WOLVERHAMPTON CITY COUNCIL

PLAYING PITCH STRATEGY

FINAL ASSESSMENT REPORT

JANUARY 2012

Integrity, Innovation, Inspiration

1-2 Frecheville Court off Knowsley Street Bury BL9 0UF T 0161 764 7040 F 0161 764 7490 E [email protected] www.kkp.co.uk

Quality assurance Name Date Report origination K Freely, L Hunsley 24 th June 2011 Quality control C Fallon 5th July 2011 Client comments Carolle House 25 th July 2011 Final approval Carolle House

WOLVERHAMPTON CITY COUNCIL PLAYING PITCH STRATEGY

CONTENTS

PART 1: INTRODUCTION ...... 6 PART 2: CONTEXT ...... 7 2.1: National context ...... 7 2.2: Regional context ...... 14 2.3: Local context ...... 14 PART 3: PLAYING PITCH STRATEGY METHODOLOGY ...... 15 3.1: Background information ...... 15 3.2: Playing Pitch Model (PPM) ...... 16 3.3: Report structure ...... 22 PART 4: GENERAL SPORTS ISSUES ...... 23 4.1: Introduction ...... 23 4.2: Clubmark ...... 23 4.3: Wolverhampton CLUB Registration ...... 24 4.4: Development groups ...... 24 PART 5: PARTICIPATION TRENDS...... 25 5.1: Active People Survey ...... 25 5.2: Market segmentation ...... 27 PART 6: NEIGHBOURING AUTHORITIES ...... 30 6.1: South ...... 31 6.2: Dudley ...... 31 6.3: Sandwell ...... 32 6.4: Walsall ...... 32 PART 7: FOOTBALL ...... 33 7.1: Introduction ...... 33 7.2: Consultation ...... 35 7.3: Current provision ...... 35 7.4: Development ...... 43 7.5: Key issues for football ...... 45 7.6: Provision of football pitch sites assessed by quality and capacity ...... 54 7.7: ‘Shortfall, adequacy and requirement’ ...... 63 PART 8: CRICKET ...... 70 8.1: Introduction ...... 70 8.2: Current provision ...... 71 8.3: Development ...... 73 8.4: Key issues for cricket ...... 75 8.5: Provision of cricket pitch sites assessed by quality and capacity ...... 81 8.6: ‘Shortfall, adequacy and requirement’ ...... 82 PART 9: RUGBY ...... 87 9.1: Introduction ...... 87 9.2: Current provision ...... 87 9.3: Development ...... 89 9.4: Key issues for rugby ...... 90

WOLVERHAMPTON CITY COUNCIL PLAYING PITCH STRATEGY

PART 10: HOCKEY ...... 92 10.1: Introduction ...... 92 10.2: Development ...... 92 10.3: Pitch supply ...... 93 10.5: Usage ...... 97 PART 11: BOWLS ...... 99 11.1: Introduction ...... 99 11.2: Current provision ...... 99 11.3: Development ...... 101 11.4: Key issues for bowls ...... 103 PART 12: TENNIS ...... 106 12.1: Introduction ...... 106 12.2: Current provision ...... 106 12.3: Development ...... 109 12.4: Key issues for tennis ...... 110 PART 13: ATHLETICS ...... 113 13.1: Introduction ...... 113 13.2: Development ...... 113 13.3: Current provision ...... 113 13.4: Key issues for athletics ...... 113 PART 14: EDUCATION PROVISION ...... 115 14.1: Introduction ...... 115 14.2: PE and School Sport ...... 115 14.3: Building Schools for the Future (BSF) ...... 115 14.5: Current provision ...... 138 14.6: Primary school consultation summary ...... 144 PART 15: SUMMARY ...... 148

APPENDIX ONE: PPM CALCULATIONS ...... 149 APPENDIX TWO: LIST OF SITES BY COMMUNITY USE ...... 155 APPENDIX THREE: CONSULTEE LIST ...... 160 APPENDIX FOUR: SITE VISIT PROFORMAS ...... 165

WOLVERHAMPTON CITY COUNCIL PLAYING PITCH ASSESSMENT

PART 1: INTRODUCTION

This is the Final Playing Pitch Assessment Report for Wolverhampton City Council (WCC) prepared by Knight Kavanagh & Page (KKP). The Study is being led by a steering group made up of Wolverhampton City Council (WC) officers from a range of departments. This factual report provides an audit based assessment of the quantity and quality of outdoor sport and recreation facilities in accordance with Planning Policy Guidance Note 17 (PPG17) and its Companion Guide entitled “Assessing Needs and Opportunities” published in September 2002. The specific objectives of this audit and assessment are to provide:

 An audit of existing provision of different types of outdoor facilities detailing quantity, quality, accessibility and wider value to the community.  An assessment of supply/demand for outdoor sports facilities.  Analysis of the quantity and quality of other outdoor sports facilities in the City.

It focuses on reporting the findings of the extensive research, consultation, site assessment, data analysis and GIS mapping work to deliver:

 An analysis of qualitative site visits.  A summary of consultation with a variety of stakeholders, including WCC officers, Sport , national governing bodies of sport, league secretaries, clubs, schools and higher/further education establishments.  Supply and demand analysis using Sport England’s Playing Pitch Methodology (PPM) as outlined in Towards a Level Playing Field.

The Strategy (which will ensue) will support WCC’s strategic planning framework to form part of the Council’s review of its Open Space and Sports Investment strategies. It will include a review of existing and advice on new local standards of provision for planning purposes, make recommendations on appropriate strategy and policy responses and establish an approach for developer contributions.

This report incorporates an assessment of outdoor sport and recreation facilities in accordance with methodologies provided by Sport England. It provides a quantitative summary for the provision of outdoor sport facilities in Wolverhampton. As recommended within PPG17 and Towards a Level Playing Field, the following types of facility are included:

 Football pitches  Cricket pitches  Rugby pitches (union and league)  Artificial grass pitches (AGPs)  Bowling greens  Tennis courts  Athletic tracks

Each section provides a quantitative summary of provision and a map showing the distribution of facilities. It also provides information about the availability of facilities to/for the local community and, the details of the governing body of each sport and regional strategic plans (where they exist). Local league details are provided, where possible, in order to outline the competitive structure for each sport. The findings of club consultation and key issues for each sport are also summarised.

January 2012 3-033-1011 Final report: Knight Kavanagh & Page 6 WOLVERHAMPTON CITY COUNCIL PLAYING PITCH ASSESSMENT

PART 2: CONTEXT

Consideration of the national context is paramount. The following section outlines a series of national, regional and local policies pertaining to the study and which are important in influencing the Strategy.

2.1: National context

Planning Policy Guidance (PPG) 17

PPG17 defines outdoor sport and recreation facilities as those ‘with either natural or artificial surfaces’, and includes both public and privately owned facilities. It therefore includes:

 Sports pitches.  Synthetic turf pitches (STPs).  School and educational institution playing fields.

PPG17 recognises the value of outdoor sport and recreation facilities along with other open spaces in delivering government targets concerned with raising levels of physical activity through:

 Supporting an urban renaissance.  Supporting rural renewal.  Promotion of social inclusion and community cohesion.  (Enhancing) health and well being.  Promoting more sustainable development.

Assessing Needs & Opportunities: A Companion Guide to PPG17

The Companion Guide states that the long term outcomes of a PPG17 study include:

 Networks of accessible high quality open spaces, sport and recreation facilities, in both urban and rural areas, which meet the needs of residents and visitors and which are fit for purpose and economically and environmentally sustainable.  An appropriate balance between new provision and the enhancement of existing provision.  Clarity and reasonable certainty for developers and landowners in relation to the requirements and expectations of local planning authorities in respect of open space, sport and recreation provision.

In order to deliver these outcomes, a local authority needs to identify local needs and opportunities and develop and apply provision standards in a way, which is equitable to both developers and local communities. The Companion Guide recommends use of Sport England’s ‘Towards a Level Playing Field’ methodology to produce an assessment of outdoor sports facilities but taking account of the PPG17 approach which includes a five- step approach:

 Step 1: Identifying local needs.  Step 2: Auditing local provision.  Step 3: Setting provision standards.  Step 4: Applying provision standards.  Step 5: Drafting policies.

January 2012 3-033-1011 Final report: Knight Kavanagh & Page 7 WOLVERHAMPTON CITY COUNCIL PLAYING PITCH ASSESSMENT

However, this may change in the near future as a proposed new PPS17 which incorporates PPG7, 9 and 17 will be published. This may also include a companion guide. Although given the recent government restructure it is difficult to suggest with certainty that this will be the case.

Towards a Level Playing Field

The aims and objectives outlined in PPG17 and its companion guide are reiterated in the Sport England Playing Pitch Strategy Methodology, ‘Towards a Level Playing Field’ (February 2003).

It should be noted that Towards a Level Playing Field only deals with the assessment of playing pitch provision and does not cover outdoor sports such as tennis courts and bowling greens. However, the principles and basic methodology are applied to the assessment of other sports.

Sport England strongly recommends that each local authority has an up to date playing pitch strategy. The benefits of having a playing pitch strategy are identified as follows:

Corporate and strategic It ensures a strategic approach to playing pitch provision. It provides robust evidence for capital funding for sports pitch improvement (to support applications to agencies such as the Football Foundation, Heritage Lottery Fund and Sport England). It helps deliver Government policies. It helps demonstrate the value of leisure services. It improves understanding of the quality and standard of sports pitches and associated changing (and other ancillary) facilities and the extent to which they encourage and enable more people to take part and enjoy pitch sports. It can assist in bringing specific sites back into active use and as a framework to assess sports club requests for improved sites and facilities. It can guide sports pitch provision and improvements through the Building Schools for the Future and Primary Capital Programme and regeneration schemes. Planning It is one of the basic tools for implementing PPG17, particularly in relation to establishing a local standard for playing pitch provision. It allows the presentation of a coherent, up to date assessment and strategy to Sport England in its role as statutory consultee – when the planning authority is faced with development proposals that affect sports pitches. It provides a basis for establishing the requirement for new pitches or improvements to the quality of existing pitch sites that arise from new housing developments and the use of Section 106 Agreements. It is one of the best tools to justify protection of pitches in the face of rising development pressure on pitch sites for alternative uses, particularly with respect to new housing in order to meet regional targets. It provides an important evidence base, which is part of a holistic approach to open space improvement and protection to support the Local Development Framework including local authorities’ emerging core strategies. It establishes a policy framework against which to justify existing or new recreation allocations for playing pitches/other leisure activities.

January 2012 3-033-1011 Final report: Knight Kavanagh & Page 8 WOLVERHAMPTON CITY COUNCIL PLAYING PITCH ASSESSMENT

Operational It can result in more efficient use of resources. Quality of provision can be enhanced. Sports development It helps identify where community use of school sports pitches is most needed. It provides better information to residents and other users of sports pitches. It promotes sports development and can help unlock latent demand.

The approach and guidance outlined in ‘Towards a Level Playing Field’ are fully endorsed by Sport England and the Central Council for Physical Recreation (CCPR) as the appropriate way of providing detailed local assessments of playing pitch requirements and, as such, have been used in this study. Detail of the methodology is outlined later in this document.

PPG17 now requires local authorities to undertake detailed local assessments to provide evidence as a basis for developing a local standard, taking into account the quantity, quality, capacity and accessibility of outdoor sport and recreation facilities.

‘Towards a Level Playing Field’ does not give definitive instruction on how to calculate local standards for sports pitches but advises that the following are taken into consideration:

 Only pitches available for community use are to be included in the ‘supply’ equation  Quality of pitches  Provision of changing facilities  Pitch capacity  Future population estimates

Sport England Strategy (2008-2011)

Sport England has clarified its primary role; to grow, sustain and excel participation in community sport. Its ambition is to get more people playing and enjoying sport and to help those with talent get to the very top. It seeks to achieve this through working closely with national governing bodies of sport and building strong partnerships with local authorities.

The strategy commits Sport England to deliver on a series of demanding targets by 2012/13:

 One million people doing more sport.  A 25% reduction in the number of 16-18 year olds who drop out of five key sports.  Improved talent development systems in at least 25 sports.  A measurable increase in people’s satisfaction with their experience.  A major contribution to the delivery of the five hour sports offer for children and young people.

January 2012 3-033-1011 Final report: Knight Kavanagh & Page 9 WOLVERHAMPTON CITY COUNCIL PLAYING PITCH ASSESSMENT

Playing to Win

‘Playing to Win’ is the Government’s plan to get more people taking up sport simply for the love of sport; to expand the pool of talented English sportsmen and women; and to break records, win medals and win tournaments for this country.

The vision is to give more people of all ages the opportunity to participate in high quality competitive sport. To deliver this vision, there is a need to develop an integrated and sustainable sporting system which will nurture and develop sporting talent, underpinned by a high quality club and competition structure.

A Sporting Future for the Playing Fields of England

It is Sport England’s policy to object to any planning application, which will result in the loss of a playing field, unless it meets one of five exceptions as defined in A Sporting Future for the Playing Fields of England. Protection of playing fields was further enhanced in 1998 with Circular 9/98 (replaced in 2009 by Circular 02/09), which stipulates that where a local authority is minded to grant planning permission against Sport England’s advice on land owned by a local authority or used for educational purposes, then the application should be referred to the relevant Government Office for possible ‘call in’.

The FA National Game Strategy (2007-2012)

The Football Association’s (FA) National Game Strategy provides a strategic framework that sets out the key priorities, expenditure proposals and targets for the national game (i.e., football) over a six year period. The main issues facing grassroots football are identified as:

 Growth and retention (young players)  Growth and retention (adult players)  Football for All  Raising standards and behaviour  Player development  Running the game  Football work force  Facilities  Partnerships and investment  Promotion

The National Game Strategy reinforces the urgent need to provide affordable, new and improved facilities in schools, clubs and on local authority sites. Over 75% of football is played on public sector facilities. The leisure budgets of most local authorities have been reduced over recent years, resulting in decaying facilities that do not serve the community and act as a disincentive to play football. The loss of playing fields has also been well documented and adds to the pressure on the remaining facilities to cope with the demand, especially in inner city and urban areas.

The growth of the commercial sector in developing custom built five-a-side facilities has changed the overall environment. High quality, modern facilities provided by Powerleague, Goals, JJB (now DW) and playfootball.net for example, have added new opportunities to participate and prompted a significant growth in the number of five-a-side teams in recent years.

January 2012 3-033-1011 Final report: Knight Kavanagh & Page 10 WOLVERHAMPTON CITY COUNCIL PLAYING PITCH ASSESSMENT

Grounds to Play – England and Wales Cricket Board (ECB) Strategic Plan (2010 – 2013)

Grounds to Play continues to focus on the four pillars, as identified in the previous strategy: Building Partnerships. The pillars are:

 Energising people and partnerships to deliver national goals at local level:  Having streamlined the management of ECB and established the County Boards, where feasible, services currently provided from the centre will be transferred to County Boards;  Enhance asset growth through continuing interest free loans to community clubs, expanding NatWest Cricket Force, seeking to support corporate or public sector cricket grounds under threat of closure through the England and Wales Cricket Trust, and seeking to expand partnerships for Indoor Cricket.  Vibrant domestic game.  Enhancing facilities, environments and participation:  The focus of this plan will be on providing facilities to sustain participation levels rather than a focus on a substantial increase in participation;  The Cricket Foundation’s ‘Chance to Shine’ programme has been an outstanding success in reintroducing cricket into state schools. ECB will prioritise investment in the programme;  To further expand club/ school links and position the cricket club at the heart of the community, ECB will provide £1.5 million per annum capital improvement grants to local clubs that make their club facilities available to the local community and to local schools.  Successful England teams.

The following actions executed during the duration of Building Partnerships provide a strong base for this new plan. Actions include:

 Streamlining ECB governance  Building participation by more than 20% per annum (as measured through ECB focus clubs and County Boards)  Developing women’s cricket  Attracting volunteers  Expanding cricket’s spectator base  Introducing grants and loans to clubs  Developing disabilities cricket

The theme of this plan therefore progresses to Grounds to Play and it is in the areas of facilities and coaches where ECB investment will be focussed. Partnership funding and support will play a key role in the delivery of actions and maintaining the strength of the pillars.

Partners particularly applicable to community cricket include:

 England and Wales Cricket Trust - to provide up to £5 million of interest free loans to member clubs for recreational projects and to work with grounds in inner city areas to provide greater community use by 2013.  Sport England - to enhance the Whole Sport Plan award of £38 million by obtaining a further £10 million of lottery aid support by 2013.

January 2012 3-033-1011 Final report: Knight Kavanagh & Page 11 WOLVERHAMPTON CITY COUNCIL PLAYING PITCH ASSESSMENT

The National Facilities Strategy

The Strategy provides a framework for the sustainable development of facilities for in England, at a national, regional and local level. The framework enables clubs, Constituent Bodies (CBs), the Rugby Football Union (RFU) and the Rugby Football Union for Women (RFUW) and other partners to:

 Identify priorities for facility developments to meet the various needs of the sport.  Identify what facilities are required to meet the needs of the Government sports policy and the RFU’s Strategic Plan.  Support the prioritisation of investment and funding through a detailed set of developmental criteria, technical requirements, management/operational structures and potential financial viability, which will be critical to the provision of quality rugby facilities.  Prioritise future investment to ensure that the right facilities are provided in the right locations and for the right reasons.  Identify and deliver a minimum standard for all facility provision.

The strategy shows clubs what facilities are needed to provide these different programmes, from grass roots through to the professional game.

Rugby Football Union Strategic Plan (2005/06 - 2012/13)

The RFU Management Board has set out eight key themes to be incorporated in the strategic plan review process. These eight themes are as follows:

1. The appropriateness of the ‘seamless game’ 2. The development of English Qualified Players 3. The roles and responsibilities of county boards and clubs in the game 4. Development of unified structures and programmes for the game 5. Develop IT systems to measure performance 6. Maintain the ethos and culture of the game 7. Ensure a ‘growth game’ 8. Take a leading role in the development of the game worldwide

Community Rugby’s role is to promote and develop the game within the community by encouraging and supporting all those who want to participate by playing, coaching, refereeing, administrating or spectating.

The RFU Strategic Plan seeks to ensure that priorities are focused upon what will enable the Community game to grow, generate lifelong participation and create sustainable rugby clubs.

Rugby League summary

The Strategy is a 10 year plan for the development of facilities within Rugby League. The key aims of the strategy remain the same and focus on:

 The provision of training facilities which meet the training, competition and development needs of each locality.  The provision of adequate multi team playing and operational venues for all community clubs.

January 2012 3-033-1011 Final report: Knight Kavanagh & Page 12 WOLVERHAMPTON CITY COUNCIL PLAYING PITCH ASSESSMENT

 The provision of suitable facilities for Coach Education and Match Official development.  The provision of suitable facilities for performance and elite player development.

In order to achieve the objectives of the RFL’s Whole Sport Plan the focus of the Facilities Strategy for 2009 to 2013 will be to:

 Establish effective and longMterm Strategic Partnerships at national, regional and local levels to ensure the sustainable development of facilities to support Rugby League.  Identify and prioritise local investment needs in order to enhance and support existing local facility provision in order to:  Increase regular participation with focus on underrepresented groups, the college and university sector and under developed regions.  Reduce drop off in participation by increasing satisfaction and rates of retention among players of Rugby League.  Provide fit for purpose facilities to meet playing and training needs at all levels of the game.  Define local needs by the development of:  Facility mapping which will clearly demonstrate where resources are inadequate to meet the needs of the game, and additionally show areas of development opportunity.  Facility audits which identify where there is greatest facility development need and the additional resources required to meet the needs of the game.  Provide support to clubs and other providers in making the case for facility development in Rugby League.  Provide a framework for the effective and efficient distribution of the capital element of the funding made available directly to Rugby League, and other grant aid funding streams.

The principal outcomes of the above will be:

 A strategy focussed on clear development need which optimises strategic partnerships and development opportunities  A Strategy which clearly identifies the funding and resource requirements necessary to meet the overall facility needs of the game.

The RFL are in the process of updating its National Facilities Strategy which will supersede this strategy once completed.

January 2012 3-033-1011 Final report: Knight Kavanagh & Page 13 WOLVERHAMPTON CITY COUNCIL PLAYING PITCH ASSESSMENT

2.2: Regional context

West Regional Spatial Strategy

Published in January 2008 the Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS) provided a regional framework for the development of the region over a fifteen to twenty year period. It set out a vision for the West Midlands as well as identifying priorities for growth and regeneration in order to achieve a sustainable future for the region. However, in July 2010 the regional strategies were revoked by Central Government.

Black Country Core Strategy

The Core Strategy sets out the policy direction for how the sub-region (covering Dudley, Sandwell, Walsall and Wolverhampton) should look in 2026. It is a spatial plan, addressing the economic, transportation, social infrastructure and environmental needs of the sub-region. It is designed to replace the Unitary Development Plan (UDP) as part of the Local Development Framework (LDF). However, some policies of the UDP are still current.

Policy HOU5 of the Core Strategy recognises that new and redeveloped education facilities should include maximum provision for community use of sports and other facilities. It is highlighted that increasing community use of sports facilities at schools would make a contribution towards meeting open space, sport and recreation standards. In addition, this is also seen to be able to improve the health of individuals through increased sports participation.

2.3: Local context

Wolverhampton City Strategy (2011 – 2016)

The Draft Strategy has been developed by City partners working together through the Wolverhampton Partnership – the City’s Local Strategic Partnership. The main aims of the strategy are to achieve ‘Prosperity for all’ and priority for action of encouraging healthy lifestyles among communities.

Local area agreements

Wolverhampton’s Local Area Agreement (LAA) is a three year agreements, which acts as the delivery plan for the WSCS. It sets out 32 targets, agreed with Central Government, for the local area (the local authority and Local Strategic Partnership) and other key partners at the local level. The LAA sets out a range of key actions, with indicators and targets that help to assess progress.

January 2012 3-033-1011 Final report: Knight Kavanagh & Page 14 WOLVERHAMPTON CITY COUNCIL PLAYING PITCH ASSESSMENT

PART 3: PLAYING PITCH STRATEGY METHODOLOGY

This section of the report details the methodology which has been followed to deliver the findings. The assessment and analysis in this report is based on Sport England’s (SE) playing pitch strategy methodology, ‘Towards a Level Playing Field’ (2003). This outlines specific criteria for assessing the quantity, quality, capacity and accessibility of playing pitches and ancillary facilities. These criteria and principles have also been applied to other outdoor sport and recreation facilities in Wolverhampton such as tennis courts and bowling greens. It provides clear guidance on assessment of supply and demand for sports pitches and the types and levels of analysis required in order for the local authority to plan effectively to meet local needs. These include:

 The Playing Pitch Model (PPM)  Team generation rates (TGRs)

3.1: Background information

An extensive range of background information has been reviewed and incorporated into the assessment of key issues for each typology. Background documentation reviewed for the study is listed below:

 Playing to Win  Sport England Strategy (2008 – 2011)  Towards a Level Playing Field (February 2003)  Planning Policy Guidance (PPG) 17  Assessing Needs and Opportunities: A companion guide to PPG17  FA National Game Strategy (2007-2012)  Grounds to Play – England and Wales Cricket Board (ECB) Strategic Plan (2010 – 2013)  The National Facilities Strategy for (2008)  The Rugby Football Union Strategic Plan (2005/06 - 2012/13)  A Sporting Future for the Playing Fields of England  Aldersley Leisure Village Technical Services Maintenance Reports.  FA Football Participation Report season 10/11  FA Football Participation Report season 09/10  FA Football Participation Report season 08/09  Staffordshire Cricket Facilities Strategy 2009-2013.  Staffordshire Rugby Union County Facilities Plan (2009 – 2012)  County Football Association Year 3 Plan  Wolverhampton Cricket Development Plan  Wolverhampton Rugby Development Plan  Wolverhampton Tennis Development Plan

January 2012 3-033-1011 Final report: Knight Kavanagh & Page 15 WOLVERHAMPTON CITY COUNCIL PLAYING PITCH ASSESSMENT

3.2: Playing Pitch Model (PPM)

The PPM is a temporal supply and demand analysis and is largely applied as a numerical model. The model is used in three ways:

 To reflect the existing situation using data on existing teams and pitches.  To test the adequacy of current provision by manipulating the variables in the model.  To predict future requirements for pitches, by incorporating planned pitches and projected changes in population and participation.

An eight-stage process has been followed to produce the PPM:

Table 3.1: PPM eight stage process

Stage Process 1 Identifying teams/team equivalents. 2 Calculating home games per team per week. 3 Assessing total home games per week. 4 Establishing temporal demand for games. 5 Defining pitches used/required on each day. 6 Establishing pitches available. 7 Assessing the findings. 8 Identifying policy options and actions.

Stages one to seven of this process are covered in this report. Stage eight will be covered in the strategy document.

The ‘electronic toolkit’, which accompanies ‘Towards a Level Playing Field’, provides tools for collecting some of the information above.

‘Team equivalents’ refers to use of pitches by groups other than those playing formal matches. This includes school games lessons, club and school training sessions, sports development sessions etc. By including these in the ‘demand equation’ a more accurate picture is presented. Information from schools and clubs was collected using the electronic toolkit school and club questionnaires.

Team identification has been undertaken via consultation with leagues, as well as with governing bodies of sport and clubs.

The ownership and accessibility of sports pitches will also influence their actual availability for community use. The term ‘secured community use’ has been adopted to define this. This is likely to embrace:

 All local authority facilities.  School facilities where they are subject to formal community use agreements.  Other institutional facilities that are available to the public as a result of formal community use agreements.  Any facilities that are owned, used or maintained by clubs/private individuals and which, as a matter of policy and practice, are available to large sections of the public through membership of a club or through an admission fee. The cost of use must be considered reasonable and affordable by the majority of the community.

January 2012 3-033-1011 Final report: Knight Kavanagh & Page 16 WOLVERHAMPTON CITY COUNCIL PLAYING PITCH ASSESSMENT

Auditing sports pitches and assessing the level of availability is largely achieved through site visits.

Pitch quality information

It should be noted that the club and school questionnaires and the non-technical pitch assessment sheet in the electronic toolkit all have different scales for rating the quality of pitches and ancillary facilities. On this basis, KKP uses the ‘non-technical pitch assessment sheet’ to assess all pitches in order that consistent information is presented. All information relating to sports pitches across Wolverhampton is collated in the project playing pitch and non pitch database (supplied as an electronic file). All sites included within the audit, as identified by WCC, supplemented by KKP and assessed by KKP are included within the KKP project database.

The pitch assessment sheet is a ‘tick box’ assessment, as provided in Towards a Level Playing Field toolkit, which rates various elements of pitch quality with a separate assessment sheet for changing accommodation. It should be noted that the pitch assessment also takes into account whether changing rooms and car parking exist on the site. However, the total pitch score is not significantly affected.

This information is scored, converted into a percentage (of the highest score possible) and also into a qualitative rating. The qualitative ratings for pitch quality are:

90% + An excellent pitch 64-90% A good pitch 55-64% An average pitch 30-54% A below average pitch Less than 30% A poor pitch

For ease of analysis, KKP has combined this into a three-point scale. In this report pitches are rated as:

 An excellent pitch or good pitch = good quality .  An average pitch = adequate quality .  A below average pitch or poor pitch = poor quality .

The qualitative ratings for changing accommodation quality are listed as:

90% + Excellent 60-89% Good 40-59% Average 30-39% Poor Less than 30% Very poor

Copies of the assessment sheets can be found in Appendix Three.

January 2012 3-033-1011 Final report: Knight Kavanagh & Page 17 WOLVERHAMPTON CITY COUNCIL PLAYING PITCH ASSESSMENT

Capacity

KKP has developed a capacity rating for football and rugby pitches based on the quality rating given to pitches and the number of teams currently playing at the site (identified through league handbooks, local authority booking sheets and consultation with clubs). These capacity ratings assist in the identification of sites for improvement/development, rationalisation and similar decision making processes.

A capacity rating (as per rugby and football) is not given for cricket pitches and non-pitch facilities as it is not possible to determine the number of matches that can be played on a particular pitch. This is due to the length of matches, which cannot always be determined and also differs between adult and junior matches, even though both are often played on the same pitch.

Play refers to temporal demand or when the teams play. A figure of 1.0 in this column for instance would be representative of two teams using that pitch on a home and away basis (every other week). This means that that pitch is carrying one game at that time every week.

Calculation of capacity is based on the qualitative ratings. Taking into consideration SE guidelines 1 on capacity, pitches have thus been identified to have the following capacity ratings:

 If a pitch is rated as ‘good’ its capacity is specified as two matches per week.  If a pitch is rated as ‘acceptable’ its capacity is specified as one match per week.  If a pitch is rated as ‘poor’ its capacity is specified as one match every other week.

School pitches have been issued with a different capacity rating. This is due to the fact that they generally experience higher usage through curricular and extracurricular school based use. It is possible to enter team equivalents into the database in order to calculate equivalent demand for school pitches. However, due to a lack of consistent information from schools it is not possible to be entirely accurate. Therefore, school pitches are identified as having the following capacity ratings in relation to community use:

 If a pitch is rated as ‘good’ its capacity is specified as two match per week.  If a pitch is rated as ‘acceptable’ its capacity is specified as one matches per week.  If a pitch is rated as ‘poor’ its capacity is specified as one match every other week.

Using the pitch and non pitch database, it is possible to enter scenarios and alter the carrying capacity of school and council pitches. This means that it is possible to see how many, if any extra pitches become available.

A colour coded rating is then given by comparing the above information:

 Red - the pitch is being used over capacity.  Amber - the pitch is played to capacity.  Green - the pitch is being used under capacity.

1 Sport England – ‘Towards a Level Playing Field’

January 2012 3-033-1011 Final report: Knight Kavanagh & Page 18 WOLVERHAMPTON CITY COUNCIL PLAYING PITCH ASSESSMENT

Where it is indicated that the level of provision is ‘sufficient’, this indicates that none of the pitches in the area (for the particular sports), are rated as poor quality and/or played ‘over capacity’, nor has any latent demand been identified by users. This is not to say that improvements to sites are not required. Conversely, where an insufficient level of provision is identified, this is because one or more sites/pitches have been rated as poor quality and/or are being over-played and/or latent demand has been expressed.

Following consultation with league secretaries, it is noted that U15, U16 and U17 teams play on senior sized football pitches. The capacity rating does not take into account this type of play (i.e. juniors playing on senior pitches). Where a large number of junior/mini teams play on a site, particularly if they are playing on senior pitches this can result in those pitches being overplayed on the capacity rating. Many grounds are able to withstand more matches being played on by junior/mini teams than senior teams.

A number of provisos need to be taken into account as there may be discrepancies between the SE visual rating and the consultation comments. For instance, schools may have been rated as poor via the SE rating and acceptable/good through consultation. This may arise as the SE quality assessment increases rating if changing accommodation is available. A number of schools do not make changing accommodation available for community use.

Team Generation Rates (TGRs)

TGRs indicate how many people in a specified age group are required to generate one team based on current population and participation. TGRs for each pitch sport and each age group have been calculated. These have been used with the PPM for modelling purposes (e.g., by looking at population projections future TGRs can be estimated). These have been entered into the PPM to predict, where possible, whether current supply would meet future demand.

Consultation

A variety of consultation methods were used to collate information about leagues, clubs, county associations and national/regional governing bodies of sport. These were generally as follows:

Table 3.2: Consultation - methods and response rates

Sport Response rate Methods of consultation Football clubs 57% 1 Face to face and surveys Cricket clubs 100% Face to face and surveys Rugby clubs 50% Telephone Hockey clubs 75% Face to face Bowls clubs 46% Surveys Tennis clubs 40% Face to face and surveys Athletics clubs 100% Telephone Secondary schools (including independent) 90% Face to face Primary schools 45% Surveys

1 Team response %

January 2012 3-033-1011 Final report: Knight Kavanagh & Page 19 WOLVERHAMPTON CITY COUNCIL PLAYING PITCH ASSESSMENT

In total 162 contacts were consulted as part of this study which provides a high level of consultation response.

Local sports development officers, county associations and regional governing body officers advised which of the clubs to include in the face-to-face consultation. Sport England was also included within the consultation process prior to the project commencing. Issues identified by clubs returning questionnaires were followed up by telephone or face to face interviews.

Analysis areas

The City of Wolverhampton has been divided into five analysis areas (shown below) according to the current formation of local area partnerships. Analysis areas allow a more localised assessment of provision and examination of facility surplus and deficiencies at a local level. Use of analysis areas also allows local circumstances and issues to be taken into account. Hence the analysis areas are as follows:

 Bilston  Central & South  North   Wednesfield

January 2012 3-033-1011 Final report: Knight Kavanagh & Page 20 WOLVERHAMPTON CITY COUNCIL PLAYING PITCH ASSESSMENT

Figure 3.1: Analysis areas and Wards in Wolverhampton

January 2012 3-033-1011 Final report: Knight Kavanagh & Page 21 WOLVERHAMPTON CITY COUNCIL PLAYING PITCH ASSESSMENT

Population growth

From 2006 - 2026 there is expected to be 13,411 new homes built with an average household size of 2.32 per dwelling. Using Mid Year 2010 (ONS) population figures indicates a population increase of 14,305 against future population of 253,654 (2026) across the City. The table below provides a summary of the current population and future population across the City.

Mid Year 2010 (ONS) % increase 5.97% Future population (2026)

WOLVERHAMPTON 239,354 14,305 253,654

The projections are trend based projections and do not take in to account future local, regional or national policy and strategies.

3.3: Report structure

The following sections summarise the local administration of the main grass pitch sports in the City.

Each provides a quantitative summary of provision and a map showing the distribution of facilities. It also provides information about the availability of facilities to/for the local community and, the governing body of each sport and regional strategic plans (where they exist). Local league details are provided in order to outline the competitive structure for each sport. The findings of club consultation and key issues for each sport are summarised.

