Hull City Council

Playing Pitch Strategy 2011-2021

Produced 2010

Final Revision 8 December 2010

Kingston upon Hull Playing Pitch Strategy 2011-2021 1

CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... 5

Scope of the report...... 5

Key Findings...... 6

Recommendations ...... 7

1. Context of study...... 8

1.1. Introduction...... 8

1.2. Population...... 9

1.3. Scope of the report...... 9

1.4. Active People Survey ...... 10

1.5. Planning Policy Guidance 17 ...... 10

1.6. Sport England...... 11

1.7. Core Strategy ...... 12

2. Methodology ...... 14

2.1. Towards a Level Playing Field ...... 14

2.2. Sports England Playing Pitch Model...... 14

3. Surveys and Analysis ...... 15

3.1. Open Space Audit ...... 15

3.2. Playing Pitch Model...... 16

3.3. Quantity of Provision ...... 18

3.4. Quality of Provision ...... 21

3.5. Accessibility...... 22

4. Maintenance ...... 27

5. Provision by Sport ...... 29

5.1. Football Pitches...... 29

5.2. Rugby League Pitches ...... 32

5.3. Cricket Grounds ...... 35

Kingston upon Hull Playing Pitch Strategy 2011-2021 2

5.4. Tennis...... 37

5.5. Hockey Pitches...... 41

5.6. Rugby Union Pitches...... 42

5.7. Rounders Fields ...... 43

5.8. Baseball and Softball...... 43

5.9. American Football ...... 44

5.10. Bowling Greens ...... 44

5.11. Synthetic turf pitches ...... 45

6. Provision by Area...... 46

6.1. East Area...... 46

6.2. Northern Area...... 46

6.3. North Carr Area ...... 47

6.4. Park Area...... 47

6.5. Riverside Area...... 48

6.6. West Area...... 48

6.7. Wyke Area...... 48

7. Building Schools for the Future Programme ...... 49

8. Conclusions ...... 52

8.1. Extent of Facilities ...... 52

8.2. Quality of Provision ...... 52

8.3. Devolved Community Management...... 53

8.4. Links ...... 54

9. Recommendations...... 56

10. Evaluation and Review ...... 57

11. List of Appendices...... 58

Kingston upon Hull Playing Pitch Strategy 2011-2021 3

Kingston upon Hull Playing Pitch Strategy 2011-2021 4

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Scope of the report

This strategy covers all organised outdoor sports including football, rugby league, rugby union, cricket, hockey, baseball, rounders, tennis, bowls and American football.

It details the extent of the quality and quantity of grass and synthetic playing surfaces accessible to the general public in Kingston upon Hull and their ability to meet the needs of the users.

Projections have been made of future demands based on anticipated population growth and expected increases in participation in individual sports.

The Playing Pitch Strategy will help inform the Council’s decision making process for the management and proposed enhancement of its outdoor sports pitch provision including utilisation within the planning process where appropriate. This will enable informed decisions as to future provision both in quantity and quality of facilities.

The information contained in the Strategy was collected between June 2009 and May 2010. There are continual changes to the level of provision and to the teams active in the City. The information in the Strategy necessarily is based on the situation at the time of the particular survey.

Clubs and teams that use the facilities have been contacted and their views collated on facilities provided for their sports. The surveys covered all outdoor sports facilities accessibly to the general public, this included schools, colleges and privately owned facilities.

There have been discussions with representatives of those City Council Departments concerned with the provision, maintenance and use of playing fields, and with the National Governing Bodies, private clubs and other organisations that provide and use playing pitches and cricket squares.

Kingston upon Hull Playing Pitch Strategy 2011-2021 5

Key Findings

City wide there is recognition for upgrading of playing pitches including better drainage and changing, reception, toilets, office and storage to service community use.

There are clear maintenance issues particularly in respect of pitch provision within parks and playing fields with only bare minimum operations being carried out leading to poor quality pitches.

Quality of provision is an issue across the city particularly in respect of cricket with no provision in North East Hull.

There are football pitch deficiencies in Avenue, Myton and Newland wards

There is a significant shortfall of provision for mini football and rugby in order to encourage the sports from a younger age.

Intermediate rugby pitch needs have been identified in order for clubs to progress to higher levels.

Provision of tennis should be improved as there is poor publicly accessible tennis court provision across the city with the exception of Pelican Park in East Hull.

There is currently a shortage of synthetic turf pitches across the city, however the Building Schools for the Future Programme will greatly address this area.

It is clearly evident that there is no single access point for the public to book outdoor sports facilities within the city. Calls are taken through the 300300 number but the process to identify all available pitches is not clear and only a limited number of council owned facilities are on offer through this system. A more joined up approach particularly incorporating school facilities would be very beneficial in promoting the use of these pitches.

Kingston upon Hull Playing Pitch Strategy 2011-2021 6

Recommendations

PPS 1 - All Pitches should be capable of carrying a minimum of two games per week throughout the season, without excessive loss of grass cover. Maintenance should therefore be improved to include the minimum requirements from the Sports Turf Research Institute (STRI) as detailed in Appendices

PPS 2 – A single access point should be available for the public to book outdoor sports facilities within the city. A more joined up approach particularly incorporating school facilities would be very beneficial in promoting the use of these pitches.

PPS 3 - All sites where there is community use of pitches should be provided with appropriate changing accommodation with shower facilities.

PPS 4 - Provision should be increased for mini and junior football and rugby by the establishment of a network of smaller sized pitches in accordance with governing body recommendations.

PPS 5 - Mini and junior football and rugby for teams and clubs without their own grounds should be encouraged to develop 'home grounds' at schools sites rather than on public parks to maximise the use of existing facilities.

PPS 6 - A network of training facilities with surfaces suitable for football, rugby and cricket should be established throughout the City. These surfaces should ideally be floodlit and fenced and supported by appropriate changing facilities with showers.

PPS 7 – Due to predicted increase in demand for Rugby League and Football as outlined through the Playing Pitch Model, an increase in the number of pitches needs to be accommodated over the next 10 years.

PPS 8 – Improvement in the quality of cricket provision is required to promote and encourage the sport within the city

PPS 9 – Access to tennis courts should be improved allowing the public more ease of entry into the sport through working closely with the Lawn Tennis Association (LTA)

PPS 10 – The strategy and its findings should be used to help direct monies for the specific benefit of improved playing pitch provision. The strategy should also be used as the foundation from which to build proposals for development that will attract external funding.

Kingston upon Hull Playing Pitch Strategy 2011-2021 7

1. Context of study

1.1. Introduction

This Playing Pitch Strategy has been prepared to determine the extent of the quality and quantity of grass playing pitches in the City of Kingston-upon-Hull (the study area) and their ability to meet the needs of the users. Projections have been made of future demands based on anticipated population levels and the expected increase in participation in the individual sports.

Based on the information collected proposals are included to address problems of provision and the costs of implementing the proposals.

The sports covered by the survey on which the Strategy is based are:

Association Football. Rugby League. Cricket. Hockey. Rugby Union. Rounders. Baseball and Softball. American Football. Tennis Lawn Bowls

The Strategy considers the three principal sources of provision:

Educational establishments in the maintained sector. Public parks, recreation and sports grounds. Private schools and clubs.

School playing fields play an essential part in the provision of sports facilities for community use, as well as serving the schools themselves. The level of provision at each School has therefore been examined, so that the extent of surplus capacity that might be available for community use can be determined.

Kingston-upon-Hull has a large number of sports teams active in the City and its immediate hinterland. The leagues are particularly strong in amateur football and rugby league. There are a large number of very enthusiastic and committed volunteers who organise coach and develop the clubs and their teams.

The Strategy has been prepared in the light of the Government’s policies on sport and the implementation recommendations and requirements of a number of key policy documents, published by the DFES and DCMS, and developed and implemented by Sport England.

Kingston upon Hull Playing Pitch Strategy 2011-2021 8

The information contained in the Strategy was collected between June 2009 and May 2010. There are continual changes to the level of provision and to the teams active in the City. The information in the Strategy necessarily is based on the situation at the time of the particular survey.

1.2. Population The latest mid-year population estimates produced by the Office for National Statistics (ONS) estimate that 262,400 persons were present in Hull on 30 June 2008. Of this figure, 50.6 per cent of the population were male and 49.4 per cent were female. Hull has a population density of 3,673 persons per square kilometre giving it one of the highest population densities outside of London. Population growth The population of Hull has grown by 5.0 per cent (12,500 people) from 2001 to 2008, compared with national population growth of 4.8 per cent and regional population growth of 5.7 per cent. The male population has grown by 7.3 per cent (9,000 people) and the female population has grown by 2.7 per cent (3,400 people) between 2001 and 2009. Unlike 2001 there are now more males than females. The city’s population is projected to reach 317,900 by 2033.

1.3. Scope of the report

This strategy covers all organised outdoor sports including football, rugby league, rugby union, cricket, hockey, baseball, rounders, tennis, bowls and American football.

It details the extent of the quality and quantity of grass and synthetic playing surfaces in Kingston upon Hull and their ability to meet the needs of the users.

Projections have been made of future demands based on anticipated population growth and expected increases in participation in individual sports.

This will enable informed decisions as to future provision both in quantity and quality of facilities.

Kingston upon Hull Playing Pitch Strategy 2011-2021 9

1.4. Active People Survey

The Active People Survey 3 (2009) was a survey of adults aged 16 and over living in England. The Survey gathered data on the type, duration and intensity of people's participation in different types of sport and active recreation, as well as information about volunteering, club membership (member of a club where they play sport), people receiving tuition from an instructor or coach, participation in competitive sport and satisfaction with local sports provision.

Hull was recorded as having a participation rate of 19.5%, which, is below the national average and places the city in the bottom 25% for participation (3 x 30 minutes sport and active recreation). Participation in Hull is significantly below the benchmark for the worst performing 25% of authorities. This suggests that there is considerable opportunity to improve.

The full results can be found at:- http://www.sportengland.org/research/active_people_survey/active_people_survey_3 .aspx

1.5. Planning Policy Guidance 17

The protection of open spaces for recreation and sport is addressed in 'Planning Policy Guidance (PPG) 17: Planning for Open Space, Sport and Recreation'.

The Guidance states "To ensure effective planning for open space, sport and recreation it is essential that the needs of local communities are known. Local authorities should undertake robust assessments of the existing and future needs of their communities for open space, sports and recreational facilities" (National Planning Policies: Section 1).

The Guidance details the protection to be given to playing fields and the restrictions on allowable development of them.

The requirements set out in PPG 17 are fully developed in the document 'Assessing Needs and Opportunities: A Companion Guide to PPG17' issued by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. This Guide explains the methodology for undertaking local assessment of need, the need for local strategies and policies to "…deliver the full range of high quality, accessible open spaces and sport and recreation facilities in the right places to meet local needs" (para. 4.10). It also addresses the issue of developers' contributions to the provision and upkeep of facilities.

In Section 7, the Guidance includes information on forecasting future needs and the role Sport England can play in contributing to the supply of information and the development of policies.

Kingston upon Hull Playing Pitch Strategy 2011-2021 10

1.6. Sport England

This Playing Pitch study is supported by Sport England and is based on its guidance document 'Towards a Level Playing Field: A Guide to the Production of Playing Pitch Strategies'.

The Guide sets out the need to improve and protect the provision for sports pitches. In subsequent sections it sets out the procedure to be followed to determine the following:

 the quantity and quality of existing provision,  the level of current demand,  the level of demand in comparison with population levels and geographical areas in order to assess the level of latent demand, and  patterns of play to determine the level of temporal demand throughout the week.

It then details how a strategy can be developed to address qualitative and quantitative deficiencies and meet users' requirements both currently and for the future.

Playing pitches are important as recreational and amenity features and provide open space in both urban and rural landscapes. Their development for purposes other than recreation has serious repercussions, not only through the reduction of leisure facilities and the resulting increase in pressure on those remaining, but also in the visual impact created by loss of open space. The importance of pitches is demonstrated by Sport England’s role as a statutory consultee on proposals for development that affect:-

 playing fields  land used as playing fields at any time in the last five years, which remains undeveloped  land that is identified for use as a playing field in a development plan.

Kingston upon Hull Playing Pitch Strategy 2011-2021 11

1.7. Core Strategy

Purpose of the Playing Pitch Strategy

The purpose of the Strategy is:

 To inform the review of the local plan.  To provide adequate planning guidance to determine development proposals affecting playing fields.  To secure the provision of playing pitches to meet identified and perceived demand for the City, recognising the role of the City in the provision of facilities for residents from beyond the City Council’s boundaries.  To identify the quality of existing pitches and support facilities.  To identify pitches (particularly on school sites) which do not provide public use.  To identify and account for the impact of sports development initiatives at the national and local levels on the level of demand for natural turf pitches.  To determine the future demand for natural turf pitches.  To determine the future demand for playing pitches in relation to new housing developments.  To inform the development of the city including NASA, Holderness Road Corridor, North Hull Regeneration Plan and the Building Schools for the Future programme.

The city’s Core Strategy is currently at the Emerging Preferred Approach stage leading to the adoption of a fully approved Core Strategy.

Link to Core Strategy:- http://www.hullcc.gov.uk/portal/page?_pageid=221,602029&_dad=portal&_sc hema=PORTAL

The PPS will help to endorse the suggested policy line in protecting playing fields from development (Policy CS8) and in seeking planning contributions (Policy CS12 (2)) in setting tariffs or what this might mean to potential developers in contributing via S106 funding, appreciating that exact details would be calculated on each site in question;The city council’s Core Strategy identifies the importance of open space.

Open space, sport, recreation and play facilities are important to the quality of places and to people’s overall wellbeing. They provide relief from the built form, provide a venue for exercise, play and the exploration of nature, and are important for the adaptation to and mitigation of climate change. For these reasons, they make an essential contribution towards the overall economic prosperity of the city.

Kingston upon Hull Playing Pitch Strategy 2011-2021 12

The Core Strategy provides the spatial vision for the development of the city to the year 2026 and the policies that are needed to deliver that vision. In respect of outdoor sports provision it defines outdoor sports facilities as:-

Natural or artificial surfaces used for sport and recreation. Either publicly or privately owned, as well as school playing fields.

Sets a provision target of 1.68 hectares per 1000 people

Identifies access times to facilities as:-

 20 minute walk to tennis, bowls and synthetic pitches  15 minute walk to grass pitches  20 minute drive to athletics tracks and golf courses

Kingston upon Hull Playing Pitch Strategy 2011-2021 13

2. Methodology

2.1. Towards a Level Playing Field

Sport England Methodology

The methodology followed in the preparation of the Strategy included the guidelines detailed in Sport England’s 'Towards a Level Playing Field'. The procedure covered the following.

Site Inspections and Surveys (including discussions with key personnel)

Local authority sites:

 Schools.  Parks.  Recreation grounds.  Playing fields (within the City and immediately outside).  Other green sites designated in the Local Plan.  Future City parks’ sites.

Private sites:

 Private schools.  Hull University.  Private sports clubs.  Commercial companies’ sports clubs.  Commercially operated sports clubs.

Discussions with Governing Bodies and Organisers of Target Sports

Questionnaires Sent to Clubs and Teams in Major Sports

Consultation with all stakeholders followed the production of the draft and contributed to the formation of the recommendations in this strategy.

2.2. Sports England Playing Pitch Model

Sport England provided it’s Playing Pitch Model and the information collected was applied to determine the surpluses and deficits in provision. The completed model is included in Appendix C.

Team Generation Rates (TGRs) were calculated for each age group and in each sport for both sexes. Comparisons were made with figures supplied by Sports England for areas elsewhere in the Country. This data was used to assess latent demand for each sport in the City.

Kingston upon Hull Playing Pitch Strategy 2011-2021 14

3. Surveys and Analysis

3.1. Open Space Audit

All 'green sites' throughout the City were visited and site surveys carried out between March 2008 to June 2008 including an assessment of all outdoor sports facilities. The full report can be found at www.hullcc.gov.uk

Key points from the audit identified the range of sports provision within the city as shown in the table below.

Committee Area North East Carr Northern Park Riverside West Wyke Totals Bowling greens 4 0 2 4 4 6 4 24 Tennis Courts (Grass) 0 0 0 0 0 6 4 10 Tennis Courts (Hard) 3 0 7 6 0 0 0 16 Cricket 5 2 7 2 0 4 2 22 Athletics 7 7 8 6 6 8 3 45 Rounders 7 8 3 7 4 6 4 39 Baseball 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 4 Mini Football 5 4 8 4 10 6 1 38 Junior Football 8 5 3 3 4 4 3 30 Senior Football 18 19 37 18 1 28 6 127 Senior Rugby League 6 2 7 12 1 3 7 38 Junior Rugby League 4 3 0 0 1 0 0 8 Senior Rugby Union 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 2

Table 1 - Publicly accessible sports provision by Committee Area

It can be seen that the majority of sports facilities in Hull are fairly evenly distributed across six of the seven committee areas, however the North Carr Area Committee and Riverside Area Committee contain significantly fewer types of outdoor sports facilities than other areas of the city,. These statistics refer to the quantity and not the quality of provision which varies significantly.

Kingston upon Hull Playing Pitch Strategy 2011-2021 15

3.2. Playing Pitch Model

The Sport England Playing Pitch Model (PPM) has been used and completed to indicate the extent of provision for each of the main sports. The results are shown in full in Appendix C

This Model determines the current level of provision and predicts future requirements for football, rugby league, rugby union, cricket and hockey. Results are based on the following data:

 Current population in each Ward.  The population in each age group for minis (for football only), juniors and seniors.  The number of teams playing in each Ward in each age group.  The number of pitches and cricket squares in each Ward, with pitches split into mini, junior and senior according to size.  The projected population variations in each Ward over a future period.  The projected increase or decrease in participation in each sport.  The proportion of senior to junior players in each sport.  The temporal distribution of matches in each sport throughout the week.

By relating the numbers of teams in each sport to the population, the Model indicates whether there is latent demand for facilities in the City that is not being met or developed.

The best prediction for population changes are those used in the Core Strategy, is for limited growth. This would mean the population increasing by approx 5000 between now and 2026. That could mean an increase of approx 3000 for the next 10 years. It is expected that there will be variations in individual Wards, but until the policy on demolition of older residential properties and development of new ones is finalised, no realistic prediction can be made.

The Playing Pitch Model was populated with details of the current population, user groups and pitch avaialbilty to identify the current and future demand for pitch provision within the city.

The Model was also used to derive Team Generation Rates (TGRs) for the principle sports. These show the number of teams for each age group per 1000 population in the active age group (6-55 years of age).

The figures indicate good or excellent participation in football and, in particular, rugby league but, in common with other areas of the country, poor participation by girls and women.

The model also indicates a poor take up in cricket despite a good provision in the number of pitches. Further consultation with the governing bodies

Kingston upon Hull Playing Pitch Strategy 2011-2021 16

revealed that quality of cricket squares was a significant issue along with the addition of adequate changing facilities at the various locations.

Kingston upon Hull Playing Pitch Strategy 2011-2021 17

3.3. Quantity of Provision

Through using the results of the Open Space Audit as a starting point a full analysis of sports pitch provision was carried out resulting in identifying all locations of pitches and the degree of accessibility to the public. The full table of sites is include in Appendix A.

The table confirms the findings of the surveys carried out during the Open Space Audit and the comments of the users, that there are, generally, adequate numbers of pitches available to meet current demands.

Community use of school facilities is not fully utilized and there is scope to develop this further.

The adequate quantity of pitches is also reflected in the Playing Pitch Model Current View shown overleaf in figure 1, which only highlights a deficiency in Rugby League provision on a Sunday morning.

There is however a shortage of adequate training spaces for football and rugby, with very few floodlit sites for winter training. There are no outdoor cricket practice facilities available other than those at private clubs and private schools.

Synthetic grass hockey pitches are available to meet the requirements of the hockey clubs from the city and a large area outside its boundaries. Current rugby union demand is adequately met by provision at private clubs. Baseball, rounders and American football facilities are currently adequate to meet the demand.

Kingston upon Hull Playing Pitch Strategy 2011-2021 18

Playing Pitch Methodology Current Year

Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 Stage 6 Stage 7 (S6- S5) Nr of teams Ratio (S1 x S2) Audit Shortfall or surplus ) (senior (junior) (senior) (junior) Tuesday Tuesday Thursday Thursday

Football (senior) teams Adult Junior teams(junior) (senior) week per Games (junior) week per Games (senior) week per Games (junior) week per Games (senior) pitches Nr of (junior) pitches Nr of (senior) AM Saturday (senior) PM Saturday (junior) AM Saturday (junior) PM Saturday (senior) AM Sunday (senior) PM Sunday (junior) AM Sunday (junior) PM Sunday Mid Week1 Mid Week1 Mid Week2 Mid Week2 Total 141 80 0.7 0.5 98.7 40 127 30 107.3 127.0 30.0 30.0 57.9 127.0 14.0 14.0 117.1 22.0 127.0 30.0

NB No need to use team equivalents if mini soccer has its own dedicated pitches Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 Stage 6 Stage 7 (S6- S5) Nr of teams Ratio (S1 x S2) Audit Shortfall or surplus k Games per week

Mini soccer Teams Team equivalents week per Games per wee games Equivalent pitches mini Nr of equiv) (adult pitches Nr of Saturday AM Saturday PM AM Sunday PM Sunday Mid Week1 Mid Week2 Total 40 10.2 0.5 20 5.08 38 38 38.0 38.0 18.0 38.0 38.0 38.0

Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 Stage 6 Stage 7 (S6- S5) Nr of teams Ratio (S1 x S2) Audit Shortfall or surplus ) (senior (junior) (senior) (junior) Tuesday Tuesday Thursday Thursday

Cricket Adult teams (senior) Junior teams(junior) per week(senior) Games Games per week(junior) per week(senior) Games Games per week(junior) pitches Nr of (senior) AM Saturday (senior) PM Saturday (junior) AM Saturday (junior) PM Saturday Sunday AM (senior) Sunday PM (senior) Sunday AM (junior) Sunday PM (junior) Mid Week1 Mid Week1 Mid Week2 Mid Week2 Total 19 22 0.5 0.5 9.5 11 22 22.0 18.2 18.2 22.0 17.3 22.0 18.2 22.0 21.1 18.7 22.0 22.0

Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 Stage 6 Stage 7 (S6- S5) Nr of teams Ratio (S1 x S2) Audit Shortfall or surplus ) (senior (junior) (senior) (junior) Tuesday Tuesday Thursday Thursday

Rugby League Adult teams (senior) (junior) teams Junior (senior) week per Games (junior) week per Games (senior) week per Games (junior) week per Games (senior) pitches Nr of (junior) pitches Nr of (senior) AM Saturday (senior) PM Saturday (junior) AM Saturday (junior) PM Saturday Sunday AM (senior) Sunday PM (senior) Sunday AM (junior) Sunday PM (junior) 1 Week Mid 1 Week Mid 2 Week Mid 2 Week Mid Total 17 87 0.5 0.5 8.5 43.5 38 8 38.0 38.0 8.0 8.0 31.2 38.0 -31.2 8.0 37.2 3.7 37.2 8.0

Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 Stage 6 Stage 7 (S6- S5) Nr of teams Ratio (S1 x S2) Audit Shortfall or surplus ) (senior (junior) (senior) (junior) Tuesday Tuesday Thursday Thursday

Rugby Union (senior) teams Adult (junior) teams Junior (senior) week per Games (junior) week per Games (senior) week per Games (junior) week per Games Nr of pitches(senior) Nr of pitches(junior) (senior) AM Saturday (senior) PM Saturday (junior) AM Saturday (junior) PM Saturday Sunday AM (senior) Sunday PM (senior) Sunday AM (junior) Sunday PM (junior) 1 Week Mid 1 Week Mid 2 Week Mid 2 Week Mid Total 7 8 0.5 0.5 3.5 4 2 2 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 -1.2 2.0 -1.6 1.7 1.6 2.0 2.0

Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 Stage 6 Stage 7 (S6- S5) Nr of teams Ratio (S1 x S2) Audit Shortfall or surplus ) (senior (junior) (senior) (junior) Tuesday Tuesday Thursday Thursday Mid Week 1 Week Mid 2 Week Mid Hockey Adult teams (senior) (junior) teams Junior (senior) per week Games (junior) per week Games (senior) per week Games (junior) per week Games pitches Nr of Saturday AM (senior) Saturday PM (senior) Saturday AM (junior) Saturday PM (junior) Sunday AM (senior) Sunday PM (senior) Sunday AM (junior) Sunday PM (junior) 1 Week Mid 2 Week Mid Total 11 7 0.5 0.5 5.5 3.5 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -5.5 0.0 -3.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Figure 1 – Current provision using the Playing Pitch Model

Kingston upon Hull Playing Pitch Strategy 2011-2021 19

Playing Pitch Methodology - Future

Predicted Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 Stage 6 Stage 7 (S6- S5) teams Nr of teams Ratio (S1 x S2) Audit Shortfall or surplus r r (senio (junio (senio (junior) Thursday Thursday Tuesday Tuesday

Football Future Mid Week 2 Mid Week 2 Mid Year from calculated teams Nr of + junior) (adult TGR Growth factor teams of number New (senior) teams Adult (junior) teams Junior (senior) week per Games (junior) week per Games (senior) week per Games (junior) week per Games Nr ofpitches (senior) (junior) pitches Nr of (senior) AM Saturday (senior) PM Saturday (junior) AM Saturday (junior) PM Saturday (senior) AM Sunday (senior) PM Sunday (junior) AM Sunday (junior) PM Sunday Week 1 Mid Week 1 Mid Total 296.1 1% 299.1 89.7 209.3 0.7 0.5 62.8 104.7 127 30 114.4 127.0 30.0 30.0 83.0 127.0 -11.9 -11.9 120.7 9.1 127.0 30.0

Predicted Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3Stage 6 Stage 7 (S6- S5) teams Nr of teams Ratio (S1 x S2) Audit Shortfall or surplus k

Mini Soccer Games per per week Games

Future Year Nr of teams calculated from TGR factor Growth teams mini of number New equivalents team New week per Games wee Games per Equivalent pitches of Nr mini equiv) (adult Nr of pitches Saturday AM Saturday PM AM Sunday PM Sunday 1 Week Mid Week 2 Mid Total 46.2 4% 48.0 12.2 0.5 24.0 6.1 38 38 38.0 38.0 14.0 38.0 38.0 38.0

Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 Stage 6 Stage 7 (S6- S5) Nr of teams Ratio (S1 x S2) Audit Shortfall or surplus ) r (senio (junior (senior) (junior) Tuesday Tuesday Thursday Thursday

Cricket Future

Year from teams calculated Nr of TGR Growth factor New numberof teams teams Adult teams Junior per week(senior) Games per week(junior) Games per week(senior) Games per week(junior) Games pitches of Nr (senior) AM Saturday (senior) PM Saturday Saturday AM (junior) Saturday PM (junior) (senior) AM Sunday (senior) PM Sunday (junior) AM Sunday (junior) PM Sunday Mid Week 1 Mid Week 1 Mid Week 2 Mid Week 2 Total 89.3 2% 91.0372 36.4 54.6 0.5 0.5 18.2 27.3 22 22.0 14.7 12.4 22.0 12.9 22.0 12.4 22.0 20.2 13.8 22.0 22.0 Assume 40% 60% adult junr

Playing Pitch Methodology Future Year - Rugby Union

Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 Stage 6 Stage 7 (S6- S5) Nr of teams Ratio (S1 x S2) Audit Shortfall or surplus (senior) (junior) (junior) (senior) Thursday Thursday Tuesday Tuesday

Rugby Union Mid Week Week 2 Mid Mid Week Week 2 Mid Mid Week Week 1 Mid Future Year Nr of teams calculated from TGR factor Growth teams of number New teams (senior) Adult teams (junior) Junior (senior) week per Games (junior) week per Games (senior) week per Games (junior) week per Games (senior) Nr of pitches (junior) of Nr pitches (senior) AM Saturday (senior) PM Saturday (junior) AM Saturday (junior) PM Saturday (senior) AM Sunday (senior) PM Sunday (junior) AM Sunday (junior) PM Sunday Week 1 Mid Total 37.8 2% 38.6 19.3 19.3 0.5 0.5 9.639 9.6392 2 2 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 -6.7 2.0 -6.7 1.0 1.0 2.0 2.0

Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 Stage 6 Stage 7 (S6- S5) Nr of teams Ratio (S1 x S2) Audit Shortfall or surplus (senior) (junior) (senior) (junior) Tuesday Tuesday Thursday Thursday

Rugby League

Future Year from calculated teams Nr of TGR Growth factor of teams number New (senior) teams Adult (junior) teams Junior (senior) per Games week Games (junior) per week (senior) per Games week Games (junior) per week (senior) pitches Nr of (junior) pitches Nr of Saturday AM (senior) Saturday PM (senior) (junior) AM Saturday (junior) PM Saturday (senior) AM Sunday (senior) PM Sunday Sunday AM (junior) Sunday PM (junior) 1 Week Mid 1 Week Mid 2 Week Mid 2 Week Mid Total 71.4 2% 73.0 36.5 36.5 0.5 0.5 18.25 18.252 38 8 38.0 38.0 8.0 8.0 23.4 38.0 -8.4 8.0 36.2 6.2 36.2 8.0

Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 Stage 6 Stage 7 (S6- S5) Nr of teams Ratio (S1 x S2) Audit Shortfall or surplus (senior) (junior) (senior) (junior) Tuesday Tuesday Thursday Thursday

Hockey Future

Year from teams calculated Nr of TGR factor Growth of teams number New (senior) teams Adult teams (junior) Junior per (senior) week Games per (junior) week Games per (adult) week Games per (junior) week Games pitches of Nr (senior) AM Saturday (senior) PM Saturday Saturday AM (junior) Saturday PM (junior) (senior) AM Sunday (senior) PM Sunday (junior) AM Sunday (junior) PM Sunday Week 1 Mid Week 1 Mid Week 2 Mid Week 2 Mid Total 18.9 2% 19.3 9.6 9.6 0.5 0.5 4.82 4.8196 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -4.8 0.0 -4.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Figure 2 – Future demand for pitches using the Playing Pitch Model

Kingston upon Hull Playing Pitch Strategy 2011-2021 20

3.4. Quality of Provision

The topography of the City is by and large flat with no dramatic changes in level or unacceptable slopes to pitches. The soils in the area are medium to heavy textured top soils overlying heavy, clay-based sub soils. Natural drainage is slow and water logging of winter games pitches is a widespread problem.

Many junior and mini football and rugby teams play on surfaces that are poorly drained and uneven. Contamination of surfaces is a serious issue, raising questions of health and safety, particularly for younger players.

The facilities in the Kingston Communications Stadium and the hockey pitches adjacent have been provided to a very high standard. However, there is a severe shortage of good quality winter games pitches for teams that play, or aspire to play, in the higher amateur leagues in football and rugby league. Other than the stadium pitches, there are no full size floodlit football pitches in the City.

Cricket squares on City Council sites are very basic with a thin layer of cricket clay loam overlying virgin topsoil. These squares are generally poor for use by the local leagues while the better quality facilities are available at private grounds. More high quality cricket squares are needed and demand is not being met within the City. The private grounds immediately outside the City limits have cricket grounds that supplement the City’s provision, but increasing latent demand for high quality squares outstrips supply.

