRES IN BRENT FULL REVIEW VERSION 2.0 JANUARY 2008
www.continuumleisure.co.uk - 167 -
Details of Pools and Halls Not Included in the Facilities Database to be included in the analysis plus amendments Swimming Pools Swimming Pool
Dimensions Opening Hours
Community Use
X and Y co-ords
2007 or 2016 Run?
LB Kensington and Chelsea - Holland Park School pool
20m x 8m 6pm – 10pm Mon – Fri 9am – 5pm Weekends
Community Use outside of school core hours.
X 524948 Y 179954
In for 2016 run
LB Ealing – new 50m pool in Acton
Main pool 50m x 25m Teaching pool 16m x 12m
Weekdays 7am – 10pm Weekends 8am – 8pm
At all times X 520354 Y 180013
In for 2016 run
Kentish Town Sports Centre is currently shown on the database as closed, it will be reopen by 2016. Sports Halls BSF impacts on other boroughs and Brent itself. Facilities below denote those which are due to be completed, at present, before 2016. Sports Hall Dimensions Opening
Hours Community Use X and Y
co-ords 2007 or 2016 run?
LB Westminster - New Westminster Academy
33m x 18m 6pm – 10pm Mon – Fri 9am – 5pm Weekends
Community Use outside of school core hours.
X 525500 Y 182500
In for 2016 run
LB Westminster - Pimilco School
33m x 18m 6pm – 10pm Mon – Fri 9am – 5pm Weekends
Community Use outside of school core hours.
X 529431 Y 178226
In for 2016 run
LB Camden, Adelaide Road
33m x 18m 6pm – 10pm Mon – Fri 9am – 5pm Weekends
Community Use outside of school core hours.
X 526914 Y 184029
In for 2016 run
LB Brent Copland School
33m x 18m
6pm – 10pm Mon – Fri 9am – 5pm Weekends
Community Use outside of school core hours.
X 518587 Y 185103
In for 2016 run
STRATEGIC REVIEW OF SPORTS CENTRES IN BRENT FULL REVIEW VERSION 2.0 JANUARY 2008
www.continuumleisure.co.uk - 168 -
LB Brent Wembley Academy
33m x 18m 6pm – 10pm Mon – Fri 9am – 5pm Weekends
Community Use outside of school core hours.
X519300 Y 186514
In for 2016 run
STRATEGIC REVIEW OF SPORTS CENTRES IN BRENT FULL REVIEW VERSION 2.0 JANUARY 2008
www.continuumleisure.co.uk - 169 -
APPENDIX 3 - LB BRENT GRASS PITCHES (ACTIVE PLACES POWER DATABASE)
Map Point Site Name Postcode Ward
Senior pitches
Junior pitches
Cricket pitches Access Type
1 CHALKHILL YOUTH CENTRE HA9 9DB
Barnhill Ward 2 1 Private Use
2 POPLAR GROVE PLAYING FIELDS HA9 9DB
Barnhill Ward 1 1
Sports Club / Community Association
3 ACORN NURSERY HA9 6NF Tokyngton Ward 1 Private Use
4
TOKYNGTON RECREATION GROUND HA9 6JE
Tokyngton Ward 1 Pay and Play
5
CHURCH LANE RECREATION GROUND NW9 8ET Fryent Ward 3 Pay and Play
6
LONDON TRANSPORT SPORTS GROUND HA9 9JR
Barnhill Ward 4 Pay and Play
7
GIBBONS RECREATION GROUND
NW10 9BS
Stonebridge Ward 2 Pay and Play
8
ST JOSEPHS R.C. CATHOLIC JUNIOR SCHOOL HA9 6BE
Wembley Central Ward 1 Private Use
9
THE PAVILION AT STONEBRIDGE RECREATION GROUND
NW10 8LW
Stonebridge Ward 1 Private Use
10 PRESTON MANOR HIGH SCHOOL HA9 8NA
Preston Ward 3 Pay and Play
11
THE COPLAND COMMUNITY SCHOOL HA9 7DU
Wembley Central Ward 2 Free Public Access
12 GLADSTONE PARK NW10 1JH
Dudden Hill Ward 3 4 1 Free Public Access
13 PARK LANE PRIMARY SCHOOL HA9 7RY
Wembley Central Ward 1