KKP has covered all sports for which there is currently organised, structured play on outdoor playing pitches. It is recognised that there are additional outdoor sports that could also be developed using pitch facilities in Wolverhampton. The sports covered are as follows:

 Part 7: Football  Part 8: Cricket  Part 9: Rugby (league and union)  Part 10: Hockey  Part 11: Bowls  Part 12: Tennis  Part 13: Athletics

January 2012 3-033-1011 Final report: Knight Kavanagh & Page 22 WOLVERHAMPTON CITY COUNCIL PLAYING PITCH ASSESSMENT

PART 4: GENERAL SPORTS ISSUES

4.1: Introduction

Consultation with users and non-users of outdoor sports facilities across Wolverhampton covered many issues with regard to facilities in the area. Sport and facility specific issues are covered in the relevant sections of this report. This section sets out generic issues that cut across more than one sport/facility.

4.2: Clubmark

‘Playing to Win’ is the Government’s plan to get more people participating simply for the ‘love of sport’. Its stated vision is to give more people of all ages the opportunity to participate in high quality competitive sport through developing an integrated and sustainable sporting system which will nurture and develop sporting talent, underpinned by a high quality club and competition structure.

Sports clubs, and, in particular, Clubmark clubs directly support this aim. Clubmark accredited clubs are externally assessed to ensure they achieve minimum operating standards, regardless of the National Governing Body (NGB) to which they affiliate. Evidence collected independently of NGB’s suggests that they have, over the past two years, increased junior participation, raised the number of active, qualified coaches and improved levels of coach qualification, thus making them, in their own view and that of the evaluators, more effective and sustainable community sports clubs. Wolverhampton has 16 Clubmark clubs and a further four ‘working towards’ accreditation.

The following 20 Clubmark accredited or ‘working towards’ clubs use outdoor sport and recreation facilities in Wolverhampton:

Table 4.1: Clubmark accredited or working towards clubs in the City

Sport type Club name Status Cricket Wolverhampton Cricket Club Accredited Cricket Penn Cricket Club Accredited Cricket Fordhouses Cricket Club Accredited Cricket Old Wulfrunians & Tettenhall Cricket Club Accredited Cricket Springvale Cricket Club Working towards Football Trysull Tigers Football Club Accredited Football Danesmore Diamonds Football Club Accredited Football Wolverhampton Wands Girls C of E Football Club Accredited Football Ashmore Park Rangers Football Club Accredited Football Himley Hawks Football Club Accredited Football Bilston Casuals Football Club Accredited Football Springvale Steelers Football Club Accredited Football Bilbrook Junior Football Club Accredited Football Willenhall Colts Junior Football Club Accredited Hockey Wolverhampton & Tettenhall Hockey Club Accredited Hockey Old Wulfrunians Hockey Club Accredited Hockey Wolverhampton Hockey Club Accredited Tennis Wolverhampton Lawn Tennis And Squash Club Accredited Tennis Albert Lawn Tennis Club Accredited

January 2012 3-033-1011 Final report: Knight Kavanagh & Page 23 WOLVERHAMPTON CITY COUNCIL PLAYING PITCH ASSESSMENT

Sport type Club name Status Athletics Wolves and Bilston Athletics Club Working towards Rugby league Wolverhampton RLFC Working towards

WCC may wish to consider future prioritisation of facilities particularly as these clubs can support the complementary objectives and targets of partners in local authorities. For example, achieving targets for youth participation, the five hour offer and school-club links.

4.3: Wolverhampton CLUB Registration

WCC Sports Development run the Wolverhampton Sports Club Registration scheme which is aimed at smaller clubs those that cannot become Clubmark accredited. The scheme is intended as an acknowledgment of the commitment and quality of local clubs but also to improve the level of provision available to young people and vulnerable adults across the City. The accreditation sets out basic operating standards that clubs in Wolverhampton should achieve and is generic to all sports including non traditional sports such as dance and martial arts.

4.4: Development groups

The City has a range of development groups that represent the sports of athletics, cricket, hockey, rugby, tennis and other sports not included in the Playing Pitch Strategy; netball, squash and cycling. The groups are established to provide representation on the sport. KKP has utilised the development groups to promote the Playing Pitch Strategy and attended the some of the meetings to discuss generic issues relating to the quality, quantity and accessibility of facilities.

January 2012 3-033-1011 Final report: Knight Kavanagh & Page 24 WOLVERHAMPTON CITY COUNCIL PLAYING PITCH ASSESSMENT

PART 5: PARTICIPATION TRENDS

It is important that participation trends are clearly understood and reflected upon particularly in the context of the development of the Strategy. The following section engages Sport England participation analysis tools to provide a detailed understanding of the key participation trends in the City.

5.1: Active People Survey

The Active People Survey is conducted across every local authority in England and is the largest ever survey of sport and active recreation to be undertaken in Europe. The first year of the survey, Active People Survey 1 (APS1), was conducted between October 2005 and October 2006. A total of 363,724 adults living in England took part in Active People Survey 1. Active People Survey 2 (APS2), the second year of the survey, was conducted between October 2007 and October 2008. A total of 191,325 adults living in England took part in the survey. The survey is now a continuous annual survey, with Active People Survey 3 completed in Oct 2009, Active People Survey 4 completed in October 2010, at which point Active People 5 commenced and will run until October 2011.

Each survey gathers data on the type, duration and intensity of people's participation in different types of sport and active recreation and now (as of APS2) cultural participation, as well as information about volunteering, club membership, tuition from an instructor or coach, participation in competitive sport and satisfaction with local sports provision.

Table 5.1 below shows the APS2, 3 and 4 survey results for Wolverhampton in comparison to the national and the Sport England Region of the West Midlands; as well as those for the nearest neighbours. 1 The nearest neighbours are not geographic neighbours, but those which are the closest to Wolverhampton in terms of socio- demographics. This type of comparison has been developed to aid local authorities in comparative and benchmarking exercises, the models use a wide range of socio- economic indicators upon which the specific family group (nearest neighbours) is calculated. This is a different measure of participation than the NI 8 or KPI 1 participation indicators, which look at sport and active recreation (three days a week, moderate intensity, 30 minutes). APS2 found that 14.5% of those people surveyed in Wolverhampton participated in sport and active recreation at least three days a week for 30 minutes at a moderate level (KPI 1), which places the local authority below the national and regional averages. Of its nearest neighbours only Walsall receives a lower score. This increased to 17.5% following the AP3 survey and again to 20.4% for APS4.

Of those surveyed, almost three fifths (64.2%) of people from Wolverhampton were satisfied with local sports provision (APS2) which was also below the national average (66.6%) but higher than its comparable neighbours; Sandwell and Walsall. However, APS3 found that the satisfaction levels decreased in Wolverhampton (61.7%), which went against national, regional and local trends. by the time of AP4 survey completion satisfaction levels had returned to those cited in AP2 (64.6%). Again only exceeded Wolverhampton’s results.

1 According to www.cipfastats.net Wolverhampton ’s top three nearest neighbours are Sandwell, Walsall and Coventry.

January 2012 3-033-1011 Final report: Knight Kavanagh & Page 25 WOLVERHAMPTON CITY COUNCIL PLAYING PITCH ASSESSMENT

Table 5.1: Comparison of KPI 1 – 6

KPI National West W’ton 2 Sandwell Walsall Coventry (NAT)% Midlands KPI 1 - At APS2 % 21.3 19.1 14.5 16.2 13.4 23.3 least 3 days a week x 30 APS3 21.6 20.1 17.5 13.8 20.1 20.0 minutes moderate participation APS4 21.8 20.5 20.4 11.9 18.3 20.8 (all adults) KPI 2 - At APS2 % 4.9 4.7 2.2 2.6 3.1 4.9 least 1 hour a week APS3 4.7 4.7 3.3 4.7 4.7 7.9 volunteering to support sport (all APS4 4.5 4.1 4.7 3.0 2.3 2.9 adults) KPI 3 - Club APS2 % 24.7 22.8 14.8 15.7 20.8 27.3 member (all APS3 24.1 22.8 18.4 18.4 21.0 24.6 adults) APS4 23.9 22.3 23.3 15.7 18.1 18.3 KPI 4 - APS2 % 18.1 16.3 14.2 11.2 9.9 20.0 Received tuition from APS3 17.5 16.2 15.3 11.2 13.3 19.0 an instructor or coach in last 12 APS4 17.5 16.0 13.8 10.0 13.5 12.9 months (all adults) KPI 5 - Taken APS2 % 14.6 14.0 11.9 8.4 9.3 18.0 part in organised APS3 14.4 13.3 13.1 11.3 9.9 17.8 competitive sport in last 12 months APS4 14.4 13.5 14.0 8.7 8.7 12.1 (all adults) KPI 6 - APS2 % 66.6 65.3 64.2 52.9 62.1 69.9 Satisfaction with local APS3 68.4 66.8 61.7 60.8 64.2 69.9 sports provision (all adults) APS4 69.0 67.3 64.6 60.0 63.3 65.8

2 Wolverhampton

January 2012 3-033-1011 Final report: Knight Kavanagh & Page 26 WOLVERHAMPTON CITY COUNCIL PLAYING PITCH ASSESSMENT

5.2: Market segmentation

Sport England has also developed a segmentation model with 19 ‘sporting’ segments to help better understand attitudes, motivations and perceived barriers to participation.

Knowing which segment is most dominant in the local population is important as it can help direct provision and programming for sport and recreation. For example, whilst the needs of the smaller segments should not be ignored, it may be useful for WCC to know the sports enjoyed by the largest proportion of the population. The segmentation may also be able to assist partners to make tailored interventions, communicate more effectively with target market(s) and to better understand participation in the context of life stage and lifecycles. The top four segments found to be most dominant in Wolverhampton are shown in table 5.2 below.

Table 5.2: Top 4 Market segmentation results for Wolverhampton

Ref Market Key characteristics % of Activities/ Dominant segment W’ton sports that areas appeal to segment 19 Elsie and Lowest participation rates of the 11.6% Keep fit/gym North and Arnold, 19 segments. Poor health and Swimming Wednesfield retirement disability are major inhibitors. Bowls Analysis home Participation occurs mainly in Areas

singles low intensity activities. Safer neighbourhoods or people to go with would encourage participation. Organised, low- impact, low intensity events would be welcomed . 9 Kev, Pub Kev has average levels of sports 10.5% Keep fit/gym Central & league participation. Over three fifths Football South, team (62%) of this segment would like Cycling Bilston & mates to do more sport, compared to Wednesfield 52% of all adults. Kev may also Analysis take part in athletics or running, Areas golf, angling, badminton, archery

or martial arts/combat sports. 14 Brenda, Generally less active than the 8.8% Keep fit Bilston & Older average adult population. Other Swimming Tettenhall working sports that she may participate Cycling Analysis woman in are badminton, horse riding, Areas tennis, martial arts (including Tai Chi), football and golf. 45% of this segment give their main barrier as ‘health, injury or disability’. This appears consistent with the age of the segment and propensity to have health issues.

January 2012 3-033-1011 Final report: Knight Kavanagh & Page 27 WOLVERHAMPTON CITY COUNCIL PLAYING PITCH ASSESSMENT

Ref Market Key characteristics % of Activities/ Dominant segment W’ton sports that areas appeal to segment 15 Terry, 17% of Terrys are members of a 7.4% Keep fit/gym Local ‘Old’ club to participate in sport, which Swimming boy’ is lower than the national Cycling average, but higher than other organised sport indicators. Generally less active than the

general adult population.

The table above indicates the market segment with the greatest proportion (11.6%) of the Wolverhampton population is “Elsie and Arnold”, retirement home singles. This means that the greatest proportion of residents would benefit from initiatives that appeal to “Elsie and Arnold”; sports such as bowls, keepfit/gym and swimming football.

The map below shows the location of the dominant market segment in each of the lower super output areas. ‘Elsie & Arnold’ segment is the most dominant segment in the City and can found mostly on the fringes of the City’s boundary, particularly in the north.

The segment ‘Ralph and Phyliss’, comfortable retired singles, only represent a small proportion of the total population in Wolverhampton but are the most dominant segment located in the West of the City. 26% of Ralph & Phyllises are members of a club to participate in sport, which is consistent with the national average. These may be golf and bowls clubs which are popular sports for Ralph & Phyllis. 76% of this segment gives their main barrier to playing sport as ‘health, injury or disability’. This appears consistent with the age of the segment and propensity to have health problems. Furthermore, 29% of this segment say they would do more sport if they were less busy, compared to 46% of the overall adult population.

‘Kev’, pub league team mate, is the most dominant male segment by population and is most likely to live in the East of the City. This segment has average levels of sports participation, of which, 22% are a member of a club to play sport, compared to 23% of all adults. Over three thirds (62%) of this segment would like to do more sport, compared to 52% of all adults. Nearly half (48%) of people in this segment would be encouraged to do more sport if they were less busy, compared to 46% of the overall adult population.

January 2012 3-033-1011 Final report: Knight Kavanagh & Page 28 WOLVERHAMPTON CITY COUNCIL PLAYING PITCH ASSESSMENT

Figure 5:1: Map of dominant market segments by population for Wolverhampton

Figure 5.2 below indicates the latent demand of market segments that who would like to play more sport. The highest male segments that would like to participate in more outdoor sports are Kev (16.2%) followed by Jamie (12.2%).

Two out of ten ‘Kev’s’ would be encouraged to do more sport if admission to facilities/activities was cheaper, compared to 18% of the overall adult population. 64% of this segment would like to do more sport, compared to 52% of all adults. 14% of ‘Jamies’ would like to do more swimming compared to 27% of all adults. Other sports that Jamie would like to do more of are cycling (9%), football (8% compared to 2% of all adults), keep fit and gym (8% compared to 14% of all adults) and athletics (6%).

‘Terry’ local old boy, is not a dominant segment in the City, yet 7.4% of this segment express latent demand for outdoor sports. The top sports that Terry would like to do more of are swimming (21%), keep fit/gym (10%), cycling (10%), golf (6%) and athletics or running (5%). The main motivations for Terry are enjoyment, keeping fit and socialising. He is least satisfied with facilities and coaching which is consistent with the average of all adults. Terry’s satisfaction almost exactly matches the average adult score in all domains.

January 2012 3-033-1011 Final report: Knight Kavanagh & Page 29 WOLVERHAMPTON CITY COUNCIL PLAYING PITCH ASSESSMENT

Figure 5.2: Latent demand for outdoor sports in Wolverhampton

January 2012 3-033-1011 Final report: Knight Kavanagh & Page 30 WOLVERHAMPTON CITY COUNCIL PLAYING PITCH ASSESSMENT

PART 6: NEIGHBOURING AUTHORITIES

Cross-boundary migration does occur within Wolverhampton given its close proximity to other authorities. A number of clubs from Sandwell competing in the Bilston Youth Partnership League access pitches at Jennie Lee Centre (central venue). Similarly, there are also some clubs that travel to neighbouring authorities to use facilities, including those in .

The following sections take account of neighbouring authority plans and proposals, which may impact upon the provision of playing pitch and outdoor sports provision in Wolverhampton. It summarises the findings of existing playing pitch strategies (where applicable).

6.1: South Staffordshire

The South Staffordshire Playing Pitch Strategy (PPS) Action Plan has recently been updated in house by South Staffordshire Council in 2010. A full PPS review will be undertaken in 2012.

6.2: Dudley

Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council Playing Pitch Strategy was completed in 2004 and is now out of date.

The local authority is using standards from its Parks and Green Space Strategy (adopted 2009 PPG17 audit) which assessed the existing quantity of open spaces and outdoor sports green space, the current quality, public accessibility level and distribution of the Borough’s parks and greenspaces. It takes account of publically accessible outdoor sports green space (with 1,000 meter buffer) as well as sites located outside of the Dudley Borough administrative boundary within a 1.2 kilometre catchment distance of Dudley’s boundary (with a 1,999 meter buffer).

The PPG17 audit identifies there is 0.35 hectares of outdoor sports green space provision per 1,000 head of population. When compared to neighbouring Black Country local authorities, Dudley Borough has more hectares of unrestricted public access green space provision per 1,000 head of population than Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council (MBC). However, the Dudley Borough has marginally less provision per 1,000 head of population compared to Walsall MBC and Wolverhampton City Council.

In terms of outdoor sports greenspaces, the PPG17 audit highlights that opportunities need to be explored to ensure that as many as possible new or refurbished school sports facilities (both indoor sports halls) and outdoor sports pitches have community access (e.g. dual access) outside school operating hours. Furthermore, there is a need to explore ways of increasing the amount of unrestricted public access Outdoor Sports green space provision within the Brierley Hill Committee Area where there is currently an under- provision of this type of publicly accessible green space.

January 2012 3-033-1011 Final report: Knight Kavanagh & Page 31 WOLVERHAMPTON CITY COUNCIL PLAYING PITCH ASSESSMENT

6.3: Sandwell

The Sandwell Playing Pitch Strategy was completed in 2007 by PMP and assesses the adequacy of provision for pitch sports, tennis and bowls in Sandwell. The Strategy identifies 259 pitches across the Borough, of which 68% (175 pitches) are available for community use. This equates to circa one pitch for every 1,259 adults (aged 16 plus) in Sandwell.

The strategy report highlights there is perceived to be a difference in the quality of pitches in the north and south areas of the Borough. It reports that pitches located in the north of the Borough (nearest to Wolverhampton) have received limited investment; there has been a significant increase in the quality of pitches in the south.

Through calculating temporal supply and demand figures, there is an oversupply of full- size adult football pitches (46.5) and mini pitches (5) on peak day (Sunday). In comparison, there is an under supply of junior football (-41.6) on peak day Sunday and cricket pitches (-7.3) on peak day Saturday. An oversupply was also recorded of adult rugby union pitches (4) on peak days (Sunday).

Consultation, carried as part of the study, identified a decrease in the number of senior teams participating, contrasting with increases in the number of junior and mini football teams. The study also identified a decrease in the number of cricket teams.

6.4: Walsall

Its PPS was undertaken by Strategic Leisure, part of the Scott Wilson Group, in parallel with the preparation of Walsall’s Open Space, Sport and Recreational Facilities (PPG17) Audit and Assessment report. It is an assessment of supply and demand for key pitch sports (football, cricket, rugby union and hockey) across the Borough.

There are 245 formal playing pitches (on 98 sites) across the Borough, of which 82% (201 pitches) have secured community use. The PPS identifies the following:

 A current deficiency in mini soccer (-83) and junior football pitches (-4)  By 2015, the identified current deficit in mini football pitches will increase to -86 based on projected growth in participation and team numbers. By 2020 the deficit will increase to -88 mini football pitches.  The current deficit in junior football pitches will remain at -4 over the next 10 years.  There is a current surplus in senior football pitches +77. By 2015 there will be a surplus, but this will have decreased to +75, and by 2020 it will be +76; these changes reflect the demographic and TGR changes in the Borough.  There are quality issues on playing pitches across Walsall a number of changing facilities are of poor quality. Pitch quality also varies significantly across the Borough.

January 2012 3-033-1011 Final report: Knight Kavanagh & Page 32 WOLVERHAMPTON CITY COUNCIL PLAYING PITCH ASSESSMENT

PART 7: FOOTBALL

7.1: Introduction

The Birmingham County Football Association (BCFA) is the primary organisation responsible for development (and some elements of administration) of football in Wolverhampton. It is also responsible for the administration, in terms of discipline, rules and regulations, county cups and representative matches, development of clubs and facilities, referees, coaching courses and delivering national football schemes. A small number of clubs also affiliate to the Staffordshire County Football Association including, Pendeford Santos and Warstone Wanderers football clubs.

The BCFA has four strategic goals and three key enablers to achieve over the period 2008 - 2012 and has just completed its Year 3 of delivery. In line with the FA’s national strategy the goals are:

1. Growth and retention – sustaining and increasing the number of players. 2. Raising standards and addressing abusive behaviour – creating a safe and positive environment. 3. Developing better players – focusing on the 5-11 age group. 4. Running the game effectively – leading and governing the game.

Its three key enablers: i.e. the infrastructure that must be in place to achieve the goals, are:

1. A skilled workforce – recruiting and developing a highly skilled, diverse, paid and voluntary workforce. 2. Improved facilities – improving the access and quality of training and playing facilities. 3. Marketing and PR – clear communications to everyone involved in the game.

Investment in improved facilities is a key aspect of delivering the strategic goals. In order to achieve this BCFA will:

 Work with key partners and Football Foundation to explore best possible sites for third generation turf pitches.  Promote and support the Football Foundation Goalpost Safety Scheme through local leagues clubs and schools.  Increase investment into local leagues and clubs through promotion of the Football Foundation under £20,000 facilities scheme.  Implement a productive monitoring and evaluation process in partnership with Football Foundation for capital schemes.

January 2012 3-033-1011 Final report: Knight Kavanagh & Page 33 WOLVERHAMPTON CITY COUNCIL PLAYING PITCH ASSESSMENT

Football participation reports (FPR) changes in participation

Football participation rates estimate the number of individuals playing football (expressed as a percentage of the population). The following table summarises conversion rates for Wolverhampton from the last three seasons, compared with national and West Midland averages. The conversion rates provide a useful baseline for Wolverhampton.

Table 7.1: Summary of participation trends 07/08 – 10/11 (conversion rates)

Adult Adult Youth Youth Mini male female male female soccer (11v11) (11v11) (11v11) (11v11) Wolverhampton 08/09 4.0% 0.0% 22.3% 0.5% 6.1% Wolverhampton 09/10 4.4% 0.1% 23.6% 1.4% 6.5% Wolverhampton 10/11 4.7% 0.2% 19.4% 0.9% 6.1% West Midlands 08/09 4.4% 0.2% 23.4% 2.3% 8.3% West Midlands 09/10 3.7% 0.3% 22.3% 2.3% 7.3% West Midlands 10/11 4.6% 0.3% 21.6% 2.5% 8.8% National Average 08/09 5.0% 0.2% 23.9% 2.0% 8.9% National Average 09/10 4.8% 0.2% 23.3% 2.0% 8.0% National Average 10/11 5.4% 0.3% 21.4% 2.3% 9.1%

Red - indicates figures below the national average.

In general terms, conversion rates for Wolverhampton are lower than national averages across all football categories. However, the conversation rates are higher than regional (West Midland) averages for adult male. Adult male football in Wolverhampton has increased over the previous three seasons by 0.7% and is slightly higher than regional yet lower than national averages. Mini soccer participation increased slightly during the 09/10 season but is now the same as it what in season 08/09. Youth male football has decreased by 3.9% in Wolverhampton since season 08/09. Whilst the development of the adult small-sided game is in part, a contributing factor (and is important in terms of sustaining participation for adults), there remains a need to address issues relating to the decline in the adult game including the increasing cost of pitch hire and the quality of facilities available.

Further analysis of the trends over the last four years illustrated by the LAD data, highlights a number of key trends, which should be considered in the context of this report and the subsequent strategy:

 Adult male conversion rates show an increase of 0.7% over the past three seasons.  Adult female conversion rates show a decrease of 0.1% over the past three seasons.  Youth male conversion rates show a decrease of 2.9% over the past three seasons.  Youth female conversion rates also show an increase by 0.4% over the past three seasons.  Mini soccer conversion rates have remained static over the previous three seasons.

January 2012 3-033-1011 Final report: Knight Kavanagh & Page 34 WOLVERHAMPTON CITY COUNCIL PLAYING PITCH ASSESSMENT

7.2: Consultation

In addition to face to face consultation with key clubs, an electronic survey was sent to all football clubs playing in Wolverhampton, contact details were collated using league handbooks and the Birmingham County/Staffordshire CFA websites (club finder tool). The invitation to complete the online survey was distributed by email. It was returned by 135 of teams and the results are used to inform key issues within this section of the report.

7.3: Current provision

Following extensive consultation via surveys and telephone interviews, KKP has identified a total of 238 teams (126 clubs) playing in Wolverhampton. This includes youth and mini provision but excludes small sided games such as five aside, which is consistent with guidelines set out by Sport England in ‘Towards a Level Playing Field’.

The audit indicates 44 sites currently available for community use in Wolverhampton, accommodating a total of 99 pitches, which leaves 35 sites providing 46 pitches (32% of total pitch provision) which are not currently accessible to the community. The majority of these are located on school sites and tend to comprise mainly junior pitches. The consequences of the pitch supply and related demand is discussed later in this section.

Table 7.2: Summary of pitches available for community use and teams by analysis area

Analysis area No. of available pitches No. of competitive teams* Senior Junior Mini Senior Senior Junior Junior Mini- men women boys girls soccer 3

Bilston 12 4 - 20 - 6 - - Central & South 9 1 2 16 - 5 - 2 North 12 1 4 32 2 5 2 4 Tettenhall 20 3 2 44 - 13 - 6 Wednesfield 21 4 4 36 2 9 2 32** WOLVERHAMPTON 74 13 12 148 4 38 4 44

* teams currently playing in Wolverhampton. ** 24 teams compete in the Bilton Youth Partnership League using four mini soccer pitches at the same time on the same day.

Towards a Level Playing Field identifies that a senior football pitch is defined as 90m x 46m (minimum size) with 1.4 hectares maximum safety boundary. The minimum size of a junior football pitch is 70m x 42m and a mini football pitch 46m x 27m.

There are a number of pitches, as summarised below (Table 7.3), which have been excluded from the supply and demand analysis because there are no teams currently playing on the site and/or because they are not available for community use (primarily school sites). These sites offer potential capacity/additional pitches if the current supply does not meet expressed demand in the City. However, the quality of these sites varies and site inspections and any necessary remedial work should be carried out before

3 Girls and boys play alongside in mini soccer at U7s – U10s i.e. ages 6-9 years old.

January 2012 3-033-1011 Final report: Knight Kavanagh & Page 35 WOLVERHAMPTON CITY COUNCIL PLAYING PITCH ASSESSMENT

allowing teams to use them. Furthermore, appropriate community use agreements should be developed at School sites A list of sites without currently without community use is provided in Part 14 Education of this assessment.

Table 7.3: Summary of pitches not available for community use and teams by analysis area

Analysis area No. of pitches NOT available for community use Senior Junior Mini Bilston 1 6 1 Central & South 9 7 1 North 3 4 - Tettenhall 2 9 2 Wednesfield 2 3 - WOLVERHAMPTON 17 29 4

Of the pitches not currently available for community use, or without teams allocated to the site, the majority of senior pitches are located on secondary school sites or and junior/mini pitches on primary school sites. This indicates that there may be potential to increase community access to school sites to help alleviate overplay from the existing sites.

January 2012 3-033-1011 Final report: Knight Kavanagh & Page 36 WOLVERHAMPTON CITY COUNCIL PLAYING PITCH ASSESSMENT

Figure 7.1: Location of football pitches in Wolverhampton 4

4 Refer to Table 7.4 for site names and reference numbers January 2012 3-033-1011 Final report: Knight Kavanagh & Page 37 WOLVERHAMPTON CITY COUNCIL PLAYING PITCH ASSESSMENT

Figure 7.1 indicates that there is generally an even distribution of football pitches across the City. However, there are main settlement areas that are not generally well served by football pitches. Furthermore, several sites have high levels of use and as such are overplayed (red dots on the map). This affects their quality, and subsequently playing capacity.

It should be noted that next to most of the sites which are over used (resembled by a red dot on the above map) are located next to a site which is currently not available for community use. For example, Northwood Park is overplayed by 2.0 matches each week and is located close to North East Wolverhampton Academy Northicote Campus which provides one senior football pitch.

Generally areas to the east and west have more provision although there are noted to be more settlements in these areas.

Table 7.4: Key to map of football pitches

Site name KKP Analysis Community Senior Junior Mini ref Area Use football football football 2 North Yes 2 Aldersley Leisure Village 3 Tettenhall Yes 3 Sports Pitches Bantock Park 5 Tettenhall Yes 3 Bee Lane Playing Fields 6 North Yes 1 Bellamy Lane Playing 7 Wednesfield Yes 1 Fields, Wednesfield Bilston C of E Primary 9 Bilston Yes 2 School Bilston Town Football 11 Bilston Yes 1 Ground, Queen Street Bilston United Sports 12 Central & Yes 1 Ground South Castlecroft Primary 15 Tettenhall No 1 School Christ Church Junior 16 Tettenhall No 1 School Claregate Playing Fields 18 Tettenhall Yes 1 Claregate Primary School 19 Tettenhall No 1 Colton Hills High School 20 Central & Yes 2 2 South Coppice Performing Arts 22 Wednesfield Yes 2 School Deansfield High School, 25 Bilston Yes 3 Dixon Street Playing 26 Central & Yes 2 1 Fields South East Park (Football 29 Bilston Yes 3 pitches) East Park Junior School 30 Bilston Yes 1 Fallings Park Primary 33 North No 1 School Fowlers Park 35 Wednesfield Yes 7

January 2012 3-033-1011 Final report: Knight Kavanagh & Page 38 WOLVERHAMPTON CITY COUNCIL PLAYING PITCH ASSESSMENT

Site name KKP Analysis Community Senior Junior Mini ref Area Use football football football Goodrich Sports Ground, 37 North Yes 2 Wobaston Road Green Acres Primary 39 Bilston No 1 School Heath Town Park 41 Wednesfield Yes 1 1 Highfields Secondary 43 Tettenhall No 1 School Hilton Road Playing 44 Central & Yes 1 Fields South Holy Trinity Catholic 46 Bilston No 2 Primary Jennie Lee Centre Sports 47 Wednesfield Yes 4 Pitches King George V Playing 48 Wednesfield Yes 3 Field (Wednesfield Park) Moreton Community High 55 North No 1 School 56 Bilston Yes 2 Newbridge Playing Fields 58 Central & Yes 1 South Northwood Park 59 North Yes 2 Our Lady & St Chads 63 North Yes 1 1 Catholic Sports College South Wolverhampton 66 Bilston Yes 1 1 and Bilston Academy (Prosser Street) North East 67 North Yes 3 Wolverhampton Academy (Pendeford Site) Gamesfield Green 68 Tettenhall Yes 1 Playing Field Perry Hall Primary School 71 Wednesfield No 1 Prouds Lane Playing 73 Bilston Yes 2 Fields Old Wulfrunians AFC 75 OUTSIDE Yes 1 Royal Wolverhampton 76 Central & Yes 1 School (Senior School South playing fields) 77 Tettenhall Yes 3 Springvale Junior School 78 Central & No 1 South Springvale Park 80 Central & Yes 1 South St Edmunds Catholic 83 Central & No 2 2 High School South St Jude's CE Primary 84 Central & No 1 School South St Michael's CE Primary 88 Tettenhall No 1 School

January 2012 3-033-1011 Final report: Knight Kavanagh & Page 39 WOLVERHAMPTON CITY COUNCIL PLAYING PITCH ASSESSMENT

Site name KKP Analysis Community Senior Junior Mini ref Area Use football football football St Peters Collegiate High 89 Central & No 6 School South Stow Heath Junior School 91 Bilston No 1 Tettenhall College 93 Tettenhall No 1 Tettenhall Upper Green 94 Tettenhall Yes 1 The Giffard Roman 95 Central & No 1 Catholic Primary School South The Kings CE (High) 96 Tettenhall No 1 2 School Trinity C of E (Primary) 98 Wednesfield No 1 School Uplands Junior School 101 Tettenhall No 1 Wednesfield High School 103 Wednesfield Yes 3 2 Wednesfield Town 104 Wednesfield Yes 1 Football Ground, Amos Lane Wilkinson Primary School 108 Bilston No 1 Windsor Avenue Playing 109 Tettenhall Yes 7 1 Fields Woden Primary School 110 Wednesfield No 1 Wolverhampton Grammar 113 Tettenhall Yes 1 School Wolverhampton Girls 114 Central & No 1 High School South Wolverhampton United 117 Wednesfield Yes 2 Ground, Prestwood Road West Springvale Sports & 129 Bilston Yes 1 Social Club Bilbrook Junior Football 132 North Yes 2 4 Club, Wobaston Road Ashmore Park 145 Wednesfield Yes 2 Goodyear Sports and 154 North Yes 1 Social Club Sports Pitches Graiseley Recreation 155 Central & No 1 Ground South Grassy Lane Private 156 Wednesfield No 1 Sports Ground Highfields Secondary 157 OUTSIDE Yes 1 1 School - Upper Sports Pitches Grove Primary School 166 Central & No 1 South North East 171 North No 1 Wolverhampton Academy Northicote Campus Villers Primary School 181 Bilston No 1 1 West Park Primary 184 Central & No 1 School South

January 2012 3-033-1011 Final report: Knight Kavanagh & Page 40 WOLVERHAMPTON CITY COUNCIL PLAYING PITCH ASSESSMENT

Site name KKP Analysis Community Senior Junior Mini ref Area Use football football football Edward the Elder Primary 192 Wednesfield No 1 School Danescourt Road Sports 194 Tettenhall Yes 1 Club Football pitch Wolverhampton Cricket 196 Tettenhall Yes 1 2 Club (Football pitches) Twentyman Field 197 OUTSIDE Yes 1 Springdale Junior School 201 Tettenhall No 1 City of Wolverhampton 202 Bilston No 1 (Wellington Road Campus) Junior Football pitch

Leagues

There are a number of leagues active in Wolverhampton serving a range of teams from 13 in the Wolverhampton Football Combination (season 2010 - 2011) to 186 in the Bilston Youth Partnership League (season 2010 – 2011).

Consultation was carried out with a cross-section of leagues (those with a large number of teams playing in the City) and key findings are detailed below. League specific information and perspectives can be found in the table below.

Name of league Comments Wolverhampton WFCL accommodates 13 senior teams across one division including Football Combination eight from Wolverhampton. There is no current waiting list and it does League (WFCL) not anticipate a significant increase in demand as there has been a natural decrease of clubs in recent years. It operates a 20 mile radial catchment of its headquarters at Fordhouses Cricket Club. It considers pitches to be of good quality in the City. However, it express concerns regarding size and quality of changing provision at local authority sites i.e. Ashmore Park (which also suffers from vandalism). Wolverhampton As of the forthcoming season (2011 – 2012) it will accommodate 106 Sunday League (WSL) teams over nine divisions (including a premier division). It operates on a 12 mile radial catchment of The Pavilion, Wolverhampton. League rules state that a limit of 120 clubs (ten divisions) should not be exceeded. WSL reports there has been a decrease in the number of teams (comparing the previous season to the forthcoming season) by circa 17 teams. It believes this is primarily due to clubs not being able to raise the required amount to pay for pitch hire cost and a lack of interest from players. It suggests the quality and size of local authority changing provision is poor at Fowlers Park, King George V Playing Fields (also known as Wednesfield Park), Windsor Avenue Playing Fields, Ashmore Park and East Park.