The provision of changing facilities throughout the City is a serious problem. There are some sites where changing rooms with showers are provided, but some public playing fields, and some schools with community use of winter games pitches, have no changing facilities available at all.

The City Council has a number of policies to develop increased participation in sports and sports development staff work with a variety of children’s, youth and disadvantaged groups throughout the City.

The key strategy is Pride, Passion and Participation a sport and active recreation strategy for Hull 2008-2013 which identifies that:-

The development of quality spaces and places to play sport and be physically active is essential to increasing participation and the creation of healthier lifestyles and safer, more attractive neighbourhoods. We must create places and spaces in Hull which encourage activity. This includes public sports facilities, leisure centres and voluntary sports clubs but also includes other types of provision such as community centres, parks, playing fields, multi-use games areas and informal open space. Research has shown that “neighbourhood issues” relating to access, quality and safety are key determinants of physical activity levels in communities.

Kingston upon Hull Playing Pitch Strategy 2011-2021 21

In addition there are proposals for works to provide improved sports facilities within regeneration areas covered by the Newington and Saint Andrews Wards to the west of the city and the Holderness Corridor in the east of the city as well as the comprehensive Building Schools for the Future Programme, see Section 7.

3.5. Accessibility

The following series of maps clearly shows the distribution and accessibility of the facilities.

The key issues arising from the accessibility mapping regarding the provision of outdoor sports facilities in Hull sites include:

 the distribution of outdoor sports facilities across the city is comprehensive

 nearly all residents in Hull have access to a grass pitch within the recommended 15 minute walk time. Only small pockets of deficiency exist in the Wyke, Riverside and East committee areas

 there are some residents outside of a walk time catchment for tennis facilities, bowling greens and synthetic pitches, in particular in North Carr. All residents are within a 20 minute drive time of one of these sites, although it is important to note that Hull has one of the lowest car ownership per residence in the region.

 all residents in the city have access to synthetic turf pitches within a 20 minute drive time but there are a number of areas of the city without access to a synthetic pitch within a 20 minute walk time. In addition, the quality of those synthetic pitches is not good with Rosmead and Costello pitches being decommissioned recently.

Booking Facilities

It is clearly evident that there is no single access point for the public to book outdoor sports facilities within the city. Calls are taken through the 300300 number but the process to identify all available pitches is not clear and only a limited number of council owned facilities are on offer through this system. A more joined up approach particularly incorporating school facilities would be very beneficial in promoting the use of these pitches.

Kingston upon Hull Playing Pitch Strategy 2011-2021 22

Figure 3 - Distribution of outdoor sports facilities in Hull

Kingston upon Hull Playing Pitch Strategy 2011-2021 23

Figure 4 - Accessibility to grass pitches.

Kingston upon Hull Playing Pitch Strategy 2011-2021 24

Figure 5 - Accessibility to bowling greens

Kingston upon Hull Playing Pitch Strategy 2011-2021 25

Figure 6 - Accessibility to synthetic pitches

Kingston upon Hull Playing Pitch Strategy 2011-2021 26

4. Maintenance

A large proportion of the City’s land area is flat and low lying. Soils are predominantly clay-based with a high silt content in many areas and some sand in more limited areas. On the areas lying at higher levels, the soils still tended to follow the pattern of the lower areas and contained a high proportion of clay.

The current maintenance standards for city council maintained sites are detailed in Appendix D.

Figure 7 - Goal Mouth and post condition for the start of the season

A pitch assessment by the STRI was carried out on council owned football and rugby pitches in March 2010 and the following key areas were identified as crucial with regard to the maintenance of winter pitches:-

 Mowing Height & Frequency

 Mowing Pattern

Kingston upon Hull Playing Pitch Strategy 2011-2021 27

 Weed Control

 Spring Renovation Programme

 Levelling Localised Low Spots

 Spikers And Slit Tiners

 Fertiliser Requirements

Figure 8 - Sunken drainage channel

The full report can be found in Appendix E.

A further report was produced with regard to summer sports facilities during the playing season 2010, see Appendix F. This report highlights the fact that several facilities particularly bowling greens are no longer being maintained to a playable standard and that the maintenance performed on the remaining summer sports facilities was to a bare minimum standard with few facilities passing the basic quality tests..

Kingston upon Hull Playing Pitch Strategy 2011-2021 28

5. Provision by Sport

Using Sport England’s pitch and changing facilities assessment models sites were assessed across the city and are shown in Appendix B.

The majority of the scores fell between the 55% - 64% range realising an average quality pitch though some sites including Bude Road and Ennerdale scored below average.

The quality of the pitches is directly related to the quality of the maintenance programme and its delivery.

Pitches within schools tended to score higher than those within parks and playing fields, whilst the privately owned sites scored highest on quality.

5.1. Football Pitches

Quantity and Distribution of Pitches

Clearly, football is a hugely popular sport in Hull with a large number of teams at both senior and junior levels. The City Council provides many of the pitches for community football at its parks sites.

Distribution throughout the City is widespread except in the area covered by the Avenue, Myton and Newland Wards. This is an area with few available green spaces large enough to accommodate new pitches. Other Wards showing low numbers of teams playing in them have facilities close by in adjacent Wards.

Reports from the leagues, clubs and teams indicate that there are sufficient pitches made available by the City Council to accommodate most of their requirements. There are some inconveniences in locations of pitches for some users, particularly those who require a pitch on a casual or occasional basis. Inevitably, some comments received have suggested that pitches are not always available where they are wanted. This is a particular issue in the north of the city for chartered standard clubs who have multiple teams and would like to be solely based in their area.

This can also be a problem towards the end of the season if there are a large number of postponed matches to play, particularly for teams using pitches that lie on cricket outfields.

The principal deficit is in the lack of pitches specifically for junior and mini players. Provision at parks sites is limited to two pitches at Pelican Park and a pitch each at Costello Park and Courtland Road Playing Field. While there are some at school sites, the sizes of pitches available appears to be random and relate more to the space available on school playing fields than the specific needs of junior and mini players.

Kingston upon Hull Playing Pitch Strategy 2011-2021 29

Quality of Pitches

While the extent of provision for senior football, and for junior football where the teams will play on all or part of full size pitches, is adequate, the quality is not. Widespread comments and complaints have been received throughout the study about the poor condition and inadequate maintenance of the grass winter games pitches in general, and the football pitches in particular.

As mentioned previously in this Strategy, the inherent nature of the soils in the area results in drainage problems, leading to severe management concerns for maintenance staff. The soft and often waterlogged surfaces of the pitches churn up easily, destroying the grass cover and leading to an accelerated rate of degradation of the playing conditions. Once this happens during the winter months when the grass is largely dormant, there is little the grounds staff can do.

One consequence of damage to pitch surfaces by adult players is that it leaves them in an unsuitable condition for use by children. Clearly, the level of mud, water logging and unevenness that a child can manage is less than an adult player.

Pitches across the City are generally level but wear in goal mouths is a particularly severe problem, again due to the drainage problems caused by the heavy soil. Many goal areas appear to be left unattended by the grounds staff for too long when they start to wear, resulting in the problem being exacerbated. Where goalmouths have been attended to the material used is often unsuitable.

Contamination and vandalism of park pitches is also a major concern on many sites. Teams seem reconciled to scouring the playing surfaces prior to games to collect, rubbish, debris and, in the worst cases, used needles, from the playing surfaces before they play on them. This is a major health and safety issue that needs to be addressed.

Changing Rooms

The provision of changing rooms at sites is an even bigger problem for the players than the quality of the pitches. Some sites have no facilities and some have facilities that are inadequate in extent and quality.

At Costello Park there is understandable resistance to winter games teams changing in the stadium complex because of the resulting contamination from muddy footwear and kit. The number of changing rooms on the Park is inadequate and friction can result between teams, particularly if they are from different sports.

The provision of adequate space for all teams to change and shower should be provided at each site. As teams progress up through leagues they require

Kingston upon Hull Playing Pitch Strategy 2011-2021 30

more extensive facilities and this problem must be addressed if Hull’s teams are not to be pegged back at the lower end of the sport.

It is recommended that the shortage of training facilities is addressed by more extensive use of MUGAs with suitable fencing and floodlighting. The emphasis should be on the provision of long pile synthetic grass surfaces filled with sand/rubber mixes (often referred to as 'third generation' synthetic grass). These surfaces are being approved for matches at international level and are ideal for developing football skills. Such surfaces can also be designed for rugby training. This needs addressing in line with Sport England recommendation with regard to the use and development of synthetic pitch areas.

Future Demand

The over all indication CFA targets and data suggest that participation will stay the same with decrease no greater than 4% been the norm across all areas and age groups. There are outstanding data collation issues . The prediction for increase in participation will be re assessed with in the new development targets 2010 to 2013 approx 4% increase .

As for the adult game the increase target for male 11 a side is a small increase of 1% and 11% increase for female teams this includes small sided. The new trends will be in a u21 league and also a university/college football league , both targeted for mid week competition.

The low car ownership levels and cost of travel for larger family's could become problematic if clubs can not be relocated with in a locality with easy access. This offers the authority the opportunity to consider the options for target sites.

Kingston upon Hull Playing Pitch Strategy 2011-2021 31

5.2. Rugby League Pitches

Quantity and Distribution of Pitches

It is notable that there are a large number of teams that play at sites outside the City boundaries that have players who are City residents.

Clubs with teams playing at Bilton, Cottingham, Dane Park and at the BP Ground at Saltend, all have significant numbers of players from the City. It is also notable that these Clubs are some of the most successful in the area, emphasising the lack of higher level amateur facilities within the City.

The principal areas for increased usage of facilities are Eastmount, Kneeshaw and Orchard Park.

Figure 9 - Rugby at East Park

The north west area of the City is served partially by the rugby union pitches at Hull Rugby Union Club and the Marists Club. However, there is space for further facilities at Oak Road Playing Field if required.

The Central West area is more of a problem and, with minimal provision to the north, players need to travel into the south west corner of the City to find suitable facilities.

It should be noted that the only grass pitch in the City with floodlights, other than the three stadia, is the rugby league pitch at Pickering High School. This facility is not used for club matches but is in heavy demand for training and tends to be over used.

Teams up to and including under 12s play during the summer, relieving pressure on playing surfaces. Given that there are only a few smaller sized junior pitches, most of the mini rugby is played on parts of senior pitches, often across their width.

Kingston upon Hull Playing Pitch Strategy 2011-2021 32

Quality of Pitches

The condition of the pitches varies dramatically across the city.

The results from the questionnaires sent to the clubs indicates a general level of satisfaction with the standard of the playing surfaces at most City Council sites. Also included as Appendix G are the notes from a workshop carried out in July 2010 which highlights the key priorities recognised by the rugby league service area.

The problems of poor pitch conditions for juniors is eased by the younger age groups playing in summer. The under 12s and younger play in the summer months and this avoids the problem of young children playing on surfaces that have been heavily worn by adults.

The pitch at the Kingston Communications Stadium is a 'Desso Grassmaster' pitch constructed with a manufactured rootzone and synthetic grass re- inforcement. This is a state of the art pitch which is designed and managed to provide a first class surface for rugby and football.

One major issue in the City is the lack of provision between professional level pitches and amateur level pitches. Clubs that aspire to a higher level of competition do not have access to facilities acceptable to the higher amateur leagues.

As detailed earlier, a number of the more successful clubs, with most of their players resident in the City, have moved to grounds in the surrounding area. There is a need for intermediate facilities within the City for the more progressive amateur clubs. These should meet the requirements of the higher amateur leagues and include training areas, to relieve match pitches of the increased wear from intensive training.

Quality of Changing Facilities

The questionnaire responses for changing rooms indicated a wide range of quality of provision. Of the City Council facilities, only Massey Beecroft and Sydney Smith School score top marks.

Rugby League is highly organised in the City and there are a large number of junior clubs. However, there are concerns with player transition from junior to senior level with a significant drop out rate noticeable in mid to late teens. As with football, the larger clubs would benefit from developing partnerships to aid the improvements of grounds and facilities. The larger clubs would have the opportunity to progress through the higher leagues and develop the required level of facilities as needed.

Kingston upon Hull Playing Pitch Strategy 2011-2021 33

Future Demand

The competition frame work has the following targets that if met will without doubt increase the demand for pitch use . Increase the number of 5-19 community teams from 1,118 to 1478.The 16+ community teams from 2,308 to 3,708.At 16+ increase registered players from 57,722 to 92,722 .

The option of moving rugby league to summer will reduce the demand for teams to hire atp/mugas with floodlit areas to train. This will release facilities for other winter sports. It will however have a knock on effect on summer sports particularly cricket where facilities may clash. Eg use of outfield by summer pitches.

The Primary Schools programme has been develop the number of opportunities to participate in Rugby League throughout Primary School Education. The target been to increase participation by 20%.

Kingston upon Hull Playing Pitch Strategy 2011-2021 34

5.3. Cricket Grounds

Quantity and Distribution of Grounds

Cricket squares are available at seven public parks in the City. There are no cricket squares at schools.

All other cricket in the City is played at private club grounds.

The parks that have cricket squares are:

 Alderman Kneeshaw Recreation Ground.  Bricknell Playing Field.  Costello Park.  Longhill Playing Field.  Oak Road.  Pelican Park.  Princess Elizabeth Playing Field.

The sites are well distributed around the City with only the north east not being served by a cricket ground.

Many cricket teams with Hull players use sites immediately outside the City, generally at private clubs.

Demand for basic quality squares has declined in recent years and the facilities at are unlikely to be fully utilised in the immediate future. The Oak Road squares also suffered severely in the floods of June 2007 and still require substantial renovation.

However, there is a shortage of good quality facilities and the cricket fields at private clubs are in great demand. Hull Zingari have more teams than they can accommodate on their own ground and use the facilities at Hull University and North Cave.

Hull YPI are also looking for new facilities in order to expand the amount of teams playing, this is also the same for Sutton CC and Fenner CC.

We are at a critical stage for cricket across the City. The clubs are expanding and we are losing more facilities which doesn’t help.

Quality of Grounds

Council cricket squares are heavily criticised by many cricketers. The facility at Pelican Park is generally considered to be poor, and the outfield at the ground is too small and the recent demolition of the pavilion has left the site with temporary changing facilities.

Kingston upon Hull Playing Pitch Strategy 2011-2021 35

Most teams will avoid playing on Council pitches if a private ground can be used instead and many players feel that the parks’ pitches are not suitable for children because of unreliable bounce.

Private grounds generally receive good ratings with the Humberside Police Ground. Sutton CC, Hull Zingari, Fenner & Hull YPI club facilities all have excellent ratings.

The main issue and major concerns with all local cricketers, England & Wales Cricket Board & the Yorkshire Cricket Board is the demise of many local grounds and more concerning is the loss of many quality facilities we recently had, such as:

 Northern Foods at Cottingham  The Circle, Anlaby road  BP Ground @ Saltend  BR North Ground, Chanterlands avenue  Telephones ground, Bricknell Park  Ideal Standard, County Road  Reckitts Ground, Chamberlin road

Constructing and maintaining good quality squares in parks, particularly when they are exposed to public use and abuse, creates problems for maintenance staff that have no real solution. Those squares evident in the City's public parks and open spaces appear to be areas where the grass has been cut very short and the square top-dressed with clay loam over the years to produce a playable surface. However, grass species on these surfaces are very mixed with many unsuitable strains.

The cost of fully constructed squares is high as is the maintenance of them. If they cannot be protected from vandalism, casual use for a variety of purposes or casual foot traffic, the high costs of regular maintenance will be wasted.

Quality cricket facilities should be focused on key locations such as specialist academies. The linking of secondary schools to cricket clubs should also be encouraged so that the pupils who are keen to develop their game can gain ready access to the clubs in the City.

Provision of Pavilions

Many clubs using park squares complained of the lack of buildings for shelter and/or hospitality. At Costello Park in particular, teams complained of having to shelter in cars if there is a shower of rain.

Future Demand

Kingston upon Hull Playing Pitch Strategy 2011-2021 36

The four main clubs are monitored via their development plans. The clubs are at saturation point at their present venues. The Longhill site has the potential for increased use but there could be an issue in relation to changing provision. The Humber Cricket Partnership meets in Hull and the Yorkshire Cricket Facilities Strategy (2008-2013) is in place under the banner "One County - One Programme." The ECB has a County Pitch Advisory Scheme funded by Sport England and the ECB. It represents the governing body to address the issue of groundsmanship in particular at recreational level and to monitor the development of facilities on which recommendations are being implemented .

5.4. Tennis

Quantity

Sites with tennis courts are evenly distributed between three of the seven committee areas, with three sites located in the East and Northern committee areas and two sites in the West committee area. Only one site is located in the Park and Wyke committee areas and there are no sites in the North Carr and Riverside committee areas. The David Lloyd Centre is however located in North Carr. Although is a membership only centre, it does provide 7 outdoor tennis courts.

Kingston upon Hull Playing Pitch Strategy 2011-2021 37

Figure 10 - Accessibility to tennis courts. Previous consultation during the Open Space audit demonstrated that 41% of residents perceived there to be shortfall of provision of tennis facilities. This was the highest of all sports.

Quality

Whilst on paper there appears to be sufficient provision of tennis courts the majority of sites are either very poor or no longer in use. Grass tennis courts at Costello Playing fields are now derelict and the surfaces of hard courts across the city have become uneven and crumbling. Pelican Park is the only public quality provision of any note with the exception of David Lloyd. A full list of clubs in the Hull area is shown in Figure 12.

Future Demand

Sport England stats show Tennis is one of few sports where participation is increasing. Number of adults participating 30 minutes or more per week is 530,200. Number of adults participating monthly is 987,400. Number of 16-19

Kingston upon Hull Playing Pitch Strategy 2011-2021 38

year olds participating increased from 08 to 09 by nearly 5,000. Nearly 1.3 million people have said in the Active People Survey that they want to play more tennis. The barrier is knowing where they can play locally - and access to courts and activities. The LTA has a target to encourage 150,000 new participants and 40,000 competing juniors nationally by 2013 - 10% in Yorkshire.

There is limited schools activity with a number of primary school links being developed but secondary schools are lacking in providing tennis due to facility access/provision. This can be addressed through the BSF project.

Kingston upon Hull Playing Pitch Strategy 2011-2021 39

11 Figure - Tennis Clubs inHull

Kingston upon Hull Playing Pitch Strategy 2011-2021 40

5.5. Hockey Pitches

Quantity and Distribution of Pitches

Since the amalgamation of a number of senior clubs to form Kingston-upon- Hull Hockey Club, much of the hockey in the City has been concentrated at the Kingston Communication Stadium site. There is one water-based pitch and one sand filled pitch adjacent the Stadium.

The synthetic grass pitches at Hull University and Princess Elizabeth Playing Field also provide home grounds for local clubs. All hockey in the area at club level is played on synthetic grass pitches.

Quality of Pitches

As is to be expected, pitches at the Kingston Communications Stadium are rated as being of excellent quality.

Changing facilities

A major concern from the hockey teams is the lack of changing facilities within the immediate vicinity of both the KC stadium pitches and that at Princess Elizabeth Playing Fields.

Kingston upon Hull Playing Pitch Strategy 2011-2021 41

5.6. Rugby Union Pitches

Quantity and Distribution of Pitches

All of the rugby union in Hull is played at private grounds.

There do not appear to be any problems in quantity of pitch provision and some pitches are shared with rugby league teams. Distribution throughout the City is uneven with none within the City boundary on the eastern side of Hull.

As the Rugby Football Union continues its considerable efforts to develop and promote the game in and around the City, pitch availability may well become an issue.

Rugby Union clubs tend to have their own grounds since their clubhouse and social facilities are an integral part of club activity and fund raising. The centralisation of club activities at a 'home ground' also helps to retain players as they move from junior to senior level.

Quality of Pitches

Site visits and information from clubs indicate that while pitches are generally adequate some suffer from poor drainage.

A lack of floodlit facilities was cited by the RFU as a limitation on some competitions.

Quality of Changing Facilities

Changing rooms are generally rated as average or good by the teams responding to the questionnaire and by telephone enquiries.

Future Demand

The RFU Facilities Plan has an overview of key objectives to sustain and improve the quality of existing facility stock and thereby grow the number of matches at all levels delivered by the “Framework Programme “ .

If the clubs were to achieve the targets set out in the development plan the number of new junior teams would be a total of 38 for Hull. This excludes open age. The facility targets are focused as follows:-

 Increase adult participation by 2% annual to 24yrs by 2%.  Increase 13 to 16yrs by 2%.  Increase under represented groups by 1%,  Increase events by 5%,  50% of all clubs to be accredited.

Kingston upon Hull Playing Pitch Strategy 2011-2021 42

5.7. Rounders Fields

Quantity and Distribution of Fields

As rounders is a summer sport there appears to be little difficulty in teams finding suitable venues. The teams often play at school sites where rounders fields are often already marked out. Whilst there is no formal league within the city rounders pitches are marked out in several of the parks during the summer for informal use.

Quality of Fields

The clubs do not normally have problems with the quality of playing areas as the games are played in summer.

5.8. Baseball and Softball

Quantity and Distribution of Diamonds

For a variety of historical reasons, Baseball used to be a very high profile sport in Hull and was the premier venue in the country for the sport.

The remaining facilities are at East Mount Community Centre, Sydney Smith School and derelict facilities at Alderman Kneeshaw Recreation Ground.

The Hull Baseball Club is now active and is very keen to develop the sport in the City to regain its national prominence. The Club uses the site at East Mount Community Centre and currently has one senior and one junior team. Benefiting from a number of highly qualified coaches, the Club expects to develop more teams relatively quickly.

The facility at Sydney Smith School is used by a junior team from Hessle.

Quality of facilities

The facilities at East Mount Community Centre have recently been refurbished including improved drainage.

The facility at Sydney Smith School is poorly maintained and is sited in a very poorly drained area. At the time of the survey, worm infestation of the surface was causing grass damage and loss but it may improve sufficiently by the start of the summer season.

Kingston upon Hull Playing Pitch Strategy 2011-2021 43

5.9. American Football

Quantity and Quality of Pitches and Changing Facilities

There is no American Football played by community-based teams in Hull other than the Club at Hull University. The University Club uses the playing field to the north of Inglemire Lane and has a pitch maintained to a good standard by the University. There are good changing facilities at the University Sports Complex.

5.10. Bowling Greens

It is evident that the provision of bowling greens is higher in the west of the city than in the east. There are no facilities in the North Carr committee area. Application of the accessibility standard demonstrates that there are some areas where residents are out of the appropriate catchment for a facility, specifically:

• North Carr • Bricknell • Southcoates and Marfleet • Myton.

In light of the distribution of current sites, investigation into the demand for bowling greens should be targeted at areas currently outside of the threshold for provision, particularly North Carr.

Outside areas where provision is limited, qualitative improvements should be targeted to ensure that facilities are as inviting as possible for local residents. Site assessments revealed that some existing sites are suffering from vandalism and graffiti however in contrast some facilities are of particularly high standard.

Kingston upon Hull Playing Pitch Strategy 2011-2021 44

5.11. Synthetic turf pitches

The current supply of publicly accessible synthetic turf pitches is extremely limited with existing facilities being towards if not past their best. The best community facilities are at the KC stadium, West Park.

The Building Schools for the Future programme is proposing a range of synthetic facilities over the next five years with the assurance of community use. See Section 7 for more details f the proposals.

It is important that given the scale of the investment in the number of pitches that sufficient provision is given towards their maintenance and renewal as required.

The role of STPs for football is currently to absorb midweek training and, in some cases, matches. In most of these cases the matches could not be played on grass pitches due to the lack of lighting. Therefore, the role of STPs as an alternative to grass pitches is limited due to current league rules.

Their greatest impact, along with MUGAs, is in fact likely to be helping to free up sports hall space for other sports by accommodating five-a-side football.

Kingston upon Hull Playing Pitch Strategy 2011-2021 45

6. Provision by Area

6.1. East Area

Application of the quantity standard reveals that there is sufficient provision of outdoor sports facilities to meet current and future demand. Although there is a lack of outdoor sports facilities in the area, accessibility mapping indicates that all residents in the East committee area have access to a grass pitch within the recommended 10 minute walk time.

The majority of grass pitches in the East area committee are school sites and therefore offer limited public access. However, Ings Road Playing Fields, Alderman Kneeshaw Recreation Ground and Longhill Playing Fields are council owned facilities. These sites are publicly accessible and Alderman Kneeshaw Recreation Ground is the largest site in the area. These three sites are well distributed and provide local access to the majority of residents

The East Area Committee will benefit significantly from improved provision through the BSF programme with potential for hockey and football provision at Andrew Marvel College.

6.2. Northern Area

The highest quantity of outdoor sports facilities is located in the Northern area committee and quantitative analysis reveals that there is sufficient provision of outdoor sports facilities to meet current and future demand. Accessibility mapping illustrates this adequate level of provision, with all residents in the area having access to a grass pitch within the recommended catchment.

Of the grass pitch sites in the area one of the sites is Queen Elizabeth Playing Fields and this is due to become part of the Northern Academy Development Program. If this program goes ahead this site will be enhanced with higher quality facilities, including grass pitches.

The remaining sites include Oak Road Playing Fields, Dane Park Playing Fields and King George V Playing Fields which provide substantial pitch provision with the potential to improve in quality.

The BSF programme will see improvements to the quantity and quality of facilities at the Northern Academy and St Marys School. There is potential that high quality facilities for cricket training and football will be provided in this area.

Kingston upon Hull Playing Pitch Strategy 2011-2021 46

6.3. North Carr Area

Application of the quantity standard indicates that there is adequate provision of outdoor sports facilities to meet current future demand. Accessibility mapping illustrates this sufficient provision with all residents in the area having access to a grass pitch within the recommended 15 minute walk time.

Within the North Carr area there is a significant number of publicly accessible grass pitches. These sites are well distributed across the area and provide local access to a grass pitch for a large number of residents in the North Carr area committee.

The quality of publicly accessible grass pitches in the area is varying and Ennerdale Playing Fields is a site in need of significant improvement. This highlights room for improvement and site assessments reveal that Ennerdale Playing Fields has the potential to be an excellent site. Therefore, the council should focus on enhancing the quality of publicly accessible grass pitches in the area. Increasing access to publicly accessible grass pitches will also be important.

The BSF programme will see the redevelopment of Kingswood College of Arts. This is likely to generate improved provision for football.

6.4. Park Area

Accessibility mapping highlights that all residents are within the recommended catchment of a grass pitch. Despite this high level of access to grass pitches, application of the quantity standard indicates that there is insufficient provision of outdoor sports facilities to meet current and future demand.

The greatest number of grass pitches is located in the Park committee area although only a minority of these sites have full public access. East Park and Pelican Park are located in this area and provide a number of sporting and recreational opportunities to local residents, with football, tennis, cricket and bowling facilities provided at these sites.

The BSF programme indicates that Archbishop Thurstan School and Malet Lambert School are identified for improvement. Both of these sites will offer community use and when completed these sites will provide high quality facilities that will represent a significant upgrade from the existing facility stock.

Kingston upon Hull Playing Pitch Strategy 2011-2021 47

6.5. Riverside Area

The largest quantitative shortfall of outdoor sports facilities is located in the Riverside area committee. Application of the quantity standard reveals that there is insufficient provision to meet current and future demand. Despite a large quantitative shortfall of outdoor sports facilities in the area, accessibility mapping indicates that nearly all residents have access to a grass pitch. Only a small number of residents located in the south of the Myton ward are outside the catchment of a grass pitch.

The quality of grass pitches in the area is varied and in particular publicly accessible sites are of poor quality in this area of the city.

6.6. West Area

Quantitative analysis indicates that there is insufficient provision of outdoor sports facilities to meet current and future demand. However, application of the accessibility standard reveals that nearly all residents in the West Area Committee have access to a grass pitch within a 15 minute walk time.

The lowest number of grass pitches is found in the West committee area (10). However, Costello Park (16.17 hectares) is the second largest grass pitch site in the city. This site is publicly accessible and provides six football pitches, three cricket pitches, four bowling greens and 11 tennis courts. Costello stadium is also situated next to this site.

Costello Park is located in the centre of the West committee area in the Boothferry ward and the wide range of outdoor sports facilities provided make this site a focal point of the community. The current quality score of this site is 78%, highlighting room for improvement.

6.7. Wyke Area

Accessibility mapping illustrates that nearly all residents in the Wyke committee area have access to a grass pitch within the recommended 15 minute walk time. Only a small number of residents in the north east of the Newland ward cannot access a grass pitch. However, due to this area being industrial land there is not a requirement for a grass pitch. Application of the quantity standard reinforces this high level of accessibility, with there being sufficient provision of outdoor sports facilities to meet current and future demand.

The distribution of pitches in the area is poor, with the majority of sites located in the west of the committee area. The only publicly accessible grass pitches are also located in this area meaning that there is restricted public access to grass pitches for residents in the east of the committee area.

The quality of grass pitches in the Wyke committee area is good.

Kingston upon Hull Playing Pitch Strategy 2011-2021 48

7. Building Schools for the Future Programme

Hull’s BSF programme represents a £400M vision to deliver joined-up education through “Learning Centres”, which are central to learning communities and part of a future learning City. As part of a whole-City plan, BSF is one of a number of regeneration projects aimed at changing the City’s expectation from “perceived low achievement” to one of “high attainment”. Schools will be open and accessible places acting as a hub for the local delivery of wrap-around extended services and integrated Children and Young People’s services, creating better opportunities through joined-up services and multi-agency working.

Following high level and strategic proposals driven through the BSF “Sports Workstream”, agreement has been reached to fund new, high quality sports provision over and above those provided through standards BSF funding. Hull BSF will deliver the following minimum provision at each of its future schools:

 A main hall sufficient for assemblies of at least half the school at one time, examinations, public performances, parents’ evenings and community events  A four badminton court hall, which should be designed to Sport England’s specification, including the critical dimensions (18m x 33m x 7.6m)  An activity studio of at least 145m2, with a minimum internal width of 10m and height of 3.5m and a sprung floor, suitable for some gymnastics activities, dance and examinations if required  Playing fields area falls into a number of categories; sports pitches, game courts, soft informal and social, hard informal and social and habitat areas  The equivalent of 7 sports pitches, configured to meet curriculum needs as a core requirement e.g. winter pitches for preferred team games and overlapping summer pitches for athletics, cricket etc  Synthetic turf pitches can be provided for up to half size (60m x 50m) and would be counted twice in terms of pitch numbers, due to the intensive use  A multi-use games area, with 3 netball courts overlaid with critical dimensions of 60m x 33m and further tennis and netball courts  Ancillary provision; Indoor changing, outdoor changing, reception area, toilets, office and storage all separate to the school to service community use

The full executive summary of the report BSF Investment in Sport March 2008 in can be found in Appendix H.