Sports Club / Community Association
14 FRYENT PRIMARY SCHOOL NW9 8JD Fryent Ward 1 Private Use
15 KINGSBURY TOWN FC NW9 7NE
Welsh Harp Ward 1 Private Use
16
OUR LADY OF GRACE RC JUNIOR SCHOOL NW2 6HS
Dollis Hill Ward 1 Private Use
17 TENTERDEN SPORTS GROUND
HA3 0QQ
Kenton Ward 1 Private Use
18 PRESTON PARK HA9 8RJ Preston Ward 1 1 Pay and Play
19 ROE GREEN PARK NW9 9PE Queensbury Ward 1 Pay and Play
STRATEGIC REVIEW OF SPORTS CENTRES IN BRENT FULL REVIEW VERSION 2.0 JANUARY 2008
www.continuumleisure.co.uk - 170 -
Map Point Site Name Postcode Ward
Senior pitches
Junior pitches
Cricket pitches Access Type
20
ALPERTON COMMUNITY SCHOOL (LOWER SITE) HA0 4PW
Wembley Central Ward 2 Free Public Access
21
CAPITAL CITY ACADEMY SPORTS FACILITIES
NW10 3ST
Willesden Green Ward 1
Sports Club / Community Association
22 WILLESDEN SPORTS CENTRE
NW10 3QX
Willesden Green Ward 3 Pay and Play
23
WEMBLEY HIGH TECHNOLOGY COLLEGE HA0 3NT
Northwick Park Ward 3 1 1 Private Use
24 SUDBURY COURT SPORTS CLUB HA0 3LE
Sudbury Ward 2 Private Use
25
KINGSBURY HIGH SCHOOL (LOWER SITE) NW9 9AT Fryent Ward 1 2 Private Use
26 KING EDWARD VII PARK
NW10 3AA
Willesden Green Ward 3 Pay and Play
27 BYRON COURT PRIMARY SCHOOL HA0 3SF
Northwick Park Ward 1 Private Use
28 CLAREMONT HIGH SCHOOL HA3 0UH
Kenton Ward 1 Private Use
29
KINGSBURY HIGH SCHOOL (UPPER SITE) NW9 9JR
Queensbury Ward 1 4 Private Use
30 NORTHWICK PARK HA0 3TQ Northwick Park Ward 13 Pay and Play
31 ETON GROVE OPEN SPACE NW9 9LA
Queensbury Ward 1 Pay and Play
32
QUEENS PARK COMMUNITY SCHOOL
NW6 7BQ
Brondesbury Park Ward 2 Private Use
33 JOHN BILLAM SPORTS GROUND HA3 0JH
Kenton Ward 1
Sports Club / Community Association
34 MAYBANK OPEN SPACE HA0 2TE
Sudbury Ward 1 Pay and Play
35
NORTH WEST LONDON JEWISH DAY SCHOOL NW6 7PP
Brondesbury Park Ward 1 Private Use
36
UNIVERSITY OF WESTMINSTER (HARROW SITE) HA1 3TP
Northwick Park Ward 2 Pay and Play
37 SUDBURY HILL PLAYING FIELDS HA1 3QP
Sudbury Ward 3 Private Use
STRATEGIC REVIEW OF SPORTS CENTRES IN BRENT FULL REVIEW VERSION 2.0 JANUARY 2008
www.continuumleisure.co.uk - 171 -
APPENDIX 4: Planned Sport and Leisure Facility Development within Brent’s
Neighbouring Boroughs
Kensington & Chelsea
General Comments
o New build facilities are extremely unlikely to be provided given the lack of
available land or indeed need.
o There is a shortage of facilities in the south of the borough, so the aim is
to replace or refurbish existing facilities, but with only very modest
increases in capacity likely.
Chelsea Sports Centre
o Currently undergoing a £1m refurbishment to bring the centre up to date;
no net additional provision however.
Kensington Leisure Centre
o Planned upgrade for pool plant in 2007/08, but no net additional provision.
Schools development
o Holland Park School: existing school, being redeveloped to include a
community pool and four court hall, with community use planned. Planning
permission granted June 2007
o West Chelsea Academy – new school awaiting planning permission (Sept
07); likely to have four court hall but little community use planned.