January 2012 3-033-1011 Final report: Knight Kavanagh & Page 41 WOLVERHAMPTON CITY COUNCIL PLAYING PITCH ASSESSMENT

Name of league Comments Bilston Youth BYFL is the largest junior and mini soccer league in the City and Partnership League operates junior and mini divisions. It has circa 186 teams across ten (BYFL) divisions. Its U10 division operates at WCC site Jennie Lee Centre (central venue) where it accesses four mini pitches and has access to toilet and changing provision. In the previous three years it has introduced an U21s age group (two divisions each fielding seven teams) and reports its membership is increasing annually. It’s operates a catchment area of 12 miles from the City centre. It reports the large majority of its teams are from Wolverhampton. It suggests it has demand for additional pitches which it could use as a central venue to accommodate future growth.

January 2012 3-033-1011 Final report: Knight Kavanagh & Page 42 WOLVERHAMPTON CITY COUNCIL PLAYING PITCH ASSESSMENT

Accessibility

Whilst it is noted that at young age groups (i.e. mini and junior levels), the majority of players tend to play for teams with home grounds close to where they live and will only travel locally, players aspiring to play at clubs that are perceived to offer a higher standard of experience are willing to travel further (i.e. up to five miles) to play. The football club survey reveals that 63% of players travel between two and five miles, 22% travel over five miles, with only 15% of players travelling up to two miles. This suggests that in general terms, players travel locally to compete. However, some clubs reportedly travel further to access training provision. Issues with accessing provision for training are detailed later in this section.

7.4: Development

Adult male football is increasing across the City contrary to national averages. However, league consultation reports a decline of the 11-a-side adult football and cites the main reason for this is due to players work and lifestyle commitments. Mini soccer has remained static. However, there are a number of proactive development minded clubs in the City, which have achieved Charter Standard status and are recognised as supporting the development of the sport across the City.

The KKP football survey asked clubs to detail issues relating to development and growth. The most common issues reported in Wolverhampton include:

 Lack of internal funding, such as subs and fundraising (73% of respondents believe this is an issue).  Lack of external funding, from agencies such as the FA or local organisations including WCC (62% of respondents believe this is an issue).  Lack of voluntary assistance (38% of respondents believe this is an issue).  Lack of appropriate local facilities (21% of respondents believe this is an issue).

Professional clubs

Wolverhampton Wanderers plays in the Premier League. It plays its home matches at Molineux, which has a capacity of 29,195. The Club has extensive facility development plans which include:

 Phase one - increasing the capacity to approximately 31,700 which is due to be completed for the start of the 2012/2013 season.  Phase two - plans to increase the capacity to 36,000.  Phase three – new club megastore, museum, cafe, a family information centre, hospitability facilities and a larger accessible lounge for disabled supporters.

Its training ground is located close to the City Centre at Sir Jack Hayward Training Ground (accommodating five senior pitches). Consultation suggests that the presence of Wolverhampton Wanderers promotes the sport to junior players.

Wolverhampton Academy (WA)

The Club’s academy is currently based at Aldersley Leisure Village (ALV) where it has access to a third generation turf pitch (3G) indoor dome. Its lease agreement is due to expire in October 2011. The indoor dome is solely used by WA and is not available for wider community use.

January 2012 3-033-1011 Final report: Knight Kavanagh & Page 43 WOLVERHAMPTON CITY COUNCIL PLAYING PITCH ASSESSMENT

Wolverhampton FC Community Trust

Wolves Community Trust is the charity arm of Wolverhampton FC and aims to improve the health and skills of children and adults across the City through sport. The Trust delivers a large proportion across a number of sites located in the Wolverhampton, Sedgley, Walsall, Telford and Dudley areas.

Semi professional clubs

The senior non-league divisions in England administered by the FA are often known as football's ‘Pyramid’. Promotion at all levels within the National League System is subject to FA ground grading requirements, as well as league specific rules and requirements. There is a significant number of teams playing a higher standard of football in the City with five teams competing in the West Midlands Regional League Premier Division (Step Six), including Wolverhampton Casuals who are located just outside the City boundary and five teams (including Trysull FC who play at Wolverhampton Casuals) playing in the West Midlands Regional League Division One (Step Seven). Teams playing at this level must meet stringent FA Ground Grading Category G requirements.

It is important to note that these clubs contribute to the wider development of football in the City and have extensive junior sections.

Club development

In Wolverhampton, the club to team ratio is 1:1.9 (i.e. each club runs on average 1.9 teams). This compares to a national ratio of 1:2.9 and a regional ratio of 1:2.3. In general terms, this is lower than national and regional averages. However, it should be noted that the low ratio is attributed to the high number of single team clubs in the City.

In total, 14 football clubs in Wolverhampton have been awarded FA Charter Standard accreditation. In terms of teams, 32% of youth and mini soccer teams play within a club of Charter standard status. This compares to a national average of 70.4% with a FA National Game Strategy target of 75% of youth and mini-soccer teams playing within a Charter Standard Club by 2012.

A number of the City’s Charter Standard clubs have also developed activity for younger players i.e. U6s (‘Future Stars’) to secure a regular demand for players and which demonstrates that mini football is continuing to grow.

Women’s and girls’ football

The audit identifies there are four junior girls’ and four senior women’s teams playing on pitches in the City. However, it should be noted that junior girls’ are playing competitively in mini soccer teams up to the age of ten years old. Analysis of club survey responses identifies there are two clubs; Ashmore Park Rangers (one girls’ team) and Punjab Colts (one girls’ team) that have plans to increase the number of junior girls’ teams. Furthermore, Punjab United Sports FC also has plans to increase by a further senior women’s team.

Ashmore Park Rangers has an agreement with Wolverhampton United FC to access its pitches and has aspirations to develop segregated girls changing. It currently has access to a porta cabin which it has converted into a changing room.

January 2012 3-033-1011 Final report: Knight Kavanagh & Page 44 WOLVERHAMPTON CITY COUNCIL PLAYING PITCH ASSESSMENT

7.5: Key issues for football

This section provides a summary of the key issues for football in the City. The summaries are based on:

 KKP qualitative site visits.  Supply and demand analysis using the Playing Pitch Methodology as outlined in Towards a Level Playing Field.  Consultation with a variety of stakeholders, including the governing body and clubs.

The report does not, at this juncture, include any strategic recommendations. The subsequent Strategy and Action Plan will incorporate plans for the future.

Ownership and self-management agreements

Local authority sites

There are sixteen sites providing football pitches available for community use which are managed directly by WCC Parks and Green Spaces Section:

 Ashmore Park  Heath Town Park  Bantock Park  Hilton Road Playing Fields  Bee Lane Playing Field  King George V Playing Fields (Wednesfield Park)  Claregate Playing Field  Newbridge Playing Fields  Dixon Street Playing Field  Northwood Park  East Park  Prouds Lane Playing Fields  Springvale Park  Tettenhall Upper Green  Fowlers Park  Windsor Avenue Playing Fields

Education pitches

There are 20 education establishments that have entered into a Service Level Agreement from April 2011 to March 2012 with WCC Education Site Development & Support Team for co-ordination of school lettings. This type off arrangement encourages clubs, groups and organisations to access school premises to help increase revenue and develop links with the local community. A dedicated ‘bookings officer’ is responsible for managing and cancelling school pitches. Consultation notes 45% (9) education establishments with a SLA do not allow community use of its grass pitches (predominately football) due to a number of reasons including access, high levels of extra curricular activities and lack of finance to maintain pitches from additional wear and tear.

WCC leased/hired pitches

WCC lease out some playing pitch sites which can provide more favourable pitch quality and site securement than clubs having to book pitches on existing public open space. Furthermore, Wolverhampton FC Academy has a hiring agreement (due to expire in circa October 2011) to access the indoor 3G pitch at ALV.

January 2012 3-033-1011 Final report: Knight Kavanagh & Page 45 WOLVERHAMPTON CITY COUNCIL PLAYING PITCH ASSESSMENT

Maintenance

Grounds maintenance of WCC pitches is divided between an external grounds maintenance specialist Enterprise and WCC’s Street Scene Unit. In terms of grounds maintenance the City is divided into three contracts:

 1. Street Scene - North East Area  2. Enterprise - South East Area  3. Enterprise - South West Area

Contract areas are overseen by a District Manager to ensure the standard and quality of sites is maintained. Enterprise and Street Scene operate to similar grounds maintenance contracts with all pitches maintained to Standard A and consultation as part of the PPS suggests that one standard of pitch maintenance is evident across pitch sites.

Pitch quality

Site assessments suggest that generally the quality of pitches across the City is good. This is generally reinforced by users and leagues. Many clubs and leagues note a positive relationship with the Council, particularly in relation to day to day issues. The audit of pitches available for community use identifies 10 senior, 6 junior and 4 mini pitches to be poor quality. This includes pitches at:

 Bee Lane Playing Fields  Jennie Lee Centre Sports Pitches  Springvale Park  Prouds Lane Playing Fields  Tettenhall Upper Green

The site assessments were carried out at the end of the playing season and as the majority of these sites fall within the Street Scene grounds maintenance contract area some of this could have been due to the reinstatement programme being delayed in that area.

A significant proportion of the poor quality junior and mini pitches are not currently available for community use as they are located on school playing fields. The remaining pitches are assessed to be good or average quality 5. Table 7.5 below summarises pitch quality, following site visits to all pitches (including those not available for community use). However, quality of pitches should not be considered in isolation as the level of play on a site can affect the quality, (see Table 7.7 which also outlines current site capacity issues).

5 KKP site visits took place in May/June 2011. It should be noted that pitches were assessed at the end of the football playing season and therefore grounds maintenance regimes may not have been as frequent. Also, some football posts may have been removed.

January 2012 3-033-1011 Final report: Knight Kavanagh & Page 46 WOLVERHAMPTON CITY COUNCIL PLAYING PITCH ASSESSMENT

Table 7.5: Pitch quality assessments following site visits (all sites regardless of community use)

Senior pitches Junior pitches Mini pitches 92 40 14 Good Average Poor Good Average Poor Good Average Poor 60 24 8 11 12 17 4 5 5

Table 7.6 below summarises the quality of pitches that are also available for community use. There are 6 senior, 5 junior and 4 mini pitches assessed as poor quality. Increasing the quality of the pitches could accommodate further play.

Table 7.6: Pitch quality assessments of community use pitches following site visits

Senior pitches Junior pitches Mini pitches 75 13 12 Good Average Poor Good Average Poor Good Average Poor 45 24 6 4 4 5 4 4 4

Pitch surveys distributed to clubs by WCC are completed on an annual basis. These allow for identification of issues to be addressed for the forthcoming season. Users are asked to report on the quality of changing pavilions, playing surface and the administration of pitch bookings. Initial findings from 2010/11 indicate that users are generally satisfied with pitch quality and provision.

WCC suggest there is a need to rotate and rest pitches especially on public open space to ensure their long term sustainability, for example this year some pitches at Windsor Avenue Playing Fields and Claregate Playing Fields were rested.

Booking and cancellations

Booking on WCC pitches tends to be allocated to teams playing in the main leagues servicing the City, followed by a ‘first come, first served’ basis. Consultation indicates sites with changing provision tend to be more popular with users, for example at Windsor Avenue Playing Fields.

Cancellations on local authority pitches are generally at the discretion of WCC District Managers and are generally assessed on a site by site basis. Users are usually then notified either via email, press release, via respective leagues and/or by radio. Clubs and leagues believe that this is an appropriate policy and works well.

January 2012 3-033-1011 Final report: Knight Kavanagh & Page 47 WOLVERHAMPTON CITY COUNCIL PLAYING PITCH ASSESSMENT

Ancillary facilities

KKP audit identifies there are 9 WCC Playing Field sites without direct access to changing provision:

 Ashmore Park  Bee Lane Playing Fields  Dixon Street Playing Fields  Springvale Park  Heath Town Park  Hilton Road Playing Fields  Northwood Park  Prouds Lane Playing Fields  Tettenhall Upper Green

However, three sites; Hilton Road Playing Fields, Ashmore Park and Prouds Lane Playing Fields can access changing rooms on premises adjoining the grounds (although may incur an additional charge) such as schools etc.

With the exception of Ashmore Park, Dixon Street Playing Fields and Northwood Park the remaining sites are single pitch sites. Therefore, it would not be financially viable for WCC to provide changing rooms. Consultation with Wolverhampton Sunday Football League and clubs identifies there is demand for changing rooms due to league requirements particularly at Dixon Street Playing Fields.

User consultation also suggests the size of existing changing rooms are too small and do not cater for current team sizes. In general, KKP site assessments rated the quality of changing provision at local authority sites as adequate quality. One site; Bantock Park received an excellent rating which was recently re-built.

Demand

Consultation suggests that a number of pitches in Wolverhampton are at, or approaching capacity particularly on a Sunday when the majority of senior football in the City is played.

In comparison, league consultation suggests there has been a decrease in the number of senior teams competing in the City over recent years. This is also mirrored both regionally and nationally. However, the majority of clubs fielding senior teams report membership levels have remained static. Junior clubs also report static membership levels over the previous three years.

Furthermore, nine clubs also cite proposals to increase the number of teams provided further. Of responding clubs, a total of two senior men’s, one senior women’s and twelve junior teams are planned for next season.

Latent demand

Although the majority of clubs report that membership levels have remained static over the previous five years, latent demand is expressed by a small number of clubs (as outlined in Table 7.10. This is likely to be as a result of both clubs and facilities operating at capacity and although clubs may believe demand still exists to create more teams, the pitches do not exist (or are not available) to cater for this.

January 2012 3-033-1011 Final report: Knight Kavanagh & Page 48 WOLVERHAMPTON CITY COUNCIL PLAYING PITCH ASSESSMENT

FA Youth Development Review

The FA's Youth Development Review will see an increased use of small-sided games for all age groups up to U12s. This will allow children to progress gradually through age- appropriate formats. The entry point for U7s and U8s will be the 5v5 game. U9s and U10s will then step up to 7v7, followed by a new 9v9 level for U11s and U12s.

The table below provides a summary of each step and the appropriate pitch and goal sizes:

Age Format Pitch size (m) Goal size 7-8 5 v 5 30 x 20 – 40 x 30 Mini soccer (12’x6’) 9-10 7 v 7 50 x 30 – 60 x 40 Mini soccer (12’x6’) 11-12 9 v 9 70 – 40 – 80 x 50 New 9v9 goals (16’x7’) 13+ 11 v 11 90 x 50 – 110 x 70 Full size (24’ x 8’)

Playing smaller-sided games has been proved to give children an increased number of touches of the ball, while providing more goals and scoring attempts, more one-v-one encounters and more chance to attempt dribbling skills. It is this increased contact time with the ball that the FA believe will help children enjoy the game more while providing them with better preparation for the 11-a-side a game.

The introduction of 9v9 football, by the FA, is designed to help bridge the gap between mini soccer at U10s and 11 a-side at U11s and will see the introduction of a new intermediate sized pitch.

The Bilston & Youth Partnership League has expressed some concerns on how its teams will be accommodated for this new format of football. The FA reports the solution is to use existing 11 a side pitches and mark out two 9v9 pitches in blue lines, with either one pitch from box to box or two pitches across half a pitch (see diagram below):

Through marking out two 9v9 pitches on one senior pitch this will thus help to meet the shortfall of junior pitches identified at peak times in the City. However, portable intermediate sized (16’x7’) goalposts will be required, which the FA, in partnership with the Football Foundation, is making funding available as part of the Grow the Game scheme. Furthermore, Sport England can also provide 100% funding for 9v9 goalposts via the small grants scheme.

The proposals will not become mandatory until 2013/14 season.

January 2012 3-033-1011 Final report: Knight Kavanagh & Page 49 WOLVERHAMPTON CITY COUNCIL PLAYING PITCH ASSESSMENT

Facility development

In terms of facility development, two sites in the City have secured Football Foundation funding over recent years:

Site Details Grant North East Wolverhampton Pitch drainage works and £265,000 Academy Pendeford Site changing rooms (2004) Wolverhampton College 3G pitch and changing rooms Grant value £556,758 + (Wellington Road Campus) Revenue grant of £63,251

The BCFA recommend further investment in larger sites is required rather than single pitch sites, which may only benefit one or two teams. It is keen to support provision of municipal pitches, which offer value for money, particularly those that support adult 11 a side football.

Multi-pitch sites

There is demand for a large multi-pitch site within Wolverhampton to accommodate a number of the City’s largest football clubs (in terms of number of teams). Whilst it is recognised that due to the limitations of available land, clubs believe that where possible, options should be explored to provide a development of a large multi-pitch site. There are proposals to improve a range of sporting provision throughout the City supported by the BCFA through the development of cluster sites. Specific club developments and plans identified during consultation are detailed below

Table 7.7: Facility development plans

Site Development Wednesfield Town FC Consultation highlights the Club has facility development plans to upgrade its changing rooms and hospitality facilities at its home ground. At present, there is only capacity to accommodate two teams at any one time. Subject to identifying external funding, the Club also reports plans to upgrade the clubhouse facility which is looking worn and tired. Billbrook FC In 2008, the Club received planning permission to install floodlighting on its main pitch. However, this is due to expire in August 2011. It reports there is demand for floodlighting on the main pitch to enter higher standard leagues such as the West Midlands Premier League or the Midlands Youth League. Consultation reports this has not come to fruition due to a lack of external funding. Punjab United Sports The Club is looking for new premises to enable the club to establish a FC multi sports club and offer other sporting activities to the local community such as yoga, netball and boxing and accommodate latent demand in an area (detailed in the latent demand section).

January 2012 3-033-1011 Final report: Knight Kavanagh & Page 50 WOLVERHAMPTON CITY COUNCIL PLAYING PITCH ASSESSMENT

Training facilities

There are six full sized AGPs on five sites in Wolverhampton, all of which are sand based apart from one at the City of Wolverhampton College, which has a 3G surface:

 Aldersley Leisure Village (two AGPs)  City of Wolverhampton College (Wellington Road campus)  Heath Park Business Enterprise College  The Royal Wolverhampton School (Senior Site)  The Wolverhampton Grammar School

The AGP at Jennie Lee Centre has closed and is no longer available for community use. City of Wolverhampton College report there is demand to book out the 3G facility circa three times over at peak times i.e. midweek evenings.

Sport England Facilities Planning Model (FPM) 6

Figure 1 below illustrates the location of the current stock of pitches, including the known commitment at South Wolverhampton and Bilston Academy. It is also possible to see the locations of facilities which lie in adjacent local authorities but close to the administrative boundary.

Figure 7.2: Current location of AGPs (including known commitments)

WOLVERHAMPTON AGPS ANALYSIS AGP LOCATIONS RUN 1- EXISTING POSITION INCLUDING COMMITMENTS  Cheslyn Hay A449 A460

M South Staffordshire 6 M54

Codsall

A41 

M

6 ALDERSLEYALDERSLEY HEATHHEATH PARK  Perton Wolverhampton Walsall Wolverhampton THETHE WOLVERHAMPTONWOLVERHAMPTON GRAMMARGRAMMAR SCHOOLSCHOOLA454

THETHE ROYALROYALROYAL A454 CITY OF WOLVERHAMPTON WOLVERHAMPTON   COLLEGE  Key SCHOOLSCHOOL S WOLVERHAMPTON S WOLVERHAMPTON & BILSTONBILSTON ACADEMY  AGP Site

 

A41 Wombourne Additional material ®Sport England 2011 Dudley Sandwell Source: 2001 Census, Output Area Boundaries, ITN Roads data. Map produced by The Planning Data Management Service A4123 ® Crown Copyright 2011. Licence numbers C02W0003683 & 100033111 A449 Crown Copyright material is reproduced with the permission of the Controller of HMSO 21/11/2011 Job ED using Mapinfo for Sport England ®The Automobile Association 1999, all rights reserved

6 Local Assessment of Artificial Grass Pitch Provision Facility Planning Model December 2011: Sport England

January 2012 3-033-1011 Final report: Knight Kavanagh & Page 51 WOLVERHAMPTON CITY COUNCIL PLAYING PITCH ASSESSMENT

Figure 7.3: Demand analysis of AGPs

WOLVERHAMPTON AGPS ANALYSIS 2011 DEMAND

South Staffordshire

Wolverhampton Walsall

Peak period demand in 1Km squares Expressed as pitches (rounded)

0.2 to 0.3 (25) 0.1 to 0.2 (84) >0 to 0.1 (40)

0 population w ithin Wolverhampton outside Wolverhampton

Additional material ®Sport England 2011 Dudley Sandwell Source: 2001 Census, Output Area Boundaries, ITN Roads data. Map produced by The Planning Data Management Service ® Crown Copyright 2011. Licence numbers C02W0003683 & 100033111 Crown Copyright material is reproduced with the permission of the Controller of HMSO 21/11/2011 Job ED using Mapinfo for Sport England ®The Automobile Association 1999, all rights reserved

Figure 7.3 illustrates that the areas of greater demand generally accord with areas of greatest population concentrations. There are also areas of demand in adjacent local authority areas which could use pitches in Wolverhampton. However, 78% of the overall demand is estimated to be for access to AGPs to play football and only 12% to play hockey.

January 2012 3-033-1011 Final report: Knight Kavanagh & Page 52 WOLVERHAMPTON CITY COUNCIL PLAYING PITCH ASSESSMENT

Figure 7.3: Facility Planning Model - Combined AGPs 2011 Unmet Demand

WOLVERHAMPTON AGPS FOR FOOTBALL ANALYSIS UNMET DEMAND RUN 1- EXISTING POSITION INCLUDING COMMITMENTS 

South Staffordshire



   Wolverhampton Walsall

 Unmet demand in 1Km squares   Expressed as pitches (rounded)   0.1 to 0.1 (8) >0 to 0.1 (102)

No unmet demand  w ithin Wolverhampton  outside Wolverhampton

Additional material ®Sport England 2011 Dudley Sandwell Source: 2001 Census, Output Area Boundaries, ITN Roads data. Map produced by The Planning Data Management Service ® Crown Copyright 2011. Licence numbers C02W0003683 & 100033111 Crown Copyright material is reproduced with the permission of the Controller of HMSO 16/11/2011 Job ED using Mapinfo for Sport England ®The Automobile Association 1999, all rights reserved

The areas to the immediate north and west of the City centre appear to contain the greatest concentration of unmet demand. However, it is also evident that generally, there is a spread across the city and there are pockets where no unmet demand is observed. This location of identified unmet demand will be important when considering if and how to address any shortfalls or gaps in provision.

Summary

Around 75% of overall AGP demand generated by Wolverhampton residents is thought to be satisfied by the existing supply network.

However, there is a clear difference in how this is broken down into the satisfied demand for hockey and satisfied demand for football. When hockey demand is looked at, virtually all the demand generated within Wolverhampton is estimated to be satisfied by the available provision. This does not necessarily mean that this satisfied demand is all expressed within Wolverhampton, and indeed the model estimates that satisfied demand is exported and expressed at facilities in other local authorities. The majority of this exported demand is estimated to be expressed in South Staffordshire, which has a very good supply of hockey provision compared to the demand generated by the resident population.

January 2012 3-033-1011 Final report: Knight Kavanagh & Page 53 WOLVERHAMPTON CITY COUNCIL PLAYING PITCH ASSESSMENT

Third generation turf pitches (3G)

The FA provision standard suggests that there should be one 3G pitch per 70 teams. Data of affiliated teams from the FA Participation Reports (2009/2010) suggests there is a need for 4.73 pitches in Wolverhampton. Based on 2015 population increases and the number of predicated teams, this would result in the need for an additional 5.07 pitches by 2015.

7.6: Provision of football pitch sites assessed by quality and capacity

This section presents the current pitch stock available for football in the City. It illustrates the:

 Number of pitches rated as Good (G), Average (A) and Poor (P) on each site.  Type of pitch(es) on each site (i.e., senior, junior, mini).

The column entitled ‘matches per week’ is split into three sections – play, capacity and rating:

 The current level of play per week (0.5 for each match played at the site, assuming half of matches will be played ‘away’).  The capacity of the pitches on each site.  The rating of the pitches, which indicates if pitches are played under capacity (green), played at capacity (amber) or played over-capacity (red).

Calculation of capacity is based on the qualitative ratings. Taking into consideration Sport England guidelines on capacity the following was concluded:

If a pitch is rated as ‘good’ its capacity is specified as two matches per week. If a pitch is rated as ‘acceptable’ its capacity is specified as one match per week. If a pitch is rated as ‘poor’ its capacity is specified as 0.5 match every other week.

School pitches have been issued with a different capacity rating. This is due to the fact that they generally experience higher usage through curricular and extracurricular school based use. It is possible to enter team equivalents into the database in order to calculate equivalent demand for school pitches. However, due to a lack of consistent information from schools it is not possible to be entirely accurate. Therefore, school pitches are identified as having the following capacity ratings in relation to community use:

 If a pitch is rated as ‘good’ its capacity is specified as two matches per week.  If a pitch is rated as ‘acceptable’ its capacity is specified as one match per week.  If a pitch is rated as ‘poor’ its capacity is specified as 0.5 match every other week.

January 2012 3-033-1011 Final report: Knight Kavanagh & Page 54 WOLVERHAMPTON CITY COUNCIL PLAYING PITCH ASSESSMENT

Table 7.8: Football provision (sites with community use) and level of community use

KKP Site name Analysis area Senior Junior Mini Matches per week Consultation comments ref G A P G A P G A P play cap rating 9 Bilston C of E Primary Bilston 2 1.5 4.0 3 The pitches have the capacity to School accommodate an additional 2.5 matches each week. 11 Bilston Town Football Bilston 1 1.5 2.0 3 The pitches have slight spare Ground, Queen Street capacity to accommodate an additional 0.5 matches each week. 25 Deansfield High Bilston 2 1 1.0 2.5 3 Site assessments rate two School, senior football pitches as adequate and one senior pitch as poor quality. 29 East Park (Football Bilston 3 5.0 6.0 3 The site provides three senior pitches) football pitches. It is not used on a Saturday due to a lack of demand. 30 East Park Junior Bilston 1 1.0 0.5 1 The site is overplayed by 0.5 School matches each week. 56 Moseley Park School Bilston 2 0.5 4.0 3 The pitches have the capacity to accommodate an additional 3.5 matches each week. 66 South Wolverhampton Bilston 1 1 0.5 4.0 3 The site provides one senior and Bilston Academy and one junior football pitch. (Prosser Street) Both pitches were assessed as good quality. The pitches have the capacity to accommodate a further 3.5 matches each week.

January 2012 3-033-1011 Final report: Knight Kavanagh & Page 55 WOLVERHAMPTON CITY COUNCIL PLAYING PITCH ASSESSMENT

KKP Site name Analysis area Senior Junior Mini Matches per week Consultation comments ref G A P G A P G A P play cap rating 73 Prouds Lane Playing Bilston 2 1.5 1.0 1 The pitches are overplayed by Fields 0.5 matches each week as a result of their poor quality. Improving the quality of the pitches would increase its capacity. 129 Springvale Sports & Bilston 1 0.5 2.0 3 The site has spare capacity to Social Club accommodate an additional 1.5 matches each week. 12 Bilston United Sports Central & South 1 1.5 2.0 3 The site has spare capacity to Ground accommodate an additional 0.5 match each week. 20 Colton Hills High Central & South 2 2 1.8 6.0 3 The site comprises two senior School and two junior pitches. Site assessments score the senior pitches as average and the mini pitches as good quality. 26 Dixon Street Playing Central & South 2 1 2.5 3.0 3 The site has the capacity to Fields accommodate an additional 0.5 match each week. 44 Hilton Road Playing Central & South 1 1.0 2.0 3 The site has spare capacity to Fields accommodate an additional 1 match each week. 58 Newbridge Playing Central & South 1 1.8 1.0 1 Site assessments score the Fields pitch as average quality. It is overplayed by 0.8 matches each week. 76 Royal Wolverhampton Central & South 1 1.0 2.0 3 The pitch has spare capacity to School (Senior School accommodate an additional 1 playing fields) match each week.

January 2012 3-033-1011 Final report: Knight Kavanagh & Page 56 WOLVERHAMPTON CITY COUNCIL PLAYING PITCH ASSESSMENT

KKP Site name Analysis area Senior Junior Mini Matches per week Consultation comments ref G A P G A P G A P play cap rating 80 Springvale Park Central & South 1 1.5 0.5 1 The pitches are overplayed by 1.0 match each week. Site assessments score the pitches as poor quality due to bumpy areas and bare goalmouths. 2 Aldersley High School North 2 2.0 4.0 3 The pitches have the capacity to accommodate an additional 2 matches each week. 6 Bee Lane Playing North 1 0.5 0.5 2 The pitches are played to Fields capacity. Any additional play at the current quality (poor) will result in overplay. However, increasing the quality of the pitch will increase its capacity. 37 Goodrich Sports North 2 3.5 4.0 3 The pitches have spare capacity Ground, Wobaston to accommodate an additional Road 0.5 match each week. 59 Northwood Park North 2 3.0 2.0 1 On a Sunday the pitches are overplayed by 1 match each week. The site previously accommodated changing rooms but was removed due to vandalism. 67 North East North 3 0.5 3.0 3 The pitch has spare capacity to Wolverhampton accommodate an additional 2.5 Academy (Pendeford matches each week. Site) 132 Bilbrook Junior Football North 2 4 10.0 6.0 1 The pitches were assessed as Club, Wobaston Road adequate quality and as such are overplayed by 4 matches per week.

January 2012 3-033-1011 Final report: Knight Kavanagh & Page 57 WOLVERHAMPTON CITY COUNCIL PLAYING PITCH ASSESSMENT

KKP Site name Analysis area Senior Junior Mini Matches per week Consultation comments ref G A P G A P G A P play cap rating 154 Goodyear Sports and North 1 1.5 0.5 1 The pitch is overplayed by 1 Social Club Sports match each week due to its poor Pitches quality. 75 Old Wulfrunians AFC OUTSIDE 1 2.5 2.0 1 The pitch is overplayed by 0.5 matches each week. However, this is not as a result of quality. 157 Highfields Secondary OUTSIDE 1 4 3.0 5.0 The site has been fenced to School - Upper Sports secure school use whilst the Pitches main school site is under BSF development. 197 Twentyman Field OUTSIDE 1 0.5 2.0 3 The site is located just outside the WCC boundary. It has the capacity to accommodate a further 1.5 matches each week. 3 Aldersley Leisure Tettenhall 3 4.0 6.0 3 The pitches are used by six Village Sports Pitches teams. Site assessments score the pitches as good quality. However, line markings were not present at the time of the assessment. 5 Bantock Park Tettenhall 3 4.5 6.0 3 Only one pitch is used by the community on a Saturday (due to a lack of demand). Furthermore, although the site provides three senior pitches only two are used by local football teams (one pitch is rested). 18 Claregate Playing Tettenhall 1 3.0 2.0 1 The pitch is overplayed by 1 Fields match each week. However, this is not as a result of quality.

January 2012 3-033-1011 Final report: Knight Kavanagh & Page 58 WOLVERHAMPTON CITY COUNCIL PLAYING PITCH ASSESSMENT

KKP Site name Analysis area Senior Junior Mini Matches per week Consultation comments ref G A P G A P G A P play cap rating 68 Gamesfield Green Tettenhall 1 0.5 1.0 3 The pitch has spare capacity Playing Field and could accommodate an additional 0.5 match each week. 77 Smestow School Tettenhall 3 1.5 6.0 3 The pitches could accommodate an additional 4.5 matches each week. 94 Tettenhall Upper Green Tettenhall 1 1.0 0.5 1 The pitch is used by two teams on a Sunday. It has spare capacity to accommodate an additional 5.5 matches each week. 109 Windsor Avenue Tettenhall 7 1 9.5 15.0 3 The site is owned by WCC and Playing Fields is regarded by users as one of the main sites in the City due to accommodating eight pitches. Site assessments score thee senior pitches as good quality. However, the junior pitch was assessed as average quality due to areas of the pitch being worn (due to being walked onto access the senior pitches). One f the senior pitches is reported to suffer from drainage issues due to its position on a slope. 113 Wolverhampton Tettenhall 1 1.0 2.0 3 The site has further capacity to Grammar School accommodate an additional 1.5 matches each week.

January 2012 3-033-1011 Final report: Knight Kavanagh & Page 59 WOLVERHAMPTON CITY COUNCIL PLAYING PITCH ASSESSMENT

KKP Site name Analysis area Senior Junior Mini Matches per week Consultation comments ref G A P G A P G A P play cap rating 194 Danescourt Road Tettenhall 1 0.5 2.0 3 Private health club formerly Sports Club Football known as the Express & Star. It pitch also comprises a cricket pitch, two tennis courts and a bowling green. 196 Wolverhampton Cricket Tettenhall 1 2 3.0 6.0 3 Although the pitches have spare Club (Football pitches) capacity to accommodate an additional 3 matches each week, these are over mare=ked with cricket pitches and therefore have a lower capacity. 7 Bellamy Lane Playing Wednesfield 1 1.3 1.0 1 The pitch is overplayed slightly Fields, Wednesfield by .3 matches each week. 22 Coppice Performing Wednesfield 2 1.5 4.0 3 The pitches have spare capacity Arts School to accommodate an additional 2.5 matches each week. 35 Fowlers Park Wednesfield 7 4.5 7.0 3 Site assessments rate the pitches as poor quality. One of the pitches is not booked out for community use as it suffers from waterlogging and is unsuitable to play on. 41 Heath Town Park Wednesfield 1 1 2.0 1.0 1 The pitch is overplayed by 1 match each week.