Kingston upon Hull Playing Pitch Strategy 2011-2021 49

BB98: under Provision Minimum floor) sprung with 145m2 (min DRAFT BSF: New SportsFacilities rev.1 A summer pitches for athletics, athletics, for pitches summer 3 netball courts overlaid with overlaid courts 3 netball Synthetic turf pitches can be can pitches turf Synthetic critical dimensions of 60m xof 60m dimensions critical curriculum needs as a core core a as needs curriculum meet to configured pitches, 33m and further tennis and tennis further 33m and (60m x and would be (60m 50m) provided for up provided to half size multi-use games area, with with area, games multi-use The equivalent of 7 sports sports of 7 The equivalent pitches for preferred team team preferred for pitches pitch numbers, due to the to the due numbers, pitch counted twice in terms of of terms in twice counted games and overlapping overlapping and games requirement e.g. winter e.g. winter requirement netball courts netball intensive use intensive cricket etc Swimming Pool with dugouts Pitch prem. Humber ~ (floodlit) '3G' Pitch ~ Turf Pitch Synthetic ~ Pitches: Artificial Grass Court Netball Additional ~ Netball ~ fallsurface 5-a-side ~ ~ Tennis Markings: Court: Games Hard Surface Track Running Polymeric markings and circle throwing ~ Discus markings and throwing circle putt ~ Shot ~ artificial cricket wicket cage batting and nets cricket synthetic wicket) a as laid square of the end directions, all from (37m outfield and square cricket Wicket ~ 8 straight Running ~ 100m straight running ~ 80m track athletics ~ 400m ~ Javelin jump long ~ jump & triple jump long ~ Combined ~ triple jump Jump ~ High Markings ~ Softball Pitch ~ Rounders ~ 10m Training Grids Sports: Summer ~ Rugby ~ Junior Rugby ~ Senior ~ Junior Football Football ~ Senior ~ Winter Sports: Playing Fields Area: Activity studio Af typebuild Opens School Phase nln’ pcfcto,icuigtecritical the including x 18m x 33m 7.6m) dimensions specification, England’s BMX track/area BMX Trail Trim cycling track climbing wall u amno or hall court badminton our dsge oSport to (designed

School Note: all phase 1 &2and pre-LEP facilities are 'proposals'. are confirmed. Sampleschemes n.1o n.2o n.1o n.xxxxxxxxxx x x x x x x x x x x 4no. x 1no. 1no. 6no. 1no. 5no. 5no. 2no. 3no. 2no. 4no. 5no. 7no. 4no. 5no. 3no. 1.no 1no. 4no. 1no. 1no. Sample Schemes Sample

7 lane Winifred Holtby 1no. 1no. 1no. 1no. 1no. 1no. 1no. 4no. 1no. 1no. 1no. 1no. 1no. 1no. 2no. 2no. 1no. 1no. 1no. PFI Figure 12 Figure 12 - Building Schools for the proposedFuture sports provision x Sept '11

& Tweendykes ae6ln ae1o n.x 1no. 1no. lane 6 6 lane 8 lane n.1o n.1o 1no. 1no. 1no. 1no. 1no. 1no. 1no. x x x x x 1no. x 1no. 1no. 1no. 1no. x x 1no. 2no. 1no. 3no. 1no. 1no x 1no. 1no. 1no. 2no. 1no. x x 1no. 1no. x 1no. 1no. x 1no. 1no. 1no. 1no. x 1no. 1no. lane 6 x 6lane 1no. 1no. 1no. 1no. 1no. x 1no. 1no. 1no. x 1no. 1no. 1no. 4no. 3no. 1no. 1no. 3no. 1no. 1no. 1no. 2no. 2no. 2no. 2no. 1no. 3no. 1no. 1no. 4no. 1no. 1no. 4no. 2no. 1no. 2no. 1no. 1no. 1no. 1no. 1no. PFI Archbishop Sentamu Academy courts) n.1no. 1no. (6no. (6no. 1no. 1no. Sirius Academy LEP Pre- Sept '1 xg 1no. extg. n.1no. 1no. Kelvin Hall 1 & F F & D&B D&B PFI PFI D&B n.1no. 1no. 4no. 2no. 2no. 2no. 1no. Malet Lambert courts) n.1no. 1no. (6no. 1no. 1no. 1no. Andrew Marvell courts) 1no. (6no. n.1no. 1no. 1no. Kingswood Phase 1 Phase Endike Sept '12

Myplace

Tilbury/Bethune F D&B PFI xxxx xxxxxxxxxxxx Oakfield s not 8) Square (4no. 1no.

x Northern Academy Sept '13 Sept

Hull Trinity House

Newland School for Girls courts) (6no. (6no. 1no. 1no. St. Mary's

xxxxxxx Bridgeview

Friederick Holmes 2 Phase

Fountain House

Northcott

Schoolgirl's Mum's Unit

Ashwell

Medical Needs Unit 3 Phase D&B Endeavour High School (ICT only)

Kingston upon Hull Playing Pitch Strategy 2011-2021 50

Figure 13 – Building Schools for the Future Proposed AGP provision

The above map shows the proposed locations of artificial grass pitches in relation to current provision. If all delivered the pitches will provide access for all of the cities residents within the 20 minute walk time target.

Figure 14 – BSF proposals for cricket provision

Figure 14 shows the proposed cricket provision with the inclusion of artificial wickets at both the Northern and Malet Lambert Academy’s. This will greatly enhance the quality provision of cricket within the city and help to maximise the projected growth in the sport over the next 5-10 years.

Kingston upon Hull Playing Pitch Strategy 2011-2021 51

8. Conclusions

8.1. Extent of Facilities

The City of Kingston-upon-Hull has extensive areas of parks, recreation grounds and playing fields distributed widely throughout the City. While a large number of teams use winter games pitches in and around Hull, numbers have declined over recent years largely due to the fall in quality standards of the pitches. If Government policies and individual sports Governing Bodies' initiatives are successful, the numbers of participants are likely to rise significantly over the next twenty years so an increase in quality provision will be required.

In addition to a potential increase in the numbers of facilities being required, the City lacks intermediate level venues. At the elite level, the Kingston Communications Stadium provides an excellent venue with a top quality playing surface, available for high-level competition. Craven Park to the east of the city also provides high quality facilities.

Below these premier sites, there are a number of well-run club sites as well as the Hull University playing fields. However, every one of the facilities is oversubscribed, despite the fact that none have the full range of facilities required to host mid range competitions. For example, none has a floodlit grass pitch.

Hard ball cricket has moved away from the schools and is declining in parks despite the number of available pitches.

Rugby union is adequately catered for by the clubs in the City playing at private grounds.

Rugby League is well catered for apart from the excessive demand on Sunday mornings and this pressure is likely to increase in the coming years.

The demand for football pitches will also increase over the next 5-10 years.

Efforts to revive baseball as a major sport in the City are at an early stage. As this is a summer sport, the construction and maintenance of facilities is not a major cost. It would be preferable if a dedicated site could be used if widespread participation in the sport does again become popular, so that the playing area does not lie on a winter games pitch.

8.2. Quality of Provision

The inherent low permeability of the soils over most of the City area results in slow draining soils and playing surfaces that waterlog easily. Without high specification sports pitch drainage systems and soil amelioration, problems universally identified with the winter games pitches will continue.

Kingston upon Hull Playing Pitch Strategy 2011-2021 52

Even if pitches were to be upgraded, they would require careful management to ensure that they do not revert to slow draining surfaces. However, it is evident that pitch improvement works can be effective and that if the staff are given the skills, the facilities can be to manage and maintained to a good standard.

The poor condition of some changing rooms and the lack of sufficient changing accommodation are significant problems that need to be addressed. All players deserve to be able to change and shower in reasonable comfort.

The lack of sufficient numbers of changing rooms is a severe restriction on the development of girls' and women’s sport. Sites with a larger number of pitches or squares need to have sufficiently extensive changing facilities, that some can be designated for girls’ and women’s use when required. The design of the facilities must be adjusted to allow this variation in use.

Players' expectations of the quality of provision are very low in many cases. However, this will change with time for two reasons. Firstly, initiatives promoted by the Government, Sport England and National Governing Bodies of sport are being accompanied by large funding packages and increasing publicity. Sports men and women expect these policies and initiatives to bear tangible fruit. Secondly, people involved in sport, whether as players, coaches or administrators, or indeed as supporters, will see improvements at other venues beyond the City at away games and tournaments.

When outdoor conditions are poor, there is a natural drift to indoor facilities in sports halls. This is a very expensive alternative for the provider. The FA believe the growth of indoor football competitions at the expense of the outdoor 11-a-side game is due, at least in part, to the lack of adequate changing facilities and the poor condition of the playing surfaces. Most players would prefer to play 11-a-side football but many are put off by the conditions. The conditions also have a high impact on the conversion of junior players into seniors. The potential heavy use of sports halls for football training and casual small-sided games can become an easy management option to the detriment of sports development.

Vandalism throughout the City is a major cost to the providers of the facilities. It also raises serious health and safety issues particularly on pitches used by children. Dog fouling is also an issue, although its extent varies from site to site.

The fencing of school playing fields a few years ago made a substantial difference to the problems that are currently being experienced on park sites. While it would not be financially viable, practicable or fair to fence in and lock all the playing pitch sites in the City, some protection should be provided.

8.3. Devolved Community Management

Many clubs would like to have their 'own home ground' and it is recommended that policy be developed and adopted whereby well-established clubs can be

Kingston upon Hull Playing Pitch Strategy 2011-2021 53

encouraged to manage facilities that they have historically used under the terms of a licence or lease. The open parks sites are a major problem because of the abuse they suffer from vandals. Establishment of enclosed grounds for individual clubs has a number of important benefits:

 The club has a base from which to operate and can be more organised.  There is a strong incentive for the club to develop the facilities to a high standard.  The club has an opportunity to become financially viable by the efficient running of a clubhouse.  Member retention is easier as the club can develop a strong corporate identity and bonds with its members.  The club can develop a strong social arm, which benefits the club itself and the community.  Players, particularly younger players, can play in a much safer environment.  The transition from junior to senior player can be nurtured more easily in clubs that have an attractive home base and juniors feel they 'belong' with the club.  If the club is successful it can more easily develop its facilities to meet the requirements of higher leagues.  When the club is self-sufficient it relieves pressure on the resources of the local authority.

Hulls’ schools are generally very active in supporting community use. Many of the clubs’ junior teams and some senior teams play on school playing fields and there is a genuine enthusiasm to expand this service to the community. Schools find close association with community clubs fosters good relations with those in their immediate neighbourhoods and dramatically reduces vandalism. The issue of payments to schools for community use by junior teams to cover the additional maintenance and management costs needs to be reconsidered urgently and must be related to the extent of use.

Schools that have large playing fields and substantial community use should have changing and shower facilities. Suitable schools should be targeted to have facilities provided and be the sites at which girls' sports can be fostered. A sufficient range of changing rooms must be provided at some of the sites to allow for female as well as male use. Selected schools should be geographically spread to serve the whole of the City.

8.4. Links

There are a growing number of links between schools, clubs, the local authority staff and active and potential participants in sport. Forming these links into a robust structure and taking advantage of the training being made available for coaches and sports administrators throughout the system will allow the whole community to draw maximum benefit from the initiatives current under way. Hull is well advanced with developing its two Specialist Sports Colleges. The establishment of links through secondary schools to primary schools is underway.

Kingston upon Hull Playing Pitch Strategy 2011-2021 54

The City’s Sports Development Staff run a number of initiatives involving a wide variety of people in sport and active recreation.

The development of links to clubs will complete the structure and allow a co- ordinated approach to achieve the objectives of greater participation and nurturing of particularly talented competitors.

However, the very heavy use of club facilities raises concerns regarding the capacity of some sites to accommodate more players or games. With limited capacity, there is a danger that some clubs will become overly selective in attracting players, leaving the less talented fewer opportunities for participation.

The success of the efforts to involve more participation will result in new challenges for the providers. Hull City Council, being the major provider will no doubt face the greatest challenge.

Kingston upon Hull Playing Pitch Strategy 2011-2021 55

9. Recommendations

PPS 1 - All Pitches should be capable of carrying a minimum of two games per week throughout the season, without excessive loss of grass cover. Maintenance should therefore be improved to include the minimum requirements from the Sports Turf Research Institute (STRI) as detailed in Appendices

PPS 2 – A single access point should be available for the public to book outdoor sports facilities within the city. A more joined up approach particularly incorporating school facilities would be very beneficial in promoting the use of these pitches.

PPS 3 - All sites where there is community use of pitches should be provided with appropriate changing accommodation with shower facilities.

PPS 4 - Provision should be increased for mini and junior football and rugby by the establishment of a network of smaller sized pitches in accordance with governing body recommendations.

PPS 5 - Mini and junior football and rugby for teams and clubs without their own grounds should be encouraged to develop 'home grounds' at schools sites rather than on public parks to maximise the use of existing facilities.

PPS 6 - A network of training facilities with surfaces suitable for football, rugby and cricket should be established throughout the City. These surfaces should ideally be floodlit and fenced and supported by appropriate changing facilities with showers.

PPS 7 – Due to predicted increase in demand for Rugby League and Football as outlined through the Playing Pitch Model, an increase in the number of pitches needs to be accommodated over the next 10 years.

PPS 8 – Improvement in the quality of cricket provision is required to promote and encourage the sport within the city

PPS 9 – Access to tennis courts should be improved allowing the public more ease of entry into the sport through working closely with the Lawn Tennis Association (LTA)

PPS 10 – The strategy and its findings should be used to help direct monies for the specific benefit of improved playing pitch provision. The strategy should also be used as the foundation from which to build proposals for development that will attract external funding.

Kingston upon Hull Playing Pitch Strategy 2011-2021 56

10. Evaluation and Review

It is suggested that the a cross-departmental steering group is established to oversee and evaluate the implementation of the actions required to deliver the Playing Pitch Strategy and for its progress to be reviewed three years after its adoption.

Kingston upon Hull Playing Pitch Strategy 2011-2021 57

11. List of Appendices

Appendix A – List of current playing pitch provision

Appendix B – Pitch Assessments

Appendix C – Playing Pitch Model

Appendix D - Maintenance Standards

Appendix E – Sports Turf Research Institute Winter Pitch Report

Appendix F – Sports Turf Research Institute Summer Pitch Report

Appendix G – Rugby League Workshop Notes

Appendix H - BSF Investment in Sport March 2008

Kingston upon Hull Playing Pitch Strategy 2011-2021 58 Appendix A - Playing pitch provision Tennis Courts (Grass) Senior Rugby League Junior Rugby League Artificial Turf Pitches Tennis Courts (Hard) Senior Rugby Union Disabled Changing Female Changing Community Use Committee Area Bowling greens Senior Football Junior Football Male Changing Mini Football Site Address Golf Course Site Name Rounders Athletics Baseball Hockey Cricket Site ID UPRN

Walker Street Hull 71 21114490 Y Riverside Adelaide Primary School HU3 2RA N/AN/AN/A 0011010 0 0100 67 Riverside Boulevard Rugby Ground 0000000 0 1000 Brooklands Sports ground, 178 Riverside Chamberlain Road non marked out 0000000 1 1000 Buckingham Street Hull 265 21113700 Y Riverside Buckingham Primary School HU8 8UG N/A N/A N/A 0001000 0 0000 Chiltern Street Hull 66 21113739 Riverside Chiltern Primary School HU3 3PL N/AN/AN/A 0010010 0 0000 Burslem Street Hull 97 21136913 Riverside Clifton Primary School HU2 9BP N/AN/AN/A 0010000 0 0000 Collingwood Street Spring Bank Hull 91 21113781 Y Riverside Collingwood Primary School HU3 1AW N/AN/AN/A 0000010 0 0000 Craven Street Hull 266 Riverside Craven Primary School HU9 2AP N/AN/AN/A 0010010 0 0000 North Road Hull 28 200001249349 Y Riverside Francis Askew Primary School HU4 6LQ 1 1N/A 0012001 0 0100 Princes Dock Street Hull 21114266 Riverside Hull Trinity House HU1 2JX Hull Trinity House Specialist in Princes Dock Street Engineering an Modern Hull 21114266 Riverside Technologies HU1 2JX 0000000 0 0000 85 10008636198 Riverside KC Stadium HU3 6HU 0000000 1 1000 1901 10008636198 Y Riverside KC Stadium Community STP HU3 6HU 0200000 0 0002 Massey Street Recreation 532 21134103 Y Riverside Ground HU3 3PX 0000010 1 1000 Derwent Street Hull 21113870 Riverside Mersey Primary School HU8 8TX 1 1N/A 0011010 0 0000 Riverside Myplace Dairycoates Avenue Hull 61 21113832 Riverside Newington Primary School HU3 5DD 1 1N/A 0010000 0 0000 72 10008638253 Y Riverside Octagon Playing Field Walker Street HU2 3RA 0000010 0 0000 Paisley Street Hull 21114239 Y Riverside Paisley Primary School HU3 6NJ N/AN/AN/A 0010010 0 0000 Leicester Street Beverley Road Hull 21134727 Riverside Pearson Primary School HU3 1TB 1 1N/A 0011010 0 0000 St Charles’ Roman Norfolk Street Catholic Voluntary Aided Hull 95 100052198794 Y Riverside Primary School HU2 9AA N/AN/AN/A 0010001 0 0000 St Georges Road Hull 21114404 Riverside St George's Primary School HU3 6ED 1 1N/A 0000000 0 0000 South Bridge Road Victoria Dock Hull 21114363 Y Riverside Victoria Dock Primary School HU9 1TL 1 1N/A 0010010 0 0000 1029, 518 10024008470 Y Riverside Victoria Park 1000000011 0 0000 10024008399 Y Riverside Wellington Lane 0000001 0 0000 10024008490 Y Riverside Wellsted Street Play Area 0000010 0 0000 21140824 Y Riverside West Park 3000000010 0 0000 Wheeler Street Hawthorn Avenue Hull 200001249084 Y Riverside Wheeler Primary School HU3 5QE N/AN/AN/A 0010010 0 0000 79 Y Riverside Woldcarr Road PF 0000002 1 0000 Non Technical Visual Quality Assessment - Individual Pitch Assessment

Pitch Number ID: 1 Site Name: Bude Road Site ID: Pitch Type; Football

Background information: Number of games played on pitch each season

Number of games cancelled due to unfitness of pitch (excluding frozen pitches) 0 % of games cancelled per season #DIV/0!

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 winter pitch/cricket field

Grass cover - entire pitch / cricket field >94% 85-94% x 70-84% 60-69% <60% Where, 90%+ grass cover should be given 'Excellent'; less than 60% should be considered 'very poor' Length of grass Excellent Good x Poor Very Poor The ideal length of grass will vary between sports Size of pitch / cricket field Yes - fully x No- but adequate No - not adequate Does it meet the NGB standard? See pitch sizes tab for dimensions Adequate safety margins Yes - fullyx No- but adequate No - not adequate Does it meet the NGB standard? See pitch sizes tab for dimensions Slope of pitch / cricket outfield (gradient and cross fall) Flat x Slight Gentle Moderate Severe Cricket wickets should be flat. Evenness of pitch / cricket field Excellent Good x Poor Very Poor Where field is comletely level = 'Excellent' Problem Areas: Evidence of Dog fouling Nonex Yes - some Yes - lots If no evidence, assume none. May wish to refer to user survey Problem Areas: Evidence of Glass/ stones/ litter None x Yes - some Yes - lots If no evidence, assume none. May wish to refer to user survey eg informal, casual use, unbooked use, kids kickabout etc. If no evidence, assume none .May wish to Problem Areas: Evidence of Unofficial use None Yes - some x Yes - lots refer to user survey Motorcycles

Problem Areas: Evidence of Damage to surface None Yes - some x Yes - lots eg. golf divots, car-parking on field etc. If no evidence, assume none.May wish to refer to user survey Motorcycle Ruts

Training ; Estimated number of hours per week in season 0 1 to 2 hrs2 to 4 hrs 4+ Training which takes place on the pitch area Changing Accomodation

Changing Accomodation Yes No x Is the pitch served by changing facilities About the equipment/ wicket… Upright, straight, painted , for football, goals are there safe net hooks at both ends. If posts are Winter Sports Only- Goal Posts - quality Excellent Good x Poor dismantled after game, or are removable goals, assume Excellent. Rusty Cricket Only - Is the wicket protected when not used Yes No Is the wicket protected when not in use - can be roped off or covered. Line markings - quality Excellent Good x Poor e.g. Have they been painted recently; are lines straight and clear etc Training area Yes No x eg nets/ goals/ grids off main body of pitch

Scoring: Pitch 33 out of 53 Key: 90%+ An excellent pitch Equipment 4 out of 9 64-90% A good pitch 55-64% An average pitch TOTAL 33 62 30-54% A below average pitch Less than 30 A poor pitch Total Score 53 % Non Technical Visual Quality Assessment - Individual Pitch Assessment

Pitch Number ID: 2 Site Name: Bude Road Site ID: Pitch Type; Football

Background information: Number of games played on pitch each season

Number of games cancelled due to unfitness of pitch (excluding frozen pitches) 0 % of games cancelled per season #DIV/0!

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 winter pitch/cricket field

Grass cover - entire pitch / cricket field >94% 85-94% x 70-84% 60-69% <60% Where, 90%+ grass cover should be given 'Excellent'; less than 60% should be considered 'very poor' Length of grass Excellent Good x Poor Very Poor The ideal length of grass will vary between sports Size of pitch / cricket field Yes - fully x No- but adequate No - not adequate Does it meet the NGB standard? See pitch sizes tab for dimensions Adequate safety margins Yes - fullyx No- but adequate No - not adequate Does it meet the NGB standard? See pitch sizes tab for dimensions Slope of pitch / cricket outfield (gradient and cross fall) Flat x Slight Gentle Moderate Severe Cricket wickets should be flat. Evenness of pitch / cricket field Excellent Good Poor x Very Poor Where field is comletely level = 'Excellent' Uneven Problem Areas: Evidence of Dog fouling Nonex Yes - some Yes - lots If no evidence, assume none. May wish to refer to user survey Problem Areas: Evidence of Glass/ stones/ litter None x Yes - some Yes - lots If no evidence, assume none. May wish to refer to user survey eg informal, casual use, unbooked use, kids kickabout etc. If no evidence, assume none .May wish to Problem Areas: Evidence of Unofficial use None Yes - some x Yes - lots refer to user survey Motorcycles

Problem Areas: Evidence of Damage to surface None Yes - some x Yes - lots eg. golf divots, car-parking on field etc. If no evidence, assume none.May wish to refer to user survey Motorcycle Ruts

Training ; Estimated number of hours per week in season 0 1 to 2 hrs2 to 4 hrs 4+ Training which takes place on the pitch area Changing Accomodation

Changing Accomodation Yes No x Is the pitch served by changing facilities About the equipment/ wicket… Upright, straight, painted , for football, goals are there safe net hooks at both ends. If posts are Winter Sports Only- Goal Posts - quality Excellent Good x Poor dismantled after game, or are removable goals, assume Excellent. Rusty Cricket Only - Is the wicket protected when not used Yes No Is the wicket protected when not in use - can be roped off or covered. Line markings - quality Excellent Good x Poor e.g. Have they been painted recently; are lines straight and clear etc Training area Yes No x eg nets/ goals/ grids off main body of pitch

Scoring: Pitch 31 out of 53 Key: 90%+ An excellent pitch Equipment 4 out of 9 64-90% A good pitch 55-64% An average pitch TOTAL 31 62 30-54% A below average pitch Less than 30 A poor pitch Total Score 50 % Non Technical Visual Quality Assessment - Individual Pitch Assessment

Pitch Number ID: 3 Site Name: Bude Road Site ID: Pitch Type; Football

Background information: Number of games played on pitch each season

Number of games cancelled due to unfitness of pitch (excluding frozen pitches) 0 % of games cancelled per season #DIV/0!

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 winter pitch/cricket field

Grass cover - entire pitch / cricket field >94% 85-94% x 70-84% 60-69% <60% Where, 90%+ grass cover should be given 'Excellent'; less than 60% should be considered 'very poor' Length of grass Excellent Good x Poor Very Poor The ideal length of grass will vary between sports Size of pitch / cricket field Yes - fully x No- but adequate No - not adequate Does it meet the NGB standard? See pitch sizes tab for dimensions Adequate safety margins Yes - fullyx No- but adequate No - not adequate Does it meet the NGB standard? See pitch sizes tab for dimensions Slope of pitch / cricket outfield (gradient and cross fall) Flat x Slight Gentle Moderate Severe Cricket wickets should be flat. Evenness of pitch / cricket field Excellent Good Poor x Very Poor Where field is comletely level = 'Excellent' Uneven Problem Areas: Evidence of Dog fouling Nonex Yes - some Yes - lots If no evidence, assume none. May wish to refer to user survey Problem Areas: Evidence of Glass/ stones/ litter None x Yes - some Yes - lots If no evidence, assume none. May wish to refer to user survey eg informal, casual use, unbooked use, kids kickabout etc. If no evidence, assume none .May wish to Problem Areas: Evidence of Unofficial use None Yes - some x Yes - lots refer to user survey Motorcycles

Problem Areas: Evidence of Damage to surface None Yes - some Yes - lots eg. golf divots, car-parking on field etc. If no evidence, assume none.May wish to refer to user survey Motorcycle Ruts

Training ; Estimated number of hours per week in season 0 1 to 2 hrs2 to 4 hrs 4+ Training which takes place on the pitch area Changing Accomodation

Changing Accomodation Yes No x Is the pitch served by changing facilities About the equipment/ wicket… Upright, straight, painted , for football, goals are there safe net hooks at both ends. If posts are Winter Sports Only- Goal Posts - quality Excellent Good x Poor dismantled after game, or are removable goals, assume Excellent. Rusty Cricket Only - Is the wicket protected when not used Yes No Is the wicket protected when not in use - can be roped off or covered. Line markings - quality Excellent Good x Poor e.g. Have they been painted recently; are lines straight and clear etc Training area Yes No x eg nets/ goals/ grids off main body of pitch

Scoring: Pitch 29 out of 53 Key: 90%+ An excellent pitch Equipment 4 out of 9 64-90% A good pitch 55-64% An average pitch TOTAL 29 62 30-54% A below average pitch Less than 30 A poor pitch Total Score 47 % Non Technical Visual Quality Assessment - Individual Pitch Assessment

Pitch Number ID: 4 Site Name: Bude Road Site ID: Pitch Type; Football

Background information: Number of games played on pitch each season

Number of games cancelled due to unfitness of pitch (excluding frozen pitches) 0 % of games cancelled per season #DIV/0!

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 winter pitch/cricket field

Grass cover - entire pitch / cricket field >94% 85-94% x 70-84% 60-69% <60% Where, 90%+ grass cover should be given 'Excellent'; less than 60% should be considered 'very poor' Length of grass Excellent Good x Poor Very Poor The ideal length of grass will vary between sports Size of pitch / cricket field Yes - fully x No- but adequate No - not adequate Does it meet the NGB standard? See pitch sizes tab for dimensions Adequate safety margins Yes - fullyx No- but adequate No - not adequate Does it meet the NGB standard? See pitch sizes tab for dimensions Slope of pitch / cricket outfield (gradient and cross fall) Flat x Slight Gentle Moderate Severe Cricket wickets should be flat. Evenness of pitch / cricket field Excellent Good Poor x Very Poor Where field is comletely level = 'Excellent' Uneven Problem Areas: Evidence of Dog fouling Nonex Yes - some Yes - lots If no evidence, assume none. May wish to refer to user survey Problem Areas: Evidence of Glass/ stones/ litter None x Yes - some Yes - lots If no evidence, assume none. May wish to refer to user survey eg informal, casual use, unbooked use, kids kickabout etc. If no evidence, assume none .May wish to Problem Areas: Evidence of Unofficial use Nonex Yes - some Yes - lots refer to user survey

Problem Areas: Evidence of Damage to surface Nonex Yes - some Yes - lots eg. golf divots, car-parking on field etc. If no evidence, assume none.May wish to refer to user survey

Training ; Estimated number of hours per week in season 0 1 to 2 hrs2 to 4 hrs 4+ Training which takes place on the pitch area Changing Accomodation

Changing Accomodation Yes No x Is the pitch served by changing facilities About the equipment/ wicket… Upright, straight, painted , for football, goals are there safe net hooks at both ends. If posts are Winter Sports Only- Goal Posts - quality Excellentx Good Poor dismantled after game, or are removable goals, assume Excellent. Cricket Only - Is the wicket protected when not used Yes No Is the wicket protected when not in use - can be roped off or covered. Line markings - quality Excellent Good x Poor e.g. Have they been painted recently; are lines straight and clear etc Training area Yes No x eg nets/ goals/ grids off main body of pitch

Scoring: Pitch 33 out of 53 Key: 90%+ An excellent pitch Equipment 5 out of 9 64-90% A good pitch 55-64% An average pitch TOTAL 33 62 30-54% A below average pitch Less than 30 A poor pitch Total Score 53 % Non Technical Visual Quality Assessment - Individual Pitch Assessment

Pitch Number ID: 1 Site Name: Burnham Road Site ID: Pitch Type; Football

Background information: Number of games played on pitch each season

Number of games cancelled due to unfitness of pitch (excluding frozen pitches) 0 % of games cancelled per season #DIV/0!

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 winter pitch/cricket field

Grass cover - entire pitch / cricket field >94% 85-94% x 70-84% 60-69% <60% Where, 90%+ grass cover should be given 'Excellent'; less than 60% should be considered 'very poor' Length of grass Excellent Good x Poor Very Poor The ideal length of grass will vary between sports Size of pitch / cricket field Yes - fully x No- but adequate No - not adequate Does it meet the NGB standard? See pitch sizes tab for dimensions Adequate safety margins Yes - fullyx No- but adequate No - not adequate Does it meet the NGB standard? See pitch sizes tab for dimensions Slope of pitch / cricket outfield (gradient and cross fall) Flat x Slight Gentle Moderate Severe Cricket wickets should be flat. Evenness of pitch / cricket field Excellent Good x Poor Very Poor Where field is comletely level = 'Excellent' Goal Mouth Dips Problem Areas: Evidence of Dog fouling Nonex Yes - some Yes - lots If no evidence, assume none. May wish to refer to user survey Problem Areas: Evidence of Glass/ stones/ litter None x Yes - some Yes - lots If no evidence, assume none. May wish to refer to user survey eg informal, casual use, unbooked use, kids kickabout etc. If no evidence, assume none .May wish to Problem Areas: Evidence of Unofficial use Nonex Yes - some Yes - lots refer to user survey

Problem Areas: Evidence of Damage to surface Nonex Yes - some Yes - lots eg. golf divots, car-parking on field etc. If no evidence, assume none.May wish to refer to user survey

Training ; Estimated number of hours per week in season 0 1 to 2 hrs2 to 4 hrs 4+ Training which takes place on the pitch area Changing Accomodation

Changing Accomodation Yesx No Is the pitch served by changing facilities About the equipment/ wicket… Upright, straight, painted , for football, goals are there safe net hooks at both ends. If posts are Winter Sports Only- Goal Posts - quality Excellent Good x Poor dismantled after game, or are removable goals, assume Excellent. Rusty Cricket Only - Is the wicket protected when not used Yes No Is the wicket protected when not in use - can be roped off or covered. Line markings - quality Excellent Good x Poor e.g. Have they been painted recently; are lines straight and clear etc Training area Yes No x eg nets/ goals/ grids off main body of pitch

Scoring: Pitch 40 out of 53 Key: 90%+ An excellent pitch Equipment 4 out of 9 64-90% A good pitch 55-64% An average pitch TOTAL 40 62 30-54% A below average pitch Less than 30 A poor pitch Total Score 65 % Non Technical Visual Quality Assessment - Individual Pitch Assessment

Pitch Number ID: 1 Site Name: Ings Road PF Site ID: Pitch Type; Football

Background information: Number of games played on pitch each season

Number of games cancelled due to unfitness of pitch (excluding frozen pitches) 0 % of games cancelled per season #DIV/0!