Barnet
General Comments
o No imminent plans for new build or major expansion or refurbishment
Hendon Leisure Centre
o £600,000 refurbishment in February 2007. In the future redevelopment is
proposed on a like for like basis, as part of the wider Brent Cross
STRATEGIC REVIEW OF SPORTS CENTRES IN BRENT FULL REVIEW VERSION 2.0 JANUARY 2008
www.continuumleisure.co.uk - 172 -
Cricklewood regeneration programme. Replacement would be part of
Phase 2 ie 2012 – 2017.
Copthall Leisure Centre
o No current plans for redevelopment, but possibly in the future
Burnt Oak Leisure Centre
o Only a few years old, dry side provision only.
Welsh Harp Sailing Lake
o Main building has been closed on safety grounds. The council is looking to
rebuild – plans exist but not being taken forward in the near future.
Camden
General comments
o No imminent plans for new build, or plans for major refurbishment.
Kentish Town Baths
o Closed in 2007 due to health and safety issues. Currently being
refurbished at a cost of around £25m (from LB Camden capital fund), and
due to re-open in 2010.
Swiss Cottage
o Successfully redeveloped into new wet and dry side facilities in 2006,
centrally funded from capital funds; no plans for further expansion.
Kings Cross Regeneration
o Outline planning applications by developer Argent for the 67 acre 'King's
Cross Central' brown field site approved in March 2006. Proposals include a
leisure centre with 25m swimming pool, indoor sports hall and multi use
games area. Timescale: 10 to 12 years.
STRATEGIC REVIEW OF SPORTS CENTRES IN BRENT FULL REVIEW VERSION 2.0 JANUARY 2008
www.continuumleisure.co.uk - 173 -
Ealing
Swift Road Outdoor Sports Centre
o Full-size artificial turf pitch and multi-use games areas to be used by
schools and the community. The centre was due to open in summer 2007.
Dormers Wells Leisure Centre
o The swimming pool will have two new changing rooms and the existing
pool changing rooms will be fully refurbished to benefit both school and
community users. Due to be completed in summer 2007.
Perivale Park Athletics Track
o Work on a new purpose-built pavilion is complete.
Gurnell Leisure Centre
o Developments will see a complete transformation of the first floor areas
and wet change facility. Part of the first floor will be developed into a state
of the art 100-station fitness centre with dedicated male and female dry-
side changing rooms. The front of house and reception area will be re-
configured and enhanced to improve access for all users. The
refurbishment to all areas of the wet changing room facility will include
showers, toilets and changing area. The health suite will also be upgraded
with new facilities. Taking place currently.
Acton Swimming Baths
o A refurbishment of the health suite at Acton Swimming Baths is planned
during 2007. Replacement of the existing pools with a 50m pool is planned
for 2012.
Reynolds Sports Centre
STRATEGIC REVIEW OF SPORTS CENTRES IN BRENT FULL REVIEW VERSION 2.0 JANUARY 2008
www.continuumleisure.co.uk - 174 -
o As part of a PFI project to rebuild Acton High School, Reynolds Sports
Centre has been replaced, and includes a new sports hall, larger gym, and
a small hall for aerobics and other classes.
Greenford Sports Centre
o This project has also been developed as part of the PFI scheme. Like the
Reynolds project there will be a new sports hall, larger gym and small hall
for other activities. The new centre is due to open by September 2008.
There is a number of long-term project plans including:
A new pool for Northolt
o A detailed feasibility study for plans to replace Northolt Swimarama has
now been completed. As well as a new, larger swimming pool, it is
proposed that the centre will offer an improved fitness gym, dance studio,
community meeting rooms, library services and a Metropolitan Police Safer
Neighbourhoods base. Work is due to commence on the new facilities by
the end of 2007.
A 50m pool in Acton
o As above
o Active Ealing produced a swimming pool strategy in 2005, which is
currently being updated. This aims to replace outdated facilities and
increase uptake of swimming and water sport.
Hammersmith & Fulham
General Comments
o No imminent plans for new build as there is no available land;
development mainly in the form of refurbishment of existing facilities.
STRATEGIC REVIEW OF SPORTS CENTRES IN BRENT FULL REVIEW VERSION 2.0 JANUARY 2008
www.continuumleisure.co.uk - 175 -
o The new administration is focused on improving parks provision: bid
currently in for development of parks but unlikely to have a sports
element.