January 2012 3-033-1011 Final report: Knight Kavanagh & Page 60 WOLVERHAMPTON CITY COUNCIL PLAYING PITCH ASSESSMENT

KKP Site name Analysis area Senior Junior Mini Matches per week Consultation comments ref G A P G A P G A P play cap rating 47 Jennie Lee Centre Wednesfield 4 6.3 2.0 1 The site provides three senior Sports Pitches pitches and is also marked out for mini pitches by the Bilston Youth Partnership League as a central venue for its mini soccer division (U10s). Site assessments score the pitches as average quality due to wear and tear on the goal mouths. Furthermore, the line markings were not visible however this was undertaken out of the football season. 48 King George V Playing Wednesfield 3 5.0 3.0 1 Site assessments score the Field (Wednesfield pitch as good quality. It has Park) capacity to accommodate an additional 8.0 matches each week. 103 Wednesfield High Wednesfield 3 2 2.0 10.0 3 It has significant spare capacity School to accommodate a further 8.0 matches each week. 104 Wednesfield Town Wednesfield 1 2.0 0.5 1 The pitch is overplayed by 1.5 Football Ground, Amos matches each week. Lane 117 Wolverhampton United Wednesfield 2 4.5 4.0 1 The pitches are overplayed by Ground, Prestwood 0.5 matches each week. Road West Furthermore, Wolverhampton United report is has plans to introduce an additional senior team this season which will result in further overplay.

January 2012 3-033-1011 Final report: Knight Kavanagh & Page 61 WOLVERHAMPTON CITY COUNCIL PLAYING PITCH ASSESSMENT

KKP Site name Analysis area Senior Junior Mini Matches per week Consultation comments ref G A P G A P G A P play cap rating 145 Ashmore Park Wednesfield 2 2.5 4.0 3 The pitches have spare capacity to accommodate an additional 1.5 matches each week,

January 2012 3-033-1011 Final report: Knight Kavanagh & Page 62 WOLVERHAMPTON CITY COUNCIL PLAYING PITCH ASSESSMENT

7.7: ‘Shortfall, adequacy and requirement’

Summary of current demand

Consultation suggests that at peak times particularly on a Sunday pitches are generally played to capacity, with all levels of football being accommodated (senior, junior and mini). There is limited use of the pitches on a Saturday.

Overplay occurs when there is more play than the site is able to sustain (which is dependent upon pitch quality). In summary, 14 sites (located in Wolverhampton) are overplayed by 19.9 matches each week. The greatest levels of overplay occur in Wednesfield Analysis Area (9.6 matches) and in the Central & South Analysis Area (2.8 matches), which is indicative of the presence of large multi-team clubs in these areas.

Eight out of ten sites, which are overplayed (see table 7.9 below) have been assessed as average or poor quality. Although the majority of overplay is attributed to pitch quality, it is also likely that some overplay is attributable to the majority of poor pitch quality. 13 sites only express a small amount of overplay (i.e. 0.5 or 1.0 matches each week) and it is likely that these pitches are generally able to cope with these levels of play.

Improving pitch quality should not be considered in isolation from maintenance. For example, just improving quality will only increase capacity in the short term (as is the concern at Pendeford).

In addition, junior and mini teams are often assigned to play at a site which caters for senior football with senior sized pitches marked out. Consultation suggests this is due to junior teams asking to play on senior size pitches rather than a lack of junior pitches.

The table below summarises the full extent of overplay expressed in Wolverhampton. This is based on the following assumptions:

 Good quality pitch – 2 matches per week  Average quality pitch – 1 match per week  Poor quality pitch – 0.5 match per week

Table 7.9: Summary of pitch overplay

Site Analysis area Weekly overplay of matches East Park Junior School Bilston 0.5 Prouds Lane Playing Fields Bilston 0.5 Newbridge Playing Fields Central & South 0.8 Springvale Park Central & South 1 Northwood Park North 1 Bilbrook Junior Football Club North 4 Goodyear Sports & Social Club Sports Pitches North 1 Old Wulfrunians AFC Outside 0.5 Claregate Playing Fields Tettenhall 1 Tettenhall Upper Green Tettenhall 0.5 Bellamy Lane Playing Fields, Wednesfield Wednesfield 0.3 Heath Town Park Wednesfield 1

January 2012 3-033-1011 Final report: Knight Kavanagh & Page 63

WOLVERHAMPTON CITY COUNCIL PLAYING PITCH ASSESSMENT

Site Analysis area Weekly overplay of matches Jennie Lee Centre Sports Pitches Wednesfield 4.3 King George V Playing Field (Wednesfield Park) Wednesfield 2.0 Wednesfield Town Football Ground, Amos Lane Wednesfield 1.5 Wolverhampton United Sports Ground Wednesfield 0.5 Total 19.9 matches

Of particular concern is the overplayed expressed at Jennie Lee Centre Sports Pitches (4.3 matches per week) and Bilbrook Junior Football Club (4 matches per week). Both sites are significantly overplayed due quality issues and as such should be priority for investment or relocation to increase pitch capacity, improve quality and/or provide additional pitches.

There are 29 sites currently available for community use that have spare capacity; where possible, it is recommended that overplay (as indicated above) is directed to these sites. The majority of spare capacity recorded is at education sites, where although the facilities are available for community use, tend only to be used for one or two matches per week.

Furthermore, one site is played to capacity; Bee Lane Playing Fields. Any further play on these sites is likely to further reduce the quality of pitches.

Temporal demand

Temporal demand for games is the proportion of matches that are played each day. It shows times of peak demand and use of pitches throughout the week. For all formats of football (mini, junior and senior) peak time use is Sunday. As a result, this creates a shortfall of pitches which could potentially be addressed if at least some junior and mini football was played on a Saturday. It may also be necessary to begin discussions with clubs and leagues to investigate the possibility of moving junior and mini fixtures to Saturday to address the shortfall in pitches on a Sunday.

It is important that findings are considered within the context of pitches that are available to meet demand. For example, at peak time (Sunday) there is a need for 64 adult games to be accommodated (this figure includes juniors that are playing on senior sized pitches i.e. U13 upwards), 19.5 junior and 22 mini games. Establishing the pitches available across the City (75 senior, 13 junior and 12 mini pitches), indicates that there is need to create more dedicated junior and mini pitches. However, this should be considered on an area by area basis. Furthermore, it is also important that overplay (21.4 matches) is factored in as there are currently insufficient pitches to accommodate existing playing commitments in some areas.

January 2012 3-033-1011 Final report: Knight Kavanagh & Page 64

WOLVERHAMPTON CITY COUNCIL PLAYING PITCH ASSESSMENT

Summary of future/latent demand

Latent demand is defined as the number of additional teams that could be fielded if there was access to a sufficient number of pitches. Consultation identifies that there are several clubs that currently express latent demand, which they cannot meet due to lack of access to pitches.

The table below summaries the latent demand identified by consultation.

Table 7.10: Summary of latent demand expressed by clubs

Club Latent demand Analysis area Pitch requirement Number Type Punjab United Sports 3 junior teams Bilston 1.5 Junior FC Willenhall Colts JFC 2 junior teams Bilston 1.0 Junior Totals - Senior 2.5 Junior

The levels of latent demand are relatively low, which suggest that the majority of demand is accommodated by the current levels of provision and that club structures across the City are also at capacity.

In Addition, two clubs; Trysull FC and AFC Wulfrunians that play on pitches just outside the WCC boundary express latent demand for 3.5 mini pitches. Both clubs could play on pitches in Wolverhampton.

January 2012 3-033-1011 Final report: Knight Kavanagh & Page 65

WOLVERHAMPTON CITY COUNCIL PLAYING PITCH ASSESSMENT

Football Team Generation Rates (TGRs)

TGRs indicate how many people in a specified age group are required to generate one team. TGRs are derived by dividing the appropriate population age band in the area by the number of teams playing within that area in that age band. Calculating TGRs enables a comparison of participation to be made between different analysis areas and where similar studies have been undertaken. TGRs can help to quantify where and why to target sports development activities at a particular area, where participation may be low.

The following current TGRs have been calculated for each of the analysis areas based on the current supply and demand. Where no TGR is shown this indicates that no teams operate at that age group, for football, in that area.

Table 7.11: Football TGRs

Analysis area Senior Senior Junior Junior Mini- (16-45) (16-45) (10-15) (10-15) soccer Men Women Boys Girls (6-9) Mixed Bilston 1:410 - 1:315 - - Central & South 1:839 - 1:457 - 1:1,399 North 1:245 1:4,318 1:405 1:967 1:87 Tettenhall 1:215 - 1:151 - 1:392 Wednesfield 1:258 1:4,674 1:214 1:885 1:354 WOLVERHAMPTON 1:326 1:12,251 1:265 1:2,352 1:284

NATIONAL AVERAGE 1:452 1:19,647 1:195 1:4,038 1:431

Relative to national averages, participation rates in Wolverhampton are generally higher. For example, significantly higher levels of senior football participation for women. However, in some areas mens participation is relatively low (Central & South and Bilston). Junior participation for boys and girls is also greater than national averages across the City. It is evident that the Tettenhall Analysis Area has the highest participation rates for junior boys whereas North has the highest levels for mini soccer. There are no mini soccer teams playing on pitches in the Bilston Analysis Area.

January 2012 3-033-1011 Final report: Knight Kavanagh & Page 66

WOLVERHAMPTON CITY COUNCIL PLAYING PITCH ASSESSMENT

Future TGRs (2026)

By applying current TGRs to the estimated population for 2026, we can project the theoretical number of new teams that could be generated in the future, and therefore the expected demand on the facilities. Table 7.12 below provides details about potential increases in the number of teams by 2026. The greatest area of growth is likely to be in senior football. The need for additional pitches, based on TGRs and population growth will be discussed on an analysis area basis in the Strategy.

Population growth in Wolverhampton over the next fifteen years (as summarised in Part Two) has been applied to the future TGR’s below to give an indication as to how many additional football teams will be generated.

Table 7.12: Future football TGRs (Number of additional teams)

Analysis areas Senior men Senior Junior boys Juni or girls Mini soccer (16-45) women (10-15) (10-15) (6-9) mixed (16-45) Bilston 2.6 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.0 Central & South 1.8 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.2 North 2.2 0.1 0.4 0.1 2.1 Tettenhall - - - - - Wednesfield 2.9 0.2 0.7 0.2 0.6 WOLVERHAMPTON 15.3 0.4 4.0 0.4 4.6

The most likely future increases in the number of teams are identified in the category of senior men for which there will be an anticipated further 15.3 teams by 2026. These teams are most likely to occur in the Tettenhall Analysis Area. It is also anticipated that there will be an increase of eleven junior boys teams which is predicted to grow most significantly in Tettenhall and Wednesfield analysis areas whilst mini-soccer growth is expected to be most significant in the Wednesfield Analysis Area.

It is also predicted there will a slight increase in junior girls’ and senior womens football.

January 2012 3-033-1011 Final report: Knight Kavanagh & Page 67

WOLVERHAMPTON CITY COUNCIL PLAYING PITCH ASSESSMENT

Playing Pitch Model (PPM)

Sport England’s PPM is used to assess whether supply of pitches is sufficient at peak times both now and in the future. The PPM results shown below (Table 7.13) take account of potential future pitch requirements as identified through the future TGRs above. A summary of future surpluses and deficiencies is shown below.

Table 7.13: Current PPM summary

Analysis area Surplus/deficiency of football pitches Senior pitches Junior pitches Mini pitches Bilston 2.5 1.0 0 Central & South 1.5 -1.5 1.0 North -1.0 -2.0 -10.5 Tettenhall 3.0 -3.0 -1.0 Wednesfield 4.0 -1.0 0.5 WOLVERHAMPTON 10.0 -6.5 -10.0

Those sites which have not been allocated as having regular current play (i.e. no community use) have not been included in the PPM analysis above.

It should be noted that these surplus/deficit predications should not be used in isolation and should be considered within the context of other report findings/outcomes. For example, it is anticipated that there will be a significant surplus of senior pitches, but a significant deficit of junior and mini football pitches. The deficit of junior pitches broadly goes towards the surplus of senior pitches. However, it should be noted that junior teams in Wolverhampton prefer to play on senior sized pitches and therefore a proportion of senior pitches should be retained for junior play.

The North Analysis Area shows the highest deficiency of 10.5 mini pitches which is primarily due to the number of matches being played at the North East Academy (central venue for the Bilston Youth Partnership League).

In addition, the oversupply of senior pitches is a direct result of spare capacity at school sites, where although the facilities are available for community use, tend only to be used for one or two matches per week. In total 28 sites have spare capacity.

The lack of junior pitches is further increased by the latent demand expressed for a further 2.5 junior and 3.5 mini pitches. Therefore, the current playing pitch stock should be protected and consideration should be given to changing the designation of some senior pitches to cater for junior football.

January 2012 3-033-1011 Final report: Knight Kavanagh & Page 68

WOLVERHAMPTON CITY COUNCIL PLAYING PITCH ASSESSMENT

Table 7.14 below suggests that in the future the deficiency of junior and mini pitches will be slightly exacerbated whilst the surplus of senior pitches will be reduced by just over four senior pitches.

Table 7.14: Future PPM summary

Analysis area Anticipated surplus/deficiency of football pitches by 2026 Senior pitches Junior pitches Mini pitches Bilston 1.3 0.6 0 Central & South 0.7 -1.8 0.9 North -1.9 -2.2 -11.6 Tettenhall 3.0 -3.0 -1.0 Wednesfield 2.6 -1.4 0.2 WOLVERHAMPTON 5.7 -7.8 -11.6

It should be noted that these surplus/deficit predications should not be used in isolation and should be considered within the context of other report findings/outcomes.

Football summary  KKP identified a total of 238 teams (126 clubs) playing on pitches in Wolverhampton.  FA demand trend analysis and team generation rates (TGRs) highlight that participation rates in Wolverhampton are significantly higher than national and regional averages for the categories of senior women, junior boy’s and girls’ and mini soccer.  The audit identifies 44 sites available for community use, providing a total of 99 pitches. In addition, there are 53 sites providing 46 pitches, which are not currently accessible to the community. The majority of these are located on school sites and tend to comprise mainly junior pitches.  Over half of football pitches (51%) were assessed as good quality, nearly a third (28%) have been assessed as adequate and a further 21% of sites were assessed as poor quality.  User consultation also suggests the size of existing changing rooms are too small and do not cater for current team sizes. In general, KKP site assessments rated the quality of changing provision at local authority sites as adequate quality.  Over a third of sites (37%) in Wolverhampton are overplayed by 19.9 matches each week. The large majority of overplay is attributed to pitch quality. Increasing the quality of pitches could result in accommodating further play. Thirteen sites in Wolverhampton only have a small amount (i.e. 0.5 or 1 matches each week) of overplay.  Clubs report that membership levels have generally remained static over the previous five years.  Two clubs in the City express latent demand for 2.5 junior pitches. In addition, two clubs playing on pitches outside the local authority boundaries express latent demand for 3.5 mini pitches.  Sport England’s Facilities Planning Model identifies that 78% of the overall demand is estimated to be for access to AGPs to play football and 12% to play hockey.  The FA provision standard for third generation turf pitches (3G) suggests there is a need for 4.73 pitches in Wolverhampton. Based on 2015 population increases and the number of predicated teams, this would result in the need for an additional 5.07 pitches by 2015.  The most likely future increases in the number of teams are identified in the category of senior men for which there will be an anticipated further 14.7 teams by 2026.  A surplus of senior pitches and a significant deficit of junior and mini pitches across the City is recorded. In some respects this is attributed to the high incidence of junior and mini teams using senior pitches.

January 2012 3-033-1011 Final report: Knight Kavanagh & Page 69

WOLVERHAMPTON CITY COUNCIL PLAYING PITCH ASSESSMENT

PART 8: CRICKET

8.1: Introduction

The Staffordshire Cricket Board (SCB) is the governing and representative body for cricket within the County, including Wolverhampton. It is responsible for developing and promoting the game.

SCB has produced a Facilities Strategy 2009-2015 which provides a clear strategic vision of its facility needs to ensure it positions itself appropriately to access funding to support its ongoing commitment to facility improvement. It operates on the basis of two centres for cricket, North and South (with Wolverhampton regarded as the epicentre for focus in the South). It aims to address a number of core strands:

 Identification and audit of existing cricket facility provision.  Maintenance and improvement of facility quality standards.  Identification of trends and analysis of gaps in provision both against quantitatively, qualitatively and geographically.  Information to cricket and other partners.  Agreed commitments based upon need and driven by the key outcome of cricket development in Staffordshire.

The Strategy acknowledges that a number of recent developments have occurred in Wolverhampton as follows:

Club Funding Project Wolverhampton Cricket Club ECB loan New clubhouse Wolverhampton Girls School Lady Taverners Nets Wightwick & Finchfield CC Channel 4 funding Clubhouse rebuild

At the time of its preparation (during 2009), the Facilities Strategy had a focus on seeking to develop school facilities, in particular, to address the need for an overall hub site. Aldersley High School was considered to offer potential in this respect for outdoor cricket and for indoor cricket through the redevelopment of the School. The SCB has since worked closely with Aldersley High School Centre, the Partnership Development Manager (PDM) of the School Sports Partnership (SSP) and Wolverhampton City Council to develop cricket to encourage sixth formers to the School as a key selling point.

Sport England’s Active People Survey uses satisfaction with local facility provision as one of its key performance indicators. Within Staffordshire there is a wide range of facility satisfaction from the county cricket playing respondents. The figures below demonstrate the report findings:

 Wolverhampton (LA) 64.4  South Staffordshire (LA) 80.9  Sandwell (LA) 66.1  Walsall (LA) 84.3  Staffordshire Moorlands (LA) 67.2  Tamworth (LA) 86.8  Newcastle-under-Lyme (LA) 71.2  Stafford (LA) 91.4  East Staffordshire (LA) 77.2

January 2012 3-033-1011 Final report: Knight Kavanagh & Page 70

WOLVERHAMPTON CITY COUNCIL PLAYING PITCH ASSESSMENT

It is interesting to note that of Staffordshire local authority areas, the levels of satisfaction with facility provision are lowest in Wolverhampton, and hence this is regarded as a priority area for the ECB.

The majority of cricket facilities in the City are owned and managed by clubs on private sites with the exception of Playing Fields at Claregate and at Newbridge. There is also a good stock of cricket pitches at schools across the City, although in the main, this is at private schools, including the Royal Wolverhampton School, Tettenhall College and at the Wolverhampton Grammar School. Whilst there is some variation in the overall standard, cricket pitches in the City are generally good quality.

Four clubs in the City have achieved Clubmark status and as such are also ECB Focus Clubs; Fordhouses CC, Old Wulfrunians & Tettenhall CC, Penn CC, and Wolverhampton CC. Each of these clubs has completed a Cricket Development Programme, which has been agreed by the SCB County Development Manager.

Wolverhampton clubs compete in a number of key leagues including; Birmingham & District Cricket League, the Staffordshire County Club Championship and the Staffordshire Youth Cricket League.

8.2: Current provision

Pitch ownership and management across the City is primarily through private sports and social clubs. Clubs range from smaller clubs traditionally offering three senior teams to those with full senior sections of up to five teams and juniors at all groups (i.e. U9, U11, U13, and U15) as is the case at Wolverhampton CC.

Table 8.1: Summary of pitches available for community use and teams by analysis area

Analysis area No. of pitches No. of competitive teams Senior Senior men Senior Junior boys Junior girls women Bilston 1 2 - 1 - Central & South 4 4 1 4 - North 3 8 - 3 - Tettenhall 5 18 1 11 1 Wednesfield - - - - - WOLVERHAMPTON 13 32 2 19 1

Towards a Level Playing Field identifies that a senior cricket pitch is defined as 46m x 46m (minimum size) with 1.6 – 2.0 hectares maximum safety. The minimum size of a junior cricket pitch is 37m x 37m.

Cricket clubs in Wolverhampton generate 34 senior and 20 junior cricket teams. Some of the City’s larger clubs for example, Wolverhampton CC field nine teams.

January 2012 3-033-1011 Final report: Knight Kavanagh & Page 71

WOLVERHAMPTON CITY COUNCIL PLAYING PITCH ASSESSMENT

7Figure 8.1: Location of cricket pitches in Wolverhampton

7 Refer to Table 8.2 for site names and reference numbers January 2012 3-033-1011 Final report: Knight Kavanagh & Page 72

WOLVERHAMPTON CITY COUNCIL PLAYING PITCH ASSESSMENT

Figure 8.1 indicates that there is a spine of provision on the west side of the City with little provision in the east of the City. Tettenhall analysis area provides the highest level of cricket pitches. Wednesfield analysis area has no cricket pitches. Old Wulfrunians CC (KKP Ref 107) is located just outside the local authority boundary but still services Wolverhampton. Fordhouses CC is the only club to service the north of the City.

Table 8.2: Key to map of cricket pitches

Site name KKP Analysis area Community Number of reference use pitches Claregate Playing Fields 18 Tettenhall Yes 1 Fordhouses Cricket Club 34 North Yes 2 Newbridge Playing Fields 58 Central & South Yes 1 Old Wulfrunians Tettenhall Cricket 62 Tettenhall Yes 1 Club Penn Cricket Ground 69 Central & South Yes 1 Old Wulfrunians Cricket Club, 107 OUTSIDE Yes 1 Castlecroft Wolverhampton Cricket Club 112 Tettenhall Yes 2 Springvale Sports & Social Club 129 Bilston Yes 1 Goodyear Sports and Social Club 154 North Yes 1 Sports Pitches Smestow School 193 Tettenhall No 1 Highfields Secondary School 195 Tettenhall No 1 Tettenhall College 204 Tettenhall No 1 Colton Hills School 205 Central & South No 1 Royal Wolverhampton School (Senior 206 Central & South Yes 2 School ) Gamesfield Green Playing Field 207 Tettenhall Yes 1 Cricket Pitch Wolverhampton Grammar School 208 Tettenhall No 2 Cricket Pitch

8.3: Development

The main leagues servicing cricket in the City are the Birmingham & District Cricket League and the Staffordshire Club Cricket Championship.

Focus clubs have been identified strategically by the ECB as those committed to long- term junior development. This includes the adoption of a development plan (for the purposes of the development of the sport and facilities) and achieving (or working towards) Clubmark accreditation. In return, clubs receive support (both technical and financial) from the ECB. In total, there are five focus clubs which use facilities in the City:

 Fordhouses CC  Penn CC  Springvale CC  Wolverhampton CC  Wombourne CC (uses a pitch in Wolverhampton)

January 2012 3-033-1011 Final report: Knight Kavanagh & Page 73

WOLVERHAMPTON CITY COUNCIL PLAYING PITCH ASSESSMENT

The City is scheduled to host a club and community development officer based at Aldersley High School (for two days each week) and working across the community (for three days each week).

Key performance analysis report

There is generally a high level of senior and junior participation at the majority of clubs in the City. The SCB has collated KPI data from the five focus clubs (during 2009 there were four focus clubs) which examines progress in terms of participation, club accreditation, club membership, coaching roles and volunteer roles.

Significant growth has been recorded across each area and is attributed as follows:

2009 2010 Participation 1,172 1,355 Club accreditation 4 5 Club membership 593 784 Coaching roles 98 107 Volunteer roles 135 158

Cricket Development Group

The Wolverhampton Cricket Development Group (CDG) is regarded as a proactive group which is well attended and constituted. The constituent members include clubs, the Schools Sports Partnership (SSP) and local authority officers. The Group is regarded to be one of the strongest groups within the SCB area.

It has produced an action plan to be updated annually in order to guide development of the sport across the City. The 2009 action plan outlines a series of objectives including education, training and development, facility development, curricular, extra-curricular activity and junior competition structures, promotion, equity and talent identification.

School cricket

Chance to Shine is delivered through individual projects working with County Cricket Boards. Each project provides a structured coaching and competition programme for a group of up to eight primary and secondary schools. The group of schools is supported by professional, qualified coaches engaged by one local cricket club. In Wolverhampton ‘Chance to Shine’ is delivered by Penn CC.

Furthermore the CDG has outlined an objective to encourage local schools to use facilities at cricket club grounds. The target rate is to secure a 20% increase in schools usage by the end of the academic year in 2009. It has also outlined actions to:

 Expand the delivery of Kwik cricket sessions on school sites across the City through the identification of four new sites.  Organise a year 5 & 6 primary Kwik cricket league (identifying 40 schools).  Organise a year 7 & 8 secondary central venue league for inter cricket.

January 2012 3-033-1011 Final report: Knight Kavanagh & Page 74

WOLVERHAMPTON CITY COUNCIL PLAYING PITCH ASSESSMENT

Women’s and girls’ cricket

There are aspirations to develop Aldersley High School as a centre for women’s and girls’ cricket. There is also good partnership work evident between Wolverhampton Girls High School and Wolverhampton Cricket Club.

Wolverhampton CC is a key club in the development of women and girls cricket. It has set up a satellite club at Wolverhampton Girls High School and has access to net equipment and the artificial strip. The clubs coaches also deliver as part of PE lessons and after school. Penn CC is also engaged in the delivery of women’s cricket. Both Wolverhampton CC and Penn CC field women’s teams which compete in the ECB Division 3 Midlands (West) League.

Disability cricket

Across the City, Westcroft School has been leading disability cricket and the positive experience has led to a relationship developing with Aldersley High School. Old Wulfrunians are a key club for the delivery of disability cricket.

The CDG has outlined objectives to increase cricket participation for people from underrepresented groups thorough engaging people in coaching sessions.

8.4: Key issues for cricket

Demand

Cricket demand is high across the City. The main clubs field at least three senior teams and at least one junior team but this is often up to four. In some instances, clubs third teams are required to use grounds on a Sunday in order to be accommodated and junior activity takes place midweek. For example, Wolverhampton CC has to access two pitches to accommodate all its teams. Its second pitch is located adjacent to its main site and is leased from WCC (due to expire in 2028).

Old Wulfrunians CC

The Club has increased the number of teams in the junior section through the creation of an U12s team. It has plans to further increase the number of teams by one junior girls’ team. Consultation suggests that the development of new nets have enabled more, and better coaching to take place for both juniors and seniors.

Springvale CC

The Club has increased the number of junior teams it operates through the development of an U12s team. The number of adult teams (i.e. three teams) has remained constant over the last three years. The Club does not have plans to increase the number of teams further.

January 2012 3-033-1011 Final report: Knight Kavanagh & Page 75

WOLVERHAMPTON CITY COUNCIL PLAYING PITCH ASSESSMENT

Wolverhampton CC

The Club also now operates a women and girls 40-over ECB Sunday League and an U15 40-over team. The Club has plans to increase the number of teams further in terms of junior girls. It proposes that these teams would play at the Club, Wolverhampton Girls High School and/or Tettenhall College. However, the Club notes that it is at capacity in terms of coaching staff and managers and is not limited by the number/availability of facilities across the City.

Parks cricket

There is demand for local authority sites to be considered which would allow for the development of cricket informally within a park environment. The ECB is also looking to develop more informal types of cricket such as Last Man Stands in order to encourage more adults into the sport. In order to deliver this the ECB is keen to work with partners to increase the provision of non-turf facilities.

Training facilities

Access to cricket nets is important, particularly for pre-season/winter training. Old Wulfrunians CC has recently secured £28,000 from the Staffordshire Environment Fund to develop new nets and covers. The need for better access to indoor cricket facilities has been referenced as a concern going forward and there is a need to develop a facility which is suitable to accommodate indoor cricket in order to also support the development of the sport outdoors. Consultation suggests that clubs are currently regularly accessing a number of school facilities, albeit this tends be at private schools.

Wolverhampton CC, for example, accesses training facilities at Wolverhampton Girls High School and Tettenhall College. It also uses indoor nets at Wolverhampton Grammar School (as does Old Wulfrunians CC and Springvale CC), Wolverhampton Girls High School, Tettenhall College and it also travels outside of the City to use Shrewsbury School and Edgbaston. Indoor nets at Kings School are used by Wightwick & Finchfield CC.

Facility development

Claregate/Newbridge Playing Fields

SCB is currently working with WCC to consider opportunities for the development of the Playing Fields at either Claregate or Newbridge, both of which are used by established clubs. Both are single cricket pitch sites and tend only to be used by second and third teams. WCC sees this as a great opportunity to secure and improve cricket facilities within the City on public open space.

SCB has expressed an interest in potentially taking on a lease arrangement(s) for one of the sites. Claregate Playing Fields is currently the preferred option based on the physical security of the site and to develop the site in partnership with the Council

Whilst discussions are in the early phases, the ECB is keen to work with partners across the City including construction and horticultural colleges as a means of improving maintenance/standards. The site would also host pitch advisor courses for local clubs.

January 2012 3-033-1011 Final report: Knight Kavanagh & Page 76

WOLVERHAMPTON CITY COUNCIL PLAYING PITCH ASSESSMENT

Fordhouses Cricket Club

Fordhouses CC, following its phased move to a WCC owned sports ground at Wobaston Road in 2005, is keen to consolidate its future at the site. The Club had formerly been based at Taunton Avenue, which has since been sold for housing, as it recognised that long term this was unviable for further cricket development.

Having acquired the facilities at Wobaston Road, the Club noted the need for investment but limited funds have restricted its ability to make large scale improvements. As the only club servicing the immediate area, it is keen to see the delivery of its business plan for the Club which will help to secure its long term sustainable future at the site. Such investment plans include the need for new changing facilities in order to support women and girls cricket, as there is currently no separate changing. Alternative changing is available in a porta cabin, however, this does not have water and electricity. The Club does also not have appropriate disabled access.

From the receipts of a local car parking agreement, the Club has been able to purchase new covers, which is a requirement for the Birmingham & District League. Further improvements required include:

 Placing a synthetic practice wicket alongside the main square  Extending the 2nd square  Improving the grass net wickets  Potential to redevelop the dilapidated courts into a floodlit MUGA  Floodlighting for the bowling green

Old Wulfrunians Cricket Club

The Club’s third and fourth teams use the Old Wulfrunians Tettenhall CC ground which has been subject to renovation work through the NatWest Cricket Force. It was chosen to showcase the programme in 2010.

Penn Cricket Club

The Club has facility development plans to refurbish the nets. Its notes that the quality of the square has also declined since last season as the Club groundsman moved on. There have also been instances of vandalism at the site with damage to boundary fences, practices and machine stores.

Springvale Cricket Club

The Club reports its plans to develop practice nets for the 2012 season.

Wightwick & Finchfield Cricket Club

Although its facilities have all been refurbished in the last five years, it has cited plans to develop a non-turf pitch, which can be used to accommodate third team fixtures and has estimated that this could be completed at a cost of £10,000.

January 2012 3-033-1011 Final report: Knight Kavanagh & Page 77

WOLVERHAMPTON CITY COUNCIL PLAYING PITCH ASSESSMENT

Wolverhampton Cricket Club

The Club’s development committee is working to secure funding to develop permanent caged outdoor nets. The project has been costed and is in the process of being funded with support from the ECB.

Home ground facilities

As part of the ECB’s required Club Development Plan, clubs are invited to record the quality and scope of facilities including square, outfield and practice facilities.

Table 7.5: Square, outfield and practice facilities

Fordhouses Penn Penn Penn Springvale W’ton W’ton W’ton Wombourne CC CC CC 2 CC 3 CC CC CC 2 CC 3 CC (E&S ground) No. of 10 13 15 1 11 24 18 12 15 strips on the square No. of - 1 - 1 - 1 2 - - non-turf pitches on the square No. of - 2 - - 2 - - - 1 fine turf practice strips No.of 2 2 - - - 1 2 - 2 non turf practice pitches No. of - 39 22 11 42 72 62 28 130 senior matches No. of 85 30 10 - - 45 55 20 73 junior matches No. of 16 2 - - One each One One One 40 senior week. each each each training week. week. week. sessions No. of 16 1 - - - 3 3 1 40 junior training sessions

Clubs generally have access to a minimum of 10 wickets per square rated as good or average quality. Four sites provide synthetic squares. Only three sites provide fine turf practice pitches.

January 2012 3-033-1011 Final report: Knight Kavanagh & Page 78

WOLVERHAMPTON CITY COUNCIL PLAYING PITCH ASSESSMENT

Pitch quality

Site assessments rate the quality of the majority of pitches as good. However, Gamesfield Green which is used by Wolverhampton CC as a second ground is rated as poor quality. The majority of clubs are responsible for maintaining their own facilities and have designated groundsmen to carry out cutting and maintenance.

Access to machinery is an important aspect of clubs maintaining the quality of facilities. As a minimum the clubs all have access to roller, pitch and outfield mower, aerator and scarifier.

Wolverhampton CC reports that the quality of its designated square is slightly poorer than last season due to the lack of rain and limitations of the machinery, for example the roller often breaks down. The Club employs a full time groundsman and the priority is to replace the gang mover and repair the roller (May 2011). It also reports that the surface of its second pitch is uneven and is often subject to problems with dog foul and litter.

Wightwick & Finchfield CC reports that the quality of its designated square is much better since last season due to winter preparation work and additional expertise secured from an experienced groundsman.

Maintaining high pitch quality is the most important aspect of cricket. If the wicket is poor, it can affect the quality of the game and can, in some instances, become dangerous. It is not possible to conduct a quality assessment of a cricket wicket within the methodology of this study. However, to obtain an accurate assessment, an ECB Performance Quality Standard (PQS) would need to be produced.

The Staffordshire Cricket Groundsmen Association (LCGA) is the body responsible for the continued professional development of groundsmen across the County. It also provides clubs with access to the most up to date machinery and techniques to enhance playing conditions.

Pitch advisors for SCB are tasked to assess facilities in order to help prioritise funding needs. Their role is to help and advise fellow groundsmen to improve playing surfaces and consistency in turf management practices.