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 winter pitch/cricket field

Grass cover - entire pitch / cricket field >94% 85-94% x 70-84% 60-69% <60% Where, 90%+ grass cover should be given 'Excellent'; less than 60% should be considered 'very poor' Length of grass Excellent Good x Poor Very Poor The ideal length of grass will vary between sports Size of pitch / cricket field Yes - fully x No- but adequate No - not adequate Does it meet the NGB standard? See pitch sizes tab for dimensions Adequate safety margins Yes - fullyx No- but adequate No - not adequate Does it meet the NGB standard? See pitch sizes tab for dimensions Slope of pitch / cricket outfield (gradient and cross fall) Flat x Slight Gentle Moderate Severe Cricket wickets should be flat. Evenness of pitch / cricket field Excellent Good x Poor Very Poor Where field is comletely level = 'Excellent' Goal Mouth Dips Problem Areas: Evidence of Dog fouling Nonex Yes - some Yes - lots If no evidence, assume none. May wish to refer to user survey Problem Areas: Evidence of Glass/ stones/ litter None x Yes - some Yes - lots If no evidence, assume none. May wish to refer to user survey eg informal, casual use, unbooked use, kids kickabout etc. If no evidence, assume none .May wish to Problem Areas: Evidence of Unofficial use Nonex Yes - some Yes - lots refer to user survey

Problem Areas: Evidence of Damage to surface Nonex Yes - some Yes - lots eg. golf divots, car-parking on field etc. If no evidence, assume none.May wish to refer to user survey

Training ; Estimated number of hours per week in season 0 1 to 2 hrs2 to 4 hrs 4+ Training which takes place on the pitch area Changing Accomodation

Changing Accomodation Yesx No Is the pitch served by changing facilities About the equipment/ wicket… Upright, straight, painted , for football, goals are there safe net hooks at both ends. If posts are Winter Sports Only- Goal Posts - quality Excellent Good x Poor dismantled after game, or are removable goals, assume Excellent. Rusty Cricket Only - Is the wicket protected when not used Yes No Is the wicket protected when not in use - can be roped off or covered. Line markings - quality Excellent Good x Poor e.g. Have they been painted recently; are lines straight and clear etc Training area Yes No x eg nets/ goals/ grids off main body of pitch

Scoring: Pitch 40 out of 53 Key: 90%+ An excellent pitch Equipment 4 out of 9 64-90% A good pitch 55-64% An average pitch TOTAL 40 62 30-54% A below average pitch Less than 30 A poor pitch Total Score 65 % Non Technical Visual Quality Assessment - Individual Pitch Assessment

Pitch Number ID: 1 Site Name: Costello Site ID: Pitch Type; Football

Background information: Number of games played on pitch each season

Number of games cancelled due to unfitness of pitch (excluding frozen pitches) 0 % of games cancelled per season #DIV/0!

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 winter pitch/cricket field

Grass cover - entire pitch / cricket field >94% 85-94% x 70-84% 60-69% <60% Where, 90%+ grass cover should be given 'Excellent'; less than 60% should be considered 'very poor' Length of grass Excellent Good x Poor Very Poor The ideal length of grass will vary between sports Size of pitch / cricket field Yes - fully x No- but adequate No - not adequate Does it meet the NGB standard? See pitch sizes tab for dimensions Adequate safety margins Yes - fullyx No- but adequate No - not adequate Does it meet the NGB standard? See pitch sizes tab for dimensions Slope of pitch / cricket outfield (gradient and cross fall) Flat x Slight Gentle Moderate Severe Cricket wickets should be flat. Evenness of pitch / cricket field Excellent Good x Poor Very Poor Where field is comletely level = 'Excellent' Goal Mouth (Dips) Problem Areas: Evidence of Dog fouling Nonex Yes - some Yes - lots If no evidence, assume none. May wish to refer to user survey Problem Areas: Evidence of Glass/ stones/ litter None x Yes - some Yes - lots If no evidence, assume none. May wish to refer to user survey eg informal, casual use, unbooked use, kids kickabout etc. If no evidence, assume none .May wish to Problem Areas: Evidence of Unofficial use Nonex Yes - some Yes - lots refer to user survey

Problem Areas: Evidence of Damage to surface Nonex Yes - some Yes - lots eg. golf divots, car-parking on field etc. If no evidence, assume none.May wish to refer to user survey

Training ; Estimated number of hours per week in season 0 1 to 2 hrs2 to 4 hrs 4+ Training which takes place on the pitch area N/A Changing Accomodation

Changing Accomodation Yesx No Is the pitch served by changing facilities About the equipment/ wicket… Upright, straight, painted , for football, goals are there safe net hooks at both ends. If posts are Winter Sports Only- Goal Posts - quality Excellent Good x Poor dismantled after game, or are removable goals, assume Excellent. Cricket Only - Is the wicket protected when not used Yes No Is the wicket protected when not in use - can be roped off or covered. Line markings - quality Excellent Good x Poor e.g. Have they been painted recently; are lines straight and clear etc Training area Yes No x eg nets/ goals/ grids off main body of pitch

Scoring: Pitch 40 out of 53 Key: 90%+ An excellent pitch Equipment 4 out of 9 64-90% A good pitch 55-64% An average pitch TOTAL 40 62 30-54% A below average pitch Less than 30 A poor pitch Total Score 65 % Non Technical Visual Quality Assessment - Individual Pitch Assessment

Pitch Number ID: 2 Site Name: Costello Site ID: Pitch Type; Football

Background information: Number of games played on pitch each season

Number of games cancelled due to unfitness of pitch (excluding frozen pitches) 0 % of games cancelled per season #DIV/0!

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 winter pitch/cricket field

Grass cover - entire pitch / cricket field >94% 85-94% x 70-84% 60-69% <60% Where, 90%+ grass cover should be given 'Excellent'; less than 60% should be considered 'very poor' Length of grass Excellent Good x Poor Very Poor The ideal length of grass will vary between sports Size of pitch / cricket field Yes - fully x No- but adequate No - not adequate Does it meet the NGB standard? See pitch sizes tab for dimensions Adequate safety margins Yes - fullyx No- but adequate No - not adequate Does it meet the NGB standard? See pitch sizes tab for dimensions Slope of pitch / cricket outfield (gradient and cross fall) Flat x Slight Gentle Moderate Severe Cricket wickets should be flat. Evenness of pitch / cricket field Excellent Good x Poor Very Poor Where field is comletely level = 'Excellent' Goal Mouth Dips Problem Areas: Evidence of Dog fouling Nonex Yes - some Yes - lots If no evidence, assume none. May wish to refer to user survey Problem Areas: Evidence of Glass/ stones/ litter None x Yes - some Yes - lots If no evidence, assume none. May wish to refer to user survey eg informal, casual use, unbooked use, kids kickabout etc. If no evidence, assume none .May wish to Problem Areas: Evidence of Unofficial use Nonex Yes - some Yes - lots refer to user survey

Problem Areas: Evidence of Damage to surface Nonex Yes - some Yes - lots eg. golf divots, car-parking on field etc. If no evidence, assume none.May wish to refer to user survey

Training ; Estimated number of hours per week in season 0 1 to 2 hrs2 to 4 hrs 4+ Training which takes place on the pitch area Changing Accomodation

Changing Accomodation Yesx No Is the pitch served by changing facilities About the equipment/ wicket… Upright, straight, painted , for football, goals are there safe net hooks at both ends. If posts are Winter Sports Only- Goal Posts - quality Excellent Good Poor x dismantled after game, or are removable goals, assume Excellent. Rusty Cricket Only - Is the wicket protected when not used Yes No Is the wicket protected when not in use - can be roped off or covered. Line markings - quality Excellent Good x Poor e.g. Have they been painted recently; are lines straight and clear etc Training area Yes No x eg nets/ goals/ grids off main body of pitch

Scoring: Pitch 40 out of 53 Key: 90%+ An excellent pitch Equipment 2 out of 9 64-90% A good pitch 55-64% An average pitch TOTAL 40 62 30-54% A below average pitch Less than 30 A poor pitch Total Score 65 % Non Technical Visual Quality Assessment - Individual Pitch Assessment

Pitch Number ID: 3 Site Name: Costello Site ID: Pitch Type; Football

Background information: Number of games played on pitch each season

Number of games cancelled due to unfitness of pitch (excluding frozen pitches) 0 % of games cancelled per season #DIV/0!

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 winter pitch/cricket field

Grass cover - entire pitch / cricket field >94% 85-94% x 70-84% 60-69% <60% Where, 90%+ grass cover should be given 'Excellent'; less than 60% should be considered 'very poor' Length of grass Excellent Good x Poor Very Poor The ideal length of grass will vary between sports Size of pitch / cricket field Yes - fully x No- but adequate No - not adequate Does it meet the NGB standard? See pitch sizes tab for dimensions Adequate safety margins Yes - fullyx No- but adequate No - not adequate Does it meet the NGB standard? See pitch sizes tab for dimensions Slope of pitch / cricket outfield (gradient and cross fall) Flat x Slight Gentle Moderate Severe Cricket wickets should be flat. Evenness of pitch / cricket field Excellent GoodPoor Very Poor Where field is comletely level = 'Excellent' Goal Mouth Dips Problem Areas: Evidence of Dog fouling Nonex Yes - some Yes - lots If no evidence, assume none. May wish to refer to user survey Problem Areas: Evidence of Glass/ stones/ litter None x Yes - some Yes - lots If no evidence, assume none. May wish to refer to user survey eg informal, casual use, unbooked use, kids kickabout etc. If no evidence, assume none .May wish to Problem Areas: Evidence of Unofficial use Nonex Yes - some Yes - lots refer to user survey

Problem Areas: Evidence of Damage to surface Nonex Yes - some Yes - lots eg. golf divots, car-parking on field etc. If no evidence, assume none.May wish to refer to user survey

Training ; Estimated number of hours per week in season 0 1 to 2 hrs2 to 4 hrs 4+ Training which takes place on the pitch area Changing Accomodation

Changing Accomodation Yesx No Is the pitch served by changing facilities About the equipment/ wicket… Upright, straight, painted , for football, goals are there safe net hooks at both ends. If posts are Winter Sports Only- Goal Posts - quality Excellent Good Poor x dismantled after game, or are removable goals, assume Excellent. Rusty Cricket Only - Is the wicket protected when not used Yes No Is the wicket protected when not in use - can be roped off or covered. Line markings - quality Excellent Good x Poor e.g. Have they been painted recently; are lines straight and clear etc Training area Yes No x eg nets/ goals/ grids off main body of pitch

Scoring: Pitch 36 out of 53 Key: 90%+ An excellent pitch Equipment 2 out of 9 64-90% A good pitch 55-64% An average pitch TOTAL 36 62 30-54% A below average pitch Less than 30 A poor pitch Total Score 58 % Non Technical Visual Quality Assessment - Individual Pitch Assessment

Pitch Number ID: 4 Site Name: Costello Site ID: Pitch Type; Football

Background information: Number of games played on pitch each season

Number of games cancelled due to unfitness of pitch (excluding frozen pitches) 0 % of games cancelled per season #DIV/0!

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 winter pitch/cricket field

Grass cover - entire pitch / cricket field >94% 85-94% x 70-84% 60-69% <60% Where, 90%+ grass cover should be given 'Excellent'; less than 60% should be considered 'very poor' Length of grass Excellent Good x Poor Very Poor The ideal length of grass will vary between sports Size of pitch / cricket field Yes - fully x No- but adequate No - not adequate Does it meet the NGB standard? See pitch sizes tab for dimensions Adequate safety margins Yes - fullyx No- but adequate No - not adequate Does it meet the NGB standard? See pitch sizes tab for dimensions Slope of pitch / cricket outfield (gradient and cross fall) Flat x Slight Gentle Moderate Severe Cricket wickets should be flat. Evenness of pitch / cricket field Excellent Good x Poor Very Poor Where field is comletely level = 'Excellent' Goal Mouth Dips Problem Areas: Evidence of Dog fouling Nonex Yes - some Yes - lots If no evidence, assume none. May wish to refer to user survey Problem Areas: Evidence of Glass/ stones/ litter None x Yes - some Yes - lots If no evidence, assume none. May wish to refer to user survey eg informal, casual use, unbooked use, kids kickabout etc. If no evidence, assume none .May wish to Problem Areas: Evidence of Unofficial use Nonex Yes - some Yes - lots refer to user survey

Problem Areas: Evidence of Damage to surface Nonex Yes - some Yes - lots eg. golf divots, car-parking on field etc. If no evidence, assume none.May wish to refer to user survey

Training ; Estimated number of hours per week in season 0 1 to 2 hrs2 to 4 hrs 4+ Training which takes place on the pitch area Changing Accomodation

Changing Accomodation Yesx No Is the pitch served by changing facilities About the equipment/ wicket… Upright, straight, painted , for football, goals are there safe net hooks at both ends. If posts are Winter Sports Only- Goal Posts - quality Excellent Good Poor x dismantled after game, or are removable goals, assume Excellent. Rusty Cricket Only - Is the wicket protected when not used Yes No Is the wicket protected when not in use - can be roped off or covered. Line markings - quality Excellent Good x Poor e.g. Have they been painted recently; are lines straight and clear etc Training area Yes No x eg nets/ goals/ grids off main body of pitch

Scoring: Pitch 40 out of 53 Key: 90%+ An excellent pitch Equipment 2 out of 9 64-90% A good pitch 55-64% An average pitch TOTAL 40 62 30-54% A below average pitch Less than 30 A poor pitch Total Score 65 % Non Technical Visual Quality Assessment - Individual Pitch Assessment

Pitch Number ID: 5 Site Name: Costello Site ID: Pitch Type; Football

Background information: Number of games played on pitch each season

Number of games cancelled due to unfitness of pitch (excluding frozen pitches) 0 % of games cancelled per season #DIV/0!

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 winter pitch/cricket field

Grass cover - entire pitch / cricket field >94% 85-94% x 70-84% 60-69% <60% Where, 90%+ grass cover should be given 'Excellent'; less than 60% should be considered 'very poor' Length of grass Excellent Good x Poor Very Poor The ideal length of grass will vary between sports Size of pitch / cricket field Yes - fully x No- but adequate No - not adequate Does it meet the NGB standard? See pitch sizes tab for dimensions Adequate safety margins Yes - fullyx No- but adequate No - not adequate Does it meet the NGB standard? See pitch sizes tab for dimensions Slope of pitch / cricket outfield (gradient and cross fall) Flat x Slight Gentle Moderate Severe Cricket wickets should be flat. Evenness of pitch / cricket field Excellent Good x Poor Very Poor Where field is comletely level = 'Excellent' Goal Mouth Dips Problem Areas: Evidence of Dog fouling Nonex Yes - some Yes - lots If no evidence, assume none. May wish to refer to user survey Problem Areas: Evidence of Glass/ stones/ litter None x Yes - some Yes - lots If no evidence, assume none. May wish to refer to user survey eg informal, casual use, unbooked use, kids kickabout etc. If no evidence, assume none .May wish to Problem Areas: Evidence of Unofficial use Nonex Yes - some Yes - lots refer to user survey

Problem Areas: Evidence of Damage to surface Nonex Yes - some Yes - lots eg. golf divots, car-parking on field etc. If no evidence, assume none.May wish to refer to user survey

Training ; Estimated number of hours per week in season 0 1 to 2 hrs2 to 4 hrs 4+ Training which takes place on the pitch area Changing Accomodation

Changing Accomodation Yesx No Is the pitch served by changing facilities About the equipment/ wicket… Upright, straight, painted , for football, goals are there safe net hooks at both ends. If posts are Winter Sports Only- Goal Posts - quality Excellent Good Poor x dismantled after game, or are removable goals, assume Excellent. Rusty Cricket Only - Is the wicket protected when not used Yes No Is the wicket protected when not in use - can be roped off or covered. Line markings - quality Excellent Good x Poor e.g. Have they been painted recently; are lines straight and clear etc Training area Yes No x eg nets/ goals/ grids off main body of pitch

Scoring: Pitch 40 out of 53 Key: 90%+ An excellent pitch Equipment 2 out of 9 64-90% A good pitch 55-64% An average pitch TOTAL 40 62 30-54% A below average pitch Less than 30 A poor pitch Total Score 65 % Non Technical Visual Quality Assessment - Individual Pitch Assessment

Pitch Number ID: 6 Site Name: Costello Site ID: Pitch Type; Football

Background information: Number of games played on pitch each season

Number of games cancelled due to unfitness of pitch (excluding frozen pitches) 0 % of games cancelled per season #DIV/0!

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 winter pitch/cricket field

Grass cover - entire pitch / cricket field >94% 85-94% x 70-84% 60-69% <60% Where, 90%+ grass cover should be given 'Excellent'; less than 60% should be considered 'very poor' Length of grass Excellent Good x Poor Very Poor The ideal length of grass will vary between sports Size of pitch / cricket field Yes - fully x No- but adequate No - not adequate Does it meet the NGB standard? See pitch sizes tab for dimensions Adequate safety margins Yes - fullyx No- but adequate No - not adequate Does it meet the NGB standard? See pitch sizes tab for dimensions Slope of pitch / cricket outfield (gradient and cross fall) Flat x Slight Gentle Moderate Severe Cricket wickets should be flat. Evenness of pitch / cricket field Excellent Good x Poor Very Poor Where field is comletely level = 'Excellent' Goal Mouth Dips Problem Areas: Evidence of Dog fouling Nonex Yes - some Yes - lots If no evidence, assume none. May wish to refer to user survey Problem Areas: Evidence of Glass/ stones/ litter None x Yes - some Yes - lots If no evidence, assume none. May wish to refer to user survey eg informal, casual use, unbooked use, kids kickabout etc. If no evidence, assume none .May wish to Problem Areas: Evidence of Unofficial use Nonex Yes - some Yes - lots refer to user survey

Problem Areas: Evidence of Damage to surface Nonex Yes - some Yes - lots eg. golf divots, car-parking on field etc. If no evidence, assume none.May wish to refer to user survey

Training ; Estimated number of hours per week in season 0 1 to 2 hrs2 to 4 hrs 4+ Training which takes place on the pitch area Changing Accomodation

Changing Accomodation Yesx No Is the pitch served by changing facilities About the equipment/ wicket… Upright, straight, painted , for football, goals are there safe net hooks at both ends. If posts are Winter Sports Only- Goal Posts - quality Excellent Good x Poor dismantled after game, or are removable goals, assume Excellent. Cricket Only - Is the wicket protected when not used Yes No Is the wicket protected when not in use - can be roped off or covered. Line markings - quality Excellent Good x Poor e.g. Have they been painted recently; are lines straight and clear etc Training area Yes No x eg nets/ goals/ grids off main body of pitch

Scoring: Pitch 40 out of 53 Key: 90%+ An excellent pitch Equipment 4 out of 9 64-90% A good pitch 55-64% An average pitch TOTAL 40 62 30-54% A below average pitch Less than 30 A poor pitch Total Score 65 % Non Technical Visual Quality Assessment - Individual Pitch Assessment

Pitch Number ID: 7 Site Name: Costello Site ID: Pitch Type; Rugby

Background information: Number of games played on pitch each season

Number of games cancelled due to unfitness of pitch (excluding frozen pitches) 0 % of games cancelled per season #DIV/0!

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 winter pitch/cricket field

Grass cover - entire pitch / cricket field >94% 85-94% x 70-84% 60-69% <60% Where, 90%+ grass cover should be given 'Excellent'; less than 60% should be considered 'very poor' Length of grass Excellent Good xxPoor Very Poor The ideal length of grass will vary between sports Size of pitch / cricket field Yes - fully x No- but adequate No - not adequate x Does it meet the NGB standard? See pitch sizes tab for dimensions Adequate safety margins Yes - fullyx No- but adequate No - not adequate Does it meet the NGB standard? See pitch sizes tab for dimensions Slope of pitch / cricket outfield (gradient and cross fall) Flat x Slight Gentle Moderate Severe Cricket wickets should be flat. Evenness of pitch / cricket field Excellent Good x Poor Very Poor Where field is comletely level = 'Excellent' Problem Areas: Evidence of Dog fouling Nonex Yes - some Yes - lots If no evidence, assume none. May wish to refer to user survey Problem Areas: Evidence of Glass/ stones/ litter None x Yes - some Yes - lots If no evidence, assume none. May wish to refer to user survey eg informal, casual use, unbooked use, kids kickabout etc. If no evidence, assume none .May wish to Problem Areas: Evidence of Unofficial use Nonex Yes - some Yes - lots refer to user survey

Problem Areas: Evidence of Damage to surface Nonex Yes - some Yes - lots eg. golf divots, car-parking on field etc. If no evidence, assume none.May wish to refer to user survey

Training ; Estimated number of hours per week in season 0 1 to 2 hrs2 to 4 hrs 4+ Training which takes place on the pitch area Changing Accomodation

Changing Accomodation Yesx No Is the pitch served by changing facilities About the equipment/ wicket… Upright, straight, painted , for football, goals are there safe net hooks at both ends. If posts are Winter Sports Only- Goal Posts - quality Excellent Good x Poor dismantled after game, or are removable goals, assume Excellent. Slightly Lent Cricket Only - Is the wicket protected when not used Yes No Is the wicket protected when not in use - can be roped off or covered. Line markings - quality Excellent Good x Poor e.g. Have they been painted recently; are lines straight and clear etc Training area Yes No x eg nets/ goals/ grids off main body of pitch

Scoring: Pitch 42 out of 53 Key: 90%+ An excellent pitch Equipment 4 out of 9 64-90% A good pitch 55-64% An average pitch TOTAL 42 62 30-54% A below average pitch Less than 30 A poor pitch Total Score 68 % Non Technical Visual Quality Assessment - Individual Pitch Assessment

Pitch Number ID: 8 Site Name: Costello Site ID: Pitch Type; Football

Background information: Number of games played on pitch each season

Number of games cancelled due to unfitness of pitch (excluding frozen pitches) 0 % of games cancelled per season #DIV/0!

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 winter pitch/cricket field

Grass cover - entire pitch / cricket field >94% 85-94% x 70-84% 60-69% <60% Where, 90%+ grass cover should be given 'Excellent'; less than 60% should be considered 'very poor' Length of grass Excellent Good x Poor Very Poor The ideal length of grass will vary between sports Size of pitch / cricket field Yes - fully x No- but adequate No - not adequate Does it meet the NGB standard? See pitch sizes tab for dimensions Adequate safety margins Yes - fullyx No- but adequate No - not adequate Does it meet the NGB standard? See pitch sizes tab for dimensions Slope of pitch / cricket outfield (gradient and cross fall) Flat x Slight Gentle Moderate Severe Cricket wickets should be flat. Evenness of pitch / cricket field Excellent Good x Poor Very Poor Where field is comletely level = 'Excellent' Problem Areas: Evidence of Dog fouling Nonex Yes - some Yes - lots If no evidence, assume none. May wish to refer to user survey Problem Areas: Evidence of Glass/ stones/ litter None x Yes - some Yes - lots If no evidence, assume none. May wish to refer to user survey eg informal, casual use, unbooked use, kids kickabout etc. If no evidence, assume none .May wish to Problem Areas: Evidence of Unofficial use Nonex Yes - some Yes - lots refer to user survey

Problem Areas: Evidence of Damage to surface Nonex Yes - some Yes - lots eg. golf divots, car-parking on field etc. If no evidence, assume none.May wish to refer to user survey

Training ; Estimated number of hours per week in season 0 1 to 2 hrs2 to 4 hrs 4+ Training which takes place on the pitch area Changing Accomodation

Changing Accomodation Yesx No Is the pitch served by changing facilities About the equipment/ wicket… Upright, straight, painted , for football, goals are there safe net hooks at both ends. If posts are Winter Sports Only- Goal Posts - quality Excellentx Good Poor dismantled after game, or are removable goals, assume Excellent. Cricket Only - Is the wicket protected when not used Yes No Is the wicket protected when not in use - can be roped off or covered. Line markings - quality Excellent Good x Poor e.g. Have they been painted recently; are lines straight and clear etc Training area Yes No x eg nets/ goals/ grids off main body of pitch

Scoring: Pitch 40 out of 53 Key: 90%+ An excellent pitch Equipment 5 out of 9 64-90% A good pitch 55-64% An average pitch TOTAL 40 62 30-54% A below average pitch Less than 30 A poor pitch Total Score 65 % Non Technical Visual Quality Assessment - Individual Pitch Assessment

Pitch Number ID: 9 Site Name: Costello Site ID: Pitch Type; Football

Background information: Number of games played on pitch each season

Number of games cancelled due to unfitness of pitch (excluding frozen pitches) 0 % of games cancelled per season #DIV/0!

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 winter pitch/cricket field

Grass cover - entire pitch / cricket field >94% 85-94% x 70-84% 60-69% <60% Where, 90%+ grass cover should be given 'Excellent'; less than 60% should be considered 'very poor' Length of grass Excellent Good x Poor Very Poor The ideal length of grass will vary between sports Size of pitch / cricket field Yes - fully x No- but adequate No - not adequate Does it meet the NGB standard? See pitch sizes tab for dimensions Adequate safety margins Yes - fullyx No- but adequate No - not adequate Does it meet the NGB standard? See pitch sizes tab for dimensions Slope of pitch / cricket outfield (gradient and cross fall) Flat x Slight Gentle Moderate Severe Cricket wickets should be flat. Evenness of pitch / cricket field Excellent Good x Poor Very Poor Where field is comletely level = 'Excellent' Problem Areas: Evidence of Dog fouling Nonex Yes - some Yes - lots If no evidence, assume none. May wish to refer to user survey Problem Areas: Evidence of Glass/ stones/ litter None x Yes - some Yes - lots If no evidence, assume none. May wish to refer to user survey eg informal, casual use, unbooked use, kids kickabout etc. If no evidence, assume none .May wish to Problem Areas: Evidence of Unofficial use Nonex Yes - some Yes - lots refer to user survey

Problem Areas: Evidence of Damage to surface Nonex Yes - some Yes - lots eg. golf divots, car-parking on field etc. If no evidence, assume none.May wish to refer to user survey

Training ; Estimated number of hours per week in season 0 1 to 2 hrs2 to 4 hrs 4+ Training which takes place on the pitch area Changing Accomodation

Changing Accomodation Yesx No Is the pitch served by changing facilities About the equipment/ wicket… Upright, straight, painted , for football, goals are there safe net hooks at both ends. If posts are Winter Sports Only- Goal Posts - quality Excellent Good x Poor dismantled after game, or are removable goals, assume Excellent. Rusty Cricket Only - Is the wicket protected when not used Yes No Is the wicket protected when not in use - can be roped off or covered. Line markings - quality Excellent Good x Poor e.g. Have they been painted recently; are lines straight and clear etc Training area Yes No x eg nets/ goals/ grids off main body of pitch

Scoring: Pitch 40 out of 53 Key: 90%+ An excellent pitch Equipment 4 out of 9 64-90% A good pitch 55-64% An average pitch TOTAL 40 62 30-54% A below average pitch Less than 30 A poor pitch Total Score 65 % Non Technical Visual Quality Assessment - Individual Pitch Assessment

Pitch Number ID: 10 Site Name: Costello Site ID: Pitch Type; Cricket

Background information: Number of games played on pitch each season

Number of games cancelled due to unfitness of pitch (excluding frozen pitches) 0 % of games cancelled per season #DIV/0!

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 winter pitch/cricket field

Grass cover - entire pitch / cricket field >94% 85-94% x 70-84% 60-69% <60% Where, 90%+ grass cover should be given 'Excellent'; less than 60% should be considered 'very poor' Length of grass Excellent Good x Poor Very Poor The ideal length of grass will vary between sports Size of pitch / cricket field Yes - fully x No- but adequate No - not adequate Does it meet the NGB standard? See pitch sizes tab for dimensions Adequate safety margins Yes - fullyx No- but adequate No - not adequate Does it meet the NGB standard? See pitch sizes tab for dimensions Slope of pitch / cricket outfield (gradient and cross fall) Flat x Slight Gentle Moderate Severe Cricket wickets should be flat. Evenness of pitch / cricket field Excellent Good x Poor Very Poor Where field is comletely level = 'Excellent' Problem Areas: Evidence of Dog fouling Nonex Yes - some Yes - lots If no evidence, assume none. May wish to refer to user survey Problem Areas: Evidence of Glass/ stones/ litter None x Yes - some Yes - lots If no evidence, assume none. May wish to refer to user survey eg informal, casual use, unbooked use, kids kickabout etc. If no evidence, assume none .May wish to Problem Areas: Evidence of Unofficial use Nonex Yes - some Yes - lots refer to user survey

Problem Areas: Evidence of Damage to surface Nonex Yes - some Yes - lots eg. golf divots, car-parking on field etc. If no evidence, assume none.May wish to refer to user survey

Training ; Estimated number of hours per week in season 0 1 to 2 hrs2 to 4 hrs 4+ Training which takes place on the pitch area Changing Accomodation

Changing Accomodation Yesx No Is the pitch served by changing facilities About the equipment/ wicket… Upright, straight, painted , for football, goals are there safe net hooks at both ends. If posts are Winter Sports Only- Goal Posts - quality Excellent Good Poor dismantled after game, or are removable goals, assume Excellent. Cricket Only - Is the wicket protected when not used Yes No x Is the wicket protected when not in use - can be roped off or covered. Line markings - quality Excellent Good Poor x e.g. Have they been painted recently; are lines straight and clear etc Training area Yes No x eg nets/ goals/ grids off main body of pitch

Scoring: Pitch 40 out of 53 Key: 90%+ An excellent pitch Equipment 0 out of 9 64-90% A good pitch 55-64% An average pitch TOTAL 40 62 30-54% A below average pitch Less than 30 A poor pitch Total Score 65 % Non Technical Visual Quality Assessment - Individual Pitch Assessment

Pitch Number ID: 11 Site Name: Costello Site ID: Pitch Type; Cricket

Background information: Number of games played on pitch each season

Number of games cancelled due to unfitness of pitch (excluding frozen pitches) 0 % of games cancelled per season #DIV/0!