Fullham Pools
o Offers 25m, 8 lane gala pool; 25m, 6 lane fitness pool; 11m x 7m teaching
pool; O2 Gym; All-weather tennis courts. Opened in 2006, operated by
Virgin.
Phoenix Fitness Centre and Janet Adegoke Swimming Pool
o 25m five lane pool plus fitness facilities
Linford Christie Outdoor Sports Centre
o Full range of athletics facilities, plus rugby pitch, ATP for hockey and
football, changing facilities.
o Received Barclays Space for Sport funding of £1.5m towards
redevelopment in 2006.
o Possibility in the future of siting a 4 court sports hall at the site, but no
funding available at the moment.
Bishops Park development
o Broad range of proposals as part of local masterplan, including the
redevelopment/expansion of tennis courts and the siting of a City Tennis
Club. Funding is agreed in outline, awaiting decision on planning
permission for floodlighting.
Harrow
Existing facilities in need of change:
1. Harrow Leisure Centre – 1960s built, 9 court sports hall, 25m pool,
Learner pool, health and fitness facilities.
2. Hatch End Pool – 1930s listed building.
3. Bannister Track – 8 lane athletics track.
STRATEGIC REVIEW OF SPORTS CENTRES IN BRENT FULL REVIEW VERSION 2.0 JANUARY 2008
www.continuumleisure.co.uk - 176 -
A recent feasibility study defined objectives for remodeling leisure provision
within the borough and Leisure Connection has come up with a three site
development package:
1. A combination of 2 and the 3 above, on one site, featuring a 25m pool
and earner pool, outdoor athletics track, indoor track, grandstand.
2. New Harrow Leisure Centre – see below.
3. New facility in the south of the borough, which is currently under-
provided for: 4 court sports hall, 25m pool and heath and fitness
proposed.
Council estimates it can generate around £21m in capital receipts from land
sales, and is also looking for a management company who can commit
significant funding in return for long term contract.
Harrow Leisure Centre
o Plans for complete redevelopment of the centre, which currently offers two
indoor pools (main pool 33.3 metres and a teaching pool) a large fitness
centre, aerobics centre, 8 squash courts, indoor sports halls (2 x 5 courts),
rock climbing wall.
Roger Bannister sports centre
o In 2003 the centre was refurbished to provide upgraded changing rooms,
communal area, a new warm up room with weights and brand new
athletics equipment such as hurdles and javelins
Westminster
Marshall Street Leisure Centre
o A deal has been finalised for the regeneration of Grade II listed Marshall
Street Baths in Soho. It is hoped that the centre will be open to the public
by the first half of 2009. (Planning application was submitted in April
2007).
STRATEGIC REVIEW OF SPORTS CENTRES IN BRENT FULL REVIEW VERSION 2.0 JANUARY 2008
www.continuumleisure.co.uk - 177 -
Westminster Academy/Academy Sport
o £31.6 million new secondary school with school/community sports facilities
including outdoor multi-use sports pitches and a tennis court which are
floodlit, a 4 court sports hall, dance/exercise studio and changing
accommodation.
Paddington Recreation Ground
o 28 acre park with health and fitness facilities, sports pitches, tennis courts.
Currently mid-way through a £3.6m regeneration including a new full size
ATP, resurfaced tennis courts.
Jubilee Sports Centre
o Features a 25m pool, sports hall, health and fitness. 1970s build.
Undergoing limited refurbishment currently.
Moberley Sports Centre
o Westminster-run but actually in Brent
o Modest dryside facilities; replacement of 6 court hall floor currently taking
place
APPENDIX 5: Cost Appraisal Assumptions
STRATEGIC REVIEW OF SPORTS CENTRES IN BRENT FULL REVIEW VERSION 2.0 JANUARY 2008
www.continuumleisure.co.uk - 178 -
■ Current pricing policies and concessions will continue
■ Income and costs inflated by RPI (2.5%)
■ Construction spread over 18 months for new builds, 12 months for refurbishments
■ Lifecycle costs at 1.25% - 2% of initial construction costs per annum inflated included for each option
■ Any Council contributions financed through prudential borrowing at 4.82% over 25 years
■ Figures exclude demolition costs
■ Adjustment made for financial impact of rolling centre closures for refurbishment options
■ NPVs based on discount factor of 3.5%
■ No additional allowance made for risk
■ Bridge Park includes only for limited non sports provision