Ancillary facilities

Table 8.6: Changing and ancillary facilities

Name of Club Changing rooms Ancillary facilities No. team No. No. of No. of No. of No. of changing umpire shower toilets sight covers changing heads screens Fordhouses 2 1 4 3 2 4 Penn CC 2 1 6 2 4 1 Penn CC 2 2 0 6 1 2 0 Penn CC 3 2 0 4 2 2 0 Springvale 2 1 6 4 3 0 W’ton CC 3 1 13 5 2 4 W’ton CC 2 2 0 12 4 2 0

January 2012 3-033-1011 Final report: Knight Kavanagh & Page 79

WOLVERHAMPTON CITY COUNCIL PLAYING PITCH ASSESSMENT

Name of Club Changing rooms Ancillary facilities No. team No. No. of No. of No. of No. of changing umpire shower toilets sight covers changing heads screens W’ton CC 3 2 0 12 4 2 2

There is generally a good standard of changing accommodation available at cricket clubs across the City, with the exception of Fordhouses CC which is keen to update its changing facilities. Each club has access to two changing rooms, although access to an umpire room is more variable particularly at second and third team grounds.

January 2012 3-033-1011 Final report: Knight Kavanagh & Page 80

WOLVERHAMPTON CITY COUNCIL PLAYING PITCH ASSESSMENT

8.5: Provision of cricket pitch sites assessed by quality and capacity

A capacity rating (as per rugby and football) is not given for cricket pitches as it is not possible to determine the number of matches that can be played on a particular pitch. This is due to the length of matches, which cannot always be determined and also differs between adult and junior matches, even though both are often played on the same pitch.

Table 8.6: Cricket provision and level of community use

KKP Site name Analysis area Community Pitches Matches Peak ref use Sat Sat Sun Sun Other use am pm am pm 129 Springvale Sports & Bilston Yes 1 - 1.4 - - 0.7 140% Social Club 58 Newbridge Playing Fields Central & South Yes 1 - 0.7 - - - 70% 69 Penn Cricket Ground Central & South Yes 1 - 2.1 - - 2.8 280% 206 Royal Wolverhampton Central & South Yes 2 - - 0.7 - - 35% School (Junior School) 34 Fordhouses Cricket Club North Yes 2 - 2.8 - 1.4 2.1 140% 154 Goodyear Sports and North Yes 1 - 1.4 - - - 140% Social Club Sports Pitches 107 Old Wulfrunians Cricket OUTSIDE Yes 1 - 1.4 - - 2.8 280% Club, Castlecroft 18 Claregate Playing Fields Tettenhall Yes 1 - 1.4 - - - 140% 62 Old Wulfrunians Tettenhall Yes 1 - 3.5 - 1.4 2.8 350% Tettenhall Cricket Club 112 Wolverhampton Cricket Tettenhall Yes 2 - 3.5 0.7 1.4 5.6 280% Club 207 Gamesfield Green Playing Tettenhall Yes 1 - 1.4 - - - 140% Field

January 2012 3-033-1011 Final report: Knight Kavanagh & Page 81

WOLVERHAMPTON CITY COUNCIL PLAYING PITCH ASSESSMENT

8.6: ‘Shortfall, adequacy and requirement’

Future/latent demand

Latent demand is defined as the number of teams that could be fielded if there were sufficient pitches. Old Wulfrunians CC is the only club in Wolverhampton to cite latent demand for one senior team and one junior team (girls). There has been no latent demand expressed by clubs for additional cricket pitches in Wolverhampton. It is evident that this is because clubs are operating at capacity and already have teams across the full range the ages.

Current demand

Although it is difficult to identify overplay by calculating the capacity of cricket pitches (as the length of a cricket match varies), it would appear that some pitches on private sites appear to be overplayed, for example, Penn Cricket Ground and Old Wulfrunians Tettenhall Cricket Club. This is largely due to the number of juniors playing on pitches (as well as senior teams).

Temporal demand

The temporal demand for games is the proportion of matches that are played each day on each pitch. Temporal demand identifies the time of peak demand and the percentage of matches played each day.

An analysis of match play identifies that current demand for cricket pitches is across the weekend for senior cricket (Saturday 56% of play and Sunday 15%) and midweek for junior cricket. At times of peak demand (13 pitches), Wolverhampton is deficient (by -3.0 pitches) in terms of the number of pitches to accommodate all playing commitments.

January 2012 3-033-1011 Draft report: Knight Kavanagh & Page 82 WOLVERHAMPTON CITY COUNCIL PLAYING PITCH ASSESSMENT

Cricket Team Generation Rates (TGRs)

TGRs indicate how many people in a specified age group are required to generate one team. They are derived by dividing the appropriate population age band in the area by the number of teams playing within that area in that age band. Calculating TGRs enables comparison of participation between different areas where similar studies have been undertaken.

The following current TGRs have been calculated for each analysis area. Where none is shown, no teams operate at that age group, for cricket, in that area.

Table 8.7: Cricket TGRs

Analysis areas Senior Senior Juniors Junior (18-55) men (18-55) (11-17) (11-17) girls women boys Bilston 1:5,105 - 1:2,143 - Central & South 1:3,965 1:15,409 1:688 - North 1:1,192 - 1:745 - Tettenhall 1:682 1:12,510 1:206 1:2,173 Wednesfield - - - - WOLVERHAMPTON 1:1,852 1:30,044 1:606 1:10,851

NATIONAL AVERAGE 1:1,415 1:54,815 1:1,480 -

There is no national TGR for junior girls’ cricket (11 – 17). Relative to national averages, participation rates in Wolverhampton are below national averages for senior men. However, there are higher than national levels of senior women’s and junior boys cricket participation, in particular the Tettenhall Analysis Area is strong for participation in senior women’s and junior boys cricket. Senior men’s participation is lower than national averages with no activity recorded in the Wednesfield Analysis Area.

January 2012 3-033-1011 Draft report: Knight Kavanagh & Page 83 WOLVERHAMPTON CITY COUNCIL PLAYING PITCH ASSESSMENT

Future TGRs (2026)

By applying current TGRs to the estimated population for 2026, we can project the theoretical number of new teams that could be generated in the future, and therefore the expected demand on the facilities. Table 7.8 below provides details about potential increases in the number of teams in 2026.

Population growth in Wolverhampton over the next fifteen years (as summarised in Part Two) has been applied to the future TGR’s below to give an indication as to how many additional cricket teams will be generated.

Table 8.8: Future cricket TGRs (Number of additional teams)

Analysis areas Senior men Senior women Junior boys Junior girls (18-55) (18-55) (11-17) (11-17) Bilston 0.3 0.0 0.1 0.0 Central & South 0.4 0.1 0.4 0.0 North 0.6 0.0 0.2 0.0 Tettenhall 2.3 0.1 1.6 0.1 Wednesfield - - - - WOLVERHAMPTON 3.3 0.2 2.0 0.1

The most likely future increases in the number of teams are identified in the category of senior men for which there will be an anticipated further four teams by 2026. These teams are most likely to occur in North and Tettenhall analysis areas. It is also anticipated that there will be an increase of two junior boys teams.

January 2012 3-033-1011 Draft report: Knight Kavanagh & Page 84 WOLVERHAMPTON CITY COUNCIL PLAYING PITCH ASSESSMENT

Playing Pitch Model (PPM)

Sport England’s PPM is used to assess whether supply of pitches is sufficient to meet peak time demand. A summary of current surpluses and deficiencies is shown overleaf.

In order to calculate the number of home games per week, guidance has been sought from Towards a Level Playing Field (in the absence of local data). The value applied in the City for adult matches is 0.7 and 0.3 for junior matches. This reflects that more junior matches are likely to be played on one pitch and that more than one match every other week is played on cricket pitches to take account of midweek league fixtures.

Table 8.13: Current PPM summary

Current cricket pitches Future cricket pitches Bilston - -0.1 Central & South 1.8 1.6 North 0.0 -0.2 Tettenhall -2.4 -2.4 Wednesfield - - WOLVERHAMPTON -0.6 -1.2

The PPM analysis shows a current slight shortfall in the provision of cricket pitches across the City. This is most pronounced in the Tettenhall analysis area. This is further exacerbated when applying future population to a deficiency of -1.2 cricket pitches in Wolverhampton.

It should be noted that these surplus/deficit predications should not be used in isolation and should be considered within the context of other report findings/outcomes. For example, the majority of pitches in the City are able to accommodate a high number of matches (due to their high standard/quality) and therefore current demand can said to be accommodated on existing provision (and the shortfall is overstated).

Given that no latent demand is expressed in the area, it is likely that there will not be significant pressure to find additional pitches in the future. Securing access to artificial wickets at school sites for example will help additional demand to be catered for (particularly juniors and women/girls).

January 2012 3-033-1011 Draft report: Knight Kavanagh & Page 85 WOLVERHAMPTON CITY COUNCIL PLAYING PITCH ASSESSMENT

Cricket summary  There are 13 cricket pitches available for community use in Wolverhampton, accommodating 54 teams (including senior mens and womens and junior boys and girls).  Site assessments score the quality of cricket pitch provision which is available for community use as good with the exception of Gamesfield Green Playing Field.  The City’s five focus clubs support high levels of participation.  Partners should support clubs to develop women’s and girl’s teams, where there is demand for such provision.  Although it is difficult to fully express overplay through calculating the capacity of cricket pitches, it would appear, through analysis of play that there are a number of pitches operating over capacity i.e. Old Wulfrunians CC, Penn CC and Wolverhampton CC.  Latent demand been reported by Old Wulfrunians CC.  The most likely future increases in the number of teams are identified in the category of senior mens for which there will be an anticipated further 4.3 teams by 2026.  The PPM analysis shows a current shortfall in the provision of cricket pitches across the City. This is most pronounced in the Tettenhall Analysis Area where there is also estimated to be the most significant increase in teams by 2026.

January 2012 3-033-1011 Draft report: Knight Kavanagh & Page 86 WOLVERHAMPTON CITY COUNCIL PLAYING PITCH ASSESSMENT

PART 9: RUGBY

9.1: Introduction

Both codes of rugby (union and league) are covered in this section.

Rugby league

Midlands Rugby League is responsible for administering rugby league across the Region and runs all junior rugby league activity in the Midlands and a Merit League for new mens teams. There is club playing in the City; Wolverhampton RLFC. It accesses WCC site Hilton Road Playing Fields and field’s one senior team playing in the Midland Merit League.

The rugby league season operates from February to September.

Rugby union

The Staffordshire Rugby Football Union (SRFU) administers rugby union across the Region. There is one club; Wolverhampton RFC, which owns its home ground located just outside WCC boundary in South Staffordshire. However, it reports 80–90% of its players are from the Wolverhampton area. WRFC is Seal of approval (Clubmark) accredited.

The rugby union season operates from September to April.

Rugby Development Group

The Wolverhampton Rugby Development Group is regarded as a proactive group which is well attended and constituted for both rugby league and union. The constituent members include clubs, the school sports partnerships, both national governing bodies (RFU and RFL) and WCC officers.

It has produced an action plan to be updated annually in order to guide development of both codes of the sport across the City. The 2010/2011 action plan outlines a series of objectives including education, training and development, facility development, curricular, extra-curricular activity and junior competition structures, promotion, equity and talent identification.

9.2: Current provision

In total, there are four rugby union pitches located in the Tettenhall Analysis Area, across three sites; Smestow School, Highfields (Upper Playing Field) and Tettenhall College. In addition, there are two rugby league pitches at Hilton Road Playing Fields (located in Central & South Analysis Area) and Moseley Park School (Bilston Analysis Area).

Towards a Level Playing Field identifies that a senior rugby union pitch is 144m x 69m and a junior pitch is 70m x 43m. A size is not prescribed for mini rugby pitches. The audit only identifies dedicated, marked out pitches (i.e. with line markings).

Temporal demand for senior rugby (union and league) is on a Saturday.

January 2012 3-033-1011 Draft report: Knight Kavanagh & Page 87 WOLVERHAMPTON CITY COUNCIL PLAYING PITCH ASSESSMENT

8Figure 9.1: Location of rugby pitches in Wolverhampton 9

8 Refer to Table overleaf for site names and reference numbers.

January 2012 3-033-1011 Draft report: Knight Kavanagh & Page 88 WOLVERHAMPTON CITY COUNCIL PLAYING PITCH ASSESSMENT

Rugby union pitches are predominately located in the West of the City and rugby league pitches in the East. There are no junior rugby union pitches in the City.

Site name KKP ref Analysis Community Senior Senior Mini area use rugby rugby rugby union league union Hilton Road Playing 44 Bilston Yes 1 1 - Fields Moseley Park School 56 Bilston No - 1 - Wolverhampton RFC 116 Outside Yes 410 - 4 Smestow School 193 Tettenhall No 1 - Highfields School 203 Tettenhall No 1 - - (Upper Playing Fields) Tettenhall College 204 Tettenhall No 2 - -

9.3: Development

Rugby league

The Rugby Football League (RFL) is currently updating its facility strategy to further identify priorities. However, it is unlikely that Wolverhampton will feature as a key area.

Rugby league is developing in the City due to the employment of a full time Wolverhampton Community Rugby League Coach (CRLC). The post is part funded by the school sports partnerships. The aim of the post is to increase the profile of rugby league in schools and focus development work with girls and work alongside Wolverhampton Rhinos to further develop opportunities for young people with disabilities, including coaching support to inclusion.

The CRLC has established an U13 junior team known as Wolverhampton Wasps, which has recently played fixtures against other local rugby league teams in the Midlands. The fixtures took place at Essington Rugby Club (located in Staffordshire). It will continue to play non-competitive small sided games.

10 Including one floodlit training pitch which is not used for competitive matches.

January 2012 3-033-1011 Draft report: Knight Kavanagh & Page 89 WOLVERHAMPTON CITY COUNCIL PLAYING PITCH ASSESSMENT

Rugby union

The RFU National Facilities Strategy provides a framework for the sustainable development of facilities for rugby union in England at a national, regional and local level. The framework will enable partners to:

 Identify priorities for facility developments to meet the various needs of the sport.  Identify what facilities are required to meet the needs of the Government sports policy and the RFU’s Strategic Plan.  Support the prioritisation of investment and funding through a detailed set of developmental criteria, technical requirements, management / operational structures and potential financial viability which will be critical to the provision of quality rugby facilities.  Prioritise future investment to ensure that the right facilities are provided in the right locations and for the right reasons.  Identify and deliver a minimum standard for all facility provision.

Investment into facilities is targeted at priorities and areas of greatest need through county facilities plans.

9.4: Key issues for rugby

Wolverhampton RFC

It fields five senior teams (including a vets and ladies), seven junior teams and six midi teams. Membership levels have remained static over the previous three years. However, the Club would like to increase its senior members.

The site comprises four senior rugby pitches (including one floodlit training pitch), four mini pitches, clubhouse and car parking facilities.

Consultation suggests the quality of the pitches have improved over the previous two years due to investment in drainage works (secured through RFU match funding). It has also secured funding for floodlights (also via the RFU). It has plans to improve DDA access on its toilet provision and has secured outline planning permission from South Staffordshire Council. However, external funding is yet to be sought.

It hires its pitches to St Marys Gaelic Football Club, which accesses the pitches to accommodate training. Wolverines Australian Rules Football Club also uses the site for competitive and training fixtures.

The Club reports it has spare capacity on its pitches mid week and is keen to partner with WCC and local schools to increase usage.

Wolverhampton RLFC

The changing facilities at Hilton Road Playing Fields are located inside Hilton Hall Community Association. These facilities are considered to be poor by the Club and the RFL.

January 2012 3-033-1011 Draft report: Knight Kavanagh & Page 90 WOLVERHAMPTON CITY COUNCIL PLAYING PITCH ASSESSMENT

Latent demand

Latent demand is defined as the number of teams that could be fielded were access to a sufficient number of pitches available. However, consultation has not identified any latent demand for rugby pitches in Wolverhampton.

Education pitches

Rugby pitches located at education sites are not used for community use. This is due to a lack of demand in the City. However, through the Rugby Development Group Plan there are plans to establish a tag rugby tournament which may result in greater use of these pitches and/or an increase in schools marking out rugby pitches.

The RFU has identified Smestow School as its BSF priority in terms of establishing a link with Wolverhampton RFC.

Rugby summary  Both rugby league and rugby union pitches are provided in the City. However, Wolverhampton RFC plays just outside in South Staffordshire but the majority of its plays are Wolverhampton residents.  Rugby union pitches are predominately located in the West of the City and rugby league pitches in the East.  Rugby league is developing in the City, with recent establishment of Wolverhampton Wasps U13 team and emerging developments in girls’ rugby league.  Rugby pitches located at education sites are not used for community use as there is no demand. However, future demand for these pitches may increase through development of a tag rugby tournament.  No latent demand for pitches has been identified in the City.

January 2012 3-033-1011 Draft report: Knight Kavanagh & Page 91 WOLVERHAMPTON CITY COUNCIL PLAYING PITCH ASSESSMENT

PART 10: HOCKEY

10.1: Introduction

Governance of the sport is devolved by England Hockey (EH) at a regional and local level to regional and county associations. The game is played predominately on sand based/filled artificial grass pitches (AGPs). EH has also now sanctioned (in partnership with the Football Association) competitive use of 40mm pile third generation turf pitches. However, this is currently only for a low level standard i.e. training and junior competition. It is further recommended that for training and community facilities that the long pile surface (60mm) is not a preferred option for the teaching of hockey. It is noted that access to long pile surfaces for introducing the game to beginners would be preferable to a poor grass or tarmac surface.

Regionally, Wolverhampton is a small area with high demand for hockey, demonstrated through a good supply of clubs. There are four hockey clubs playing in the City: Finchfield, Wolverhampton & Tettenhall Ladies, Wolverhampton Mens and Old Wulfrunians. The latter three clubs have achieved ClubsFirst/Clubmark accreditation.

10.2: Development

EH is currently working on its Facilities Strategy which is expected to be launched later this year (2011). However, this will be built around its strategic priority, the Single System Pathway.

Figure 10.1: England Hockey Single System Pathway

January 2012 3-033-1011 Draft report: Knight Kavanagh & Page 92 WOLVERHAMPTON CITY COUNCIL PLAYING PITCH ASSESSMENT

Junior Development Centres (JDC) and Junior Academy Centres (JAC)

A Junior Development Centre is a local training centre for the U13 to U17 age groups. Each centre is open to any hockey player who has been nominated by their club, school or coach. After playing for a club or school, attending a centre is the next step on the Player Pathway. In order to become a JDC, the site must provide a full size (preferably floodlit) AGP and be able to provide a minimum of 12 hours coaching per week from U13 through to U17s.

A JAC is the next step on the Player Pathway. JACs are located, in the majority of cases, at same locations as JDCs.

There was a JDC and JAC operating at Aldersley Leisure Village. However, due to the pitch quality issues, the pitches can no longer be used for this.

School hockey

There is no competitive secondary schools hockey structure in Wolverhampton. This appears to be as a result of access issues, with three (of the five) AGPs being located on school sites (two also being private schools) with limited daytime availability. Clubs suggest that not having a schools competition inhibits junior development and restricts the flow of juniors into clubs.

As part of BSF programme there may be a number of opportunities for new AGP provision. For example, a full size hockey pitch could be provided on the proposed new AGP at the South Wolverhampton and Bilston Academy, although further evidence may be required to target / compliment the recreational needs in this area,.

Nationally, in recent years, the number of grass hockey pitches has reduced significantly as EH does not sanction the use of grass pitches for competitive play. However, grass pitches are still important in terms of introducing the game to beginners and still make an important contribution to the stock of hockey pitches, particularly in terms of school facilities. Only Smestow Sports College is identified as currently providing hockey grass pitches in Wolverhampton (two).

10.3: Pitch supply

There are five full size AGPs, suitable for competitive hockey in the City, with Aldersley Leisure Village, accommodating two adjacent to each other. In addition, there are two AGPs which are currently disused; East Park and Jennie Lee Centre. East Park closed due to the prolonged lack of use and proposals for development and Jennie Lee Centre due to too high annual cost of repairs required to keep it open. Traditionally hockey has been predominately played in the West of the City and this continues to be the preferred area for clubs to play in.

Clubs highlight the benefits of having two AGPs side by side at Aldersley Leisure Village. In the past the site has been able to host Midlands based tournaments. However, clubs have moved away from the site due to the quality issues which are reference is more detail in section 9.4. There is also a general concern that these pitches may be lost to a football specific surface, as this is where the funding opportunities currently exist.

January 2012 3-033-1011 Draft report: Knight Kavanagh & Page 93 WOLVERHAMPTON CITY COUNCIL PLAYING PITCH ASSESSMENT

Figure 10.2: Location of AGPs in Wolverhampton 11

11 Refer to the table overleaf for site names and reference numbers. January 2012 3-033-1011 Draft report: Knight Kavanagh & Page 94 WOLVERHAMPTON CITY COUNCIL PLAYING PITCH ASSESSMENT

Table 10.1: Key to AGP location map

Site name KKP Analysis Community No of Surface type Floodlit reference area use AGPs The Royal 76 Central & Yes 1 Sand based Yes Wolverhampton School South (Senior School) Wolverhampton 113 Tettenhall Yes 1 Sand based Yes Grammar School Heath Park Business 135 Wednesfield Yes 1 Sand based Yes Enterprise College Aldersley Leisure Village 142 Tettenhall Yes 2 Sand based Yes East Park 152 Bilston No 1 Sand based Yes Jennie Lee Centre 158 Wednesfield No 1 Sand based Yes

All analysis areas (with the exception of North analysis area) are served by AGP provision.

In terms of quantity, provision in Wolverhampton, falls below the Sport England regional average for supply of AGPs. England Hockey also recognises that there is a lack of accessible hockey facilities in Wolverhampton.

10.4: Sport England Facilities Planning Model (FPM)12

The FPM indicates that all the demand generated within Wolverhampton is estimated to be satisfied by the available AGP provision. This does not necessarily mean that this satisfied demand is all expressed within Wolverhampton, and indeed the model estimates that satisfied demand is exported and expressed at facilities in other local authorities. The majority of this exported demand is estimated to be expressed in South Staffordshire, which has a very good supply of hockey provision compared to the demand generated by the resident population.

Over a third (39%) of peak time supply in Wolverhampton is available for hockey use, while 61% is available for football use. 12% of demand is estimated to be for access to play hockey.

The model estimates that almost all demand for hockey and be accommodated by the local supply network and there a small proportion is not currently being met.

12 AGP Provision in Wolverhampton 2011 Profile Report: Sport England

January 2012 3-033-1011 Draft report: Knight Kavanagh & Page 95 WOLVERHAMPTON CITY COUNCIL PLAYING PITCH ASSESSMENT

10.4: Quality

The key issue for hockey clubs in Wolverhampton is the quality of existing provision. The vast majority of AGPs (four) are assessed as either adequate or poor quality. Having been built in the 1990’s, none of the surfaces have been replaced and all four carpets are approaching (if not surpassed) the end of their life span (the typical life span of a AGP is 10 - 12 years, but depends heavily on the type of sub base used, quality of the carpet that has been installed, amount of usage and levels and the quality of on-going maintenance).

Notwithstanding the two disused pitches, both AGPs at Aldersley Leisure Village are deteriorating in quality and unsuitable for senior competitive hockey. WCC technical assessments further suggest that the quality (as of April 2011), although in a reasonable condition, evidence areas of failure on both pitches and require significant repair. Clubs suggest that repairs previously carried out have not sustained the long term quality of the pitches and therefore a full replacement of both carpets is now required. A reduction in usage due to the quality issues has also resulted in an income reduction of at least 28% in the last financial year.

The current condition of AGPs in Wolverhampton is inhibiting hockey use and development. Clubs regularly travel outside of the City to access provision (Wolverhampton HC for example, travel to RAF Cosford to play).

Table 10.2: Summary of quality

Site name KKP Quality Comments ref rating The Royal 76 Good Built in 2004. This is a good quality pitch although Wolverhampton School there is an issue with ancillary facilities being (Senior School) located some distance from the pitch which is considered to be a safeguarding issue for juniors using the site. Wolverhampton 113 Adequate Built in 1996. The carpet is reaching the end of its Grammar School life span and will require replacement in the next few years if quality is to be improved/ maintained. Clubs raise an issue that toilet provision is located a distance away from the pitch for junior use. Heath Park Business 135 Poor Built in 1998. The carpet is reaching the end of its Enterprise College life span (lifting in places) and will require replacement in the next few years if quality is to be improved/ maintained. There are opportunities through BSF to resurface or provide new facility. Aldersley Leisure Village 142 Poor Built in 1994. Two adjacent pitches of very poor quality which cannot be used competitively for senior hockey. Although the carpets have been patch repaired, both now need replacing if hockey clubs are able to continue using them.

Potential funding opportunities for Aldersley Leisure Village includes Football Foundation. However, this is unlikely to provide a fully suitable surface for competitive hockey without additional match funding.

January 2012 3-033-1011 Draft report: Knight Kavanagh & Page 96 WOLVERHAMPTON CITY COUNCIL PLAYING PITCH ASSESSMENT

10.5: Usage

Research conducted by Sport England into the use of AGPs suggests that provision plays two principal roles – midweek training for football and weekend matches for hockey. Often, the size of the pitch is divided up for training purposes. Junior football training tends to dominate the use of AGP in the City and accounts for approximately 75-80% of the usage as there is only one third generation turf pitch, catering for football.

Table 10.5: Summary of usage

Site name KKP Teams Usage ref The Royal Wolverhampton 76 4 senior teams Home ground to Finchfield HC. No School (Senior School) 1 junior team spare capacity to accommodate further hockey use.

January 2012 3-033-1011 Draft report: Knight Kavanagh & Page 97 WOLVERHAMPTON CITY COUNCIL PLAYING PITCH ASSESSMENT

Site name KKP Teams Usage ref Wolverhampton Grammar 113 4 senior teams Used for club matches including School 2 junior teams Wolverhampton Tettenhall Ladies (7 hours per week). Although the site has some spare capacity for hockey, pitch quality will deteriorate more quickly with likely increased use. Heath Park Business 135 - There is no hockey use of this AGP Enterprise College as it is heavily used by the school and football clubs. Although there is some spare capacity at weekends, pitch quality will deteriorate more quickly with likely increased use. Aldersley Leisure Village 142 8 senior teams Currently used by Old Wulfrunians. 1 junior team Approximately two months ago three Wolverhampton hockey clubs accessed pitches here but due to deteriorating pitch quality, two have now moved elsewhere (although Wolverhampton Tettenhall Ladies do still use occasionally), including out of the City. Income is already down 28% due to hockey clubs not using the pitches. JDC play competitive fixtures away due to not meeting the required standard.

Please note that Wolverhampton Men’s Hockey Club hosts its home pitch at RAF Cosford (outside of the City), however, some of its junior matches and training is at Aldersley Leisure Village. It provides 5 senior, 2 junior teams.

Hockey summary  Regionally, Wolverhampton is a small area with high demand for hockey demonstrated through a good supply of clubs (four currently based in the City).  There are five full size AGPs, suitable for competitive hockey in the City. One site, Aldersley Leisure Village, accommodates two AGPs adjacent to each other. In addition, there are two AGPs which are currently disused; East Park and Jennie Lee Centre.  The key issue for hockey clubs in Wolverhampton is the quality of existing provision. Four AGPs were built in the 1990’s but none of the surfaces have been replaced and all four carpets are now approaching or surpassed the end of their life span.  Of particular concern is the deterioration of the two pitches at Aldersley Leisure Village, with hockey clubs being unable to utilise the pitches for senior matches and to fulfil JDC & JAC requirements. This has also resulted in an income reduction of at least 28% in the last financial year.  The FPM model estimates that almost all demand for hockey can be accommodated by the local supply network (including provision in neighbouring authorities.(i.e. South Staffordshire) and only a small proportion is not currently being met.

January 2012 3-033-1011 Draft report: Knight Kavanagh & Page 98 WOLVERHAMPTON CITY COUNCIL PLAYING PITCH ASSESSMENT

PART 11: BOWLS

11.1: Introduction

Bowls England is the governing body with overall responsibility for ensuring effective governance of flat green bowls. Locally, it is administered by the Staffordshire County Bowling Association (SCBA). The bowling season runs from May to September.

11.2: Current provision

There are 27 flat bowling greens in Wolverhampton located across 24 sites. In addition, two bowling greens are unable now to be used by their teams due to the closure of both the (Tettenhall Institute (Manor Road|) and Parkfield Road Central Working Mens Club (located in the Tettenhall and the Central & South Analysis Area respectively) and therefore both these have not been included in the analysis.

Table 11.1: Summary of bowling greens available for community use

Analysis area No. of flat bowling greens Bilston 3 Central & South 8 North 5 Tettenhall 6 Wednesfield 4 WOLVERHAMPTON 26

There are three sites in the City which each provide two bowling greens; Pennfields Bowling Club, Woodfield Sports and Social Club, Springvale Cricket and Social Club and

There are four WCC owned sites with bowling greens at Ashmore Park, Wednesfield Park, Bradmore Recreation Ground, and West Park. All four are currently in use with Ashmore Park being leased to the club. At the time of writing, Wednesfield Park green was in a process of refurbishment.

Figure 11.1 below shows an even distribution of bowling greens across the City. All analysis areas appear to be well served by facilities, all of which are available for community use.

January 2012 3-033-1011 Draft report: Knight Kavanagh & Page 99 WOLVERHAMPTON CITY COUNCIL PLAYING PITCH ASSESSMENT

Figure 11.1: Location of bowling greens in Wolverhampton 13

13 Refer to Table 11.2 for site names and reference numbers

January 2012 3-033-1011 Draft report: Knight Kavanagh & Page 100 WOLVERHAMPTON CITY COUNCIL PLAYING PITCH ASSESSMENT

Table 11.2: Key to map of bowling greens

Site name KKP Analysis area Community Number reference use of greens Ashmore Park Bowling Green 4 Wednesfield Yes 1 Bilston Town Bowling Club 8 Bilston Yes 1 Bradmore Recreation Ground Bowling 13 Tettenhall Yes 1 Green Chubbs Bowling Green 17 Wednesfield Yes 1 Fordhouses Cricket Club 34 North Yes 1 Goodrich Sports Ground, Wobaston Road 37 North Yes 1 Goodyear Sports and Social Club Bowling 38 North Yes 1 Green Springvale Social Club Bowling Green 79 Bilston Yes 2 West Park Bowling Green 105 Central & South Yes 1 Woodfield Sports & Social Club 120 Tettenhall Yes 2 Newhampton Inn Bowling Club 122 Central & South Yes 1 Oaklands Bowling and Social Club 123 Central & South Yes 1 Old Ash Tree Bowling Club 124 Central & South Yes 1 The ECC Sports Club 125 North Yes 1 Oxley Sewage Works Bowling Green 126 North Yes 1 Penn Bowling & Social Club 127 Central & South Yes 1 Parkfield Road Central Working Men's Club 128 Central & South No 1 Wednesfield Conservative Club 131 Wednesfield Yes 1 Danescourt Road Sports Club 162 Tettenhall Yes 1 Pennfields Bowling Club 173 Tettenhall Yes 2 Summer House PH Bowling Green 180 Central & South Yes 1 Wednesfield Park Bowling Green 182 Wednesfield Yes 1 Stile Bowling Club 199 Central & South Yes 1 44 Bowling Club 200 Central & South Yes 1

In addition, there are seven greens located just outside the study area, but which, are generally accessible to residents in Wolverhampton: Amery, Church Hill, Coseley Athletic, Coseley Tavern, Greets Green, Sedgley Conservative and Wombourne C&T.

11.3: Development

Clubs

Below is a summary of information gathered from postal surveys sent to bowls clubs playing in Wolverhampton. Of the 26 clubs, 46% of clubs (or 12 in total) responded.

 The average playing membership per club is 37.  Membership levels vary from 11 to 82 members. Penn Bowling Club has the largest, with 82 playing members. The smallest, with 16 playing members, is Bradmore Bowling Club.  The majority of players travel between two to five miles to play at their home green.  Seven clubs report they own its homeground, two clubs lease the green and three clubs state comment that they rent their green.

January 2012 3-033-1011 Final report: Knight Kavanagh & Page 101

WOLVERHAMPTON CITY COUNCIL PLAYING PITCH ASSESSMENT

 Thirteen clubs report that 1-25% of its players travel from outside of the City.  Five clubs comment that average levels of senior teams have generally remained static over the previous three years. Three clubs; Stile, Ashmore Park and Penn Bowling report an increase in senior teams. A further three clubs; Goodrich, Bradmore and Summerhouse report a decrease in senior teams.  Three clubs report that the quality of their designated green has improved since last season. Two clubs; Goodrich and 44 Club cite this as being a result of an increase in general maintenance by club volunteers.  Four clubs report there has been no change in green quality from last year. Furthermore, five clubs report the quality of their green has decreased since last season. Of these five, two clubs report this to be as a result of adverse weather conditions (e.g. a cold winter). Two other clubs cite a lack of adequate maintenance as the main factor.  Three clubs cite current facility/development plans. Proposals include continued general improvements to facilities and greens as well as some aspirations for floodlights and a sprinkler system.  Clubs generally do not believe that increasing the quantity of bowling greens in the area would increase club membership. Only one club, Penn Bowling Club, suggest they could generate more teams, if additional greens were available.

Juniors

Junior participation in the City is generally low. However, some clubs are working to promote the sport to junior members. There are five clubs; Chubbsafes, Stiles, Goodrich, Fordhouses and Penn with junior members. The latter three clubs have the most junior members with five each.

Participation of juniors is on an informal basis with clubs identifying junior attendance tending to be through accompanying grandparents to the site. Two clubs; Chubbsafe and Stile all indicate a desire to increase junior membership.

Leagues

It is common for clubs to enter teams into a number of leagues. For example, Stile Bowling Club competes in seven different leagues. As a result, there are a large number of mens, ladies and vets bowling leagues servicing the City. This includes:

 Bilston Bowling League .  Walsall and District League.  Dudley Building Society League  West Bromwich Midweek League.  Heath Town over 50’s Bowls League.  Wolverhampton Senior Citizens Bowls  Heath Town and District Bowls League. League.  South Staffs Licensed Victuallers  Wolverhampton Works Bowls League. League.  Summit Garage Premier Bowls League.

January 2012 3-033-1011 Final report: Knight Kavanagh & Page 102

WOLVERHAMPTON CITY COUNCIL PLAYING PITCH ASSESSMENT

11.4: Key issues for bowls

Management

Clubs such as Severn Trent and Summerhouse lease/rent greens from a privately from Severn Trent Water and Summerhouse Public House respectively. Ashmore Park Bowling Club has a five year lease on its green from WCC. Clubs operating at self-managed sites are responsible for bowling green maintenance and the upkeep of clubhouse/pavilion interiors. Over half of clubs (63%) report they are responsible for maintaining their own site.