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 winter pitch/cricket field

Grass cover - entire pitch / cricket field >94% 85-94% x 70-84% 60-69% <60% Where, 90%+ grass cover should be given 'Excellent'; less than 60% should be considered 'very poor' Length of grass Excellent Good x Poor Very Poor The ideal length of grass will vary between sports Size of pitch / cricket field Yes - fully x No- but adequate No - not adequate Does it meet the NGB standard? See pitch sizes tab for dimensions Adequate safety margins Yes - fullyx No- but adequate No - not adequate Does it meet the NGB standard? See pitch sizes tab for dimensions Slope of pitch / cricket outfield (gradient and cross fall) Flat x Slight Gentle Moderate Severe Cricket wickets should be flat. Evenness of pitch / cricket field Excellent Good x Poor Very Poor Where field is comletely level = 'Excellent' Problem Areas: Evidence of Dog fouling Nonex Yes - some Yes - lots If no evidence, assume none. May wish to refer to user survey Problem Areas: Evidence of Glass/ stones/ litter None x Yes - some Yes - lots If no evidence, assume none. May wish to refer to user survey eg informal, casual use, unbooked use, kids kickabout etc. If no evidence, assume none .May wish to Problem Areas: Evidence of Unofficial use Nonex Yes - some Yes - lots refer to user survey

Problem Areas: Evidence of Damage to surface Nonex Yes - some Yes - lots eg. golf divots, car-parking on field etc. If no evidence, assume none.May wish to refer to user survey

Training ; Estimated number of hours per week in season 0 1 to 2 hrs2 to 4 hrs 4+ Training which takes place on the pitch area Changing Accomodation

Changing Accomodation Yesx No Is the pitch served by changing facilities About the equipment/ wicket… Upright, straight, painted , for football, goals are there safe net hooks at both ends. If posts are Winter Sports Only- Goal Posts - quality Excellent Good Poor dismantled after game, or are removable goals, assume Excellent. Cricket Only - Is the wicket protected when not used Yes No x Is the wicket protected when not in use - can be roped off or covered. Line markings - quality Excellent Good Poor x e.g. Have they been painted recently; are lines straight and clear etc Training area Yes No x eg nets/ goals/ grids off main body of pitch

Scoring: Pitch 40 out of 53 Key: 90%+ An excellent pitch Equipment 0 out of 9 64-90% A good pitch 55-64% An average pitch TOTAL 40 62 30-54% A below average pitch Less than 30 A poor pitch Total Score 65 % Non Technical Visual Quality Assessment - Individual Pitch Assessment

Pitch Number ID: 12 Site Name: Costello Site ID: Pitch Type; Cricket

Background information: Number of games played on pitch each season

Number of games cancelled due to unfitness of pitch (excluding frozen pitches) 0 % of games cancelled per season #DIV/0!

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 winter pitch/cricket field

Grass cover - entire pitch / cricket field >94% 85-94% x 70-84% 60-69% <60% Where, 90%+ grass cover should be given 'Excellent'; less than 60% should be considered 'very poor' Length of grass Excellent Good x Poor Very Poor The ideal length of grass will vary between sports Size of pitch / cricket field Yes - fully x No- but adequate No - not adequate Does it meet the NGB standard? See pitch sizes tab for dimensions Adequate safety margins Yes - fullyx No- but adequate No - not adequate Does it meet the NGB standard? See pitch sizes tab for dimensions Slope of pitch / cricket outfield (gradient and cross fall) Flat x Slight Gentle Moderate Severe Cricket wickets should be flat. Evenness of pitch / cricket field Excellent Good x Poor Very Poor Where field is comletely level = 'Excellent' Problem Areas: Evidence of Dog fouling Nonex Yes - some Yes - lots If no evidence, assume none. May wish to refer to user survey Problem Areas: Evidence of Glass/ stones/ litter None x Yes - some Yes - lots If no evidence, assume none. May wish to refer to user survey eg informal, casual use, unbooked use, kids kickabout etc. If no evidence, assume none .May wish to Problem Areas: Evidence of Unofficial use Nonex Yes - some Yes - lots refer to user survey

Problem Areas: Evidence of Damage to surface Nonex Yes - some Yes - lots eg. golf divots, car-parking on field etc. If no evidence, assume none.May wish to refer to user survey

Training ; Estimated number of hours per week in season 0 1 to 2 hrs2 to 4 hrs 4+ Training which takes place on the pitch area Changing Accomodation

Changing Accomodation Yesx No Is the pitch served by changing facilities About the equipment/ wicket… Upright, straight, painted , for football, goals are there safe net hooks at both ends. If posts are Winter Sports Only- Goal Posts - quality Excellent Good Poor dismantled after game, or are removable goals, assume Excellent. Cricket Only - Is the wicket protected when not used Yes No x Is the wicket protected when not in use - can be roped off or covered. Line markings - quality Excellent Good Poor x e.g. Have they been painted recently; are lines straight and clear etc Training area Yes No x eg nets/ goals/ grids off main body of pitch

Scoring: Pitch 40 out of 53 Key: 90%+ An excellent pitch Equipment 0 out of 9 64-90% A good pitch 55-64% An average pitch TOTAL 40 62 30-54% A below average pitch Less than 30 A poor pitch Total Score 65 % Non Technical Visual Quality Assessment - Individual Pitch Assessment

Pitch Number ID: 1 Site Name: Crompton Road Site ID: Pitch Type; Rugby

Background information: Number of games played on pitch each season

Number of games cancelled due to unfitness of pitch (excluding frozen pitches) 0 % of games cancelled per season #DIV/0!

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 winter pitch/cricket field

Grass cover - entire pitch / cricket field >94% 85-94% x 70-84% 60-69% <60% Where, 90%+ grass cover should be given 'Excellent'; less than 60% should be considered 'very poor' Few Bare Patches Length of grass Excellent Good x Poor Very Poor The ideal length of grass will vary between sports Size of pitch / cricket field Yes - fully x No- but adequate No - not adequate Does it meet the NGB standard? See pitch sizes tab for dimensions Adequate safety margins Yes - fullyx No- but adequate No - not adequate Does it meet the NGB standard? See pitch sizes tab for dimensions Slope of pitch / cricket outfield (gradient and cross fall) Flat x Slight Gentle Moderate Severe Cricket wickets should be flat. Evenness of pitch / cricket field Excellent Good x Poor Very Poor Where field is comletely level = 'Excellent' Few Dips Problem Areas: Evidence of Dog fouling Nonex Yes - some Yes - lots If no evidence, assume none. May wish to refer to user survey Problem Areas: Evidence of Glass/ stones/ litter None x Yes - some Yes - lots If no evidence, assume none. May wish to refer to user survey eg informal, casual use, unbooked use, kids kickabout etc. If no evidence, assume none .May wish to Problem Areas: Evidence of Unofficial use Nonex Yes - some Yes - lots refer to user survey

Problem Areas: Evidence of Damage to surface Nonex Yes - some Yes - lots eg. golf divots, car-parking on field etc. If no evidence, assume none.May wish to refer to user survey

Training ; Estimated number of hours per week in season 0 1 to 2 hrs2 to 4 hrs 4+ Training which takes place on the pitch area Changing Accomodation

Changing Accomodation Yesx No Is the pitch served by changing facilities About the equipment/ wicket… Upright, straight, painted , for football, goals are there safe net hooks at both ends. If posts are Winter Sports Only- Goal Posts - quality Excellent Good x Poor dismantled after game, or are removable goals, assume Excellent. No Posts Cricket Only - Is the wicket protected when not used Yes No Is the wicket protected when not in use - can be roped off or covered. Line markings - quality Excellent Good x Poor e.g. Have they been painted recently; are lines straight and clear etc Training area Yes No x eg nets/ goals/ grids off main body of pitch

Scoring: Pitch 40 out of 53 Key: 90%+ An excellent pitch Equipment 4 out of 9 64-90% A good pitch 55-64% An average pitch TOTAL 40 62 30-54% A below average pitch Less than 30 A poor pitch Total Score 65 % Non Technical Visual Quality Assessment - Individual Pitch Assessment

Pitch Number ID: 2 Site Name: Crompton road Site ID: Pitch Type; Rugby

Background information: Number of games played on pitch each season

Number of games cancelled due to unfitness of pitch (excluding frozen pitches) 0 % of games cancelled per season #DIV/0!

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 winter pitch/cricket field

Grass cover - entire pitch / cricket field >94% 85-94% x 70-84% 60-69% <60% Where, 90%+ grass cover should be given 'Excellent'; less than 60% should be considered 'very poor' Length of grass Excellent Good x Poor Very Poor The ideal length of grass will vary between sports Size of pitch / cricket field Yes - fully x No- but adequate No - not adequate Does it meet the NGB standard? See pitch sizes tab for dimensions Adequate safety margins Yes - fullyx No- but adequate No - not adequate Does it meet the NGB standard? See pitch sizes tab for dimensions Slope of pitch / cricket outfield (gradient and cross fall) Flat x Slight Gentle Moderate Severe Cricket wickets should be flat. Evenness of pitch / cricket field Excellent Good x Poor Very Poor Where field is comletely level = 'Excellent' Problem Areas: Evidence of Dog fouling Nonex Yes - some Yes - lots If no evidence, assume none. May wish to refer to user survey Problem Areas: Evidence of Glass/ stones/ litter None x Yes - some Yes - lots If no evidence, assume none. May wish to refer to user survey eg informal, casual use, unbooked use, kids kickabout etc. If no evidence, assume none .May wish to Problem Areas: Evidence of Unofficial use Nonex Yes - some Yes - lots refer to user survey

Problem Areas: Evidence of Damage to surface Nonex Yes - some Yes - lots eg. golf divots, car-parking on field etc. If no evidence, assume none.May wish to refer to user survey

Training ; Estimated number of hours per week in season 0 1 to 2 hrs2 to 4 hrs 4+ Training which takes place on the pitch area Changing Accomodation

Changing Accomodation Yesx No Is the pitch served by changing facilities About the equipment/ wicket… Upright, straight, painted , for football, goals are there safe net hooks at both ends. If posts are Winter Sports Only- Goal Posts - quality Excellent Good x Poor dismantled after game, or are removable goals, assume Excellent. Cricket Only - Is the wicket protected when not used Yes No Is the wicket protected when not in use - can be roped off or covered. Line markings - quality Excellent Good x Poor e.g. Have they been painted recently; are lines straight and clear etc Training area Yes No x eg nets/ goals/ grids off main body of pitch

Scoring: Pitch 40 out of 53 Key: 90%+ An excellent pitch Equipment 4 out of 9 64-90% A good pitch 55-64% An average pitch TOTAL 40 62 30-54% A below average pitch Less than 30 A poor pitch Total Score 65 % Non Technical Visual Quality Assessment - Individual Pitch Assessment

Pitch Number ID: 1 Site Name: Dane Park Road Site ID: Pitch Type; Football

Background information: Number of games played on pitch each season

Number of games cancelled due to unfitness of pitch (excluding frozen pitches) 0 % of games cancelled per season #DIV/0!

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 winter pitch/cricket field

Grass cover - entire pitch / cricket field >94% 85-94% x 70-84% 60-69% <60% Where, 90%+ grass cover should be given 'Excellent'; less than 60% should be considered 'very poor' Length of grass Excellent Good x Poor Very Poor The ideal length of grass will vary between sports Size of pitch / cricket field Yes - fully x No- but adequate No - not adequate Does it meet the NGB standard? See pitch sizes tab for dimensions Adequate safety margins Yes - fullyx No- but adequate No - not adequate Does it meet the NGB standard? See pitch sizes tab for dimensions Slope of pitch / cricket outfield (gradient and cross fall) Flat x Slight Gentle Moderate Severe Cricket wickets should be flat. Evenness of pitch / cricket field Excellent Good x Poor Very Poor Where field is comletely level = 'Excellent' Problem Areas: Evidence of Dog fouling Nonex Yes - some Yes - lots If no evidence, assume none. May wish to refer to user survey Problem Areas: Evidence of Glass/ stones/ litter None x Yes - some Yes - lots If no evidence, assume none. May wish to refer to user survey eg informal, casual use, unbooked use, kids kickabout etc. If no evidence, assume none .May wish to Problem Areas: Evidence of Unofficial use Nonex Yes - some Yes - lots refer to user survey

Problem Areas: Evidence of Damage to surface Nonex Yes - some Yes - lots eg. golf divots, car-parking on field etc. If no evidence, assume none.May wish to refer to user survey

Training ; Estimated number of hours per week in season 0 1 to 2 hrs2 to 4 hrs 4+ Training which takes place on the pitch area Changing Accomodation

Changing Accomodation Yes No x Is the pitch served by changing facilities About the equipment/ wicket… Upright, straight, painted , for football, goals are there safe net hooks at both ends. If posts are Winter Sports Only- Goal Posts - quality Excellent Good x Poor dismantled after game, or are removable goals, assume Excellent. Rusty/Lent over Cricket Only - Is the wicket protected when not used Yes No Is the wicket protected when not in use - can be roped off or covered. Line markings - quality Excellent Good x Poor e.g. Have they been painted recently; are lines straight and clear etc Training area Yes No x eg nets/ goals/ grids off main body of pitch

Scoring: Pitch 35 out of 53 Key: 90%+ An excellent pitch Equipment 4 out of 9 64-90% A good pitch 55-64% An average pitch TOTAL 35 62 30-54% A below average pitch Less than 30 A poor pitch Total Score 56 % Non Technical Visual Quality Assessment - Individual Pitch Assessment

Pitch Number ID: 2 Site Name: Danepark Road Site ID: Pitch Type; Football

Background information: Number of games played on pitch each season

Number of games cancelled due to unfitness of pitch (excluding frozen pitches) 0 % of games cancelled per season #DIV/0!

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 winter pitch/cricket field

Grass cover - entire pitch / cricket field >94% 85-94% x 70-84% 60-69% <60% Where, 90%+ grass cover should be given 'Excellent'; less than 60% should be considered 'very poor' Length of grass Excellent Good x Poor Very Poor The ideal length of grass will vary between sports Size of pitch / cricket field Yes - fully x No- but adequate No - not adequate Does it meet the NGB standard? See pitch sizes tab for dimensions Adequate safety margins Yes - fullyx No- but adequate No - not adequate Does it meet the NGB standard? See pitch sizes tab for dimensions Slope of pitch / cricket outfield (gradient and cross fall) Flat x Slight Gentle Moderate Severe Cricket wickets should be flat. Evenness of pitch / cricket field Excellent Good x Poor Very Poor Where field is comletely level = 'Excellent' Problem Areas: Evidence of Dog fouling Nonex Yes - some Yes - lots If no evidence, assume none. May wish to refer to user survey Problem Areas: Evidence of Glass/ stones/ litter None x Yes - some Yes - lots If no evidence, assume none. May wish to refer to user survey eg informal, casual use, unbooked use, kids kickabout etc. If no evidence, assume none .May wish to Problem Areas: Evidence of Unofficial use None Yes - some x Yes - lots refer to user survey Motorcycles

Problem Areas: Evidence of Damage to surface None Yes - some x Yes - lots eg. golf divots, car-parking on field etc. If no evidence, assume none.May wish to refer to user survey Motorcycle Ruts

Training ; Estimated number of hours per week in season 0 1 to 2 hrs2 to 4 hrs 4+ Training which takes place on the pitch area Changing Accomodation

Changing Accomodation Yes No x Is the pitch served by changing facilities About the equipment/ wicket… Upright, straight, painted , for football, goals are there safe net hooks at both ends. If posts are Winter Sports Only- Goal Posts - quality Excellent Good x Poor dismantled after game, or are removable goals, assume Excellent. Rusty/Lent Over Cricket Only - Is the wicket protected when not used Yes No Is the wicket protected when not in use - can be roped off or covered. Line markings - quality Excellent Good x Poor e.g. Have they been painted recently; are lines straight and clear etc Training area Yes No x eg nets/ goals/ grids off main body of pitch

Scoring: Pitch 33 out of 53 Key: 90%+ An excellent pitch Equipment 4 out of 9 64-90% A good pitch 55-64% An average pitch TOTAL 33 62 30-54% A below average pitch Less than 30 A poor pitch Total Score 53 % Non Technical Visual Quality Assessment - Individual Pitch Assessment

Pitch Number ID: 3 Site Name: Danepark Road Site ID: Pitch Type; Football

Background information: Number of games played on pitch each season

Number of games cancelled due to unfitness of pitch (excluding frozen pitches) 0 % of games cancelled per season #DIV/0!

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 winter pitch/cricket field

Grass cover - entire pitch / cricket field >94% 85-94% x 70-84% 60-69% <60% Where, 90%+ grass cover should be given 'Excellent'; less than 60% should be considered 'very poor' Length of grass Excellent Good x Poor Very Poor The ideal length of grass will vary between sports Size of pitch / cricket field Yes - fully x No- but adequate No - not adequate Does it meet the NGB standard? See pitch sizes tab for dimensions Adequate safety margins Yes - fullyx No- but adequate No - not adequate Does it meet the NGB standard? See pitch sizes tab for dimensions Slope of pitch / cricket outfield (gradient and cross fall) Flat x Slight Gentle Moderate Severe Cricket wickets should be flat. Evenness of pitch / cricket field Excellent Good x Poor Very Poor Where field is comletely level = 'Excellent' Problem Areas: Evidence of Dog fouling Nonex Yes - some Yes - lots If no evidence, assume none. May wish to refer to user survey Problem Areas: Evidence of Glass/ stones/ litter None x Yes - some Yes - lots If no evidence, assume none. May wish to refer to user survey eg informal, casual use, unbooked use, kids kickabout etc. If no evidence, assume none .May wish to Problem Areas: Evidence of Unofficial use None Yes - some x Yes - lots refer to user survey Motorcycles

Problem Areas: Evidence of Damage to surface None Yes - some x Yes - lots eg. golf divots, car-parking on field etc. If no evidence, assume none.May wish to refer to user survey Motorcycle Ruts

Training ; Estimated number of hours per week in season 0 1 to 2 hrs2 to 4 hrs 4+ Training which takes place on the pitch area Changing Accomodation

Changing Accomodation Yes No x Is the pitch served by changing facilities About the equipment/ wicket… Upright, straight, painted , for football, goals are there safe net hooks at both ends. If posts are Winter Sports Only- Goal Posts - quality Excellent Good x Poor dismantled after game, or are removable goals, assume Excellent. Rusty/Lent over Cricket Only - Is the wicket protected when not used Yes No Is the wicket protected when not in use - can be roped off or covered. Line markings - quality Excellent Good x Poor e.g. Have they been painted recently; are lines straight and clear etc Training area Yes No x eg nets/ goals/ grids off main body of pitch

Scoring: Pitch 33 out of 53 Key: 90%+ An excellent pitch Equipment 4 out of 9 64-90% A good pitch 55-64% An average pitch TOTAL 33 62 30-54% A below average pitch Less than 30 A poor pitch Total Score 53 % Non Technical Visual Quality Assessment - Individual Pitch Assessment

Pitch Number ID: 4 Site Name: Danepark Road Site ID: Pitch Type; Football

Background information: Number of games played on pitch each season

Number of games cancelled due to unfitness of pitch (excluding frozen pitches) 0 % of games cancelled per season #DIV/0!

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 winter pitch/cricket field

Grass cover - entire pitch / cricket field >94% 85-94% x 70-84% 60-69% <60% Where, 90%+ grass cover should be given 'Excellent'; less than 60% should be considered 'very poor' Length of grass Excellent Good x Poor Very Poor The ideal length of grass will vary between sports Size of pitch / cricket field Yes - fully x No- but adequate No - not adequate Does it meet the NGB standard? See pitch sizes tab for dimensions Adequate safety margins Yes - fullyx No- but adequate No - not adequate Does it meet the NGB standard? See pitch sizes tab for dimensions Slope of pitch / cricket outfield (gradient and cross fall) Flat x Slight Gentle Moderate Severe Cricket wickets should be flat. Evenness of pitch / cricket field Excellent Good x Poor Very Poor Where field is comletely level = 'Excellent' Problem Areas: Evidence of Dog fouling Nonex Yes - some Yes - lots If no evidence, assume none. May wish to refer to user survey Problem Areas: Evidence of Glass/ stones/ litter None x Yes - some Yes - lots If no evidence, assume none. May wish to refer to user survey eg informal, casual use, unbooked use, kids kickabout etc. If no evidence, assume none .May wish to Problem Areas: Evidence of Unofficial use Nonex Yes - some Yes - lots refer to user survey

Problem Areas: Evidence of Damage to surface Nonex Yes - some Yes - lots eg. golf divots, car-parking on field etc. If no evidence, assume none.May wish to refer to user survey

Training ; Estimated number of hours per week in season 0 1 to 2 hrs2 to 4 hrs 4+ Training which takes place on the pitch area Changing Accomodation

Changing Accomodation Yes No x Is the pitch served by changing facilities About the equipment/ wicket… Upright, straight, painted , for football, goals are there safe net hooks at both ends. If posts are Winter Sports Only- Goal Posts - quality Excellent Good x Poor dismantled after game, or are removable goals, assume Excellent. Rusty/Lent over Cricket Only - Is the wicket protected when not used Yes No Is the wicket protected when not in use - can be roped off or covered. Line markings - quality Excellent Good x Poor e.g. Have they been painted recently; are lines straight and clear etc Training area Yes No x eg nets/ goals/ grids off main body of pitch

Scoring: Pitch 35 out of 53 Key: 90%+ An excellent pitch Equipment 4 out of 9 64-90% A good pitch 55-64% An average pitch TOTAL 35 62 30-54% A below average pitch Less than 30 A poor pitch Total Score 56 % Non Technical Visual Quality Assessment - Individual Pitch Assessment

Pitch Number ID: 5 Site Name: Danepark Road Site ID: Pitch Type; Football

Background information: Number of games played on pitch each season

Number of games cancelled due to unfitness of pitch (excluding frozen pitches) 0 % of games cancelled per season #DIV/0!

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 winter pitch/cricket field

Grass cover - entire pitch / cricket field >94% 85-94% x 70-84% 60-69% <60% Where, 90%+ grass cover should be given 'Excellent'; less than 60% should be considered 'very poor' Length of grass Excellent Good x Poor Very Poor The ideal length of grass will vary between sports Size of pitch / cricket field Yes - fully x No- but adequate No - not adequate Does it meet the NGB standard? See pitch sizes tab for dimensions Adequate safety margins Yes - fullyx No- but adequate No - not adequate Does it meet the NGB standard? See pitch sizes tab for dimensions Slope of pitch / cricket outfield (gradient and cross fall) Flat x Slight Gentle Moderate Severe Cricket wickets should be flat. Evenness of pitch / cricket field Excellent Good x Poor Very Poor Where field is comletely level = 'Excellent' Problem Areas: Evidence of Dog fouling Nonex Yes - some Yes - lots If no evidence, assume none. May wish to refer to user survey Problem Areas: Evidence of Glass/ stones/ litter None x Yes - some Yes - lots If no evidence, assume none. May wish to refer to user survey eg informal, casual use, unbooked use, kids kickabout etc. If no evidence, assume none .May wish to Problem Areas: Evidence of Unofficial use None Yes - some x Yes - lots refer to user survey

Problem Areas: Evidence of Damage to surface None Yes - some x Yes - lots eg. golf divots, car-parking on field etc. If no evidence, assume none.May wish to refer to user survey Motorcycles

Training ; Estimated number of hours per week in season 0 1 to 2 hrs2 to 4 hrs 4+ Training which takes place on the pitch area Motorcycle Ruts Changing Accomodation

Changing Accomodation Yes No x Is the pitch served by changing facilities About the equipment/ wicket… Upright, straight, painted , for football, goals are there safe net hooks at both ends. If posts are Winter Sports Only- Goal Posts - quality Excellent Good x Poor dismantled after game, or are removable goals, assume Excellent. Rusty/Lent over Cricket Only - Is the wicket protected when not used Yes No Is the wicket protected when not in use - can be roped off or covered. Line markings - quality Excellent Good x Poor e.g. Have they been painted recently; are lines straight and clear etc Training area Yes No x eg nets/ goals/ grids off main body of pitch

Scoring: Pitch 33 out of 53 Key: 90%+ An excellent pitch Equipment 4 out of 9 64-90% A good pitch 55-64% An average pitch TOTAL 33 62 30-54% A below average pitch Less than 30 A poor pitch Total Score 53 % Non Technical Visual Quality Assessment - Individual Pitch Assessment

Pitch Number ID: 1 Site Name: East Park Site ID: Pitch Type; Rugby

Background information: Number of games played on pitch each season

Number of games cancelled due to unfitness of pitch (excluding frozen pitches) 0 % of games cancelled per season #DIV/0!

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 winter pitch/cricket field

Grass cover - entire pitch / cricket field >94% 85-94% x 70-84% 60-69% <60% Where, 90%+ grass cover should be given 'Excellent'; less than 60% should be considered 'very poor' Length of grass Excellent Good x Poor Very Poor The ideal length of grass will vary between sports Size of pitch / cricket field Yes - fully x No- but adequate No - not adequate Does it meet the NGB standard? See pitch sizes tab for dimensions Adequate safety margins Yes - fullyx No- but adequate No - not adequate Does it meet the NGB standard? See pitch sizes tab for dimensions Slope of pitch / cricket outfield (gradient and cross fall) Flat x Slight Gentle Moderate Severe Cricket wickets should be flat. Evenness of pitch / cricket field Excellent Good x Poor Very Poor Where field is comletely level = 'Excellent' Goal Mouth Dips Problem Areas: Evidence of Dog fouling Nonex Yes - some Yes - lots If no evidence, assume none. May wish to refer to user survey Problem Areas: Evidence of Glass/ stones/ litter None x Yes - some Yes - lots If no evidence, assume none. May wish to refer to user survey eg informal, casual use, unbooked use, kids kickabout etc. If no evidence, assume none .May wish to Problem Areas: Evidence of Unofficial use Nonex Yes - some Yes - lots refer to user survey

Problem Areas: Evidence of Damage to surface Nonex Yes - some Yes - lots eg. golf divots, car-parking on field etc. If no evidence, assume none.May wish to refer to user survey

Training ; Estimated number of hours per week in season 0 1 to 2 hrs2 to 4 hrs 4+ Training which takes place on the pitch area Changing Accomodation

Changing Accomodation Yes No x Is the pitch served by changing facilities About the equipment/ wicket… Upright, straight, painted , for football, goals are there safe net hooks at both ends. If posts are Winter Sports Only- Goal Posts - quality Excellent Good x Poor dismantled after game, or are removable goals, assume Excellent. Cricket Only - Is the wicket protected when not used Yes No Is the wicket protected when not in use - can be roped off or covered. Line markings - quality Excellent x Good Poor e.g. Have they been painted recently; are lines straight and clear etc Training area Yes No x eg nets/ goals/ grids off main body of pitch

Scoring: Pitch 35 out of 53 Key: 90%+ An excellent pitch Equipment 5 out of 9 64-90% A good pitch 55-64% An average pitch TOTAL 35 62 30-54% A below average pitch Less than 30 A poor pitch Total Score 56 % Non Technical Visual Quality Assessment - Individual Pitch Assessment

Pitch Number ID: 2 Site Name: East Park Site ID: Pitch Type; Rugby

Background information: Number of games played on pitch each season

Number of games cancelled due to unfitness of pitch (excluding frozen pitches) 0 % of games cancelled per season #DIV/0!

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 winter pitch/cricket field

Grass cover - entire pitch / cricket field >94% 85-94% x 70-84% 60-69% <60% Where, 90%+ grass cover should be given 'Excellent'; less than 60% should be considered 'very poor' Length of grass Excellent Good x Poor Very Poor The ideal length of grass will vary between sports Size of pitch / cricket field Yes - fully x No- but adequate No - not adequate Does it meet the NGB standard? See pitch sizes tab for dimensions Adequate safety margins Yes - fullyx No- but adequate No - not adequate Does it meet the NGB standard? See pitch sizes tab for dimensions Slope of pitch / cricket outfield (gradient and cross fall) Flat x Slight Gentle Moderate Severe Cricket wickets should be flat. Evenness of pitch / cricket field Excellent Good x Poor Very Poor Where field is comletely level = 'Excellent' Goal Mouth Dips Problem Areas: Evidence of Dog fouling Nonex Yes - some Yes - lots If no evidence, assume none. May wish to refer to user survey Hill on half way Problem Areas: Evidence of Glass/ stones/ litter None x Yes - some Yes - lots If no evidence, assume none. May wish to refer to user survey eg informal, casual use, unbooked use, kids kickabout etc. If no evidence, assume none .May wish to Problem Areas: Evidence of Unofficial use Nonex Yes - some Yes - lots refer to user survey

Problem Areas: Evidence of Damage to surface Nonex Yes - some Yes - lots eg. golf divots, car-parking on field etc. If no evidence, assume none.May wish to refer to user survey

Training ; Estimated number of hours per week in season 0 1 to 2 hrs2 to 4 hrs 4+ Training which takes place on the pitch area Changing Accomodation

Changing Accomodation Yes No x Is the pitch served by changing facilities About the equipment/ wicket… Upright, straight, painted , for football, goals are there safe net hooks at both ends. If posts are Winter Sports Only- Goal Posts - quality Excellent Good x Poor dismantled after game, or are removable goals, assume Excellent. Cricket Only - Is the wicket protected when not used Yes No Is the wicket protected when not in use - can be roped off or covered. Line markings - quality Excellent Good x Poor e.g. Have they been painted recently; are lines straight and clear etc Training area Yes No x eg nets/ goals/ grids off main body of pitch

Scoring: Pitch 35 out of 53 Key: 90%+ An excellent pitch Equipment 4 out of 9 64-90% A good pitch 55-64% An average pitch TOTAL 35 62 30-54% A below average pitch Less than 30 A poor pitch Total Score 56 % Non Technical Visual Quality Assessment - Individual Pitch Assessment

Pitch Number ID: 1 Site Name: Ennerdale Site ID: Pitch Type; Football

Background information: Number of games played on pitch each season

Number of games cancelled due to unfitness of pitch (excluding frozen pitches) 0 % of games cancelled per season #DIV/0!

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 winter pitch/cricket field

Grass cover - entire pitch / cricket field >94% 85-94% x 70-84% 60-69% <60% Where, 90%+ grass cover should be given 'Excellent'; less than 60% should be considered 'very poor' Length of grass Excellent Good x Poor Very Poor The ideal length of grass will vary between sports Size of pitch / cricket field Yes - fully x No- but adequate No - not adequate Does it meet the NGB standard? See pitch sizes tab for dimensions Adequate safety margins Yes - fullyx No- but adequate No - not adequate Does it meet the NGB standard? See pitch sizes tab for dimensions Slope of pitch / cricket outfield (gradient and cross fall) Flat x Slight Gentle Moderate Severe Cricket wickets should be flat. Evenness of pitch / cricket field Excellent Good x Poor Very Poor Where field is comletely level = 'Excellent' Some Dips Problem Areas: Evidence of Dog fouling None Yes - some x Yes - lots If no evidence, assume none. May wish to refer to user survey Horse Muck Problem Areas: Evidence of Glass/ stones/ litter None Yes - some x Yes - lots If no evidence, assume none. May wish to refer to user survey eg informal, casual use, unbooked use, kids kickabout etc. If no evidence, assume none .May wish to Problem Areas: Evidence of Unofficial use None Yes - some x Yes - lots refer to user survey Horses

Problem Areas: Evidence of Damage to surface Nonex Yes - some Yes - lots eg. golf divots, car-parking on field etc. If no evidence, assume none.May wish to refer to user survey

Training ; Estimated number of hours per week in season 0 1 to 2 hrs2 to 4 hrs 4+ Training which takes place on the pitch area Changing Accomodation

Changing Accomodation Yes No x Is the pitch served by changing facilities About the equipment/ wicket… Upright, straight, painted , for football, goals are there safe net hooks at both ends. If posts are Winter Sports Only- Goal Posts - quality Excellent Good x Poor dismantled after game, or are removable goals, assume Excellent. Rusty Cricket Only - Is the wicket protected when not used Yes No Is the wicket protected when not in use - can be roped off or covered. Line markings - quality Excellent Good x Poor e.g. Have they been painted recently; are lines straight and clear etc Training area Yes No x eg nets/ goals/ grids off main body of pitch

Scoring: Pitch 32 out of 53 Key: 90%+ An excellent pitch Equipment 4 out of 9 64-90% A good pitch 55-64% An average pitch TOTAL 32 62 30-54% A below average pitch Less than 30 A poor pitch Total Score 52 % Non Technical Visual Quality Assessment - Individual Pitch Assessment

Pitch Number ID: 2 Site Name: Ennerdale Site ID: Pitch Type; Football

Background information: Number of games played on pitch each season

Number of games cancelled due to unfitness of pitch (excluding frozen pitches) 0 % of games cancelled per season #DIV/0!