Demand

Club consultation generally shows that participation in bowls in Wolverhampton has either remained static or decreased over the past three years. As detailed earlier, six clubs report the level of senior teams playing has generally remained static and four reports a decrease in senior teams. However, 11 clubs report that they are looking to increase teams. Clubs suggest that any growth through recruitment of new members could be accommodated at existing provision.

Leagues report that there has been a reduction in the number of greens available in the City in the previous five years. This reflects the gradual closure/loss of company sports grounds and greens located at pubs. In addition, greens at Nordley Bowling Green (Wednesfield) and Bilston Bowling Club have been lost to development.

Only one club, Penn Bowling Club, identify that they could accommodate more teams if there were more greens available at or near their home ground. It is reported expresses latent demand to accommodate another six teams (a mixture of senior and junior).

Life expectancy in Wolverhampton is 76 years old for males and 81 for females. In addition, ONS population projects identify that the number of residents aged 45 – 64 will decrease by 1.5% by 2026. However, the population over 65 is projected to increase by 20% by 2026. Therefore retention of existing provision in the City would help to sustain current levels of participation.

Quality

The Council is currently undertaking repair work to the green at Wednesfield Park. This follows damage caused by fertiliser overuse, leaving the green in a poor condition. Wednesfield Sons of Rest Bowling Club, also report issues with vandalism from youths playing football and cricket on the green.

As with many sports, high levels of maintenance significantly increase quality. According to the leagues, the cost of green maintenance is high and difficult to maintain. This fits with the general view that funding for clubs is an issue, particularly during the current economic climate.

Vandalism of greens on the whole is isolated, helped because all greens in the City are fenced. Four clubs report having suffered incidents of vandalism in the last 12 months, ranging from fire damage to surface damage.

January 2012 3-033-1011 Final report: Knight Kavanagh & Page 103

WOLVERHAMPTON CITY COUNCIL PLAYING PITCH ASSESSMENT

Site assessments rate nearly all bowling greens in Wolverhampton as either good or excellent. Ashmore Park and Wednesfield Park Bowling Green score as average and Parkfield Road Central Working Men’s Club is the only site to score below average. However, the green is unavailable for community and is in an abandoned state.

Nearly a third of clubs (31.3%) report the quality of their designated green has improved since last season. However, slightly more clubs (37.5%) report the quality of their green has decreased since last season. Of these clubs, most report this is a result of adverse weather conditions (e.g. a cold winter).

Accessibility

Consultation identifies that the majority of members travel two to five miles to play. This suggests that the distribution of greens across the City is adequate.

Pay and play usage of bowling greens is important as it can help to raise the profile of the sport, increase membership levels and revenue of sites. Sites available for pay and play in Wolverhampton varies. Two out of the four Council owned greens are available for pay and play; West Park and Ashmore Park.

A number of self-managed clubs also provide the opportunity for pay and play. Payment is usually a one-off minimal fee of around £1-2 per session. A couple of clubs also provide unique opportunities for play. The Stile Bowling Club has introduced a scheme where juniors play for free.

Sites not offering pay and play tend to cite the lack of availability to employee onsite staff to collect payment as the main reason.

Ancillary facilities

It is usual for bowling clubs to have access to associated ancillary facilities, such as changing rooms, toilets and social areas. The majority of sites in Wolverhampton offer ancillary facilities with access to running water and electricity. However, these vary in quality. For example, Ashmore Park Bowling Club use a container for their clubhouse, whilst Penn Bowling Club has a purpose built pavilion.

The following table summarises the key site specific issues raised by clubs during consultation:

Table 11.4: Summary of site specific issues

Name of club KKP Comments reference Ashmore Park Bowling 4 The site has suffered from some vandalism. Also noted Club that due to the Club only having a metal container and no floodlights they are restricted to only playing in leagues that operate during the day time. Bradmore Bowling Club 13 Reports there is a lack of adequate secure fencing on site.

January 2012 3-033-1011 Final report: Knight Kavanagh & Page 104

WOLVERHAMPTON CITY COUNCIL PLAYING PITCH ASSESSMENT

Name of club KKP Comments reference Chubbsafes Bowling 17 The Club reports that two matches were cancelled last Club season due to water logging. Unevenness of the green is considered poor. Goodrich Bowling Club 37 The Club reports that parking at the site is limited (due to it being for Goodrich employees) and requires bowlers to park off site. The old timbers around the green have recently been replaced. West Park Bowling Club 105 The Club has an agreement that members can use the adjacent car park at the leisure centre. Penn Bowling Club 127 Has seen an increase in the number of teams due to an increase in members. Furthermore, the Club reports it could accommodate an additional six teams if another green was available. Wednesfield Sons of 182 Excessive use of fertiliser has caused quality issues with Rest Bowling Club the green. These are currently being repaired. The Club also reports some misuse on site (e.g. evidence of football being played). Stile Bowling Club 199 A sprinkler system is looking to be installed although this is dependent on gaining funding. In addition, the Club is looking at new equipment such as bowls and mats for junior development. Three matches were cancelled due to water logging.

On the whole, clubs rate the quality of their ancillary facilities as average or good. Only Fordhouses and Chubbsafes bowling clubs rate theirs as poor. Express & Star Bowling Club is the only club that does not have access to a clubhouse.

Bowls summary  There are 26 bowling greens in the City, located across a range of sites including parks and private social clubs.  There has been a reduction in the number of greens available in the City in the previous five years, particularly privately owned greens.  Participation in bowls in Wolverhampton has either remained static or decreased over the past three years. However, 11 clubs report that they are looking to increase teams. Clubs suggest that any growth through recruitment of new members could be accommodated at existing provision.  The market segment with the greatest proportion (11.6%) of the Wolverhampton population is “Elsie and Arnold”, retirement home singles. This means that the greatest proportion of residents would benefit from initiatives that appeal to “Elsie and Arnold”; sports such as bowls, keepfit/gym and swimming football. This segment is most likely to live in the North and Wednesfield analysis areas.  Given that the population over 65 is projected to increase by 20% by 2026, retention of existing provision in the City would help to sustain current levels of participation.  Site assessments rate nearly all bowling greens in Wolverhampton as either good or excellent. Two sites score as average and only one site scores below average.  Two Council operated greens are available for pay and play, in addition to a number of self- managed sites. Pay and play is important as it can help to raise the profile of the game, increase levels of membership and revenue of sites.  It is not thought likely that current and future demand for bowls will result in the need for new provision.

January 2012 3-033-1011 Final report: Knight Kavanagh & Page 105

WOLVERHAMPTON CITY COUNCIL PLAYING PITCH ASSESSMENT

PART 12: TENNIS

12.1: Introduction

Governance of the sport is nationally administered by the Lawn Tennis Association (LTA). Tennis Staffordshire administers, and is responsible for, the development of tennis across the County. Tennis Staffordshire employs a tennis development team, which operates across the County.

Wolverhampton has a range of tennis club structures from larger clubs offering numerous courts to smaller clubs with just a couple of courts. There are two Clubmark clubs in the City; Wolverhampton Lawn Tennis and Squash Club and Albert Lawn Tennis Club.

The majority of tennis competition is through the Wilson Staffordshire Inter-Club Tennis League and junior teams enter in the National County Junior League and the Wolverhampton League.

WCC owned publicly available courts are provided at East Park (KKP Ref 153) and West Park (KKP Ref 160), both of which offer six courts and also at Bradmore Recreation Ground (KKP Ref 148) and Claregate Playing Fields (KKP ref 18), with each site providing three courts.

The Tennis Development Group (TDG) works in partnership to improve the opportunities for residents to take part, enjoy and progress in tennis. The group’s action plan considers coach education, marketing and promotion and competitive opportunities.

12.2: Current provision

There are 137 tennis courts, including 84 courts which are located at school sites. Tettenhall and Central & South analysis areas provide the largest number of courts in comparison to Bilston and Wednesfield analysis areas that provide the least number of courts.

Table 12.1: Summary of courts by analysis area

Analysis area Tennis courts Bilston 12 Central & South 49 North 16 Tettenhall 47 Wednesfield 13 WOLVERHAMPTON 137

January 2012 3-033-1011 Final report: Knight Kavanagh & Page 106

WOLVERHAMPTON CITY COUNCIL PLAYING PITCH ASSESSMENT

Figure 12.1: Location of tennis courts in Wolverhampton

Figure 12.1 indicates that there is a bias of tennis provision in the west of the City which is particularly well served by private provision 14 .

14 Refer to Table 12.2 for site names and reference numbers January 2012 3-033-1011 Final report: Knight Kavanagh & Page 107

WOLVERHAMPTON CITY COUNCIL PLAYING PITCH ASSESSMENT

Table 12.2: Key to map of tennis courts in Wolverhampton

Site name KKP Analysis area Community Number of reference use courts Albert Lawn Tennis Club 1 Tettenhall Yes 6 Aldersley High School 2 North Yes 4 Bilston Lawn Tennis Club 10 Bilston Yes 2 Claregate Playing Fields 18 Tettenhall Yes 3 Colton Hills High School 20 Central & South Yes 3 Coppice Performing Arts School 22 Wednesfield Yes 5 Fordhouses Cricket Club 34 North Yes 2 Hanbury Tennis Club 40 Tettenhall Yes 2 Highfields Secondary School 43 Tettenhall No 5 Our Lady & St Chads Catholic Sports 63 North Yes 4 College South Wolverhamtpon and Bilston 66 Bilston Yes 5 Academy (Prosser Street) North East Wolverhampton Academy 67 North Yes 2 (Pendeford Site) Royal Wolverhampton School (Senior 76 Central & South Yes 4 School playing fields) St Edmunds Catholic High School 83 Central & South No 8 St Peters Collegiate High School 89 Central & South No 8 Tettenhall College 93 Tettenhall No 4 The Kings CE (High) School 96 Tettenhall No 3 Wednesfield High School 103 Wednesfield Yes 4 Wolverhampton Cricket Club 112 Tettenhall Yes 3 Wolverhampton Grammar School 113 Tettenhall Yes 3 Wolverhampton Girls High School 114 Central & South No 4 Wolverhampton Lawn Tennis and 115 Central & South Yes 12 Squash Club Woodfield Sports & Social Club 120 Tettenhall Yes 4 Heath Park Business Enterprise College 135 Wednesfield Yes 4 Aldersley Leisure Village tennis courts 143 Tettenhall Yes 6 Bradmore Recreation Ground Tennis 148 Tettenhall Yes 3 Courts East Park Tennis Courts 153 Bilston Yes 5 West Park Tennis Courts 160 Central & South Yes 6 Danescourt Road Sports Club 162 Tettenhall Yes 2 North East Wolverhampton Academy 171 North No 4 Northwood Campus City of Wolverhampton College (Paget 188 Central & South No 4 Road Campus)

January 2012 3-033-1011 Final report: Knight Kavanagh & Page 108

WOLVERHAMPTON CITY COUNCIL PLAYING PITCH ASSESSMENT

Site name KKP Analysis area Community Number of reference use courts Smestow School (non-comm use) 193 Tettenhall No 6

12.3: Development

The LTA has recently launched its Places to Play Strategy 15 . Its overall aims are to:

 Increase the number of people participating  Increase the number of juniors competing  Increase the number of people accessing coaches

To achieve this, delivery of the Strategy will prioritise funding available for building low cost, quality indoor structures, floodlighting outdoor courts and renovating park courts.

High performance centres/satellite clubs

In total, there are 15 High Performance Centres (HPCs) throughout England. These are designed to meet the needs of performance juniors providing high level coaching and fitness programmes and access to top facilities. Wolverhampton’s nearest HPC is located at Edgbaston Priory Club, Birmingham.

Wolverhampton Lawn Tennis & Squash Club is a satellite centre. The role of the satellite club is to provide quality coaching and competitive opportunities for performance players, focusing on the development of players aged 12 and under.

School courts/tennis

A key priority for the TDG, which is outlined in its action plan, is to establish an ‘out of school hours’ coaching programme at Our Lady & St Chad’s Community Sports Centre, Heath Park Secondary School and in the Bilston Area in order to promote tennis to communities without a local tennis club i.e. postcode areas WV10, WV11 and WV14.

The TDG is also keen to support a structured development coaching scheme in schools with a recognised ‘tennis teacher’.

School provision accounts for 84 courts across the City. However, this provision is not used by the community and in the main forms general playground area. The courts at The Kings School which had previously remained locked and which would only have been used specifically for sport are now open for general use as a result of the BSF building work at the School taking out large areas of playground.

15 http://www.lta.org.uk/Articles/Clubs1/Places-to-Play-Strategy/What-is-the-Places-to-Play-Strategy/

January 2012 3-033-1011 Final report: Knight Kavanagh & Page 109

WOLVERHAMPTON CITY COUNCIL PLAYING PITCH ASSESSMENT

12.4: Key issues for tennis

Quality

The courts at Heath Park Business Enterprise College are rated as the poorest quality in the City, achieving a score of 55%. Whilst the courts at Danescourt Road Sports Club also score low, they are rated as average quality and achieve a score of 58%. The low scores are attributed to the presence of moss/lichen, loose gravel, holes and rips in the surface and poor grip underfoot.

Local authority courts at East Park, West Park, Bradmore Recreation Ground and Claregate Playing Fields are all rated as good quality and achieve a score of at least 78%. All school courts achieve a quality rating of good or excellent.

Club facilities at Hanbury Tennis Club and Woodfield Sports & Social Club are rated as good quality, whilst the remaining club facilities are rated as excellent quality. The Royal Wolverhampton School courts are rated as the highest in the City, achieving a quality score of 100%. The courts at Albert LTC, Wolverhampton Lawn Tennis & Squash Club and Woodfield Sports & Social Club (artificial turf courts which offer improved disabled access) are also rated as excellent quality.

Bilston Tennis Club facilities have been refurbished over the previous year which included decorating the interior clubhouse, cleaning the courts and repairing the fences. It reports the clubhouse roof is in need of repairing and estimates this will cost approximately £2,000. It did not comment on whether funding has been secured for this.

Demand

Trends suggest that in general terms, demand for tennis is declining in Wolverhampton. Several clubs including Woodfield and Bilston tennis clubs are struggling to attract new members and consultation suggests that there is limited use of pubic tennis courts in parks and recreation grounds which limits progression to club membership.

The TDG is working to address the lack of demand through programmes of activity which are designed to ensure that there is an increase in participation at recognised locations in the City.

Parks tennis

The LTA is also working to encourage parks tennis through, for example, the Beacon Site Scheme for sites which offer quality, free and affordable tennis opportunities for the local community. There are a number of criteria which a site should meet, focused around offering free opportunities for play and which makes a commitment to delivering and promoting an accessible and affordable tennis programme. Long term a site would also need to achieve an increase in participation and achieve or be working towards Clubmark.

West Park has potential to be developed as a Beacon site and this is the preferred option for the TDG and it is thought that there is potential to link delivery with Wolverhampton Tennis & Squash Club.

January 2012 3-033-1011 Final report: Knight Kavanagh & Page 110

WOLVERHAMPTON CITY COUNCIL PLAYING PITCH ASSESSMENT

It is recognised that there is potential for public courts to form a key aspect of fulfilling competitive league fixtures in order to increase the levels of usage at these sites. It is also considered that more coaching activity on the courts would add value to these sites and in turn increase participation.

Courts at East Park are regarded to have limited demand. Consultation suggests that tennis is not a popular sport in the east of the City. However, the courts at the site are current being re-developed. The same is also evident at Bradmore Recreation Ground which has reasonable quality courts which are not widely used.

LTA membership guidelines

LTA guidelines state that club facilities should be able to accommodate 40 members per court and 60 members per floodlit court. Between November and April when daylight is shorter and indoor provision is not available, illuminating outdoor courts adds 35% more playing time. On this basis, it is evident that Hanbury LTC is approaching capacity whilst Albert and Bilston tennis clubs both have spare capacity.

Club membership

Albert LTC has over 150 active junior members. It runs eight teams and reports that the Club coaching programme is working well. It is also an accredited Mini Tennis Centre.

Bilston TC is currently struggling in terms of membership and may require support in the future. It reports the number of senior members has decreased over the previous five years and stands at 40 senior members. However, its junior membership is increasing although still small standing at nine. The TDG is keen to work with the Club to support its ongoing sustainability, particularly as it is the only tennis facility servicing the east of the City. It has circulated promotional material to seven schools in an effort to boost membership. It is also undertaking a programme of maintenance in addition to works on the clubhouse to make repairs. A recent open day at the Club secured 12 new members.

Hanbury LTC also reports that it has seen a decrease in its membership over the last three years. Membership levels are around 70, with just under one third of the membership represented by juniors. The Club reports that it is unable to compete for members locally compared to clubs which offer floodlighting. Without floodlit courts the Club comments that it is only able to offer summer activity. It believes that the ability to offer tennis throughout the year would allow it to provide a full junior coaching programme because juniors currently leave to play elsewhere.

Woodfield TC is a good facility but appears to be underperforming. Historically the Club was regarded as one of the best in the County.

Indoor facilities

Wolverhampton Lawn Tennis & Squash Club accommodates three indoor acrylic courts which are used to support the delivery of the club’s coaching programme and allow activity to continue throughout the year. It is a key factor in the retention of membership as it offers the opportunity to play through the year.

January 2012 3-033-1011 Final report: Knight Kavanagh & Page 111

WOLVERHAMPTON CITY COUNCIL PLAYING PITCH ASSESSMENT

Accessibility

The majority of schools across the City provide tennis courts (often over marked with netball courts), which also serve as playground areas. It appears there is no community use of education courts reportedly due to a lack of demand for such provision.

Floodlit courts

Floodlighting is estimated to increase the capacity of courts by 35% between November and April. For instance, provision of floodlighting often allows clubs to provide structured coaching sessions for members during the evenings. Demand for floodlighting has been identified at Hanbury LTC. It has applied for planning permission (for six floodlights to be provided on court two) which has been refused twice. Nonetheless the Club plans to appeal against these decisions.

Wheelchair tennis

The Wolverhampton Tennis Development Group (TDG) in partnership with Wolverhampton RGK TCAT Rhino’s has set up a series of wheelchair tennis taster sessions.

It is working towards the long term aim of setting up regular sessions in partnership with Wolverhampton tennis clubs and Wolverhampton RGK TCAT Rhino’s in order to develop a sustainable programme.

The sessions are currently being delivered at the indoor courts at Wolverhampton Lawn Tennis & Squash Club. Although initial attendance was low it is hoped that attendance at the sessions will increase through word of mouth.

Tennis summary  Wolverhampton provides 137 tennis courts.  It appears current levels of demand can be met at present.  Demand for floodlighting has been identified at one site in the City; Hanbury Tennis Club.  There is limited community use of tennis courts at education sites, primarily due to be a lack of demand for such provision. Clubs in the City already have established home grounds and the City provides a number of public courts, which therefore limits demand for accessing courts on education sites.  The average site assessments indicate that the majority of courts in the City are good quality.  There is a need to continue to support clubs to bolster membership levels through the targeted work which the TDG has outlined in its action plan.

January 2012 3-033-1011 Final report: Knight Kavanagh & Page 112

WOLVERHAMPTON CITY COUNCIL PLAYING PITCH ASSESSMENT

PART 13: ATHLETICS

13.1: Introduction

The sport is governed by England Athletics (EA), which also works at a regional and local level via regional and county associations. Much of the development work is delivered by the local Club and Coach Support Officer.

13.2: Development

UK Athletics has a National Planning & Delivery Strategy in place (2007 – 2012). This highlights priorities across the Country for large scale developments and upgrades. It also provides indications regarding the need for small scale indoor and outdoor facilities, which are a priority. There are no specific priorities for the Wolverhampton Area.

Run England

Run England (RE) is a new initiative launched by England Athletics which aims to get the nation running. The aim of the programme is to establish recreational running groups across the country and support affiliated running clubs. At present, there are no affiliated RE running groups. However, Wolverhampton & Bilston Athletic Club (WBAC) is in its fourth year of delivering a ten week running group aimed at beginners. It reports the groups are well attended and has resulted in 32 runners joining the Club.

13.3: Current provision

Wolverhampton & Bilston Athletic Club (WBAC) is the main club in Wolverhampton, based at the athletic track at Aldersley Leisure Village (ALV).

13.4: Key issues for athletics

Wolverhampton & Bilston Athletic Club

The athletic club has a strong and active membership of around 500 (with a 50/50 split between seniors and juniors). It reports that membership levels have more than doubled over the previous three years.

The Club, in conjunction with WCC Sports Development Team organised a ten week course aimed at introducing the sport to 7 – 14 year olds. Activities included a range of athletics disciples such as running relays, javelin, long jump and the hammer. Training was provided by club coaches and in return participating completing a consecutive attendance received a year’s free membership.

It suggests that access to a club room would further help to recruit and retain volunteers and enable members to participate in club social activities. The room could also be used by other clubs based at ALV.

January 2012 3-033-1011 Final report: Knight Kavanagh & Page 113

WOLVERHAMPTON CITY COUNCIL PLAYING PITCH ASSESSMENT

Aldersley Leisure Village

The synthetic six lane (400 metre) floodlit track facility, also provides facilities for other athletic disciplines including two jump pits, hammer/discus cage and a shot & javelin area. The centre of the track houses a senior football pitch. It also provides a spectator area that can accommodate up to 465 people and has been registered as an official 2012 Olympics training camp.

Wolverhampton & Bilston Athletic Club have a hire agreement (five year agreement). The Club has access to the outdoor track facility at selected times (Tuesday and Thursday evenings from 18:00 – 20:00) and access to the indoor area on (Tuesdays 18:00 – 20:00) between October and April. In addition, it has access to the track for four event days per annum.

Quality

Although the track is leased to WBAC, the Council is responsible for repairs, maintenance and cleaning of the athletic facilities. During the summer months and the height of the athletics season ALV has a designated grounds maintenance staff member on site to assist in general grounds maintenance duties across the site.

Site assessments rate the quality of the track as good. The track surface and cycle track was re-laid in 2005.

Athletics summary  Wolverhampton & Bilston Athletic Club is the only affiliated athletic club in the City. Consultation reports there are unaffiliated informal running groups operating in the City.  Aldersley Leisure Village provides a floodlit, six lane, 400 metre track facility located north east of the City.  Site assessments score the athletic track facility as good.

January 2012 3-033-1011 Final report: Knight Kavanagh & Page 114

WOLVERHAMPTON CITY COUNCIL PLAYING PITCH ASSESSMENT

PART 14: EDUCATION PROVISION

14.1: Introduction

The provision of pitches at schools and colleges can make an important contribution to the overall stock of playing pitches. It is therefore important to have accurate information about the number, type, quality and availability of pitches within the education sector in the City.

The new Education and Inspection Act (2006) came into force in early 2009 and amends the existing legislation within the Schools Standards and Framework Act (SSFA) 1998, which was originally introduced by the Government requiring all schools to seek approval from the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Education and Skills since July 2001 now the Department for Children, Schools and Families) for the sale or change of use of their playing fields. Section 77 of the SSFA seeks to protect school playing fields against disposal or change of use by requiring the prior consent of the Secretary of State before disposal or change of use may take place. The School Playing Fields General Disposal and Change of Use Consent (No.3) 2004 order highlights some limited circumstances in which the requisite approval has been delegated to the relevant governing body (i.e. local authority), which can decide whether the disposal or change of use meets the circumstances and criteria set out in the Consent Order 16 .

14.2: PE and School Sport

In the Black Country (BC) there is a network of 11 school sport partnerships (SSPs) led by partnership development managers responsible for ensuring the Black Country Strategy’s implementation. However, as of September 2011 school sport partnerships will no longer exist and will be replaced by ‘School Games Organisers’ based at former SSP hub sites and ‘School Games Co-ordinators’ (teacher release staff) at secondary and special/pupil referral sites. Wolverhampton City Council has a partnership arrangement to form PASS (Partnerships and School Sport), with a remit to support delivery of the Government’s competition agenda as part of the 2012 Legacy and to support wider developments in and through PE and school sport across the City.

The Black Country is piloting the opportunities and events which will culminate in the Black Country School Sport Festival in July 2011. The BC is one of nine national pilots for school sport competition involving schools in Dudley, Sandwell, Walsall, Dudley and Wolverhampton. The festival is funded by Sport England and development support from the Youth Sport Trust.

14.3: Building Schools for the Future (BSF)

WCC has received a budget of £270m for its BSF programme to transform secondary education provision in the City. Significant work has already been undertaken including submitting its Final Business Case for sample and phase one schools and Strategy for Change. BSF will be delivered in five stages between now and 2014 and will lead to the complete rebuild or substantial refurbishment of 25 secondary schools including two new academies.

16 Full and detailed guidance can be accessed at http://www.teachernet.gov.uk/docbank/index.cfm?id=11600

January 2012 3-033-1011 Final report: Knight Kavanagh & Page 115

WOLVERHAMPTON CITY COUNCIL PLAYING PITCH ASSESSMENT

Carillion is the construction company (part of the Inspired Spaces Consortium) responsible for delivering BSF in the City. At present, building works has started on Wednesfield High, Coppice Performing arts, South Wolverhampton and Bilston Academy as well as sample schools Highfields Science Specialist School (co-locating with Penn Fields Special School) and the Kings Church of England School (co-locating with Tettenhall Wood Special School) and both sites are due to open in September 2012. Planning permission for the sample and phase one schools has already been granted. The new build of the sample schools has resulted in a net loss in playing fields across both sites. This loss of provision will need to be either re-provided on site or mitigated elsewhere in the City. Under the BSF programme it is anticipated that there will be no further loss of playing fields.

It should be noted that under BSF, schools will be required to provide community access to sports facilities including outdoor pitches. However, the level of community use has not yet been determined.

Table 14.1: BSF proposals across the City

Name of school Dates as at 02/03/11 17 Start on School Contractor Site Opens Off Site Sample Highfields Science (NB) April 2010 Sept 2012 March 2013 Schools Penn Fields (NB) April 2010 Sept 2012 March 2013 The Kings Church of England (NB) April 2010 June 2012 Sept 2012 Tettenhall Wood (NB) April 2010 June 2012 Sept 2012 Phase South Wolverhampton and Bilston Feb 2011 Sept 2012 April 2013 one Academy(NB) Coppice Performing Arts (RF) Feb 2011 Feb 2013 Feb 2013 Wednesfield High (RF) Feb 2011 Feb 2013 Feb 2013 Braybrook (RF) April 2012 Feb 2013 Feb 2013 Phase Colton Hills (RF) Jan 2012 Dec 13 Dec 13 two Moreton (RF) Jan 2012 Dec 13 Dec 13 Orchard Centre (RF) Jan 2012 Dec 13 Dec 13 Our Lady & St Chad(RF) Jan 2012 Dec 13 Dec 13 St Edmunds (RF) Jan 2012 Dec 13 Dec 13 Phase Aldersley High (RF) March 2012 Feb 2014 Feb 2014 three Deansfield High (NB) March 2012 Sept 2014 Sept 2014 Heath Park Business & Enterprise College March 2012 Sept 2014 Sept 2014 (NB) Moseley Park (RF) March 2012 Feb 2014 Feb 2014 North East Wolverhampton Academy (RF) March 2012 Feb 2014 Feb 2014 Smestow (RF) March 2012 Feb 2014 Feb 2014 Westcroft (RF) March 2012 Feb 2014 Feb 2014

17 Dates correct as of August 2011. BSF programme dates are subject to change and approved by Partnership for schools.

January 2012 3-033-1011 Final report: Knight Kavanagh & Page 116

WOLVERHAMPTON CITY COUNCIL PLAYING PITCH ASSESSMENT

Name of school Dates as at 02/03/11 18 Start on School Contractor Site Opens Off Site Phase Midpoint (RF) Aug 2012 Feb 2014 Feb 2014 four New Park (RF) Aug 2012 Sept 2014 Sept 2014 Penn Hall (RF) Aug 2012 Sept 2014 Sept 2014 St Peters Collegiate (RF) Aug 2012 Sept 2014 Sept 2014 Wolverhampton Girls High (RF) Aug 2012 Sept 2014 Sept 2014

NB – New build under the BSF programme. RF – Refurbishment under the BSF programme.

18 Dates correct as of August 2011. BSF programme dates are subject to change and approved by Partnership for schools.

January 2012 3-033-1011 Final report: Knight Kavanagh & Page 117

WOLVERHAMPTON CITY COUNCIL PLAYING PITCH ASSESSMENT

The table below provides a summary of the outdoor sports provision as part of the BSF programme:

Sample schools School Pre BSF Post BSF Change Community Consultation use The Kings Church • 1 senior football • 2 senior football • +1 senior • Available – There is a shale track on site of football however, which is not currently in use due • 2 junior football • 2 junior football England/Tettenhall pitch quality to the building works. • -1 mini football Wood Special • 2 mini football • 1 mini football has resulted The back field is currently out of School • Loss of 1.77 ha in closure of use following ground works. It is • 3 tennis (2 netball • 2 junior football playing field pitches at anticipated that this will be overmarked) • 3 tennis courts (2 present. handed back for school use in • 1 MUGA containing netball February 2012. The pitches had 3 tennis overmarked) previously been used by Old Wulfrunians FC. There remain Shale track (400m) 1 MUGA • • some problems with boulders and containing 3 stones emerging on the surface of tennis the pitches which would need to • Shale track be resolved. The School has (400m) access to separate outdoor changing accommodation with doors leading out. As part of the re-developments the School will have a bespoke community entrance developed. Planning permission grated subjected to compensation for loss of playing fields at Barnhurst Lane site.

January 2012 3-033-1011 Final report: Knight Kavanagh & Page 118

WOLVERHAMPTON CITY COUNCIL PLAYING PITCH ASSESSMENT

Sample schools School Pre BSF Post BSF Change Community Consultation use Highfields Science • 3 senior football • 3 junior football • -1 cricket pitch • Managed by The School is currently Specialist a SLA with undergoing development and now • 2 cricket (over • 1 cricket • -1 junior football School/Penn WCC only has access to the upper marked on the (overmarked on Fields Special • -200m running (regular school pitches which have been football) football pitches) School track community temporarily fenced off to provide • Grass athletic track • Grass athletic use of secure access for the school as • -1 netball/ (over marked on track (overmarked football there had previously been basketball football) on football pitch) pitches) safeguarding issues with horses and motorbikes across the • 5 tennis (3 netball Upper Field pitches. Following completion of • Loss of 2.73 ha overmarked • 4 mini football the school building the fence will playing field Upper Field: be removed. • 1 senior rugby • 4 mini football Penn Colts are the main • 1 senior football community booking. • 1 senior rugby (community use) The School is currently using off- • 1 senior football site facilities on occasions at Old (community use) Wulfrunians CC and Wolverhampton RFC for school Penn Fields Special competitions. School Emerald Athletics Club has • 1 junior football previously used the site but following the start of the building • 200m running track works it has moved to alternative • 1 netball/basketball venues. Planning permission granted subject to compensation for loss of playing fields at Barnhurst Lane site.

January 2012 3-033-1011 Final report: Knight Kavanagh & Page 119

WOLVERHAMPTON CITY COUNCIL PLAYING PITCH ASSESSMENT

Phase one School Pre BSF Post BSF Change Community Consultation use South Bilston Annex Academy • Loss of playing • Managed by The pitches are reported to Wolverhampton & have excellent drainage. There • 1 junior football • 1 junior football field to be a SLA with Bilston compensated for WCC is an overgrown area towards Academy/Parkfields • 2 senior football • 2 senior football by creation of (Regular the perimeter fencing which has School previously been a redgra pitch. • 1 artificial cricket • 1 cricket pitch AGP. community use of This area has fallen out of use wicket (overmarked on and become overgrown the senior football football • 400m athletics although the foundations are pitches) pitches) marked in summer evident. (shot and javelin) • Grass athletic A basketball court is to be track (over • 5 tennis/2 5-a-side remarked on the general marked on the playground area. Parkfields School football pitch) Vic Vipers used the site for • 1 junior football • 1 cross country home matches. • 1 senior football track The site is split across two sites; Bilston and Parkfield. As a result 1 MUGA • 5 tennis courts • of BSF, Parkfield will become • 1 artificial cricket • 1AGP redundant. wicket Former Parkfields Loss of playing field to be compensated for by creation of School AGP. • 1 junior football • 1 senior football • 5 tennis courts • 1 artificial cricket wicket

January 2012 3-033-1011 Final report: Knight Kavanagh & Page 120

WOLVERHAMPTON CITY COUNCIL PLAYING PITCH ASSESSMENT

Phase one School Pre BSF Post BSF Change Community Consultation use Wednesfield High • 3 senior football • 4 senior football • +1 senior football • Managed by The School is currently divided School/ (3-5 m margins) (subject to a SLA with into two sites, which are • 2 junior football Campus sufficient WCC (no connected via a pathway and • 3 junior football • 4 tennis courts circulation space) community the school playing fields. (3-5 m margins) use of • 1 MUGA • +1 junior football As part of BSF the School will • 1 MUGA (3 tennis outdoor (subject to be consolidated on to one site. courts) sports sufficient This will include some new build provision) • Grass athletic circulation space) but is mostly refurbishment. The track (over new build will include a new • -4 tennis courts pitches) sports hall and changing (over pitches) facilities block. To help • + Grass athletics accommodate the planned track community use the new changing facilities will be built • Loss of approx. 6 with two entrances; one for ha of playing field community use outside of normal school hours and another for school use. The MUGA will be repositioned in the consolidation of the two sites, as currently it is located at the far site away from the main school building. When it is repositioned it is planned to have floodlights provided.

January 2012 3-033-1011 Final report: Knight Kavanagh & Page 121

WOLVERHAMPTON CITY COUNCIL PLAYING PITCH ASSESSMENT

Phase one School Pre BSF Post BSF Change Community Consultation use Jennie Lee Centre • 4 mini football • -4 mini football • Currently not pitches available for • 1 AGP community • 1 AGP use. • Loss of 1.6 ha playing fields Coppice Performing • 2 senior football • 5 tennis • No change • Regular The site comprises two senior Arts School courts/basketball envisaged community football and five tarmac tennis • 5 tarmac tennis courts through BSF use courts. As part of BSF the courts School will accommodate an • 3 senior football additional senior football pitch (cricket pitch over (which will also be over marked marked) with a cricket pitch). • 1 medium grass Furthermore, it will also provide hockey (with a hockey pitch and a junior rounders pitch football pitch. over marked) • 1 mini football (with rounder’s pitch over marked) • 2 junior football (with cricket pitch over marked)

January 2012 3-033-1011 Final report: Knight Kavanagh & Page 122

WOLVERHAMPTON CITY COUNCIL PLAYING PITCH ASSESSMENT

Phase one School Pre BSF Post BSF Change Community Consultation use Braybrook Pupil • 1 MUGA • 1 MUGA • Not known The School did not respond to Referral Unit the survey. However, under the BSF it will have an improved Multi use games area (MUGA) (18.5 m x 28 m) and gate access onto adjacent public open space.

January 2012 3-033-1011 Final report: Knight Kavanagh & Page 123

WOLVERHAMPTON CITY COUNCIL PLAYING PITCH ASSESSMENT

Phase two (planning applications are due to be submitted to WCC in Summer 2011 and building work due to commence early 2012) School Pre BSF Post BSF Community use Consultation Colton Hills High School • Two senior football • No change • Managed by a SLA with The School currently has a envisaged through WCC (no community use total of four football pitches • Two mini football BSF at present of outdoor on site; marked as two full- • 1 cricket sports pitches). size and two minis. The mini pitches are used by Dudley • Junior sized artificial grass Town on Sunday mornings. Both full-size pitches are over marked in the summer. One with an athletics track and the other with rounders. The smaller of the two full-size pitches is reported to have some issue with flooding. Due to the layer of underlying clay. In addition to the pitches there are also an informal grass rugby area (not marked out) and cricket pitch. The latter is only used for school use due to its proximity to school buildings resulting in it not being appropriate for adult use. On site are also a hard surface area and a junior size artificial grass pitch (AGP). The AGP in good condition whereas the hard surface area is reported to not be used as often.

January 2012 3-033-1011 Final report: Knight Kavanagh & Page 124

WOLVERHAMPTON CITY COUNCIL PLAYING PITCH ASSESSMENT

Phase two (planning applications are due to be submitted to WCC in Summer 2011 and building work due to commence early 2012) School Pre BSF Post BSF Community use Consultation Moreton Community • One senior football. • No change • None – due to pitch There was previously a rugby High School envisaged through quality. pitch adjacent to the football. BSF However, when the posts were removed fragments were left in the ground. Subsequently the pitch cannot be used for any activity. There is also a hard surface area on site which is used as a general playground. It used to be marked but has since fallen in to a poor state. There are floodlights on the facility but these do not work. Orchard Centre (PRU) - • Not known The PRU did not respond to the survey.

January 2012 3-033-1011 Final report: Knight Kavanagh & Page 125

WOLVERHAMPTON CITY COUNCIL PLAYING PITCH ASSESSMENT

Phase two (planning applications are due to be submitted to WCC in Summer 2011 and building work due to commence early 2012) School Pre BSF Post BSF Community use Consultation Our Lady & St Chad’s • 1 senior football • No change • No demand The School as a sports college envisaged employs a community sports • 1 junior football through BSF manager to facilitate community • 1 baseball use of the site. There is extensive community use of the • 3 rounders site by a range of local clubs • 4 tennis/4 netball including BME and groups of people with disabilities. 1 cricket • The School notes the problem of five poplar trees which run across the school playing fields. It has previously applied for football foundation funding to remove these trees and re-mark the pitch horizontally. The site is a key flagship for primary competition. The cricket strip at the school is no longer used for the purposes of safety.

January 2012 3-033-1011 Final report: Knight Kavanagh & Page 126

WOLVERHAMPTON CITY COUNCIL PLAYING PITCH ASSESSMENT

Phase two (planning applications are due to be submitted to WCC in Summer 2011 and building work due to commence early 2012) School Pre BSF Post BSF Community use Consultation St. Edmunds • 2 senior football • No change • No demand The pitches are spread across envisaged two sites. The pitches which are • 2 junior football through BSF located in a dip to the side of • 8 tennis/6 netball the school suffer from poor drainage and are undulating. Large redgra area with • The redgra pitch provides a track marked useful facility during the • Artificial cricket wicket summer months. However it cannot be used for long periods during the winter months due to poor drainage. There is also a need to address the problems with access to the redgra pitch through the provision of a ramp. The artificial cricket wicket at the school was re-laid about 5 years ago and is in an adequate condition. The School reports that there is some unofficial use of the pitches by students from Wolverhampton University.

January 2012 3-033-1011 Final report: Knight Kavanagh & Page 127

WOLVERHAMPTON CITY COUNCIL PLAYING PITCH ASSESSMENT

Phase three (Planning applications are due to be submitted late 2011/early 2012 and building work will commence Spring 2012) School Pre BSF Post BSF Community use Change Consultation Aldersley • Two senior • No change • Regular • -1 concrete cricket The School has submitted a School football envisaged through community use wicket (unless planning application to install a BSF replaced by artificial cycle speedway/BMX track on • One Gaelic cricket wicket) part of the playing fields to football • Cycle encourage cycling as a sport. speedway/BMX • Four tennis This will result in re -locating rack to be installed courts its Gaelic football pitch onto an on site of existing unmarked grass area on its • Concrete concrete cricket playing fields (if successful cricket wicket wicket proposed to be installed by September 2011). The Gaelic football pitch is not used by the school but is used for community use by St Marys Gaelic Football Club for competitive matches. It will submit a planning application to the WCC in July 2011. It no longer uses the concrete cricket wicket due to health and safety reasons and accesses nearby WCC Claregate Playing Fields for any competitive school fixtures. It has submitted a funding application to the ECB to replace the surface from concrete to artificial.

January 2012 3-033-1011 Final report: Knight Kavanagh & Page 128

WOLVERHAMPTON CITY COUNCIL PLAYING PITCH ASSESSMENT

Phase three (Planning applications are due to be submitted late 2011/early 2012 and building work will commence Spring 2012) School Pre BSF Post BSF Community use Change Consultation Consultation rates the quality of grass playing pitches as good and the site is well drained. The School has plans to employ a lettings officer to increase the level of community use on its indoor and outdoor provision. Under BSF proposals it hopes to include a two lane cricket net facility. Deansfield • Two senior • Managed by a • No change envisaged The hard surface is marked as School football SLA with WCC through BSF netball courts and is in a poor (Regular state of condition. There are • 1 cricket weekly several holes/weeds which wicket community use have resulted in an uneven • Four netball of football surface. The School reports courts (hard pitches that there was some surface area) community interest in using the facility but due to its condition the interested party chose not to use it. The changing facilities are assessed as being poor quality. They are noted as being old and in need of refurbishment.

January 2012 3-033-1011 Final report: Knight Kavanagh & Page 129

WOLVERHAMPTON CITY COUNCIL PLAYING PITCH ASSESSMENT

Phase three (Planning applications are due to be submitted late 2011/early 2012 and building work will commence Spring 2012) School Pre BSF Post BSF Community use Change Consultation Heath Park • Four tennis Anticipated: • Managed by a The artificial grass pitch is in Business & need of resurfacing. There is courts • -1 junior football SLA with Enterprise WCC no grass provision on site. As • One artificial College • Replacement (Regular a result, all school curricular grass pitch AGP community and extra curricular activities (AGP) use of AGP). are delivered using the tennis • 4 tennis courts courts and AGP. The School expresses that through BSF there will be an opportunity to either resurface or replace the AGP and develop a grassed area. It is in discussions with WCC regarding the use of White Playing Fields which is a disused site which could potentially provide two senior football pitches. Under BSF proposals, the number of pupils will increase from 1,150 (Year 7 – 13) to 1,303. Under BSF the facility will become a PFI site.

January 2012 3-033-1011 Final report: Knight Kavanagh & Page 130

WOLVERHAMPTON CITY COUNCIL PLAYING PITCH ASSESSMENT

Phase three (Planning applications are due to be submitted late 2011/early 2012 and building work will commence Spring 2012) School Pre BSF Post BSF Community use Change Consultation Moseley Park • Two senior • Regular • No change envisaged There are currently two senior School football pitches community through BSF football pitches and one full- size rugby pitch on site. In the use • One senior summer the two football rugby pitch pitches are marked with a • Hard court area 400m athletics track. Drainage on the site is considered good by the School. There is also a four court size hard surfaced area. This was previously marked out but is currently used as a general playground/fire assembly point.

January 2012 3-033-1011 Final report: Knight Kavanagh & Page 131

WOLVERHAMPTON CITY COUNCIL PLAYING PITCH ASSESSMENT

Phase three (Planning applications are due to be submitted late 2011/early 2012 and building work will commence Spring 2012) School Pre BSF Post BSF Community use Change Consultation North East • Pendeford – Anticpated at NE • Regular • + 1 cricket pitch Oxley Campus - There are Wolverhampton three senior Academy community (overmarked) currently three senior football Academy/ pitches on site and two tennis football pitches • 3 senior football use Northicote courts. However, the School is (1 senior to School/Rakegate • Pendeford – • planning to provide a total of become 4 mini Primary School two tennis Playing Fields potentially four junior pitches and a football courts. to be lost unless cricket square from temporarily to incorporated into the September 2011. It is likely • Northicote – replace Jennie adjoining Northwood that one of the full size football one senior Lee) football pitch Park. pitches will make way in order • 1 cricket (over to accommodate this. • Northicote – senior football) hard court area Changing facilities on site are Northicote School in a good condition. In Rakegate addition, there are also two Primary School • 1 senior football changing rooms for officials. • 2 junior football • 4 tennis Northicote Campus – On site overmarked with are one full-size grass football netball pitch and a large hard surface Rakegate Primary area. This is currently marked School as four tennis courts and over marked with netball. • 2 junior football No community usage takes Northicote School place on the site reportedly • 2 junior football due to issues with vandalism to user’s cars.

January 2012 3-033-1011 Final report: Knight Kavanagh & Page 132

WOLVERHAMPTON CITY COUNCIL PLAYING PITCH ASSESSMENT

Phase three (Planning applications are due to be submitted late 2011/early 2012 and building work will commence Spring 2012) School Pre BSF Post BSF Community use Change Consultation Smestow Sports • 3 senior • Managed by a Anticipated The School achieved College football SLA with • Loss of senior football Specialist Sports College WCC status in 2005. There is • 1 senior rugby pitch (Regular extensive use of the sports pitch community pitches at the school for • 2 grass hockey use of football soccer coaching and also by pitches) Old Wulfrunians FC junior • 6 tennis/6 clubs. netball (with The pitches are split across lighting) two sites to the left and right of • 1 cricket the school. The School reports that drainage at the site is good. The site is a hub for hosting primary school festivals and receives a lot of use in this respect coupled by the high incidence of school teams. It is engaged with Highfields School, The Kings School and Aldersley High School to form a post-16 consortium to deliver an Institute of Sport. Westcroft Sports • 1 senior • Playing pitches • Not known • Playing field potentially The School did respond to the College (Special football could be affected to be lost consultation. School) by new buildings • 1 junior football

January 2012 3-033-1011 Final report: Knight Kavanagh & Page 133

WOLVERHAMPTON CITY COUNCIL PLAYING PITCH ASSESSMENT

Phase four (Planning applications are due to be submitted to WCC in Spring 2012 with building work due to commence Summer 2012) School Pre BSF Post BSF Community Change Consultation use St Peters • Six senior • No regular • No change envisaged The School has an agreement in Collegiate High football community through BSF place with Wolverhampton FC School use. which has developed it’s • Eight tennis academy on the school’s land. It courts (over was developed around five marked with years ago with a ten year six netball agreement in place. As a courts) consequence the pitches are of excellent quality and are maintained to a high standard by specialist ground staff.

January 2012 3-033-1011 Final report: Knight Kavanagh & Page 134

WOLVERHAMPTON CITY COUNCIL PLAYING PITCH ASSESSMENT

Phase four (Planning applications are due to be submitted to WCC in Spring 2012 with building work due to commence Summer 2012) School Pre BSF Post BSF Community Change Consultation use Wolverhampton • 1 senior • Not available • No change Although the site has been Girls High football pitch for envisaged through assessed as a football pitch (to the School community BSF front of the school) it is marked on • 4 tennis/2 use due to no a season by season basis for netball (with demand. hockey, cricket, rugby, football and lighting) rounders). A 200 metre track is also • Artificial cricket marked on the surround and wicket training grids. With the exception of some leaf fall the pitch is in a good condition. The second pitch area located to the left of the main school drive has an artificial cricket wicket which was installed three years ago through Lady Taverners funding. This is used in conjunction with Wolverhampton CC. The Schools tennis courts had previously been used to host West Midlands tournaments but the lack of access to toilets and limited parking caused the tournament to move back to Manor School in Walsall. It is felt that as the school can only offer one room for changing that this limits external community use as users generally want to access two changing rooms.

January 2012 3-033-1011 Final report: Knight Kavanagh & Page 135

WOLVERHAMPTON CITY COUNCIL PLAYING PITCH ASSESSMENT

Primary schools involved in the BSG Programme in the City include:

School Pre BSF Change Former Danesmore Park Primary School • 2 mini football • Playing field potentially to be lost Former St Luke’s Junior School • 2 junior football • Playing field potentially to be lost Former Wednesfield Village Primary School • No pitches marked • Playing field potentially to be lost

January 2012 3-033-1011 Final report: Knight Kavanagh & Page 136

WOLVERHAMPTON CITY COUNCIL PLAYING PITCH ASSESSMENT

The BSF programme involves the closure of three schools, one in the south east and two in the north of the City to create two academies:

 Parkfield High School has become the new South Wolverhampton & Bilston Academy.  Northicote and Pendeford High Schools have become the new North East Wolverhampton Academy.

Disposal sites

The co-location of two special schools onto secondary school sites, the merger of two secondary schools to form a new Academy and the closure of Parkfield High School (main site) with a new Academy built on its remaining site in Bilston, means that there are potentially five sites available for disposal. The following sites are subject to section 77 in the City:

 Penn Fields Special School – the site has been released under the BSF proposals.  Tettenhall Wood Special School – the site has been released under the BSF proposals.  Former Danesmore Primary School – the site became surplus under WCC’s Primary Rationalisation Programme.  Former St Luke’s Junior School – the School was rebuilt under the Targeted Capital programme and merged with the infant school.  Former Wednesfield Primary School (closed approximately three years ago).  Wednesfield High School (Lichfield Campus) – the campus will become redundant under BSF proposals.  Northicote School - the site has been released under the BSF proposals.

Please note the pitches at the potential disposal sites will still need to be maintained and mitigated for within any proposal for re-development of these sites .

Opportunities

The FA and the RFU is keen to work with and through Wolverhampton’s BSF process to convert sandbased STPs into 3G surfaces where appropriate.

Independent schools

There are four independent schools within the City; Wolverhampton Grammar School, the Royal Wolverhampton School (Junior and Senior), Tettenhall College and Newbridge Preparatory School. Wolverhampton Grammar School and The Royal Wolverhampton School both schools operate a community use policy and provide outdoor grass and hard court provision. A summary of the independent provision has been referred in the previous sport by sport sections.

January 2012 3-033-1011 Final report: Knight Kavanagh & Page 137

WOLVERHAMPTON CITY COUNCIL PLAYING PITCH ASSESSMENT

14.4: Community use

There are 20 schools that have entered into a Service Level Agreement (from April 2011 to March 2012) with WCC Site Development & Support Team for co-ordination of school lettings (including both indoor and outdoor sports facilities):

 Bilston CE Primary School  Northwood Park Primary School  Castlecroft Primary School  Perry Hall Primary School  Claregate Primary School  Smestow School  Deansfield Community School  South Wolverhampton & Bilston Academy  Dovecotes Primary School  Uplands Junior School  East Park Junior School  Warstones Primary School  Edward the Elder Primary School  Wednesfield High School  Highfields Science Specialist School  Wodensfield Primary School  Long Knowle Primary School  Woodfield Junior School  Manor Primary School

This type off arrangement encourages clubs, groups and organisations to access school premises to help increase revenue and develop links with the local community. A dedicated ‘bookings officer’ is responsible for managing and cancelling school pitches. Consultation notes that nine schools with an SLA do not allow community use of grass pitches (predominately football), due to a number of reasons including, access, high levels of extracurricular activities and lack of finance to maintain pitches from additional wear and tear.

14.5: Current provision

The following tables provide an outline of the outdoor sports facilities available at education sites in Wolverhampton. The table also outlines the proportion of these facilities that are currently available for use by the community (i.e. for regular competitive fixtures).

January 2012 3-033-1011 Final report: Knight Kavanagh & Page 138

WOLVERHAMPTON CITY COUNCIL PLAYING PITCH ASSESSMENT

Table 14.2: Summary of pitches at school sites and availability of community use in Wolverhampton

Analysis area Total no. of education pitches No. of education pitches available for community use Senior Junior Mini Senior Cricket Senior Junior Mini football Senior Cricket football football football rugby football football rugby

Bilston 6 7 1 - - 5 2 - - - Central & South 12 7 2 - 1 3 - 2 - - North 8 2 - - - 5 - - - - Tettenhall 6 9 - 4 5 4 - - - - Wednesfield 6 5 - - - 5 2 - - - WOLVERHAMPTON 38 30 3 4 6 22 4 2 - -

It is important to note that a significant proportion of junior pitches are located at primary school sites which are generally not available for community use. Around half of secondary schools in Wolverhampton operate a lettings policy on their sports facilities. However, community use was not on all of its pitches and in some instances only a proportion of their pitches are available for community use.

It is important to consider this within the context of the projected shortfall of junior pitches in Wolverhampton and how this can be met by existing provision.

January 2012 3-033-1011 Final report: Knight Kavanagh & Page 139

WOLVERHAMPTON CITY COUNCIL PLAYING PITCH ASSESSMENT

Table 14.3: Summary of non-pitch facilities at school sites and availability of community use in Wolverhampton

Analysis area Total no. of education non- No. of education pitches pitches available for community use Tennis Netball Tennis Netball Bilston 5 - 5 - Central & South 31 21 7 3 North 14 7 6 3 Tettenhall 21 13 3 - Wednesfield 13 - 13 - WOLVERHAMPTON 84 41 34 6

Please note some non-pitch facilities may appear to have community use by virtue that the pitch facilities are available. It is evident; however, that community use of non-pitch facilities is very limited.

January 2012 3-033-1011 Final report: Knight Kavanagh & Page 140

WOLVERHAMPTON CITY COUNCIL PLAYING PITCH ASSESSMENT

Figure 14.1: Map of education facilities in Wolverhampton 19

Figure 14.1 illustrates there are a significant number of education sites (largely primary school sites) that are not available for community use (red dots).

19 Refer to Table 14.3 for site names and reference numbers January 2012 3-033-1011 Final report: Knight Kavanagh & Page 141

WOLVERHAMPTON CITY COUNCIL PLAYING PITCH ASSESSMENT

Table 14.3: Key to map of education facilities in Wolverhampton

KKP Site name Analysis area School Community ref use 20 2 Aldersley High School North Secondary Yes 9 Bilston C of E Primary School Bilston Primary Yes 14 Bushbury Hill Primary School North Primary No 15 Castlecroft Primary School Tettenhall Primary No 16 Christ Church Junior School Tettenhall Primary No 19 Claregate Primary School Tettenhall Primary No 20 Colton Hills High School Central & South Secondary Yes 22 Coppice Performing Arts School Wednesfield Secondary Yes 23 Corpus Christi RC Primary School Wednesfield Primary No 24 Danesmore Park Primary School Wednesfield Primary No 27 Dovecotes Primary School North Primary No 28 Dunstall Hill Primary School Central & South Primary No 30 East Park Junior School Bilston Primary Yes 31 Eastfield Primary School Bilston Primary No 33 Fallings Park Primary School North Primary No 36 Goldthorn Park Primary School Central & South Primary No 39 Green Acres Primary School Bilston Primary No 43 Highfields Secondary School Tettenhall Secondary No 45 Holy Rosary Catholic School Bilston Primary No 46 Holy Trinity Catholic Primary Bilston Primary No 49 Lanesfield Primary School Central & South Primary No 51 Long Knowle Primary School Wednesfield Primary No 52 Loxdale Primary School Bilston Primary No 53 Manor Primary School Central & South Primary No 54 Moat House Primary School Wednesfield Primary No 55 Moreton Community High School North Secondary No 56 Moseley Park School Bilston Secondary Yes 57 New Park School North Primary No 60 Oak Meadow Primary School Wednesfield Primary No 63 Our Lady & St Chads Catholic Sports North Secondary No College 64 Oxley Primary School North Primary No 65 Palmers Cross Primary School Tettenhall Primary No 66 South Wolverhampton and Bilston Bilston Secondary Yes Academy 67 North East Wolverhampton Academy North Secondary Yes (Pendeford Site) 70 Penn Fields Special School Tettenhall Primary No 71 Perry Hall Primary School Wednesfield Primary No 72 Priory Green Primary School North Primary No 74 Rakegate Primary School North Primary No

20 As per Towards a Level Playing Field community use of sites is those that are available for regular competitive use.

January 2012 3-033-1011 Final report: Knight Kavanagh & Page 142

WOLVERHAMPTON CITY COUNCIL PLAYING PITCH ASSESSMENT

KKP Site name Analysis area School Community ref use 20 76 Royal Wolverhampton School (Senior Central & South Primary Yes and Junior School ) and Secondary 77 Smestow School (football pitches) Tettenhall Secondary Yes 78 Springvale Junior School Central & South Primary No 81 St Mary & John's Catholic Primary Central & South Primary No School 82 St Bartholomew's C of E Primary School OUTSIDE Primary No 83 St Edmunds Catholic High School Central & South Secondary No 84 St Jude's CE Primary School Central & South Primary No 85 St Lukes Junior School Central & South Primary No 86 St Martin's CE Primary School Bilston Primary No 87 St Marys Catholic Primary School Wednesfield Primary No 88 St Michael's CE Primary School Tettenhall Primary No 89 St Peters Collegiate High School Central & South Secondary No 90 St Teresa's Catholic Primary School Central & South Primary No 91 Stow Heath Junior School Bilston Primary No 92 Stowlawn Primary School Bilston Primary No 93 Tettenhall College Tettenhall Secondary Yes 95 The Giffard Roman Catholic Primary Central & South Primary No School 96 The Kings CE (High) School Tettenhall Secondary No 97 North East Wolverhampton Academy North Secondary No (School playing fields plus Northycote Detached Playing Fields Site) 98 Trinity C of E (Primary) School Wednesfield Primary No 100 Underhill Junior School North Primary No 101 Uplands Junior School Tettenhall Primary No 102 Warstones Primary School Tettenhall Primary No 103 Wednesfield High School Wednesfield Secondary Yes 106 Whitgreave Junior School North Primary No 108 Wilkinson Primary School Bilston Primary No 110 Woden Primary School Wednesfield Primary No 111 Wednesfield Primary School Wednesfield Primary Yes 113 Wolverhampton Grammar School Tettenhall Secondary Yes 114 Wolverhampton Girls High School Central & South Secondary No 119 Woodfield Primary School Tettenhall Primary No 119 Woodfield Primary School Tettenhall Primary No 133 City of Wolverhampton (Wellington Road Bilston Secondary Yes Campus) 3G pitch 135 Heath Park Business Enterprise College Wednesfield Secondary Yes 157 Highfields Secondary School - Upper OUTSIDE Secondary Yes Sports Pitches 159 Royal Wolverhampton School (Junior Central & South Primary No School Playing Fields) 163 D'eyncourt Primary School Wednesfield Primary No 164 Former Brickklin Primary School Central & South Primary No

January 2012 3-033-1011 Final report: Knight Kavanagh & Page 143

WOLVERHAMPTON CITY COUNCIL PLAYING PITCH ASSESSMENT

KKP Site name Analysis area School Community ref use 20 165 Green Park Special School Bilston Primary No 166 Grove Primary School Central & South Primary No 167 Hill Avenue School Playing Field Central & South Primary No 168 Merridale Primary School Tettenhall Primary No 170 Newbridge Crescent Private School Central & South Primary No 171 North East Wolverhampton Academy North Secondary No Northicote Campus 172 Northwood Park Primary School North Primary No 175 St Albans C of E Primary School Wednesfield Primary No 176 St Lukes C of E Playing Field Central & South Primary No 177 St Lukes C of E New Playing Field Central & South Primary No 178 St Michaels Catholic Primary School Tettenhall Primary No 179 St Thomas C of E Primary School Wednesfield Primary No 181 Villiers Primary School Bilston Primary No 183 Wednesfield Village School Wednesfield Primary No 184 West Park Primary School Central & South Primary No 185 Westacre Infant School Tettenhall Primary No 186 Whitegreave Infant School North Primary No 187 Woden Primary School Detached Playing Wednesfield Primary No Field 188 City of Wolverhampton College (Paget Central & South Secondary Road Campus) 189 Wood End Primary School Wednesfield Primary No 190 St Anthony's Roman Catholic Primary North Primary No School 192 Edward the Elder Primary School Wednesfield Primary No 193 Smestow School (rugby, cricket and Tettenhall Secondary No grass hockey pitches, tennis and netball courts) 201 Springdale Junior School Tettenhall Primary No

14.6: Primary school consultation summary

A questionnaire was sent directly through WCC Education department via an email portal to each of the primary (junior and infant) and special schools in Wolverhampton (75 in total) to ascertain the quality, quantity and accessibility of outdoor sports pitch facilities in the City. A 45% return rate was obtained.

Schools with playing fields

All primary schools that returned the survey are identified as having access to a grass playing field or hard court surface. Furthermore, all provision is identified as being on-site. One school; St Stephens Church of England, reports they have also previously used a facility off-site at White Fields (off Woden Road). However, they currently do not use the site and it now out of use. The School does not often use it’s off site facility due to staffing issues (i.e., needing two members of staff.

January 2012 3-033-1011 Final report: Knight Kavanagh & Page 144

WOLVERHAMPTON CITY COUNCIL PLAYING PITCH ASSESSMENT

Type of outdoor sports facilities

Several types of outdoor sports facilities are accommodated at primary schools in Wolverhampton. Most sites tend to contain a junior football pitch (60%), generic grass field (55%), Multi Use Games Area (MUGA) (45%) or a netball court (37.5%).

As to be expected, no primary schools provide adult rugby pitches or artificial turf pitches. A small number of primary schools (4%) provide junior rugby pitches; this is likely to be over existing provision such as a marked football pitch.

Figure 14.2: Type of outdoor sports facilities at Wolverhampton Primary Schools

70%

60.0% 60% 55.0%

50% 45.0%

40% 37.5%

30%

20% 17.5% 15.0%

10% 7.5%

0% Adult football Junior football Mini - soccer Netball courts Generic grass MUGA Other pitch pitch pitch field

Playing fields

The majority of responses relating to the condition of playing fields are positive. Overall quality is good, with all categories having a majority rating of either good or average. In particular, 83% of primary schools rate the amount of grass cover as being good. Over half of schools also rate safety margins (65%) and the lack of issues of dog fouling (53%), unofficial use (53%) and damage to surfaces (55%) as good.

The evenness (18%) and slope of pitch (15%) are particularly poor elements of pitch quality.

January 2012 3-033-1011 Final report: Knight Kavanagh & Page 145

WOLVERHAMPTON CITY COUNCIL PLAYING PITCH ASSESSMENT

Table 14.4: Matrix of playing field scores

Category Good Average Poor No answer/ not applicable Grass cover 83% 8% 8% 3% Length of grass 33% 63% 0% 5% Evenness of pitch 20% 58% 18% 5% Size of pitch 48% 38% 8% 8% Slope of pitch 43% 35% 15% 8% Adequate safety margins 65% 15% 5% 15% Line markings 18% 58% 8% 18% Goalpost quality 18% 53% 13% 18% Evidence of dog fouling 75% 2% 0% 5% Evidence of unofficial use 53% 35% 5% 8% Evidence of damage to surface 55% 38% 3% 5%

Courts

Nearly all the categories relating to the condition of courts are rated as good. A number of categories, such as grip underfoot (30%), adequate safety margins (30%), evidence of glass/stones/litter (28%) and access for disabled players (25%), receive a relatively higher percentage for average score.

The number of categories with poor ratings is low, a reflection of the general good condition and quality of existing courts at primary schools in Wolverhampton.

Table 14.5: Matrix of court scores

Category Good Average Poor No answer/ not applicable Slope of court 40% 13% 13% 35% Evidence of moss/lichen 55% 10% 0% 35% Loose gravel 38% 23% 5% 35% Holes or rips in surface 45% 20% 0% 35% Grip underfoot 35% 30% 0% 35% Adequate safety margins 30% 30% 5% 35% Line markings 35% 18% 13% 35% Surrounding fencing 40% 18% 8% 35% Evidence of glass/stones/litter 35% 28% 3% 35% Evidence of inappropriate use 50% 15% 0% 35% Access for disabled players 33% 25% 5% 35%

January 2012 3-033-1011 Final report: Knight Kavanagh & Page 146

WOLVERHAMPTON CITY COUNCIL PLAYING PITCH ASSESSMENT

Use of playing fields

Only 20% of school playing fields are used during the holidays for coaching or other similar activities. In the main activities tend to be football or cricket training and/or clubs and summer play schemes. The most common reasons as to why playing fields were not used during the holidays include lack of demand followed by issues with arrangements for access.

These results are further mirrored when considering wider availability of playing fields for regular community use by sports clubs, with only a quarter of schools (10 in total) reporting that community use is available. It is also likely that although available, some playing fields will not actually be in use. Only Bilston C of E School states regular team usage. Schools available but not currently used include, Grove, Edward the Elder, Rakegate, Gilfard Catholic, Warstones, Perry Hall, St Lukes, East Park and Lanesfield.

Ancillary facilities

The vast majority of schools (83%) do not have specific changing accommodation/rooms available for sports use. Of those that do, the majority are available for community use and most rate the quality of provision as good.

43% of schools state there is adequate car parking available on site for community users. However, a higher proportion of schools (58%) suggest that car parking is inadequate to cater for community users.

Plans to develop or expand existing provision

The vast majority of primary schools (93%) do not plan to expand or develop their existing outdoor sports provision. However, three schools do report plans. Of these, only Claregate Primary School identifies that it is planning to install a MUGA in August 2011. The other two schools; Bilston CofE Primary School and Lanesfield Primary School, do not provide further details and report that funding has not yet been secured.

Schools summary  There are 75 playing pitches (including all types), 84 tennis courts and 41 netball courts at schools in Wolverhampton.  13 secondary schools (including colleges and independent schools) are used for community use.  Ten primary schools report their outdoor playing fields are available for community use. However, only one of these schools reports actual usage.  Consultation notes that nine schools with a Service Level Agreement do not allow community use of grass pitches (predominately football), due to a number of reasons including, access, high levels of extracurricular activities and lack of finance to maintain pitches from additional wear and tear.  Under BSF, there will be opportunities for secondary schools to increase the level of community use which currently varies according to individual school circumstance.  In the majority of instances, where pitches are available and in use, access to school changing accommodation is limited or non-existent.  The quality and quantity of outdoor sports facilities at school sites varies across the City, but is generally better in secondary schools.

January 2012 3-033-1011 Final report: Knight Kavanagh & Page 147

WOLVERHAMPTON CITY COUNCIL PLAYING PITCH ASSESSMENT

PART 15: SUMMARY

This Assessment Report considers the supply and demand issues for playing pitches and outdoor sports facilities in Wolverhampton. It identifies local need from consultation highlighting the predominant issues. This will form the basis of discussions to inform the development of the Strategy and Action Plan to address key issues. Strategic recommendations and provision standards will also be incorporated in this document.