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 winter pitch/cricket field

Grass cover - entire pitch / cricket field >94% 85-94% x 70-84% 60-69% <60% Where, 90%+ grass cover should be given 'Excellent'; less than 60% should be considered 'very poor' Length of grass Excellent Good x Poor Very Poor The ideal length of grass will vary between sports Size of pitch / cricket field Yes - fully x No- but adequate No - not adequate Does it meet the NGB standard? See pitch sizes tab for dimensions Adequate safety margins Yes - fullyx No- but adequate No - not adequate Does it meet the NGB standard? See pitch sizes tab for dimensions Slope of pitch / cricket outfield (gradient and cross fall) Flat x Slight Gentle Moderate Severe Cricket wickets should be flat. Evenness of pitch / cricket field Excellent Good Poor x Very Poor Where field is comletely level = 'Excellent' Uneven Problem Areas: Evidence of Dog fouling None Yes - some x Yes - lots If no evidence, assume none. May wish to refer to user survey Horse Muck Problem Areas: Evidence of Glass/ stones/ litter None Yes - some x Yes - lots If no evidence, assume none. May wish to refer to user survey eg informal, casual use, unbooked use, kids kickabout etc. If no evidence, assume none .May wish to Problem Areas: Evidence of Unofficial use None Yes - some x Yes - lots refer to user survey Horses

Problem Areas: Evidence of Damage to surface Nonex Yes - some Yes - lots eg. golf divots, car-parking on field etc. If no evidence, assume none.May wish to refer to user survey

Training ; Estimated number of hours per week in season 0 1 to 2 hrs2 to 4 hrs 4+ Training which takes place on the pitch area Changing Accomodation

Changing Accomodation Yes No x Is the pitch served by changing facilities About the equipment/ wicket… Upright, straight, painted , for football, goals are there safe net hooks at both ends. If posts are Winter Sports Only- Goal Posts - quality Excellent Good x Poor dismantled after game, or are removable goals, assume Excellent. Rusty Cricket Only - Is the wicket protected when not used Yes No Is the wicket protected when not in use - can be roped off or covered. Line markings - quality Excellent Good x Poor e.g. Have they been painted recently; are lines straight and clear etc Training area Yes No x eg nets/ goals/ grids off main body of pitch

Scoring: Pitch 30 out of 53 Key: 90%+ An excellent pitch Equipment 4 out of 9 64-90% A good pitch 55-64% An average pitch TOTAL 30 62 30-54% A below average pitch Less than 30 A poor pitch Total Score 48 % Non Technical Visual Quality Assessment - Individual Pitch Assessment

Pitch Number ID: 3 Site Name: Ennerdale Site ID: Pitch Type; Football

Background information: Number of games played on pitch each season

Number of games cancelled due to unfitness of pitch (excluding frozen pitches) 0 % of games cancelled per season #DIV/0!

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 winter pitch/cricket field

Grass cover - entire pitch / cricket field >94% 85-94% x 70-84% 60-69% <60% Where, 90%+ grass cover should be given 'Excellent'; less than 60% should be considered 'very poor' Length of grass Excellent Good x Poor Very Poor The ideal length of grass will vary between sports Size of pitch / cricket field Yes - fully x No- but adequate No - not adequate Does it meet the NGB standard? See pitch sizes tab for dimensions Adequate safety margins Yes - fullyx No- but adequate No - not adequate Does it meet the NGB standard? See pitch sizes tab for dimensions Slope of pitch / cricket outfield (gradient and cross fall) Flat x Slight Gentle Moderate Severe Cricket wickets should be flat. Evenness of pitch / cricket field Excellent Good x Poor Very Poor Where field is comletely level = 'Excellent' Problem Areas: Evidence of Dog fouling None Yes - some x Yes - lots If no evidence, assume none. May wish to refer to user survey Horse Muck Problem Areas: Evidence of Glass/ stones/ litter None Yes - some x Yes - lots If no evidence, assume none. May wish to refer to user survey eg informal, casual use, unbooked use, kids kickabout etc. If no evidence, assume none .May wish to Problem Areas: Evidence of Unofficial use None Yes - some x Yes - lots refer to user survey Horses

Problem Areas: Evidence of Damage to surface Nonex Yes - some Yes - lots eg. golf divots, car-parking on field etc. If no evidence, assume none.May wish to refer to user survey

Training ; Estimated number of hours per week in season 0 1 to 2 hrs2 to 4 hrs 4+ Training which takes place on the pitch area Changing Accomodation

Changing Accomodation Yes No x Is the pitch served by changing facilities About the equipment/ wicket… Upright, straight, painted , for football, goals are there safe net hooks at both ends. If posts are Winter Sports Only- Goal Posts - quality Excellent Good x Poor dismantled after game, or are removable goals, assume Excellent. Rusty Cricket Only - Is the wicket protected when not used Yes No Is the wicket protected when not in use - can be roped off or covered. Line markings - quality Excellent Good x Poor e.g. Have they been painted recently; are lines straight and clear etc Training area Yes No x eg nets/ goals/ grids off main body of pitch

Scoring: Pitch 32 out of 53 Key: 90%+ An excellent pitch Equipment 4 out of 9 64-90% A good pitch 55-64% An average pitch TOTAL 32 62 30-54% A below average pitch Less than 30 A poor pitch Total Score 52 % Non Technical Visual Quality Assessment - Individual Pitch Assessment

Pitch Number ID: 1 Site Name: Gower road Site ID: Pitch Type; Football

Background information: Number of games played on pitch each season

Number of games cancelled due to unfitness of pitch (excluding frozen pitches) 0 % of games cancelled per season #DIV/0!

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 winter pitch/cricket field

Grass cover - entire pitch / cricket field >94% 85-94% x 70-84% 60-69% <60% Where, 90%+ grass cover should be given 'Excellent'; less than 60% should be considered 'very poor' Length of grass Excellent Good x Poor Very Poor The ideal length of grass will vary between sports Size of pitch / cricket field Yes - fully x No- but adequate No - not adequate Does it meet the NGB standard? See pitch sizes tab for dimensions Adequate safety margins Yes - fullyx No- but adequate No - not adequate Does it meet the NGB standard? See pitch sizes tab for dimensions Slope of pitch / cricket outfield (gradient and cross fall) Flat x Slight Gentle Moderate Severe Cricket wickets should be flat. Evenness of pitch / cricket field Excellent Good x Poor Very Poor Where field is comletely level = 'Excellent' Goal Mouth Dips Problem Areas: Evidence of Dog fouling Nonex Yes - some Yes - lots If no evidence, assume none. May wish to refer to user survey Problem Areas: Evidence of Glass/ stones/ litter None x Yes - some Yes - lots If no evidence, assume none. May wish to refer to user survey eg informal, casual use, unbooked use, kids kickabout etc. If no evidence, assume none .May wish to Problem Areas: Evidence of Unofficial use Nonex Yes - some Yes - lots refer to user survey

Problem Areas: Evidence of Damage to surface Nonex Yes - some Yes - lots eg. golf divots, car-parking on field etc. If no evidence, assume none.May wish to refer to user survey

Training ; Estimated number of hours per week in season 0 1 to 2 hrs2 to 4 hrs 4+ Training which takes place on the pitch area Changing Accomodation

Changing Accomodation Yes No x Is the pitch served by changing facilities (Getting Refurbished) About the equipment/ wicket… Upright, straight, painted , for football, goals are there safe net hooks at both ends. If posts are Winter Sports Only- Goal Posts - quality Excellent Good x Poor x dismantled after game, or are removable goals, assume Excellent. Cricket Only - Is the wicket protected when not used Yes No Is the wicket protected when not in use - can be roped off or covered. Line markings - quality Excellent Good x Poor e.g. Have they been painted recently; are lines straight and clear etc Training area Yes No x eg nets/ goals/ grids off main body of pitch

Scoring: Pitch 35 out of 53 Key: 90%+ An excellent pitch Equipment 4 out of 9 64-90% A good pitch 55-64% An average pitch TOTAL 35 62 30-54% A below average pitch Less than 30 A poor pitch Total Score 56 % Non Technical Visual Quality Assessment - Individual Pitch Assessment

Pitch Number ID: 1 Site Name: Highland football Lothian Way Site ID: Pitch Type; Football

Background information: Number of games played on pitch each season

Number of games cancelled due to unfitness of pitch (excluding frozen pitches) 0 % of games cancelled per season #DIV/0!

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 winter pitch/cricket field

Grass cover - entire pitch / cricket field >94% 85-94% x 70-84% 60-69% <60% Where, 90%+ grass cover should be given 'Excellent'; less than 60% should be considered 'very poor' Length of grass Excellent Good x Poor Very Poor The ideal length of grass will vary between sports Size of pitch / cricket field Yes - fully x No- but adequate No - not adequate Does it meet the NGB standard? See pitch sizes tab for dimensions Adequate safety margins Yes - fullyx No- but adequate No - not adequate Does it meet the NGB standard? See pitch sizes tab for dimensions Slope of pitch / cricket outfield (gradient and cross fall) Flat x Slight Gentle Moderate Severe Cricket wickets should be flat. Evenness of pitch / cricket field Excellent Good x Poor Very Poor Where field is comletely level = 'Excellent' Problem Areas: Evidence of Dog fouling Nonex Yes - some Yes - lots If no evidence, assume none. May wish to refer to user survey Problem Areas: Evidence of Glass/ stones/ litter None x Yes - some Yes - lots If no evidence, assume none. May wish to refer to user survey eg informal, casual use, unbooked use, kids kickabout etc. If no evidence, assume none .May wish to Problem Areas: Evidence of Unofficial use Nonex Yes - some Yes - lots refer to user survey

Problem Areas: Evidence of Damage to surface Nonex Yes - some Yes - lots eg. golf divots, car-parking on field etc. If no evidence, assume none.May wish to refer to user survey

Training ; Estimated number of hours per week in season 0 1 to 2 hrs2 to 4 hrs 4+ Training which takes place on the pitch area Changing Accomodation

Changing Accomodation Yes No x Is the pitch served by changing facilities About the equipment/ wicket… Upright, straight, painted , for football, goals are there safe net hooks at both ends. If posts are Winter Sports Only- Goal Posts - quality Excellent Good x Poor dismantled after game, or are removable goals, assume Excellent. Cricket Only - Is the wicket protected when not used Yes No Is the wicket protected when not in use - can be roped off or covered. Line markings - quality Excellent Good x Poor e.g. Have they been painted recently; are lines straight and clear etc Training area Yes No x eg nets/ goals/ grids off main body of pitch

Scoring: Pitch 35 out of 53 Key: 90%+ An excellent pitch Equipment 4 out of 9 64-90% A good pitch 55-64% An average pitch TOTAL 35 62 30-54% A below average pitch Less than 30 A poor pitch Total Score 56 % Non Technical Visual Quality Assessment - Individual Pitch Assessment

Pitch Number ID: 1 Site Name: King George Playing Fields Site ID: Pitch Type; Football

Background information: Number of games played on pitch each season

Number of games cancelled due to unfitness of pitch (excluding frozen pitches) 0 % of games cancelled per season #DIV/0!

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 winter pitch/cricket field

Grass cover - entire pitch / cricket field >94% 85-94% x 70-84% 60-69% <60% Where, 90%+ grass cover should be given 'Excellent'; less than 60% should be considered 'very poor' Length of grass Excellent Good x Poor Very Poor The ideal length of grass will vary between sports Size of pitch / cricket field Yes - fully x No- but adequate No - not adequate Does it meet the NGB standard? See pitch sizes tab for dimensions Adequate safety margins Yes - fullyx No- but adequate No - not adequate Does it meet the NGB standard? See pitch sizes tab for dimensions Slope of pitch / cricket outfield (gradient and cross fall) Flat x Slight Gentle Moderate Severe Cricket wickets should be flat. Evenness of pitch / cricket field Excellent Good x Poor Very Poor Where field is comletely level = 'Excellent' Problem Areas: Evidence of Dog fouling Nonex Yes - some Yes - lots If no evidence, assume none. May wish to refer to user survey Problem Areas: Evidence of Glass/ stones/ litter None x Yes - some Yes - lots If no evidence, assume none. May wish to refer to user survey eg informal, casual use, unbooked use, kids kickabout etc. If no evidence, assume none .May wish to Problem Areas: Evidence of Unofficial use Nonex Yes - some Yes - lots refer to user survey

Problem Areas: Evidence of Damage to surface Nonex Yes - some Yes - lots eg. golf divots, car-parking on field etc. If no evidence, assume none.May wish to refer to user survey

Training ; Estimated number of hours per week in season 0 1 to 2 hrs2 to 4 hrs 4+ Training which takes place on the pitch area Changing Accomodation

Changing Accomodation Yesx No Is the pitch served by changing facilities About the equipment/ wicket… Upright, straight, painted , for football, goals are there safe net hooks at both ends. If posts are Winter Sports Only- Goal Posts - quality Excellent Good x Poor dismantled after game, or are removable goals, assume Excellent. Rusty Cricket Only - Is the wicket protected when not used Yes No Is the wicket protected when not in use - can be roped off or covered. Line markings - quality Excellent Good x Poor e.g. Have they been painted recently; are lines straight and clear etc Training area Yes No x eg nets/ goals/ grids off main body of pitch

Scoring: Pitch 40 out of 53 Key: 90%+ An excellent pitch Equipment 4 out of 9 64-90% A good pitch 55-64% An average pitch TOTAL 40 62 30-54% A below average pitch Less than 30 A poor pitch Total Score 65 % Non Technical Visual Quality Assessment - Individual Pitch Assessment

Pitch Number ID: 2 Site Name: King George Playing Fields Site ID: Pitch Type; Football

Background information: Number of games played on pitch each season

Number of games cancelled due to unfitness of pitch (excluding frozen pitches) 0 % of games cancelled per season #DIV/0!

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 winter pitch/cricket field

Grass cover - entire pitch / cricket field >94% 85-94% x 70-84% 60-69% <60% Where, 90%+ grass cover should be given 'Excellent'; less than 60% should be considered 'very poor' Length of grass Excellent Good x Poor Very Poor The ideal length of grass will vary between sports Size of pitch / cricket field Yes - fully x No- but adequate No - not adequate Does it meet the NGB standard? See pitch sizes tab for dimensions Adequate safety margins Yes - fullyx No- but adequate No - not adequate Does it meet the NGB standard? See pitch sizes tab for dimensions Slope of pitch / cricket outfield (gradient and cross fall) Flat x Slight Gentle Moderate Severe Cricket wickets should be flat. Evenness of pitch / cricket field Excellent Good x Poor Very Poor Where field is comletely level = 'Excellent' Problem Areas: Evidence of Dog fouling Nonex Yes - some Yes - lots If no evidence, assume none. May wish to refer to user survey Problem Areas: Evidence of Glass/ stones/ litter None x Yes - some Yes - lots If no evidence, assume none. May wish to refer to user survey eg informal, casual use, unbooked use, kids kickabout etc. If no evidence, assume none .May wish to Problem Areas: Evidence of Unofficial use Nonex Yes - some Yes - lots refer to user survey

Problem Areas: Evidence of Damage to surface Nonex Yes - some Yes - lots eg. golf divots, car-parking on field etc. If no evidence, assume none.May wish to refer to user survey

Training ; Estimated number of hours per week in season 0 1 to 2 hrs2 to 4 hrs 4+ Training which takes place on the pitch area Changing Accomodation

Changing Accomodation Yesx No Is the pitch served by changing facilities About the equipment/ wicket… Upright, straight, painted , for football, goals are there safe net hooks at both ends. If posts are Winter Sports Only- Goal Posts - quality Excellent Good x Poor dismantled after game, or are removable goals, assume Excellent. Rusty Cricket Only - Is the wicket protected when not used Yes No Is the wicket protected when not in use - can be roped off or covered. Line markings - quality Excellent Good x Poor e.g. Have they been painted recently; are lines straight and clear etc Training area Yes No x eg nets/ goals/ grids off main body of pitch

Scoring: Pitch 40 out of 53 Key: 90%+ An excellent pitch Equipment 4 out of 9 64-90% A good pitch 55-64% An average pitch TOTAL 40 62 30-54% A below average pitch Less than 30 A poor pitch Total Score 65 % Non Technical Visual Quality Assessment - Individual Pitch Assessment

Pitch Number ID: 1 Site Name: Massey Street Site ID: Pitch Type; Rugby

Background information: Number of games played on pitch each season

Number of games cancelled due to unfitness of pitch (excluding frozen pitches) 0 % of games cancelled per season #DIV/0!

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 winter pitch/cricket field

Grass cover - entire pitch / cricket field >94% 85-94% x 70-84% 60-69% <60% Where, 90%+ grass cover should be given 'Excellent'; less than 60% should be considered 'very poor' Length of grass Excellent Good x Poor Very Poor The ideal length of grass will vary between sports Size of pitch / cricket field Yes - fully x No- but adequate No - not adequate Does it meet the NGB standard? See pitch sizes tab for dimensions Adequate safety margins Yes - fullyx No- but adequate No - not adequate Does it meet the NGB standard? See pitch sizes tab for dimensions Slope of pitch / cricket outfield (gradient and cross fall) Flat x Slight Gentle Moderate Severe Cricket wickets should be flat. Evenness of pitch / cricket field Excellent Good x Poor Very Poor Where field is comletely level = 'Excellent' Problem Areas: Evidence of Dog fouling Nonex Yes - some Yes - lots If no evidence, assume none. May wish to refer to user survey Problem Areas: Evidence of Glass/ stones/ litter None x Yes - some Yes - lots If no evidence, assume none. May wish to refer to user survey eg informal, casual use, unbooked use, kids kickabout etc. If no evidence, assume none .May wish to Problem Areas: Evidence of Unofficial use Nonex Yes - some Yes - lots refer to user survey

Problem Areas: Evidence of Damage to surface Nonex Yes - some Yes - lots eg. golf divots, car-parking on field etc. If no evidence, assume none.May wish to refer to user survey

Training ; Estimated number of hours per week in season 0 1 to 2 hrs2 to 4 hrs 4+ Training which takes place on the pitch area Changing Accomodation

Changing Accomodation Yesx No Is the pitch served by changing facilities About the equipment/ wicket… Upright, straight, painted , for football, goals are there safe net hooks at both ends. If posts are Winter Sports Only- Goal Posts - quality Excellent Good x Poor dismantled after game, or are removable goals, assume Excellent. Cricket Only - Is the wicket protected when not used Yes No Is the wicket protected when not in use - can be roped off or covered. Line markings - quality Excellent Good x Poor e.g. Have they been painted recently; are lines straight and clear etc Training area Yes No x eg nets/ goals/ grids off main body of pitch

Scoring: Pitch 40 out of 53 Key: 90%+ An excellent pitch Equipment 4 out of 9 64-90% A good pitch 55-64% An average pitch TOTAL 40 62 30-54% A below average pitch Less than 30 A poor pitch Total Score 65 % Non Technical Visual Quality Assessment - Individual Pitch Assessment

Pitch Number ID: 2 Site Name: Massey Street Site ID: Pitch Type; Football

Background information: Number of games played on pitch each season

Number of games cancelled due to unfitness of pitch (excluding frozen pitches) 0 % of games cancelled per season #DIV/0!

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 winter pitch/cricket field

Grass cover - entire pitch / cricket field >94% 85-94% x 70-84% 60-69% <60% Where, 90%+ grass cover should be given 'Excellent'; less than 60% should be considered 'very poor' Length of grass Excellent Good x Poor Very Poor The ideal length of grass will vary between sports Size of pitch / cricket field Yes - fully x No- but adequate No - not adequate Does it meet the NGB standard? See pitch sizes tab for dimensions Adequate safety margins Yes - fullyx No- but adequate No - not adequate Does it meet the NGB standard? See pitch sizes tab for dimensions Slope of pitch / cricket outfield (gradient and cross fall) Flat x Slight Gentle Moderate Severe Cricket wickets should be flat. Evenness of pitch / cricket field Excellent Good x Poor Very Poor Where field is comletely level = 'Excellent' Problem Areas: Evidence of Dog fouling Nonex Yes - some Yes - lots If no evidence, assume none. May wish to refer to user survey Problem Areas: Evidence of Glass/ stones/ litter None x Yes - some Yes - lots If no evidence, assume none. May wish to refer to user survey eg informal, casual use, unbooked use, kids kickabout etc. If no evidence, assume none .May wish to Problem Areas: Evidence of Unofficial use Nonex Yes - some Yes - lots refer to user survey

Problem Areas: Evidence of Damage to surface Nonex Yes - some Yes - lots eg. golf divots, car-parking on field etc. If no evidence, assume none.May wish to refer to user survey

Training ; Estimated number of hours per week in season 0 1 to 2 hrs2 to 4 hrs 4+ Training which takes place on the pitch area Changing Accomodation

Changing Accomodation Yesx No Is the pitch served by changing facilities About the equipment/ wicket… Upright, straight, painted , for football, goals are there safe net hooks at both ends. If posts are Winter Sports Only- Goal Posts - quality Excellent Good x Poor dismantled after game, or are removable goals, assume Excellent. Cricket Only - Is the wicket protected when not used Yes No Is the wicket protected when not in use - can be roped off or covered. Line markings - quality Excellent Good x Poor e.g. Have they been painted recently; are lines straight and clear etc Training area Yes No x eg nets/ goals/ grids off main body of pitch

Scoring: Pitch 40 out of 53 Key: 90%+ An excellent pitch Equipment 4 out of 9 64-90% A good pitch 55-64% An average pitch TOTAL 40 62 30-54% A below average pitch Less than 30 A poor pitch Total Score 65 % Non Technical Visual Quality Assessment - Individual Pitch Assessment

Pitch Number ID: 1 Site Name: Pelican Site ID: Pitch Type; Football

Background information: Number of games played on pitch each season

Number of games cancelled due to unfitness of pitch (excluding frozen pitches) 0 % of games cancelled per season #DIV/0!

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 winter pitch/cricket field

Grass cover - entire pitch / cricket field >94% 85-94% x 70-84% 60-69% <60% Where, 90%+ grass cover should be given 'Excellent'; less than 60% should be considered 'very poor' Length of grass Excellent Good Poor x Very Poor The ideal length of grass will vary between sports Size of pitch / cricket field Yes - fully No- but adequate No - not adequate x Does it meet the NGB standard? See pitch sizes tab for dimensions Adequate safety margins Yes - fullyx No- but adequate No - not adequate Does it meet the NGB standard? See pitch sizes tab for dimensions Slope of pitch / cricket outfield (gradient and cross fall) Flat x Slight Gentle Moderate Severe Cricket wickets should be flat. Evenness of pitch / cricket field Excellent Good x Poor Very Poor Where field is comletely level = 'Excellent' Problem Areas: Evidence of Dog fouling Nonex Yes - some Yes - lots If no evidence, assume none. May wish to refer to user survey Problem Areas: Evidence of Glass/ stones/ litter None x Yes - some Yes - lots If no evidence, assume none. May wish to refer to user survey eg informal, casual use, unbooked use, kids kickabout etc. If no evidence, assume none .May wish to Problem Areas: Evidence of Unofficial use Nonex Yes - some Yes - lots refer to user survey

Problem Areas: Evidence of Damage to surface Nonex Yes - some Yes - lots eg. golf divots, car-parking on field etc. If no evidence, assume none.May wish to refer to user survey

Training ; Estimated number of hours per week in season 0 1 to 2 hrs2 to 4 hrs 4+ Training which takes place on the pitch area Changing Accomodation

Changing Accomodation Yes No x Is the pitch served by changing facilities About the equipment/ wicket… Upright, straight, painted , for football, goals are there safe net hooks at both ends. If posts are Winter Sports Only- Goal Posts - quality Excellent Good Poor x dismantled after game, or are removable goals, assume Excellent. No Posts Cricket Only - Is the wicket protected when not used Yes No Is the wicket protected when not in use - can be roped off or covered. Line markings - quality Excellent x Good Poor e.g. Have they been painted recently; are lines straight and clear etc Training area Yes No x eg nets/ goals/ grids off main body of pitch

Scoring: Pitch 30 out of 53 Key: 90%+ An excellent pitch Equipment 3 out of 9 64-90% A good pitch 55-64% An average pitch TOTAL 30 62 30-54% A below average pitch Less than 30 A poor pitch Total Score 48 % Non Technical Visual Quality Assessment - Individual Pitch Assessment

Pitch Number ID: 2 Site Name: Pelican park Site ID: Pitch Type; Football

Background information: Number of games played on pitch each season

Number of games cancelled due to unfitness of pitch (excluding frozen pitches) 0 % of games cancelled per season #DIV/0!

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 winter pitch/cricket field

Grass cover - entire pitch / cricket field >94% 85-94% x 70-84% 60-69% <60% Where, 90%+ grass cover should be given 'Excellent'; less than 60% should be considered 'very poor' Length of grass Excellent Good x Poor Very Poor The ideal length of grass will vary between sports Size of pitch / cricket field Yes - fully x No- but adequate No - not adequate Does it meet the NGB standard? See pitch sizes tab for dimensions Adequate safety margins Yes - fullyx No- but adequate No - not adequate Does it meet the NGB standard? See pitch sizes tab for dimensions Slope of pitch / cricket outfield (gradient and cross fall) Flat Slight x Gentle Moderate Severe Cricket wickets should be flat. Evenness of pitch / cricket field Excellent Good Poor x Very Poor Where field is comletely level = 'Excellent' Goal Mouth uneven Problem Areas: Evidence of Dog fouling Nonex Yes - some Yes - lots If no evidence, assume none. May wish to refer to user survey Problem Areas: Evidence of Glass/ stones/ litter None x Yes - some Yes - lots If no evidence, assume none. May wish to refer to user survey eg informal, casual use, unbooked use, kids kickabout etc. If no evidence, assume none .May wish to Problem Areas: Evidence of Unofficial use Nonex Yes - some Yes - lots refer to user survey

Problem Areas: Evidence of Damage to surface Nonex Yes - some Yes - lots eg. golf divots, car-parking on field etc. If no evidence, assume none.May wish to refer to user survey

Training ; Estimated number of hours per week in season 0 1 to 2 hrs2 to 4 hrs 4+ Training which takes place on the pitch area Changing Accomodation

Changing Accomodation Yes No x Is the pitch served by changing facilities About the equipment/ wicket… Upright, straight, painted , for football, goals are there safe net hooks at both ends. If posts are Winter Sports Only- Goal Posts - quality Excellent Good x Poor dismantled after game, or are removable goals, assume Excellent. Cricket Only - Is the wicket protected when not used Yes No Is the wicket protected when not in use - can be roped off or covered. Line markings - quality Excellent Good x Poor e.g. Have they been painted recently; are lines straight and clear etc Training area Yes No x eg nets/ goals/ grids off main body of pitch

Scoring: Pitch 32 out of 53 Key: 90%+ An excellent pitch Equipment 4 out of 9 64-90% A good pitch 55-64% An average pitch TOTAL 32 62 30-54% A below average pitch Less than 30 A poor pitch Total Score 52 % Non Technical Visual Quality Assessment - Individual Pitch Assessment

Pitch Number ID: 3 Site Name: Pelican Site ID: Pitch Type; Football

Background information: Number of games played on pitch each season

Number of games cancelled due to unfitness of pitch (excluding frozen pitches) 0 % of games cancelled per season #DIV/0!

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 winter pitch/cricket field

Grass cover - entire pitch / cricket field >94% 85-94% 70-84% x 60-69% <60% Where, 90%+ grass cover should be given 'Excellent'; less than 60% should be considered 'very poor' Weeds Length of grass Excellent Good x Poor Very Poor The ideal length of grass will vary between sports Size of pitch / cricket field Yes - fully x No- but adequate No - not adequate Does it meet the NGB standard? See pitch sizes tab for dimensions Adequate safety margins Yes - fullyx No- but adequate No - not adequate Does it meet the NGB standard? See pitch sizes tab for dimensions Slope of pitch / cricket outfield (gradient and cross fall) Flat x Slight Gentle Moderate Severe Cricket wickets should be flat. Evenness of pitch / cricket field Excellent Good x Poor Very Poor Where field is comletely level = 'Excellent' Problem Areas: Evidence of Dog fouling Nonex Yes - some Yes - lots If no evidence, assume none. May wish to refer to user survey Problem Areas: Evidence of Glass/ stones/ litter None x Yes - some Yes - lots If no evidence, assume none. May wish to refer to user survey eg informal, casual use, unbooked use, kids kickabout etc. If no evidence, assume none .May wish to Problem Areas: Evidence of Unofficial use Nonex Yes - some Yes - lots refer to user survey

Problem Areas: Evidence of Damage to surface Nonex Yes - some Yes - lots eg. golf divots, car-parking on field etc. If no evidence, assume none.May wish to refer to user survey

Training ; Estimated number of hours per week in season 0 1 to 2 hrs2 to 4 hrs 4+ Training which takes place on the pitch area Changing Accomodation

Changing Accomodation Yes No x Is the pitch served by changing facilities About the equipment/ wicket… Upright, straight, painted , for football, goals are there safe net hooks at both ends. If posts are Winter Sports Only- Goal Posts - quality Excellent Good Poor dismantled after game, or are removable goals, assume Excellent. Cricket Only - Is the wicket protected when not used Yesx No Is the wicket protected when not in use - can be roped off or covered. Line markings - quality Excellent Good Poor e.g. Have they been painted recently; are lines straight and clear etc N/A Training area Yes No x eg nets/ goals/ grids off main body of pitch

Scoring: Pitch 34 out of 53 Key: 90%+ An excellent pitch Equipment 3 out of 9 64-90% A good pitch 55-64% An average pitch TOTAL 34 62 30-54% A below average pitch Less than 30 A poor pitch Total Score 55 % Non Technical Visual Quality Assessment - Individual Pitch Assessment

Pitch Number ID: 1 Site Name: Pickering Road Site ID: Pitch Type; Football

Background information: Number of games played on pitch each season

Number of games cancelled due to unfitness of pitch (excluding frozen pitches) 0 % of games cancelled per season #DIV/0!