January 2012 3-033-1011 Final report: Knight Kavanagh & Page 148

WOLVERHAMPTON CITY COUNCIL PLAYING PITCH ASSESSMENT

APPENDIX ONE: PPM CALCULATIONS

Wolverhampton Football Cricket Rugby Union STAGE ONE Adult teams 152 34 3 Identifying teams Junior teams 42 20 0 Mini teams 44 0 STAGE TWO Adult games 0.5 0.7 0.5 Calculate home games per week Junior games 0.5 0.3 0.5 Mini games 0.5 0.25 STAGE THREE (S1 x S2) Adult games 76 23.8 1.5 Assessing home games per week Junior games 21 6 0 Mini games 22 0 STAGE FOUR Saturday Adult games 14% 55% 0% Junior games 7% 0% 0% Mini games 0% 0% Establish temporal demand for pitches Sunday Adult games 84% 17% 0% Junior games 93% 0% 0% Mini games 100% 0% Midweek Adult games 2% 29% 100% Junior games 0% 100% 0% Mini games 0% 0% STAGE FIVE (S3 x S4) Saturday Adult games 10.5 13 0 Junior games 1.5 0 0 Mini games 0 0 Defining pitches used for each day Sunday Adult games 64 4 0 Junior games 19.5 0 0 Mini games 22 0 Midweek Adult games 1.5 6.8 1.5 Junior games 0 6 0 Mini games 0 0 STAGE SIX Adult pitches 74 13 0 Establishing pitches currently available Junior pitches 13 0 (community use only) Mini pitches 12 0 STAGE SEVEN (S6 - S5) Saturday Adult pitches 63.5 0 0 Junior pitches 11.5 0 Mini pitches 12.0 0 Identifying shortfall (-) and Sunday Adult pitches 10.0 9.0 0 oversupply (+) Junior pitches -6.5 0 Mini pitches -10.0 0 Midweek Adult pitches 72.5 0.2 -1.5 Junior pitches 13.0 0 Mini pitches 12.0 0

January 2012 3-033-1011 Final report: Knight Kavanagh & Page 149

WOLVERHAMPTON CITY COUNCIL PLAYING PITCH ASSESSMENT

Bilston Football Cricket Rugby Union STAGE ONE Adult teams 20 2 0 Identifying teams Junior teams 6 1 0 Mini teams 0 0 STAGE TWO Adult games 0.5 0.7 0.5 Calculate home games per week Junior games 0.5 0.3 0.5 Mini games 0.5 0.25 STAGE THREE (S1 x S2) Adult games 10 1.4 0 Assessing home games per week Junior games 3 0.3 0 Mini games 0 0 STAGE FOUR Saturday Adult games 5% 71% 0% Junior games 0% 0% 0% Mini games 0% 0% Establish temporal demand for pitches Sunday Adult games 95% 0% 0% Junior games 100% 0% 0% Mini games 0% 0% Midweek Adult games 0% 29% 0% Junior games 0% 100% 0% Mini games 0% 0% STAGE FIVE (S3 x S4) Saturday Adult games 0.5 1 0 Junior games 0 0 0 Mini games 0 0 Defining pitches used for each day Sunday Adult games 9.5 0 0 Junior games 3 0 0 Mini games 0 0 Midweek Adult games 0 0.4 0 Junior games 0 0.3 0 Mini games 0 0 STAGE SIX Adult pitches 12 1 0 Establishing pitches currently available Junior pitches 4 0 (community use only) Mini pitches 0 0 STAGE SEVEN (S6 - S5) Saturday Adult pitches 11.5 0 0 Junior pitches 4.0 0 Mini pitches 0 0 Identifying shortfall (-) and Sunday Adult pitches 2.5 1.0 0 oversupply (+) Junior pitches 1.0 0 Mini pitches 0 0 Midweek Adult pitches 12.0 0.3 0 Junior pitches 4.0 0 Mini pitches 0 0

January 2012 3-033-1011 Final report: Knight Kavanagh & Page 150

WOLVERHAMPTON CITY COUNCIL PLAYING PITCH ASSESSMENT

Central & South Football Cricket Rugby Union STAGE ONE Adult teams 16 5 0 Identifying teams Junior teams 5 4 0 Mini teams 2 0 STAGE TWO Adult games 0.5 0.7 0.5 Calculate home games per week Junior games 0.5 0.3 0.5 Mini games 0.5 0.25 STAGE THREE (S1 x S2) Adult games 8 3.5 0 Assessing home games per week Junior games 2.5 1.2 0 Mini games 1 0 STAGE FOUR Saturday Adult games 6% 57% 0% Junior games 0% 0% 0% Mini games 0% 0% Establish temporal demand for pitches Sunday Adult games 94% 14% 0% Junior games 100% 0% 0% Mini games 100% 0% Midweek Adult games 0% 29% 0% Junior games 0% 100% 0% Mini games 0% 0% STAGE FIVE (S3 x S4) Saturday Adult games 0.5 2 0 Junior games 0 0 0 Mini games 0 0 Defining pitches used for each day Sunday Adult games 7.5 0.5 0 Junior games 2.5 0 0 Mini games 1 0 Midweek Adult games 0 1 0 Junior games 0 1.2 0 Mini games 0 0 STAGE SIX Adult pitches 9 4 0 Establishing pitches currently available Junior pitches 1 0 (community use only) Mini pitches 2 0 STAGE SEVEN (S6 - S5) Saturday Adult pitches 8.5 2.0 0 Junior pitches 1.0 0 Mini pitches 2.0 0 Identifying shortfall (-) and Sunday Adult pitches 1.5 3.5 0 oversupply (+) Junior pitches -1.5 0 Mini pitches 1.0 0 Midweek Adult pitches 9.0 1.8 0 Junior pitches 1.0 0 Mini pitches 2.0 0

January 2012 3-033-1011 Final report: Knight Kavanagh & Page 151

WOLVERHAMPTON CITY COUNCIL PLAYING PITCH ASSESSMENT

North Football Cricket Rugby Union STAGE ONE Adult teams 34 8 0 Identifying teams Junior teams 7 3 0 Mini teams 29 0 STAGE TWO Adult games 0.5 0.7 0.5 Calculate home games per week Junior games 0.5 0.3 0.5 Mini games 0.5 0.25 STAGE THREE (S1 x S2) Adult games 17 5.6 0 Assessing home games per week Junior games 3.5 0.9 0 Mini games 14.5 0 STAGE FOUR Saturday Adult games 18% 54% 0% Junior games 14% 0% 0% Mini games 0% 0% Establish temporal demand for pitches Sunday Adult games 76% 18% 0% Junior games 86% 0% 0% Mini games 100% 0% Midweek Adult games 6% 29% 0% Junior games 0% 100% 0% Mini games 0% 0% STAGE FIVE (S3 x S4) Saturday Adult games 3 3 0 Junior games 0.5 0 0 Mini games 0 0 Defining pitches used for each day Sunday Adult games 13 1 0 Junior games 3 0 0 Mini games 14.5 0 Midweek Adult games 1 1.6 0 Junior games 0 0.9 0 Mini games 0 0 STAGE SIX Adult pitches 12 3 0 Establishing pitches currently available Junior pitches 1 0 (community use only) Mini pitches 4 0 STAGE SEVEN (S6 - S5) Saturday Adult pitches 9.0 0.0 0 Junior pitches 0.5 0 Mini pitches 4.0 0 Identifying shortfall (-) and Sunday Adult pitches -1.0 2.0 0 oversupply (+) Junior pitches -2.0 0 Mini pitches -10.5 0 Midweek Adult pitches 11.0 0.5 0 Junior pitches 1.0 0 Mini pitches 4.0 0

January 2012 3-033-1011 Final report: Knight Kavanagh & Page 152

WOLVERHAMPTON CITY COUNCIL PLAYING PITCH ASSESSMENT

Tettenhall Football Cricket Rugby Union STAGE ONE Adult teams 44 19 3 Identifying teams Junior teams 13 12 0 Mini teams 6 0 STAGE TWO Adult games 0.5 0.7 0.5 Calculate home games per week Junior games 0.5 0.3 0.5 Mini games 0.5 0.25 STAGE THREE (S1 x S2) Adult games 22 13.3 1.5 Assessing home games per week Junior games 6.5 3.6 0 Mini games 3 0 STAGE FOUR Saturday Adult games 23% 53% 0% Junior games 8% 0% 0% Mini games 0% 0% Establish temporal demand for pitches Sunday Adult games 77% 19% 0% Junior games 92% 0% 0% Mini games 100% 0% Midweek Adult games 0% 29% 100% Junior games 0% 100% 0% Mini games 0% 0% STAGE FIVE (S3 x S4) Saturday Adult games 5 7 0 Junior games 0.5 0 0 Mini games 0 0 Defining pitches used for each day Sunday Adult games 17 2.5 0 Junior games 6 0 0 Mini games 3 0 Midweek Adult games 0 3.8 1.5 Junior games 0 3.6 0 Mini games 0 0 STAGE SIX Adult pitches 20 5 0 Establishing pitches currently available Junior pitches 3 0 (community use only) Mini pitches 2 0 STAGE SEVEN (S6 - S5) Saturday Adult pitches 15.0 -2.0 0 Junior pitches 2.5 0 Mini pitches 2.0 0 Identifying shortfall (-) and Sunday Adult pitches 3.0 2.5 0 oversupply (+) Junior pitches -3.0 0 Mini pitches -1.0 0 Midweek Adult pitches 20.0 -2.4 -1.5 Junior pitches 3.0 0 Mini pitches 2.0 0

January 2012 3-033-1011 Final report: Knight Kavanagh & Page 153

WOLVERHAMPTON CITY COUNCIL PLAYING PITCH ASSESSMENT

Wednesfield Football Cricket Rugby Union STAGE ONE Adult teams 38 0 0 Identifying teams Junior teams 11 0 0 Mini teams 7 0 STAGE TWO Adult games 0.5 0.7 0.5 Calculate home games per week Junior games 0.5 0.3 0.5 Mini games 0.5 0.25 STAGE THREE (S1 x S2) Adult games 19 0 0 Assessing home games per week Junior games 5.5 0 0 Mini games 3.5 0 STAGE FOUR Saturday Adult games 8% 0% 0% Junior games 9% 0% 0% Mini games 0% 0% Establish temporal demand for pitches Sunday Adult games 89% 0% 0% Junior games 91% 0% 0% Mini games 100% 0% Midweek Adult games 3% 0% 0% Junior games 0% 0% 0% Mini games 0% 0% STAGE FIVE (S3 x S4) Saturday Adult games 1.5 0 0 Junior games 0.5 0 0 Mini games 0 0 Defining pitches used for each day Sunday Adult games 17 0 0 Junior games 5 0 0 Mini games 3.5 0 Midweek Adult games 0.5 0 0 Junior games 0 0 0 Mini games 0 0 STAGE SIX Adult pitches 21 0 0 Establishing pitches currently available Junior pitches 4 0 (community use only) Mini pitches 4 0 STAGE SEVEN (S6 - S5) Saturday Adult pitches 19.5 0 0 Junior pitches 3.5 0 Mini pitches 4.0 0 Identifying shortfall (-) and Sunday Adult pitches 4.0 0 0 oversupply (+) Junior pitches -1.0 0 Mini pitches 0.5 0 Midweek Adult pitches 20.5 0 0 Junior pitches 4.0 0 Mini pitches 4.0 0

January 2012 3-033-1011 Final report: Knight Kavanagh & Page 154

WOLVERHAMPTON CITY COUNCIL PLAYING PITCH ASSESSMENT

APPENDIX TWO: LIST OF SITES BY COMMUNITY USE

KKP ref Site name Analysis Area Community use 8 Bilston Town Bowling Club Bilston Yes 9 Bilston C of E Primary School Bilston Yes 10 Bilston Lawn Tennis Club Bilston Yes 11 Bilston Town Football Ground Bilston Yes 25 Deansfield High School, Bilston Yes 30 East Park Junior School Bilston Yes 56 Moseley Park School Bilston Yes 66 South Wolverhamtpon and Bilston Academy Bilston Yes 79 Springvale Social Club Bowling Green Bilston Yes 129 Springvale Sports & Social Club Bilston Yes 133 City of Wolverhampton (Wellington Road Bilston Yes Campus) 3G pitch 29 East Park (Football pitches) Bilston Yes 73 Prouds Lane Playing Fields Bilston Yes 153 East Park Tennis Courts Bilston Yes 12 Bilston United Sports Ground Central & South Yes 20 Colton Hills High School Central & South Yes 69 Penn Cricket Ground Central & South Yes 76 Royal Wolverhampton School (Senior School Central & South Yes playing fields) 105 West Park Bowling Green Central & South Yes 115 Wolverhampton Lawn Tennis and Squash Club Central & South Yes 122 Newhampton Inn Bowling Club Central & South Yes 123 Oaklands Bowling and Social Club Central & South Yes 124 Old Ash Tree Bowling Club Central & South Yes 127 Penn Bowling & Social Club Central & South Yes 160 West Park Tennis Courts Central & South Yes 180 Summer House PH Bowling Green Central & South Yes 199 Stile Bowling Club Central & South Yes 200 44 Bowling Club Central & South Yes 26 Dixon Street Playing Fields Central & South Yes 44 Hilton Road Playing Fields Central & South Yes 58 Newbridge Playing Fields Central & South Yes 80 Springvale Park Central & South Yes 2 Aldersley High School North Yes 34 Fordhouses Cricket Club North Yes 37 Goodrich Sports Ground, Wobaston Road North Yes 38 Goodyear Sports and Social Club Bowling North Yes Green 67 North East Wolverhampton Academy North Yes (Pendeford Site) 125 The ECC Sports Club North Yes 126 Oxley Sewage Works Bowling Green North Yes

January 2012 3-033-1011 Final report: Knight Kavanagh & Page 155

WOLVERHAMPTON CITY COUNCIL PLAYING PITCH ASSESSMENT

KKP ref Site name Analysis Area Community use 132 Bilbrook Junior Football Club North Yes 154 Goodyear Sports and Social Club Sports North Yes Pitches 6 Bee Lane Playing Fields Sports Pitches North Yes 59 Northwood Park North Yes 75 Old Wulfrunians AFC OUTSIDE Yes 107 Old Wulfrunians Cricket Club, Castlecroft OUTSIDE Yes 116 Wolverhampton RUFC OUTSIDE Yes 157 Highfields Secondary School - Upper Sports OUTSIDE Yes Pitches 197 Twentyman Field OUTSIDE Yes 198 Wolverhampton Casuals OUTSIDE Yes 1 Albert Lawn Tennis Club Tettenhall Yes 13 Bradmore Recreation Ground Bowling Green Tettenhall Yes 40 Hanbury Tennis Club Tettenhall Yes 62 Old Wulfrunians Tettenhall Cricket Club Tettenhall Yes 68 Gamesfield Green Playing Field Tettenhall Yes 77 Smestow School Tettenhall Yes 93 Tettenhall College Tettenhall Yes 109 Windsor Avenue Playing Fields Tettenhall Yes 112 Wolverhampton Cricket Club Tettenhall Yes 113 Wolverhampton Grammar School Tettenhall Yes 120 Woodfield Sports & Social Club Tettenhall Yes 161 Danescourt Cricket Playing Field Tettenhall Yes 162 Danescourt Road Sports Club Tettenhall Yes 173 Pennfields Bowling Club Tettenhall Yes 194 Danescourt Road Sports Club Football pitch Tettenhall Yes 196 Wolverhampton Cricket Club (Football pitches) Tettenhall Yes 3 Aldersley Leisure Village Sports Pitches Tettenhall Yes 5 Bantock Park Sports Pitches Tettenhall Yes 18 Claregate Playing Fields Tettenhall Yes 94 Tettenhall Upper Green Tettenhall Yes 142 Aldersley Leisure Village STPs Tettenhall Yes 143 Aldersley Leisure Village tennis courts Tettenhall Yes 148 Bradmore Recreation Ground Tennis Courts Tettenhall Yes 17 Chubbs Bowling Green Wednesfield Yes 22 Coppice Performing Arts School Wednesfield Yes 103 Wednesfield High School Wednesfield Yes 104 Wednesfield Town Football Ground Wednesfield Yes 111 Wodnesfield Primary School Wednesfield Yes 117 Wolverhampton United Ground Wednesfield Yes 131 Wednesfield Conservative Club Wednesfield Yes 135 Heath Park Business Enterprise College Wednesfield Yes 4 Ashmore Park Bowling Green Wednesfield Yes 7 Bellamy Lane Playing Fields, Wednesfield Wednesfield Yes

January 2012 3-033-1011 Final report: Knight Kavanagh & Page 156

WOLVERHAMPTON CITY COUNCIL PLAYING PITCH ASSESSMENT

KKP ref Site name Analysis Area Community use 35 Fowlers Park Wednesfield Yes 41 Heath Town Park Wednesfield Yes 47 Jennie Lee Centre Sports Pitches Wednesfield Yes 48 King George V Playing Field (Wednesfield Wednesfield Yes Park) 145 Ashmore Park Sports Pitches Wednesfield Yes 182 Wednesfield Park Bowling Green Wednesfield Yes 31 Eastfield Primary School Bilston No 39 Green Acres Primary School Bilston No 45 Holy Rosary Catholic School Bilston No 46 Holy Trinity Catholic Primary Bilston No 52 Loxdale Primary School Bilston No 86 St Martin's CE Primary School Bilston No 91 Stow Heath Junior School Bilston No 92 Stowlawn Primary School Bilston No 108 Wilkinson Primary School Bilston No 150 BUV Playing Fields Bilston No 165 Greenpark Special School Bilston No 181 Villers Primary School Bilston No 202 City of Wolverhampton (Wellington Road Bilston No Campus) Junior Football pitch 146 Bankfield Road Sports Ground (Former GKN) Bilston No 152 East Park STP Bilston No 28 Dunstall Hill Primary School Central & South No 36 Goldthorn Park Primary School Central & South No 49 Lanesfield Primary School Central & South No 53 Manor Primary School Central & South No 78 Springvale Junior School Central & South No 81 St Mary & John's Catholic Primary School Central & South No 83 St Edmunds Catholic High School Central & South No 84 St Jude's CE Primary School Central & South No 85 St Lukes Junior School Central & South No 89 St Peters Collegiate High School Central & South No 90 St Teresa's Catholic Primary School Central & South No 95 The Giffard Roman Catholic Primary School Central & South No 114 Wolverhampton Girls High School Central & South No 118 Woodcross Lane Park Central & South No 128 Parkfield Road Central Working Men's Club Central & South No 144 All Saints Games Area (pay and play) Central & South No 155 Graiseley Recreation Ground Central & South No 159 Royal Wolverhampton School (Junior School Central & South No Playing Fields) 164 Former Brickklin Primary School Central & South No 166 Grove Primary School Central & South No 167 Hill Avenue School Playing Field Central & South No

January 2012 3-033-1011 Final report: Knight Kavanagh & Page 157

WOLVERHAMPTON CITY COUNCIL PLAYING PITCH ASSESSMENT

KKP ref Site name Analysis Area Community use 170 Newbridge Crescent Private School Central & South No 176 St Lukes C of E Playing Field Central & South No 177 St Lukes C of E New Playing Field Central & South No 184 West Park Primary School Central & South No 188 City of Wolverhampton College (Paget Road Central & South No Campus) 118 Woodcross Lane Park Central & South No 14 Bushbury Hill Primary School North No 27 Dovecotes Primary School North No 33 Fallings Park Primary School North No 55 Moreton Community High School North No 57 New Park School North No 63 Our Lady & St Chads Catholic Sports College North No 64 Oxley Primary School North No 72 Priory Green Primary School North No 74 Rakegate Primary School North No 97 North East Wolverhampton Academy North No (Northycote Detached Playing Fields Site) 100 Underhill Junior School North No 106 Whitgreave Junior School North No 171 North East Wolverhampton Academy North No Northwood Campus 172 Northwood Park Primary School North No 186 Whitegreave Infant School North No 190 St Anthony's Roman Catholic Primary School North No 82 St Bartholomew's C of E Primary School OUTSIDE No 15 Castlecroft Primary School Tettenhall No 16 Christ Church Junior School Tettenhall No 19 Claregate Primary School Tettenhall No 43 Highfields Secondary School Tettenhall No 65 Palmers Cross Primary School Tettenhall No 70 Penn Fields Special School Tettenhall No 88 St Michael's CE Primary School Tettenhall No 96 The Kings CE (High) School Tettenhall No 101 Uplands Junior School Tettenhall No 102 Warstones Primary School Tettenhall No 119 Woodfield Primary School Tettenhall No 168 Merridale Primary School Tettenhall No 178 St Michaels Catholic Primary School Tettenhall No 185 Westacre Infant School Tettenhall No 119 Woodfield Primary School Tettenhall No 193 Smestow School (non-comm use) Tettenhall No 201 Springdale Junior School Tettenhall No 149 Boots Land Playing Field Tettenhall No 23 Corpus Christi RC Primary School Wednesfield No

January 2012 3-033-1011 Final report: Knight Kavanagh & Page 158

WOLVERHAMPTON CITY COUNCIL PLAYING PITCH ASSESSMENT

KKP ref Site name Analysis Area Community use 24 Danesmore Park Primary School Wednesfield No 51 Long Knowle Primary School Wednesfield No 54 Moat House Primary School Wednesfield No 60 Oak Meadow Primary School Wednesfield No 71 Perry Hall Primary School Wednesfield No 87 St Marys Catholic Primary School Wednesfield No 98 Trinity C of E (Primary) School Wednesfield No 110 Woden Primary School Wednesfield No 151 Whites Playing Field Wednesfield No 156 Grassy Lane Private Sports Ground Wednesfield No 163 D'eyncourt Primary School Wednesfield No 175 St Albans C of E Primary School Wednesfield No 179 St Thomas C of E Primary School Wednesfield No 183 Wednesfield Village School Wednesfield No 187 Woden Primary School Detached Playing Field Wednesfield No 189 Wood End Primary School Wednesfield No 192 Edward the Elder Primary School Wednesfield No 158 Jennie Lee Centre STP Wednesfield No

January 2012 3-033-1011 Final report: Knight Kavanagh & Page 159

WOLVERHAMPTON CITY COUNCIL PLAYING PITCH ASSESSMENT

APPENDIX THREE: CONSULTEE LIST

Name Designation Organisation Tennis - - Development Group H Edwards Club representative 44 Club Bowling Club Martin Stanley Club representative Abbey Hulton United FC - Club representative AFC Wulfrunians Andy Grimshaw Assistant Head teacher Aldersley High School Alison Compton Manager Aldersley Leisure Village Kevin Pain Club representative All Saints FC (adults) Andrew Parsons Club representative Alumwell Athletic FC D Carless Club representative Ashmore Park Bowling Club Erica Coley and Club representative Ashmore Park Rangers FC John Bird - - Bantock Primary School Dave Maydew Club representative Bilbrook Junior FC S Weston League Secretary Bilston Bowling League - - Bilston CE Primary School J Sheppard Secretary Bilston Lawn Tennis Club Graham Pallot U10 League Co-ordinator and League Bilston Partnership Youth Football and Lynda Pallot Secretary League Chad Ehlertsen County Development Manager Birmingham County Football Association G Adamson Club representative Bradmore Bowling Club Christian Club representative Bradmore Social FC Steadman - Watts - - Bushbury Hill Primary School John Wright Club representative Castle Youth FC - - Christ Church (Church of England) Infant School - - Christ Church CE Junior School A Round Club representative Chubbsafes Bowling Club Alison Byrne Club representative Claregate Harriers FC - - Claregate Primary School Pam Warren and Business Manager and Site Manager Colton Hills Community Pete Burch - - Corpus Christi Catholic Primary Michelle Craig Club representative Corpus Christi FC J Bailey Club representative Coseley Athletic Bowling Club Rosemary Ball & Club representative Coven United FC James Gibbins Chris Harris Club representative Danesmore Casuals Heather Crump Head of PE Deansfield Community School Paul Sankey and Club representative Dynamo 50 Stile FC Rob Knight Andy Hawthorne Club representative Dynamo FC

January 2012 3-033-1011 Final report: Knight Kavanagh & Page 160

WOLVERHAMPTON CITY COUNCIL PLAYING PITCH ASSESSMENT

Name Designation Organisation - - East Park Primary School - - Eastfield Primary School - - Edward the Elder Primary School - - Elston Hall Primary Daniel Hemmings Club representative Emerald Athletic FC Jason Britten County Development Manager English Cricket Board (ECB) John Huband Funding and Facilities Manager English Cricket Board (ECB) D Davies Club representative Express & Star Bowling Club - - Fallings Park Primary School Mark Heaney Club representative FC Banterlona - - Field View Primary Hannah Buckley Regional Facilities Manager Football Association J Elgerton Club representative Fordhouse CC Bowling Club Neil Turner Club representative Fordhouses CC FC Peter Jones Chairman Fordhouses Cricket Club J Donnelly Club representative Goodrich Bowling Club Roger Hemmings Club representative Goodrich FC Ian Davies Club representative Goodrich FC J Taylor Club representative Greets Green Bowling Club - - Grove Primary School Janet Swift Club representative Hanbury Lawn Tennis Club Janet Swift Secretary Hanbury Lawn Tennis Club Steve Hammond Head Lead on BSF Heath Park Business & Enterprise College Steve Jevon Deputy Head teacher Highfields Science Specialist - - Holy Rosary Catholic Primary School - - Holy Trinity Catholic Primary School - - Lanesfield Primary School

- Club representative Linthouse FC Liam Evans Head of PE Moreton Community Andrew Hinsley Business Manager Moseley Park School Ian Ebblewhite Club representative Moxley Fire FC and Graham Turvey - Club representative Newbridge FC Roy Matthews Estates Manager North East Wolverhampton Academy John Griffiths Acting Chairman Old Wulfrunians Cricket Club Peter Prescott Club representative Old Wulfrunians Hockey Club Pasquale Community Manager Our Ladys and St Chads School Sennese G Wylde Club representative Penn Bowling Club Ghazi Zaki Secretary Penn Cricket Club

January 2012 3-033-1011 Final report: Knight Kavanagh & Page 161

WOLVERHAMPTON CITY COUNCIL PLAYING PITCH ASSESSMENT

Name Designation Organisation Daniel Hever and Club representative Penn Oxbarn FC Ian Ebblewhite Dean Walker Club representative Penn Rovers JFC - - Perry Hall Primary School Neil Smith Club representative Punjab United Sports FC - - Rakegate Primary School David Butler Regional Manager (Midlands) Rugby Football League Zoe Wilson - Sandwell Borough Council Mrs S Sifford Club representative Sedgley Conservative Bowling Club Neil Smith and Club representative Sedgley White Lions FC Mark Wikes Mrs P Davies Club representative Sedgley WMC Bowling Club D Jones Club representative Severn Trent Bowling Club Des Ennis and Head teacher and Head of PE Smestow School Steph Barnbrook Tony Ward Leisure Services Manager (Operations) South Staffordshire Council

Haden Baugh- Landscape Planning Manager South Staffordshire Council Jones Rajinder Kumar Club representative Spartak FC John Berry Planning Manager Sport England Mark Wilkes and Club representative Sporting Wanderers FC Daniel Hever - - Spring Vale Primary - - Springdale Junior School John Priest Club representative Springvale Cricket Club - - SS Mary and John's Catholic Primary School - - St Alban's Church of England Primary Julie Cartlidge Curriculum Leader St Edmund's Catholic School

- - St Judes Primary School - - St Luke's CE Aided Primary School - - St Michaels CE Primary School . - - St Patrick's RC Primary School Adrian Richards Head teacher St Peter's Collegiate Church of England - - St Stephen's Church of England Primary School Andy Weston County Development Manager Staffordshire County Football Association G Wylde Club representative Stile Bowling Club - - Stow Heath Junior School Miss P Freeman Club representative Summer House Bowling Club

January 2012 3-033-1011 Final report: Knight Kavanagh & Page 162

WOLVERHAMPTON CITY COUNCIL PLAYING PITCH ASSESSMENT

Name Designation Organisation - - The Giffard Catholic Primary School Terry Griffiths Site Manger The Kings School Ross Baxter Regional Funding & Facilities Manager The Rugby Football Union (Midlands & East) - - Trinity C E Primary School Mr Andrew Peter Club representative Trysull FC Steel - - Uplands Junior School - - Villiers Primary School Matt Stanczyszyn Senior Planning Policy Officer Walsall Council Jason Russell Club representative Walsall Wharf F.C - - Warstones Primary School Michael Mullin Club representative Warstones Wanderers FC Adrian Hulse Club representative Wednesfield Town FC Paul Huges Deputy Head teacher Wednesfield High School G Platt Club representative Wednesfield Sons of Rest Bowling Club K Hart Club representative West Park Bowling Club - - West Park Primary School Helen Ansell Secretary Wightwick & Finchfield Cricket Club - - Wilkinson Primary School Terence Francis Club representative Willenhall Colts JFC - - Windmill Crescent Primary School - - Woden Primary School P. Stone, Esq. Club representative Wolverhampton & District Sunday League Sue Myers Club representative Wolverhampton & Tettenhall Ladies Club Hockey Club Sheila Dixon Estates Surveyor Wolverhampton City Council Strategic Asset Management Marcus Asbury Community Development Officer Wolverhampton City Council Michelle Ross Senior Planning Officer Wolverhampton City Council Planning Policy & Area Plans Julie Markall Schools Lettings Officer Wolverhampton City Council Education Support & Development Vanessa Church Administration Officer (Parks) Wolverhampton City Council Carolle House Strategy & Development Manager Wolverhampton City Council (Parks) and Planning Officer (Planning Policy) Adrian Stringer Service Development Manager, Wolverhampton City Council Strategic Asset Management Ian Williams BSF Project Officer Wolverhampton City Council Andrea Community Development Manager Wolverhampton City Council Fieldhouse Sports Development

January 2012 3-033-1011 Final report: Knight Kavanagh & Page 163

WOLVERHAMPTON CITY COUNCIL PLAYING PITCH ASSESSMENT

Name Designation Organisation Sue Cooke Education Development Officer Wolverhampton City Council Ian Bosworth Sport and Recreation Manager Wolverhampton City Council Tina Clark Head of Service Development – Leisure Wolverhampton City Council & Culture Gail Summerfield Development/Finance Manager Wolverhampton City Council Education Support & Development Steve Male District Manager (Parks) Wolverhampton City Council Kay Clayson District Manager (Parks) Wolverhampton City Council Gary Price District Manager (Parks) Wolverhampton City Council Mick Clayson District Manager (Parks) Wolverhampton City Council Dave McGlynn District Manager (Parks) Wolverhampton City Council Ian Culley Section Leader Wolverhampton City Council Planning Policy and Area Plans Steve Rose Parks Manager Wolverhampton Council Ron Neild Honorary Secretary Wolverhampton Cricket Club Jane Oliver Business Manager Wolverhampton Girls High School Ian Kendrick Honorary Secretary Wolverhampton RFC P Poxon League Secretary Wolverhampton Senior Citizens Bowls League Josh Sandhu Club representative Wolverhampton Sports GNST Sunday FC Mr Stone General Secretary Wolverhampton Sunday Football League Phil Taylor Committee Member Wolverhampton Sunday Football League John Lee Secretary Wolverhampton United FC Wayne Hall and Club representative Wombourne Wanderers FC Mick Fellows

January 2012 3-033-1011 Final report: Knight Kavanagh & Page 164

WOLVERHAMPTON CITY COUNCIL PLAYING PITCH ASSESSMENT

APPENDIX FOUR: SITE VISIT PROFORMAS

Non Technical Visual Quality Assessment - Individua l Pitch Assessm ent

KKP Site reference Site Name Number of pitches Pitch ID(s) Pitch Type Com m unity Use?

Pitch Issues:

Background information: Number of games played on pitch each season

Number of games cancelled due to unfitness of pitch (excluding frozen pitches) % of gam es cancelled per season

Assessm ent Criteria (please rank each of the following aspects for each pitch with an 'X' in the coloured box to the right of the chosen answer)

Elem ent R a tin g G uidance notes Com m ents About the winter pitch/cricket field G rass cover - entire pitch / cricket field >94% 85-94% 70-84% 60-69% <60% W here, 90%+ grass cover should be given 'Excellent'; less than 60% should be considered 'very poor' Length of grass Excellent Good P oor Very Poor The ideal length of grass will vary between sports

Size of pitch / cricket field Yes - fully No- but adequate No - not adequate Does it meet the NGB standard? See pitch sizes ta b for dimensions

Adequate safety m argins Yes - fully No- but adequate No - not adequate Does it meet the NGB standard? See pitch sizes ta b for dimensions

Slope of pitch / cricket outfield (gradient and cro ss fall) Flat Slight Gentle Moderate Severe Cricket wickets should be flat. Evenness of pitch / cricket field Excellent Good P oor Very Poor W here field is comletely level = 'Excellent' Problem Areas: Evidence of Dog fouling None Yes - som e Y es - lots If no evidence, assume none. May wish to refer to u ser survey Problem Areas: Evidence of Glass/ stones/ litter Non e Yes - some Y es - lots If no evidence, assume none. May wish to refer to u ser survey Problem Areas: Evidence of Unofficial use None Yes - s o m e Y es - lots eg informal, casual use, unbooked use, kids kickabo ut etc. If no evidence, assume none .M ay wish to refer to user survey

Problem Areas: Evidence of Damage to surface None Yes - som e Y es - lots eg. golf divots, car-parking on field etc. If no ev idence, assume none.May wish to refer to user survey Training ; Estim ated num ber of hours per week in s e a s o n 0 1 to 2 hrs 2 to 4 hrs 4 + Training which takes place on the pitch area

Changing Accom odation

Changing Accom odation Y e s N o Is the pitch served by changing facilities

About the equipment/ wicket… Winter Sports Only- Goal Posts - quality Excellent G o o d P oor Upright, straight, painted , for football, goals are there safe net hooks at both ends. If posts are dismantled after game, or are removable goals, assume Excellent. Cricket Only - Is the wicket protected when not use d Yes N o Is the wicket protected when not in use - can be roped off or covered.

Line m arkings - quality Excellent Good P oor e.g. Have they been painted recently; are lines straight and clear etc Training area Y e s N o eg nets/ goals/ grids off main body of pitch

January 2012 3-033-1011 Final report: Knight Kavanagh & Page 165

WOLVERHAMPTON CITY COUNCIL PLAYING PITCH ASSESSMENT

January 2012 3-033-1011 Final report: Knight Kavanagh & Page 166

WOLVERHAMPTON CITY COUNCIL PLAYING PITCH ASSESSMENT

January 2012 3-033-1011 Final report: Knight Kavanagh & Page 167

WOLVERHAMPTON CITY COUNCIL PLAYING PITCH ASSESSMENT

January 2012 3-033-1011 Final report: Knight Kavanagh & Page 168

WOLVERHAMPTON CITY COUNCIL PLAYING PITCH ASSESSMENT

Non Technical Visual Quality Assessment - Changing Accomodation

KKP Site reference Assessment undertaken by: Site Name: Date of Assessment: Changing Accom Name

Capacity of changing rooms; (Number of teams that can change at any one time in the facility)

Changing Accomodation Issues:

Assessment Criteria (please rank each of the following aspects for each pitch with an 'X' in the coloured box to the right of the chosen answer) Element Rating Guidance notes Comments About the Changing Accomodation Perceived quality of changing accommodationDoes it look well Overall Quality Excellent Good Average Poor No changing maintained, clean, safe etc

Evidence of vandalism None Yes - some Yes - lots Damage to pavillion, graffiti, broken glass etc

Showers Yes - Good Yes - OK Yes -poor No Are there showers facilities, what is their quality (if known)

Toilets Yes - Good Yes - OK Yes -poor No Are there toilets - what is their condition (if known)

Parking Good OK Poor Is there enough for circa 20 cars, bays marked out etc

Is the site close to public transport links, proximity to bus stop, Links to public transort Good OK Poor/non train station, hubs.

Does the accomodation look secure - secure doors/windows, Security Good OK Poor evidence of breakins ( may get info from User Surveys) Are there separate changing rooms for each team - can accomodation be used by both male and female teams at same Segregated changing Yes No time

January 2012 3-033-1011 Final report: Knight Kavanagh & Page 169