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 winter pitch/cricket field

Grass cover - entire pitch / cricket field >94% 85-94% x 70-84% 60-69% <60% Where, 90%+ grass cover should be given 'Excellent'; less than 60% should be considered 'very poor' Length of grass Excellent Good x Poor Very Poor The ideal length of grass will vary between sports Size of pitch / cricket field Yes - fully x No- but adequate No - not adequate Does it meet the NGB standard? See pitch sizes tab for dimensions Adequate safety margins Yes - fullyx No- but adequate No - not adequate Does it meet the NGB standard? See pitch sizes tab for dimensions Slope of pitch / cricket outfield (gradient and cross fall) Flat x Slight Gentle Moderate Severe Cricket wickets should be flat. Evenness of pitch / cricket field Excellent Good x Poor Very Poor Where field is comletely level = 'Excellent' Problem Areas: Evidence of Dog fouling Nonex Yes - some Yes - lots If no evidence, assume none. May wish to refer to user survey Problem Areas: Evidence of Glass/ stones/ litter None x Yes - some Yes - lots If no evidence, assume none. May wish to refer to user survey eg informal, casual use, unbooked use, kids kickabout etc. If no evidence, assume none .May wish to Problem Areas: Evidence of Unofficial use None Yes - some Yes - lots refer to user survey

Problem Areas: Evidence of Damage to surface None Yes - some x Yes - lots eg. golf divots, car-parking on field etc. If no evidence, assume none.May wish to refer to user survey Car tyre ruts

Training ; Estimated number of hours per week in season 0 1 to 2 hrs2 to 4 hrs 4+ Training which takes place on the pitch area Changing Accomodation

Changing Accomodation Yesx No Is the pitch served by changing facilities About the equipment/ wicket… Upright, straight, painted , for football, goals are there safe net hooks at both ends. If posts are Winter Sports Only- Goal Posts - quality Excellent Good x Poor dismantled after game, or are removable goals, assume Excellent. Rusty Cricket Only - Is the wicket protected when not used Yes No Is the wicket protected when not in use - can be roped off or covered. Line markings - quality Excellent Good x Poor e.g. Have they been painted recently; are lines straight and clear etc Training area Yes No x eg nets/ goals/ grids off main body of pitch

Scoring: Pitch 36 out of 53 Key: 90%+ An excellent pitch Equipment 4 out of 9 64-90% A good pitch 55-64% An average pitch TOTAL 36 62 30-54% A below average pitch Less than 30 A poor pitch Total Score 58 % Non Technical Visual Quality Assessment - Individual Pitch Assessment

Pitch Number ID: 2 Site Name: Pickering Road Site ID: Pitch Type; Football

Background information: Number of games played on pitch each season

Number of games cancelled due to unfitness of pitch (excluding frozen pitches) 0 % of games cancelled per season #DIV/0!

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 winter pitch/cricket field

Grass cover - entire pitch / cricket field >94% 85-94% x 70-84% 60-69% <60% Where, 90%+ grass cover should be given 'Excellent'; less than 60% should be considered 'very poor' Length of grass Excellent Good x Poor Very Poor The ideal length of grass will vary between sports Size of pitch / cricket field Yes - fully x No- but adequate No - not adequate Does it meet the NGB standard? See pitch sizes tab for dimensions Adequate safety margins Yes - fullyx No- but adequate No - not adequate Does it meet the NGB standard? See pitch sizes tab for dimensions Slope of pitch / cricket outfield (gradient and cross fall) Flat x Slight Gentle Moderate Severe Cricket wickets should be flat. Evenness of pitch / cricket field Excellent Good x Poor Very Poor Where field is comletely level = 'Excellent' Problem Areas: Evidence of Dog fouling Nonex Yes - some Yes - lots If no evidence, assume none. May wish to refer to user survey Problem Areas: Evidence of Glass/ stones/ litter None x Yes - some Yes - lots If no evidence, assume none. May wish to refer to user survey eg informal, casual use, unbooked use, kids kickabout etc. If no evidence, assume none .May wish to Problem Areas: Evidence of Unofficial use Nonex Yes - some Yes - lots refer to user survey

Problem Areas: Evidence of Damage to surface Nonex Yes - some Yes - lots eg. golf divots, car-parking on field etc. If no evidence, assume none.May wish to refer to user survey

Training ; Estimated number of hours per week in season 0 1 to 2 hrs2 to 4 hrs 4+ Training which takes place on the pitch area Changing Accomodation

Changing Accomodation Yesx No Is the pitch served by changing facilities About the equipment/ wicket… Upright, straight, painted , for football, goals are there safe net hooks at both ends. If posts are Winter Sports Only- Goal Posts - quality Excellent Good x Poor dismantled after game, or are removable goals, assume Excellent. Rusty Cricket Only - Is the wicket protected when not used Yes No Is the wicket protected when not in use - can be roped off or covered. Line markings - quality Excellent Good x Poor e.g. Have they been painted recently; are lines straight and clear etc Training area Yes No x eg nets/ goals/ grids off main body of pitch

Scoring: Pitch 40 out of 53 Key: 90%+ An excellent pitch Equipment 4 out of 9 64-90% A good pitch 55-64% An average pitch TOTAL 40 62 30-54% A below average pitch Less than 30 A poor pitch Total Score 65 % Non Technical Visual Quality Assessment - Individual Pitch Assessment

Pitch Number ID: 3 Site Name: Pickering Road Site ID: Pitch Type; Football

Background information: Number of games played on pitch each season

Number of games cancelled due to unfitness of pitch (excluding frozen pitches) 0 % of games cancelled per season #DIV/0!

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 winter pitch/cricket field

Grass cover - entire pitch / cricket field >94% 85-94% x 70-84% 60-69% <60% Where, 90%+ grass cover should be given 'Excellent'; less than 60% should be considered 'very poor' 1 Bare Patch Length of grass Excellent Good x Poor Very Poor The ideal length of grass will vary between sports Size of pitch / cricket field Yes - fully x No- but adequate No - not adequate Does it meet the NGB standard? See pitch sizes tab for dimensions Adequate safety margins Yes - fullyx No- but adequate No - not adequate Does it meet the NGB standard? See pitch sizes tab for dimensions Slope of pitch / cricket outfield (gradient and cross fall) Flat x Slight Gentle Moderate Severe Cricket wickets should be flat. Evenness of pitch / cricket field Excellent Good x Poor Very Poor Where field is comletely level = 'Excellent' Problem Areas: Evidence of Dog fouling Nonex Yes - some Yes - lots If no evidence, assume none. May wish to refer to user survey Problem Areas: Evidence of Glass/ stones/ litter None x Yes - some Yes - lots If no evidence, assume none. May wish to refer to user survey eg informal, casual use, unbooked use, kids kickabout etc. If no evidence, assume none .May wish to Problem Areas: Evidence of Unofficial use Nonex Yes - some Yes - lots refer to user survey

Problem Areas: Evidence of Damage to surface Nonex Yes - some Yes - lots eg. golf divots, car-parking on field etc. If no evidence, assume none.May wish to refer to user survey

Training ; Estimated number of hours per week in season 0 1 to 2 hrs2 to 4 hrs 4+ Training which takes place on the pitch area Changing Accomodation

Changing Accomodation Yesx No Is the pitch served by changing facilities About the equipment/ wicket… Upright, straight, painted , for football, goals are there safe net hooks at both ends. If posts are Winter Sports Only- Goal Posts - quality Excellent Good x Poor dismantled after game, or are removable goals, assume Excellent. Rusty Cricket Only - Is the wicket protected when not used Yes No Is the wicket protected when not in use - can be roped off or covered. Line markings - quality Excellent Good x Poor e.g. Have they been painted recently; are lines straight and clear etc Training area Yes No x eg nets/ goals/ grids off main body of pitch

Scoring: Pitch 40 out of 53 Key: 90%+ An excellent pitch Equipment 4 out of 9 64-90% A good pitch 55-64% An average pitch TOTAL 40 62 30-54% A below average pitch Less than 30 A poor pitch Total Score 65 % Non Technical Visual Quality Assessment - Individual Pitch Assessment

Pitch Number ID: 4 Site Name: Pickering Road Site ID: Pitch Type; Football

Background information: Number of games played on pitch each season

Number of games cancelled due to unfitness of pitch (excluding frozen pitches) 0 % of games cancelled per season #DIV/0!

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 winter pitch/cricket field

Grass cover - entire pitch / cricket field >94% 85-94% x 70-84% 60-69% <60% Where, 90%+ grass cover should be given 'Excellent'; less than 60% should be considered 'very poor' Length of grass Excellent Good x Poor Very Poor The ideal length of grass will vary between sports Size of pitch / cricket field Yes - fully x No- but adequate No - not adequate Does it meet the NGB standard? See pitch sizes tab for dimensions Adequate safety margins Yes - fullyx No- but adequate No - not adequate Does it meet the NGB standard? See pitch sizes tab for dimensions Slope of pitch / cricket outfield (gradient and cross fall) Flat x Slight Gentle Moderate Severe Cricket wickets should be flat. Evenness of pitch / cricket field Excellent GoodPoor Very Poor Where field is comletely level = 'Excellent' Problem Areas: Evidence of Dog fouling Nonex Yes - some Yes - lots If no evidence, assume none. May wish to refer to user survey Problem Areas: Evidence of Glass/ stones/ litter None x Yes - some Yes - lots If no evidence, assume none. May wish to refer to user survey eg informal, casual use, unbooked use, kids kickabout etc. If no evidence, assume none .May wish to Problem Areas: Evidence of Unofficial use Nonex Yes - some Yes - lots refer to user survey

Problem Areas: Evidence of Damage to surface Nonex Yes - some Yes - lots eg. golf divots, car-parking on field etc. If no evidence, assume none.May wish to refer to user survey

Training ; Estimated number of hours per week in season 0 1 to 2 hrs2 to 4 hrs 4+ Training which takes place on the pitch area Changing Accomodation

Changing Accomodation Yesx No Is the pitch served by changing facilities About the equipment/ wicket… Upright, straight, painted , for football, goals are there safe net hooks at both ends. If posts are Winter Sports Only- Goal Posts - quality Excellent Good x Poor dismantled after game, or are removable goals, assume Excellent. Rusty Cricket Only - Is the wicket protected when not used Yes No Is the wicket protected when not in use - can be roped off or covered. Line markings - quality Excellent Good x Poor e.g. Have they been painted recently; are lines straight and clear etc Training area Yes No x eg nets/ goals/ grids off main body of pitch

Scoring: Pitch 36 out of 53 Key: 90%+ An excellent pitch Equipment 4 out of 9 64-90% A good pitch 55-64% An average pitch TOTAL 36 62 30-54% A below average pitch Less than 30 A poor pitch Total Score 58 % Non Technical Visual Quality Assessment - Individual Pitch Assessment

Pitch Number ID: 1 Site Name: Princess Elizabeth Playing Fields Site ID: Pitch Type; Football

Background information: Number of games played on pitch each season

Number of games cancelled due to unfitness of pitch (excluding frozen pitches) 0 % of games cancelled per season #DIV/0!

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 winter pitch/cricket field

Grass cover - entire pitch / cricket field >94% 85-94% x 70-84% 60-69% <60% Where, 90%+ grass cover should be given 'Excellent'; less than 60% should be considered 'very poor' Length of grass Excellent Good x Poor Very Poor The ideal length of grass will vary between sports Size of pitch / cricket field Yes - fully x No- but adequate No - not adequate Does it meet the NGB standard? See pitch sizes tab for dimensions Adequate safety margins Yes - fullyx No- but adequate No - not adequate Does it meet the NGB standard? See pitch sizes tab for dimensions Slope of pitch / cricket outfield (gradient and cross fall) Flat x Slight Gentle Moderate Severe Cricket wickets should be flat. Evenness of pitch / cricket field Excellent Good x Poor Very Poor Where field is comletely level = 'Excellent' Goal Mouth Dips Problem Areas: Evidence of Dog fouling Nonex Yes - some Yes - lots If no evidence, assume none. May wish to refer to user survey Problem Areas: Evidence of Glass/ stones/ litter None x Yes - some Yes - lots If no evidence, assume none. May wish to refer to user survey eg informal, casual use, unbooked use, kids kickabout etc. If no evidence, assume none .May wish to Problem Areas: Evidence of Unofficial use Nonex Yes - some Yes - lots refer to user survey

Problem Areas: Evidence of Damage to surface Nonex Yes - some Yes - lots eg. golf divots, car-parking on field etc. If no evidence, assume none.May wish to refer to user survey

Training ; Estimated number of hours per week in season 0 1 to 2 hrs2 to 4 hrs 4+ Training which takes place on the pitch area Changing Accomodation

Changing Accomodation Yes No x Is the pitch served by changing facilities About the equipment/ wicket… Upright, straight, painted , for football, goals are there safe net hooks at both ends. If posts are Winter Sports Only- Goal Posts - quality Excellent Good x Poor dismantled after game, or are removable goals, assume Excellent. Cricket Only - Is the wicket protected when not used Yes No Is the wicket protected when not in use - can be roped off or covered. Line markings - quality Excellent Good x Poor e.g. Have they been painted recently; are lines straight and clear etc Training area Yes No x eg nets/ goals/ grids off main body of pitch

Scoring: Pitch 35 out of 53 Key: 90%+ An excellent pitch Equipment 4 out of 9 64-90% A good pitch 55-64% An average pitch TOTAL 35 62 30-54% A below average pitch Less than 30 A poor pitch Total Score 56 % Non Technical Visual Quality Assessment - Individual Pitch Assessment

Pitch Number ID: 2 Site Name: Princess Elizabeth Playing Fields Site ID: Pitch Type; Football

Background information: Number of games played on pitch each season

Number of games cancelled due to unfitness of pitch (excluding frozen pitches) 0 % of games cancelled per season #DIV/0!

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 winter pitch/cricket field

Grass cover - entire pitch / cricket field >94% 85-94% x 70-84% 60-69% <60% Where, 90%+ grass cover should be given 'Excellent'; less than 60% should be considered 'very poor' Length of grass Excellent Good x Poor Very Poor The ideal length of grass will vary between sports Size of pitch / cricket field Yes - fully x No- but adequate No - not adequate Does it meet the NGB standard? See pitch sizes tab for dimensions Adequate safety margins Yes - fullyx No- but adequate No - not adequate Does it meet the NGB standard? See pitch sizes tab for dimensions Slope of pitch / cricket outfield (gradient and cross fall) Flat x Slight Gentle Moderate Severe Cricket wickets should be flat. Evenness of pitch / cricket field Excellent Good x Poor Very Poor Where field is comletely level = 'Excellent' Goal Mouth Dips Problem Areas: Evidence of Dog fouling Nonex Yes - some Yes - lots If no evidence, assume none. May wish to refer to user survey Problem Areas: Evidence of Glass/ stones/ litter None x Yes - some Yes - lots If no evidence, assume none. May wish to refer to user survey eg informal, casual use, unbooked use, kids kickabout etc. If no evidence, assume none .May wish to Problem Areas: Evidence of Unofficial use None Yes - some x Yes - lots refer to user survey Motorcycles

Problem Areas: Evidence of Damage to surface None Yes - some x Yes - lots eg. golf divots, car-parking on field etc. If no evidence, assume none.May wish to refer to user survey Motorcycle Ruts

Training ; Estimated number of hours per week in season 0 1 to 2 hrs2 to 4 hrs 4+ Training which takes place on the pitch area Changing Accomodation

Changing Accomodation Yes No x Is the pitch served by changing facilities About the equipment/ wicket… Upright, straight, painted , for football, goals are there safe net hooks at both ends. If posts are Winter Sports Only- Goal Posts - quality Excellent Good x Poor dismantled after game, or are removable goals, assume Excellent. Cricket Only - Is the wicket protected when not used Yes No Is the wicket protected when not in use - can be roped off or covered. Line markings - quality Excellent Good x Poor e.g. Have they been painted recently; are lines straight and clear etc Training area Yes No x eg nets/ goals/ grids off main body of pitch

Scoring: Pitch 33 out of 53 Key: 90%+ An excellent pitch Equipment 4 out of 9 64-90% A good pitch 55-64% An average pitch TOTAL 33 62 30-54% A below average pitch Less than 30 A poor pitch Total Score 53 % Non Technical Visual Quality Assessment - Individual Pitch Assessment

Pitch Number ID: 3 Site Name: Princess Elizabeth Playing Fields Site ID: Pitch Type; Cricket

Background information: Number of games played on pitch each season

Number of games cancelled due to unfitness of pitch (excluding frozen pitches) 0 % of games cancelled per season #DIV/0!

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 winter pitch/cricket field

Grass cover - entire pitch / cricket field >94% 85-94% x 70-84% 60-69% <60% Where, 90%+ grass cover should be given 'Excellent'; less than 60% should be considered 'very poor' Length of grass Excellent Good x Poor Very Poor The ideal length of grass will vary between sports Size of pitch / cricket field Yes - fully x No- but adequate No - not adequate Does it meet the NGB standard? See pitch sizes tab for dimensions Adequate safety margins Yes - fullyx No- but adequate No - not adequate Does it meet the NGB standard? See pitch sizes tab for dimensions Slope of pitch / cricket outfield (gradient and cross fall) Flat x Slight Gentle Moderate Severe Cricket wickets should be flat. Evenness of pitch / cricket field Excellent Good x Poor Very Poor Where field is comletely level = 'Excellent' Problem Areas: Evidence of Dog fouling Nonex Yes - some Yes - lots If no evidence, assume none. May wish to refer to user survey Problem Areas: Evidence of Glass/ stones/ litter None x Yes - some Yes - lots If no evidence, assume none. May wish to refer to user survey eg informal, casual use, unbooked use, kids kickabout etc. If no evidence, assume none .May wish to Problem Areas: Evidence of Unofficial use None Yes - some x Yes - lots refer to user survey Motorcycles

Problem Areas: Evidence of Damage to surface None Yes - some x Yes - lots eg. golf divots, car-parking on field etc. If no evidence, assume none.May wish to refer to user survey Motorcycle Ruts

Training ; Estimated number of hours per week in season 0 1 to 2 hrs2 to 4 hrs 4+ Training which takes place on the pitch area Changing Accomodation

Changing Accomodation Yes No x Is the pitch served by changing facilities About the equipment/ wicket… Upright, straight, painted , for football, goals are there safe net hooks at both ends. If posts are Winter Sports Only- Goal Posts - quality Excellent Good Poor dismantled after game, or are removable goals, assume Excellent. Cricket Only - Is the wicket protected when not used Yes No x Is the wicket protected when not in use - can be roped off or covered. Line markings - quality Excellent Good x Poor e.g. Have they been painted recently; are lines straight and clear etc Training area Yes No x eg nets/ goals/ grids off main body of pitch

Scoring: Pitch 33 out of 53 Key: 90%+ An excellent pitch Equipment 2 out of 9 64-90% A good pitch 55-64% An average pitch TOTAL 33 62 30-54% A below average pitch Less than 30 A poor pitch Total Score 53 % Non Technical Visual Quality Assessment - Individual Pitch Assessment

Pitch Number ID: 4 Site Name: Princess Elizabeth Playing Fields Site ID: Pitch Type; Cricket

Background information: Number of games played on pitch each season

Number of games cancelled due to unfitness of pitch (excluding frozen pitches) 0 % of games cancelled per season #DIV/0!

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 winter pitch/cricket field

Grass cover - entire pitch / cricket field >94% 85-94% x 70-84% 60-69% <60% Where, 90%+ grass cover should be given 'Excellent'; less than 60% should be considered 'very poor' Length of grass Excellent Good x Poor Very Poor The ideal length of grass will vary between sports Size of pitch / cricket field Yes - fully x No- but adequate No - not adequate Does it meet the NGB standard? See pitch sizes tab for dimensions Adequate safety margins Yes - fullyx No- but adequate No - not adequate Does it meet the NGB standard? See pitch sizes tab for dimensions Slope of pitch / cricket outfield (gradient and cross fall) Flat x Slight Gentle Moderate Severe Cricket wickets should be flat. Evenness of pitch / cricket field Excellent Good x Poor Very Poor Where field is comletely level = 'Excellent' Problem Areas: Evidence of Dog fouling Nonex Yes - some Yes - lots If no evidence, assume none. May wish to refer to user survey Problem Areas: Evidence of Glass/ stones/ litter None x Yes - some Yes - lots If no evidence, assume none. May wish to refer to user survey eg informal, casual use, unbooked use, kids kickabout etc. If no evidence, assume none .May wish to Problem Areas: Evidence of Unofficial use Nonex Yes - some Yes - lots refer to user survey

Problem Areas: Evidence of Damage to surface Nonex Yes - some Yes - lots eg. golf divots, car-parking on field etc. If no evidence, assume none.May wish to refer to user survey

Training ; Estimated number of hours per week in season 0 1 to 2 hrs2 to 4 hrs 4+ Training which takes place on the pitch area Changing Accomodation

Changing Accomodation Yes No x Is the pitch served by changing facilities About the equipment/ wicket… Upright, straight, painted , for football, goals are there safe net hooks at both ends. If posts are Winter Sports Only- Goal Posts - quality Excellent Good Poor dismantled after game, or are removable goals, assume Excellent. Cricket Only - Is the wicket protected when not used Yes No x Is the wicket protected when not in use - can be roped off or covered. Line markings - quality Excellent Good x Poor e.g. Have they been painted recently; are lines straight and clear etc Training area Yes No x eg nets/ goals/ grids off main body of pitch

Scoring: Pitch 35 out of 53 Key: 90%+ An excellent pitch Equipment 2 out of 9 64-90% A good pitch 55-64% An average pitch TOTAL 35 62 30-54% A below average pitch Less than 30 A poor pitch Total Score 56 % Non Technical Visual Quality Assessment - Individual Pitch Assessment

Pitch Number ID: 5 Site Name: Princess Elizabeth Playing Fields Site ID: Pitch Type; Cricket

Background information: Number of games played on pitch each season

Number of games cancelled due to unfitness of pitch (excluding frozen pitches) 0 % of games cancelled per season #DIV/0!

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 winter pitch/cricket field

Grass cover - entire pitch / cricket field >94% 85-94% x 70-84% 60-69% <60% Where, 90%+ grass cover should be given 'Excellent'; less than 60% should be considered 'very poor' Length of grass Excellent Good x Poor Very Poor The ideal length of grass will vary between sports Size of pitch / cricket field Yes - fully x No- but adequate No - not adequate Does it meet the NGB standard? See pitch sizes tab for dimensions Adequate safety margins Yes - fullyx No- but adequate No - not adequate Does it meet the NGB standard? See pitch sizes tab for dimensions Slope of pitch / cricket outfield (gradient and cross fall) Flat x Slight Gentle Moderate Severe Cricket wickets should be flat. Evenness of pitch / cricket field Excellent Good x Poor Very Poor Where field is comletely level = 'Excellent' Problem Areas: Evidence of Dog fouling Nonex Yes - some Yes - lots If no evidence, assume none. May wish to refer to user survey Problem Areas: Evidence of Glass/ stones/ litter None x Yes - some Yes - lots If no evidence, assume none. May wish to refer to user survey eg informal, casual use, unbooked use, kids kickabout etc. If no evidence, assume none .May wish to Problem Areas: Evidence of Unofficial use None Yes - some x Yes - lots refer to user survey Motorcycles

Problem Areas: Evidence of Damage to surface None Yes - some x Yes - lots eg. golf divots, car-parking on field etc. If no evidence, assume none.May wish to refer to user survey Motorcycle Ruts

Training ; Estimated number of hours per week in season 0 1 to 2 hrs2 to 4 hrs 4+ Training which takes place on the pitch area Changing Accomodation

Changing Accomodation Yes No x Is the pitch served by changing facilities About the equipment/ wicket… Upright, straight, painted , for football, goals are there safe net hooks at both ends. If posts are Winter Sports Only- Goal Posts - quality Excellent Good Poor dismantled after game, or are removable goals, assume Excellent. Cricket Only - Is the wicket protected when not used Yes No x Is the wicket protected when not in use - can be roped off or covered. Line markings - quality Excellent Good x Poor e.g. Have they been painted recently; are lines straight and clear etc Training area Yes No x eg nets/ goals/ grids off main body of pitch

Scoring: Pitch 33 out of 53 Key: 90%+ An excellent pitch Equipment 2 out of 9 64-90% A good pitch 55-64% An average pitch TOTAL 33 62 30-54% A below average pitch Less than 30 A poor pitch Total Score 53 % Appendix C - Playing Pitch Model

Task 1 - Population Totals within Active Age Groups

Active Age Sport Male Female Mixed Group

0-5 years Non active 17882

6-9 years Football 10767 8-12 years Rugby 11715 10-15 years Football 8010 1680 11-15 years Hockey 6677 6254 11-17 years Cricket 12142 11588 13-17 years Rugby 8673 8461 16-17 years Rugby 3556 16-45 years F'ball/Hockey 59243 54886 18-45 years Rugby 55508 51330 18-55 years Cricket 72027 66916

Over 55 years Non active 62622

Total area population within 179171 Active Age Groups (6-55yrs)

Total area population 256,977

Task 2 - Total number of Teams within Area

Age Group Number of Teams

Football: Mini-soccer (U7-U10s) - mixed 6-9yrs 44

Junior football - boys 10-15yrs 103 Junior football - girls 10-15yrs 84 Men’s football 16-45yrs 62 Women’s football 16-45yrs 33 Totals for football (exc mini) 282

Cricket: Junior cricket - boys 11-17yrs 40 Junior cricket - girls 11-17yrs 0 Men’s cricket 18-55yrs 45 Women’s cricket 18-55yrs 0 Totals for Cricket 85

Hockey: Junior hockey – boys 11-15yrs 1 Junior hockey – girls 11-15yrs 6 Men’s hockey 16-45yrs 6 Women’s hockey 16-45yrs 5 Totals for Hockey 18

Rugby Union: Mini-rugby - mixed 8-12yrs 8

Junior rugby - boys 13-17yrs 18 Junior rugby - girls 16-17yrs 1 Men’s rugby 18-45yrs 15 Women’s rugby 18-45yrs 2 Totals for Rugby (ex mini) 36

Rugby League: Junior rugby - boys 13-17yrs 35 Junior rugby - girls 13-17yrs 2 Men’s rugby 18-45yrs 29 Women’s rugby 18-45yrs 2 Totals for Rugby 68

1

Task 3 - Ratio of home games and temporal demand

Football Cricket Rugby League Rugby Union Hockey Senior Junior Mini Senior Junior Senior Junior Senior Junior Senior Junior Ratio of home games 0.7 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 Temporal Use % Saturday AM 20% 35% Saturday PM 40% Sunday AM 70% 40% 100% 50% 35% 80% 90% Sunday PM 40% 90% 90% 100% 100% Mid week 1- Specify day 10% 20% 10% 30% 10% 10% 10% 10% Mid week 2- Specify day 10%

Task 4 Task 5 Assumptions for the Future PPM calculations Future adult / junior team ratio Percentage Percentage Percentage Future adult / junior of adult of junior Impact of sports development increase team ratio teams teams Football 1% Football 30% 70% Mini soccer 4% Cricket 40% 60% Cricket 2% Rugby League 40% 60% Rugby League 2% Rugby Union 50% 50% Rugby Union 2% Hockey 50% 50% Hockey 2%

2 Ward details

Fooball Rugby League Rugby Union Cricket Hockey Total Future Ward Name Active Seniors Junior Minis Seniors Junior Seniors Junior Seniors Junior Seniors Junior Population No of No of No of No of No of Equiv No of Equiv No of No of No of No of No of No of No of No of No of No of No of No of No of No of (6-55yrs) teams pitches teams pitches teams teams pitches pitches teams pitches teams pitches teams pitches teams pitches teams pitches teams teams pitches teams

Riverside 34,438 6 1 6 4 7 2 10 10 2 1 16 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 2 7 West Area 25,558 33 28 10 4 5 1 6 6 4 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 Wyke 23,976 4 6 3 3 1 0.4 1 1 1 7 11 0 3 0 6 1 9 2 11 0 1 0 North Carr 21,578 22 19 9 5 3 0.75 4 4 3 2 7 3 0 0 0 0 3 2 5 0 0 0 East Area 25,562 12 19 18 8 12 3 6 6 3 6 18 4 1 0 0 0 5 6 6 0 1 0 Park Area 32,970 15 17 16 3 5 1.25 3 3 1 12 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 North Area 24,052 49 37 18 3 7 1.75 8 8 3 7 13 0 3 2 2 1 2 7 0 0 3 0 Ward 8 Ward 9 Ward 10 Ward 11 Ward 12 Ward 13 Ward 14 Ward 15 Ward 16 Ward 17 Ward 18 Ward 19 Ward 20 Ward 21 Ward 22 Ward 23 Ward 24 Ward 25 Total 188134 141 127 80 30 40 10.15 38 38 17 38 87 8 7 2 8 2 19 22 22 11 7 7

3 Team Generation Rate - Calculator

Age Groups Pop'tion Age Number Teams TGR = Pop within group as of Teams generated per in age group Age a % of within 1000 pop needed to group total age generate 1 active group team pop'tion

Football: Mini-soccer (U7-U10s) - mixed 6-9yrs 10767 6.0% 44 4.1 245

Junior football - boys 10-15yrs 8010 4.5% 103 12.9 78 Junior football - girls 10-15yrs 1680 0.9% 84 50.0 20 Men’s football 16-45yrs 59243 33.1% 62 1.0 956 Women’s football 16-45yrs 54886 30.6% 33 0.6 1663 Totals for football (excluding mini) 123819 69.1% 282 2.3 439

Cricket: Junior cricket - boys 11-17yrs 12142 6.8% 40 3.3 304 Junior cricket - girls 11-17yrs 11588 6.5% 0 0 0 Men’s cricket 18-55yrs 72027 40.2% 45 0.6 1601 Women’s cricket 18-55yrs 66916 37.3% 0 0 0 Totals for Cricket 162673 90.8% 85 0.5 1914

Hockey: Junior hockey – boys 11-15yrs 6677 3.7% 1 0.1 6677 Junior hockey – girls 11-15yrs 6254 3.5% 6 1.0 1042 Men’s hockey 16-45yrs 59243 33.1% 6 0.1 9874 Women’s hockey 16-45yrs 54886 30.6% 5 0.1 10977 Totals for Hockey 127060 70.9% 18 0.1 7059

Rugby Union: Mini-rugby - mixed 8-12yrs 11715 6.5% 8 0.7 1464

Junior rugby - boys 13-17yrs 8673 4.8% 18 2.1 482 Junior rugby - girls 16-17yrs 3556 2.0% 1 0.3 3556 Men’s rugby 18-45yrs 55508 31.0% 15 0.3 3701 Women’s rugby 18-45yrs 51330 28.6% 2 0.0 25665 Totals for Rugby (ex mini) 119067 66.5% 36 0.3 3307

Rugby League: Junior rugby - boys 13-17yrs 8673 4.8% 35 4.0 248 Junior rugby - girls 13-17yrs 8461 4.7% 2 0.2 4231 Men’s rugby 18-45yrs 55508 31.0% 29 0.5 1914 Women’s rugby 18-45yrs 51330 28.6% 2 0.0 25665 Totals for Rugby 123972 69.2% 68 0.5 1823

All sports 179171 100% 489 2.7 366

4 Playing Pitch Methodology Current Year

Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 Stage 6 Stage 7 (S6- S5) Nr of teams Ratio (S1 x S2) Audit Shortfall or surplus (junior) (junior) (junior) (junior) (senior) (senior) (senior) Tuesday Tuesday Thursday Thursday Sunday AM (junior) AM (junior) Sunday PM (junior) Sunday Sunday AM (senior) AM (senior) Sunday PM (senior) Sunday Adult teams (senior) Adult teams (senior) Nr of pitches (junior) (junior) Nr of pitches Junior teams (junior) (junior) teams Junior Saturday AM (junior) AM (junior) Saturday PM (junior) Saturday Nr of pitches (senior) (senior) Nr of pitches Saturday AM (senior) AM (senior) Saturday PM (senior) Saturday Games per week (junior) week (junior) per Games Games per week (junior) week (junior) per Games Games per week (senior) week (senior) per Games Games per week (senior) week (senior) per Games Mid Week 1 Mid Week Mid Week 1 Mid Week Mid Week 2 Mid Week Mid Week 2 Mid Week

Football Total 141 80 0.7 0.5 98.7 40 127 30 107.3 127.0 30.0 30.0 57.9 127.0 14.0 14.0 117.1 22.0 127.0 30.0

NB No need to use team equivalents if mini soccer has its own dedicated pitches Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 Stage 6 Stage 7 (S6- S5) Nr of teams Ratio (S1 x S2) Audit Shortfall or surplus Teams Teams Sunday AM Sunday PM Sunday Mid Week 1 Mid Week 2 Mid Week Saturday AM Saturday PM

Games per week per Games week per Games Nr of mini pitches Team equivalents Team equivalents Nr of pitches (adult equiv) (adult equiv) Nr of pitches Equivalent games per week week per games Equivalent

Mini soccer Total 40 10.2 0.5 20 5.08 38 38 38.0 38.0 18.0 38.0 38.0 38.0

Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 Stage 6 Stage 7 (S6- S5) Nr of teams Ratio (S1 x S2) Audit Shortfall or surplus (junior) (junior) (junior) (junior) (senior) (senior) (senior) Nr of pitches Tuesday Tuesday

Thursday Thursday Sunday AM (junior) AM (junior) Sunday PM (junior) Sunday Sunday AM (senior) AM (senior) Sunday PM (senior) Sunday Adult teams (senior) Adult teams (senior) Junior teams (junior) (junior) teams Junior Saturday AM (junior) AM (junior) Saturday PM (junior) Saturday Saturday AM (senior) AM (senior) Saturday PM (senior) Saturday Games per week(junior) week(junior) per Games week(junior) per Games Games per week(senior) week(senior) per Games week(senior) per Games Mid Week 1 Mid Week Mid Week 1 Mid Week Mid Week 2 Mid Week Mid Week 2 Mid Week

Cricket Total 19 22 0.5 0.5 9.5 11 22 22.0 18.2 18.2 22.0 17.3 22.0 18.2 22.0 21.1 18.7 22.0 22.0

5

Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 Stage 6 Stage 7 (S6- S5) Nr of teams Ratio (S1 x S2) Audit Shortfall or surplus (junior) (junior) (junior) (junior) (senior) (senior) (senior) Tuesday Tuesday

Thursday Thursday Sunday AM (junior) AM (junior) Sunday PM (junior) Sunday Sunday AM (senior) AM (senior) Sunday PM (senior) Sunday Adult teams (senior) Adult teams (senior) Nr of pitches (junior) (junior) Nr of pitches Junior teams (junior) (junior) teams Junior Saturday AM (junior) AM (junior) Saturday PM (junior) Saturday Nr of pitches (senior) (senior) Nr of pitches Saturday AM (senior) AM (senior) Saturday PM (senior) Saturday Games per week (junior) week (junior) per Games Games per week (junior) week (junior) per Games Games per week (senior) week (senior) per Games Rugby week (senior) per Games Mid Week 1 Mid Week Mid Week 1 Mid Week Mid Week 2 Mid Week Mid Week 2 Mid Week

League Total 17 87 0.5 0.5 8.5 43.5 38 8 38.0 38.0 8.0 8.0 31.2 38.0 -31.2 8.0 37.2 3.7 37.2 8.0

Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 Stage 6 Stage 7 (S6- S5) Nr of teams Ratio (S1 x S2) Audit Shortfall or surplus (junior) (junior) (junior) (junior) (senior) (senior) (senior) Tuesday Tuesday

Thursday Thursday Sunday AM (junior) AM (junior) Sunday PM (junior) Sunday Sunday AM (senior) AM (senior) Sunday PM (senior) Sunday Adult teams (senior) Adult teams (senior) Nr of pitches (junior) (junior) Nr of pitches Junior teams (junior) (junior) teams Junior Saturday AM (junior) AM (junior) Saturday PM (junior) Saturday Nr of pitches (senior) (senior) Nr of pitches Saturday AM (senior) AM (senior) Saturday PM (senior) Saturday Games per week (junior) week (junior) per Games Games per week (junior) week (junior) per Games Games per week (senior) week (senior) per Games Games per week (senior) week (senior) per Games Mid Week 1 Mid Week Mid Week 1 Mid Week Mid Week 2 Mid Week Mid Week 2 Mid Week

Rugby Union Total 7 8 0.5 0.5 3.5 4 2 2 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 -1.2 2.0 -1.6 1.7 1.6 2.0 2.0

Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 Stage 6 Stage 7 (S6- S5) Nr of teams Ratio (S1 x S2) Audit Shortfall or surplus (junior) (junior) (junior) (junior) (senior) (senior) (senior) Nr of pitches Tuesday Tuesday

Thursday Thursday Sunday AM (junior) AM (junior) Sunday PM (junior) Sunday Sunday AM (senior) AM (senior) Sunday PM (senior) Sunday Adult teams (senior) Adult teams (senior) Junior teams (junior) (junior) teams Junior Saturday AM (junior) AM (junior) Saturday PM (junior) Saturday Saturday AM (senior) AM (senior) Saturday PM (senior) Saturday Games per week (junior) week (junior) per Games Games per week (junior) week (junior) per Games Games per week (senior) week (senior) per Games Games per week (senior) week (senior) per Games Mid Week 1 Mid Week Mid Week 1 Mid Week Mid Week 2 Mid Week Mid Week 2 Mid Week

Hockey Total 11 7 0.5 0.5 5.5 3.5 7 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 1.5 7.0 3.5 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0

6

Estimated Teams by TGR

Future year Team Generation Rate (TGR) Estimated teams by ward

Total Future Active population Mini Rugby Rugby Mini Rugby Rugby (6-55 yrs) soccer Football Cricket Union League Hockey soccer Football Cricket Union League Hockey Riverside 34438 245 439 1914 3307 18237059 8.5 54.2 16.3 6.9 13.1 3.5 West Area 25558 245 439 1914 3307 1823 7059 6.3 40.2 12.1 5.1 9.7 2.6 Wyke 23976 245 439 1914 3307 18237059 5.937.7 11.4 4.8 9.1 2.4 North Carr 21578 245 439 1914 3307 1823 7059 5.3 34.0 10.2 4.3 8.2 2.2 East Area 25562 245 439 1914 3307 1823 7059 6.3 40.2 12.1 5.1 9.7 2.6 Park Area 32970 245 439 1914 3307 1823 7059 8.1 51.9 15.6 6.6 12.5 3.3 North Area 24052 245 439 1914 3307 1823 7059 5.9 37.9 11.4 4.8 9.1 2.4 Ward 8 0 245 439 1914 3307 1823 7059 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ward 9 0 245 439 1914 3307 1823 7059 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ward 10 0 245 439 1914 3307 1823 7059 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ward 11 0 245 439 1914 3307 1823 7059 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ward 12 0 245 439 1914 3307 1823 7059 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ward 13 0 245 439 1914 3307 1823 7059 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ward 14 0 245 439 1914 3307 1823 7059 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ward 15 0 245 439 1914 3307 1823 7059 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ward 16 0 245 439 1914 3307 1823 7059 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ward 17 0 245 439 1914 3307 1823 7059 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ward 18 0 245 439 1914 3307 1823 7059 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ward 19 0 245 439 1914 3307 1823 7059 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ward 20 0 245 439 1914 3307 1823 7059 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ward 21 0 245 439 1914 3307 1823 7059 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ward 22 0 245 439 1914 3307 1823 7059 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ward 23 0 245 439 1914 3307 1823 7059 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ward 24 0 245 439 1914 3307 1823 7059 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ward 25 0 245 439 1914 3307 1823 7059 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Overall 188134 245 439 1914 3307 18237059 46.2296.1 89.3 37.8 71.4 18.9

7

Playing Pitch Methodology - Future

Predicted Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 Stage 6 Stage 7 (S6- S5) teams Nr of teams Ratio (S1 x S2) Audit Shortfall or surplus (junior) (junior) (junior) (junior) (senior) (senior) (senior) Growth factor Tuesday Tuesday Thursday Thursday Sunday AM (junior) AM (junior) Sunday PM (junior) Sunday TGR (adult + junior) TGR (adult + Sunday AM (senior) AM (senior) Sunday PM (senior) Sunday Adult teams (senior) Adult teams (senior) Nr of pitches (junior) (junior) Nr of pitches Junior teams (junior) (junior) teams Junior Saturday AM (junior) AM (junior) Saturday PM (junior) Saturday Nr of pitches (senior) (senior) Nr of pitches Saturday AM (senior) AM (senior) Saturday PM (senior) Saturday New number of teams number New Games per week (junior) week (junior) per Games Games per week (junior) week (junior) per Games Games per week (senior) week (senior) per Games Football week (senior) per Games Nr of teams calculated from from calculated Nr of teams Mid Week 1 Mid Week Mid Week 1 Mid Week Mid Week 2 Mid Week Mid Week 2 Mid Week

Future Year Total 296.1 1% 299.1 89.7209.3 0.7 0.5 62.8 104.7 127 30 114.4 127.0 30.0 30.0 83.0 127.0 -11.9 -11.9 120.7 9.1 127.0 30.0

Predicted Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 Stage 6 Stage 7 (S6- S5) teams Nr of teams Ratio (S1 x S2) Audit Shortfall or surplus TGR Sunday AM Sunday PM Sunday Mid Week 1 Mid Week 2 Mid Week Saturday AM Saturday PM Growth factor Games per week per Games week per Games Nr of mini pitches

Mini Soccer team equivalents New Nr of pitches (adult equiv) (adult equiv) Nr of pitches New number of mini teams number New Nr of teams calculated from from calculated Nr of teams Future Year week per Games Equivalent

Total 46.2 4% 48.0 12.2 0.5 24.0 6.1 38 38 38.0 38.0 14.0 38.0 38.0 38.0

8

Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 Stage 6 Stage 7 (S6- S5) Nr of teams Ratio (S1 x S2) Audit Shortfall or surplus TGR (junior) (junior) (junior) (junior) (senior) (senior) (senior) Adult teams Nr of pitches Junior teams teams Junior Growth factor Tuesday Tuesday Thursday Thursday Sunday AM (junior) AM (junior) Sunday PM (junior) Sunday Sunday AM (senior) AM (senior) Sunday PM (senior) Sunday Saturday AM (junior) AM (junior) Saturday PM (junior) Saturday Saturday AM (senior) AM (senior) Saturday PM (senior) Saturday New number of teams number New Games per week(junior) week(junior) per Games week(junior) per Games Cricket Future week(senior) per Games week(senior) per Games Nr of teams calculated from from calculated Nr of teams Mid Week 1 Mid Week Mid Week 1 Mid Week Mid Week 2 Mid Week Mid Week 2 Mid Week

Year Total 89.3 2% 91.0372 36.454.6 0.5 0.5 18.2 27.3 22 22.0 14.7 12.4 22.0 12.9 22.0 12.4 22.0 20.2 13.8 22.0 22.0 Assume 40%60% adult junr

Playing Pitch Methodology Future Year - Rugby Union

Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 Stage 6 Stage 7 (S6- S5) Nr of teams Ratio (S1 x S2) Audit Shortfall or surplus TGR (junior) (junior) (junior) (junior) (senior) (senior) (senior) Growth factor Tuesday Tuesday Thursday Thursday Sunday AM (junior) AM (junior) Sunday PM (junior) Sunday Sunday AM (senior) AM (senior) Sunday PM (senior) Sunday Adult teams (senior) Adult teams (senior) Nr of pitches (junior) (junior) Nr of pitches Junior teams (junior) (junior) teams Junior Saturday AM (junior) AM (junior) Saturday PM (junior) Saturday Nr of pitches (senior) (senior) Nr of pitches Saturday AM (senior) AM (senior) Saturday PM (senior) Saturday New number of teams number New Games per week (junior) week (junior) per Games week (junior) per Games Games per week (senior) week (senior) per Games week (senior) per Games

Rugby Union from calculated Nr of teams Mid Week 1 Mid Week Mid Week 1 Mid Week Mid Week 2 Mid Week Mid Week 2 Mid Week

Future Year Total 37.8 2% 38.6 19.319.3 0.5 0.5 9.639 9.639 2 2 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 -6.7 2.0 -6.7 1.0 1.0 2.0 2.0

9

Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 Stage 6 Stage 7 (S6- S5) Nr of teams Ratio (S1 x S2) Audit Shortfall or surplus TGR (junior) (junior) (junior) (junior) (senior) (senior) (senior) Growth factor Tuesday Tuesday Thursday Thursday Sunday AM (junior) AM (junior) Sunday PM (junior) Sunday Sunday AM (senior) AM (senior) Sunday PM (senior) Sunday Adult teams (senior) Adult teams (senior) Nr of pitches (junior) (junior) Nr of pitches Junior teams (junior) (junior) teams Junior Saturday AM (junior) AM (junior) Saturday PM (junior) Saturday Nr of pitches (senior) (senior) Nr of pitches Saturday AM (senior) AM (senior) Saturday PM (senior) Saturday New number of teams number New Games per week (junior) week (junior) per Games Games per week (junior) week (junior) per Games Games per week (senior) week (senior) per Games Games per week (senior) week (senior) per Games

Rugby League from calculated Nr of teams Mid Week 1 Mid Week Mid Week 1 Mid Week Mid Week 2 Mid Week Mid Week 2 Mid Week

Future Year Total 71.4 2% 73.0 36.536.5 0.5 0.5 18.25 18.25 38 8 38.0 38.0 8.0 8.0 23.4 38.0 -8.4 8.0 36.2 6.2 36.2 8.0

Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 Stage 6 Stage 7 (S6- S5) Nr of teams Ratio (S1 x S2) Audit Shortfall or surplus TGR (junior) (junior) (junior) (junior) (senior) (senior) (senior) Nr of pitches Growth factor Tuesday Tuesday Thursday Thursday Sunday AM (junior) AM (junior) Sunday PM (junior) Sunday Sunday AM (senior) AM (senior) Sunday PM (senior) Sunday Adult teams (senior) Adult teams (senior) Junior teams (junior) (junior) teams Junior Saturday AM (junior) AM (junior) Saturday PM (junior) Saturday Saturday AM (senior) AM (senior) Saturday PM (senior) Saturday New number of teams number New Games per week (adult) week (adult) per Games Games per week (junior) week (junior) per Games Games per week (junior) week (junior) per Games Games per week (senior) week (senior) per Games

Hockey Future from calculated Nr of teams Mid Week 1 Mid Week Mid Week 1 Mid Week Mid Week 2 Mid Week Year 2 Mid Week

Total 18.9 2% 19.3 9.69.6 0.5 0.5 4.82 4.82 7 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 2.2 7.0 2.2 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0

10 Appendix D

Kingston upon Hull City Council

Maintenance Standards for Sports Pitches

2010

1 Contents

Football ...... 3

5-A-Side Football ...... 5

Hockey ...... 6

Rugby...... 7

Putting Greens...... 8

Bowling Greens...... 9

Cricket...... 11

Tennis ...... 14

Athletics ...... 17

Baseball ...... 18

2 Football

The whole of the area shall be chain harrowed in passes longitudinally (from end to end) with a 300mm overlap in each pass using approved properly adjusted harrows.

The work shall be carried out during suitable weather conditions. All the pitch area shall be aerated using a tractor mounted Sisis Spiker or similar machine. Penetration shall be to a minimum of 150mm at 300mm centres. Ground conditions must be suitable to avoid any damage.

An approved 14.4.4 granular fertiliser is applied. One dressing of 35g per m2 will be applied in April.

Rolling will be carried out in one pass as soon as early morning moisture has evaporated. The whole of the area is rolled with a tractor mounted roller weighing not more than 1500kg or less than 1200kg designed by the manufacturer to achieve a standard of firmness and level commensurate with the requirements of the game being played.

Vertidraining is carried out, this is designed to aerate to a depth of from 100mm to 450mm as required.

At the start of the playing season the posts are assembled and crossbars and uprights are erected in the previously located sockets and made secure after removing the covering soil and socket covers.

The pitches are set out and marked. The sizes and all markings should conform to the Football Rules. Lines shall be cut out before marking with an approved rotary or cylinder grass cutter set to a height of 25mm. The marking shall be in white non-toxic marking material.

Pitches are then overmarked once per week on Thursdays and Fridays. This is done with an approved white non-toxic marking material. Pitch measurements have to remain accurate and all lines remain clear, true, and consistent throughout the playing season. Extra overmarking may be required if mid-week fixtures are booked.

Pitches are inspected on each Friday during the playing season to ensure posts are vertical and secure and cleaned of all mud. All stones, glass, litter and debris are removed from the pitches. Also, all holes in the pitch are filled with soil to the level of the surrounding area and all divots replaced. Localised flooding in goal mouths or pitch centres should also be dealt with by the use of hand forks.

A report is then made on the condition of all pitches regarding fitness to play of each pitch by Friday 12 Noon.

3 Any renovation works required should be carried out immediately by sowing grass seed. This area will usually be the goal mouths and the centre and will be 1/3 of the total area of each pitch. Approved machinery designed by the manufacturer for pitch renovating and grass seed should be used. The amount of seed will be 33grms per m2 and will be inserted below the existing sward in two passes at right angles to each other. Disturbance of existing sward will be kept to a minimum and pitch surface will be left level and true.

At the end of the playing season the posts and sockets are carefully dismantled and stored for the whole of the close season. Once these have been removed purpose made metal caps are fitted to the sockets and soil is applied to cover to surrounding level. Also, a written report is compiled about the condition etc., of the posts in preparation for the next season.

4

5-A-Side Football

The 5-a-side pitches are overmarked once per week on Thursdays or Fridays. This shall be done with an approved white, non-toxic marking material. Pitch measurements should remain accurate and all lines remain clear, true and consistent.

These 5-a-side pitches should are also inspected on each Friday during the playing season to ensure posts are vertical and secure and cleaned of all mud. All stones, glass, litter and debris are removed from the pitches. Also, all holes in the pitch are filled with soil to the level of the surrounding area and all divots replaced. Localised flooding in goal mouths or pitch centres should also be dealt with by the use of hand forks.

A report is then made on the condition of all pitches regarding fitness to play of each pitch by Friday 12 Noon.

5

Hockey

At the start of the playing season the posts are assembled and crossbars and uprights erected in the previously located sockets and made secure after removing the covering soil and socket covers to his store. The erected posts comply with the Hockey Association Rules in all respects.

The pitches are set out and marked out, the sizes and all markings of which conform to the Hockey Association Rules. The marking shall be in white non- toxic marking material.

The pitches are overmarked once per week on Fridays. This is in an approved white, non toxic marking material. Pitch measurements should remain accurate and all lines remain clear, true and consistent throughout the playing season. Additional overmarking may be required if pitches are booked for mid week fixtures.

The whole of the pitch area is rolled every 20 working days using a 1500kg roller. This should be carried out as soon as surface moisture evaporates to achieve a firm, level profile and this should be done in one pass.

At the end of the playing season the posts are carefully dismantled and stored during the whole of the close season. After removal of the posts the metal caps are replaced to the sockets and these are then covered with soil to surrounding level. A written report is then made on the condition of posts.

Inspections are undertaken during the playing season usually on each Friday, to ensure posts are vertical and secure and cleaned of all mud. All stones, glass, litter and debris shall be removed from the pitches. All holes in the pitch are filled with soil to the level of the surrounding area and all divots replaced. Any localised flooding in goal mouth or pitch centres is relieved by the use of hand forks.

A report is made by Friday 12 Noon on the condition of all pitches regarding fitness to play of each pitch.

Mowing is carried out on Thursday of each week from week 36 to week 44 and the whole of the pitch is cut with a cylinder grass mower capable of 40 to 60 cuts per metre set to a cutting height of 18 – 20mm.

6

Rugby

At the start of the playing season the posts are assembled and crossbars and uprights erected in the previously located sockets and made secure after removing the covering soil and socket covers to his store. The erected posts comply with the Rugby Association Rules in all respects.

The pitches are set out and marked out, the sizes and all markings of which conform to the Rugby Association Rules. The marking shall be in white non- toxic marking material.

The pitches are overmarked once per week on Thursdays or Fridays. This is in an approved white, non toxic marking material. Pitch measurements should remain accurate and all lines remain clear, true and consistent throughout the playing season.

At the end of the playing season the posts are carefully dismantled and stored during the whole of the close season. After removal of the posts the metal caps are replaced to the sockets and these are then covered with soil to surrounding level. A written report is then made on the condition of posts.

The pitches are inspected on each Friday during the playing season to ensure posts are vertical and secure and cleaned of all mud. All stones, glass, litter and debris shall be removed from the pitches. All holes in the pitch with are filled with soil to the level of the surrounding area and all divots are replaced. Any localised flooding in goal mouth or pitch centres is relieved by the use of hand forks.

A report is compiled on the condition of all pitches regarding fitness to play of each pitch by Friday 12 Noon.

All pitch lines are cut with an approved rotary or cylinder mower set to cut at a height of 25mm carried out at a frequency of once per 4 weeks during the period indicated.

At the end of the playing season the posts are carefully dismantled and stored. After removal of the posts the metal caps are replaced to the sockets and then covered with soil to surrounding level. A written report on the condition of posts is made.

7

Putting Greens

The greens are cut using an approved boxed cylinder mower capable of achieving 129 – 320 cuts per metre set to cut to a height of between 4 – 10mm. This is undertaken at a frequency of once per week on a Friday.

An approved slow release N fertiliser of 24.0.0. + 2% iron analysis at a rate of 33g per m2 is applied to the whole of the putting green.

An application of fertiliser is applied in summer of 14.2.4. analysis at a rate of 33g per m2 to the whole of the putting green. Another application is applied late summer of 6.4.12. + 6% iron analysis at a rate of 33g per m2 to the whole of the putting green. Turf tonic can also be applied at a rate of 7.0.0. + 2% iron analysis at the rate of 33g per m2.

Any top dressing that is applied should be applied at a rate of 1kg per m2.

During Spring and Summer new holes can be taken out if necessary. This is normally carried out on a Friday.

Irrigation can be carried out when necessary. The whole of the green is watered and this should be done on two separate occasions, evenly spaced, during the week. Amounts will be 2250 litres per 100m2 on each occasion. All areas to be irrigated are to be done so evenly, ensuring that no localised ponding occurs.

Approved selective herbicide, mosskiller, lumbricide, fungicide, insecticide, is all applied to the green as and when required.

8 Bowling Greens

The bowling greens will be cut using an approved pedestrian operated boxed cylinder mower capable of achieving 129 – 320 cuts per metre set to cut to a height of 7mm – 10mm. This is undertaken as follows:-

Weeks 1 – 8 cut every two weeks. Weeks 9 – 12 cut twice per week on Mondays and Thursdays. Weeks 13 – 35 cut three times per week on Mon, Wed and Fridays. Weeks 36 – 44 cut twice per week on Mondays and Thursdays. Weeks 45 – 52 cut every two weeks.

The grass edges of bowling greens are trimmed neatly using sharp well adjusted long handled shears. This is undertaken at a frequency of once per 2 weeks. Using a half moon the edges of the bowling greens are reformed.

The greens are switched or brushed to ensure that early morning dew, worm casts or overnight dampness is removed from the playing surface.

Grass seed mix A (Bent/Fescue) is evenly spread at 20gms per m2 prior to application of top dressing and worked into the surface with top dressing.

An approved top dressing is applied at a rate of 4kg per m2 immediately after hollow tining. The top dressing shall be completely worked into the holes made by the hollow tining. Prior to working in of top dressing grass seed mix A (Bent/Fescue) will be applied at the rate of 20gms per m2 to the whole of the area. This seed will be worked in with the top dressing.

Irrigation shall take place over the whole area of the green evenly (ensuring that water penetrates to 100 – 125mm) on two occasions each week evenly spaced during the week before 12 noon or after 10 p.m. Amounts will be 2250 litres per 100m2 on each occasion. All irrigation is done by using sprinklers. All hosepipes and fittings should be adequate for the purpose and no leaking of water is allowed. Irrigation of the green must not be allowed to interfere with play. All areas to be irrigated are evenly and adequately watered and no localised ponding is allowed to occur.

Approved selective herbicide, mosskiller, lumbricide, fungicide and insecticide is applied as and when required.

Suitable machinery will be used to carry out the tining of the bowling green. The spiked slits shall be a minimum depth of 100mm at a maximum of 100mm centres. Light slitting may also be carried out in order to aerate the playing surface and relieve compaction. Grounds conditions need to be carefully evaluated before this can be carried out.

The greens are hollow tined to a depth of 100mm and to a maximum of 100mm centres. The cores extracted by the machine are then cleared

9 immediately from the fine turf areas by careful raking and sweeping or use of a machine and then removed from site and disposed of. No materials extracted as cores are allowed to fall back into the holes.

Greens are rolled using a roller weight not less than 100kg (2cwt) or heavier than 500kg (10cwt).

During the Spring and Autumn the greens are scarified with an approved machine to a depth of 3mm done in two directions.

During the Summer the whole area of green is verticut with an approved machine set to cut thatch but not to cut into the soil. This is carried out in two directions and all arisings are boxed off and removed.

Greens are kept clear of debris (leaves, branches, twigs etc) by sweeping, raking or use of machinery suitable for the purpose. This is carried out once per week during the period week 40 to 52.

The ditches around the greens are kept clear of debris and weeds and the sand in the bottom of the ditch is raked, ensuring that it does not spread onto the green or the surround. This sand is topped up when required to maintain the level of sand to 100mm below the level of green surface.

Greens are irrigated (ensuring that water penetrates to 100 – 125mm) on two occasions each week evenly spaced during the week before 12 noon or after 10 p.m. Amounts will be 2250 litres per 100m2 on each occasion.

All irrigation is carried out using sprinklers. All hosepipes and fittings are adequate for the purpose. Irrigation of the green is not allowed to interfere with play. All areas to be irrigated are to be evenly and adequately watered and no localised ponding is allowed to occur.

The greens are measured and marked out in an approved colour. Lawn sand is applied at a rate of 100g per m2 when required. Iron sulphate is also applied at 6 week intervals.

The greens are top dressed in the Spring with a grass seed mix A (Bent/Fescue). This is evenly spread at 20gms per m2 prior to the application of the top dressing and worked into the surface with the top dressing. After scarification the top dressing is applied at a rate of 1kg per m2.

10

Cricket

The cricket season is usually mid-April to end of September.

During the Summer the square is cut using an approved boxed cylinder mower capable of achieving 85 cuts per running metre set to cut at 8mm to 12mm. Cuts to be on Tuesday and Friday of each week.

The outfield is cut every Friday during the cricket season using a cylinder mower with floating heads capable of 36 to 85 cuts per metre and this is set to cut at between 12mm and 24mm, each cut to be at 90 degrees to the previous.

Fertiliser is applied during Spring and Summer. This is applied evenly and should be an approved slow release N fertiliser of 24.0.0. + 2% iron analysis at a rate of 33g per m2. Turf tonic is applied when required - 7.0.0. + 2% iron analysis at a rate of 33g per m2.

Top dressing is carried out to the whole of the square in order to improve soil structure, extend playing life and produce a level surface. The top dressing should be screened sterilised medium loam applied at the rate of 2kg per m2.

This can be applied by hand or powered equipment. An even spread of the material must be achieved. Grass seed mix E will be spread at 20grms per m2 to the whole area of the square and worked in along with the top dressing.

Immediately after spreading the material, the top dressing is well “worked” into the surface of the table using either a dragmat, hand lute or drag brush, or a combination of all three methods. The aim is to fill the hollows with the dressing and create a level playing surface.

An approved top dressing shall be applied at a rate of 4kg per m2 immediately after hollow tining. The top dressing is well worked into the holes made by the hollow tining using a drag mat, lute or drag brush or a combination of these three. The aim is to fill all holes with dressing. Prior to working in the top dressing 20grms per m2 of grass seed mix E is evenly spread to the whole area and worked in along with the dressing.

As and when required the cricket squares are treated with herbicide, mosskiller, lumbricide, fungicide and insecticide.

During the Spring the cricket table is scarified with two passes at right angles to each other. In the Autumn at the end of the playing season this is done again in order to remove any build up of thatch, dead matter etc. Depending on the extent of the problem tine penetration should not normally exceed 9mm.

11 The whole cricket square is lightly verticut during the Summer with an approved machine set to cut thatch but not to cut into the soil. This is carried out in two directions.

Using a spiker or equivalent machine the area will be tine spiked to a depth not less than 100mm. The holes are at 100mm centres and this is undertaken at a frequency of once per two weeks during the period indicated.

When vertidraining is carried out, the whole of the area is addressed using approved machinery this is designed to aerate to a depth of from 100mm to 450mm as required provides combing soil movement.

The whole cricket square should be rolled when necessary. In order to achieve an approved standard of firmness and level profile the Table must be rolled with a hand or self propelled roller weighing not less than 250kg or more than 500kg and designed by the manufacturers for use on cricket table. Rolling operations must not commence until all surface moisture has evaporated.

The cricket square is measured and marked as follows:

At the commencement of the cricket season, the Table should be “squared” to allow wickets to be cut and marked parallel to the corners.

The outfield boundary will be marked in accordance with regulation dimensions i.e., not less than 37m from the bowler’s crease of centre wicket to each corner of the boundary. The boundary line must be marked with a non-toxic white marking compound using a pedestrian line marker.

Wicket preparation to be carried out prior to each match.

The Contractor will on the day of the match or Friday in the case of weekend matches cut a wicket to dimensions recommended by the Cricket League using a boxed cylinder mower capable of achieving 129 – 320 cuts per running metre set to cut at 2 – 4mm.

Wickets will be carefully marked out by use of measuring tape, template. Crease markings to be marked with a brush using a non-toxic whitening compound, lines to be 1” in width and in accordance with regulation dimensions.

Wicket will be rolled after cutting to produce a level surface suitable for the playing of minor league cricket with a hand or self propelled roller weighing not more than 1500kg and designed by manufacturer for this purpose.

After each match or on Monday in the case of Friday/Saturday matches ground will be renovated.

Aerate wicket with hand fork or pedestrian operated motorised machine.

12 Fork over hollows and reinstate to correct levels with an approved screened sterilised medium loam, compact by treading to consolidate levels.

Rake surface to form a seed bed and sow approved cricket grass seed mixture A over prepared areas at a rate of 33g per m2 and rake in. Roll seeded areas with a hand roller and thoroughly irrigate wicket.

The boundary is overmarked on Friday of each week.

During the Summer fertiliser is applied (20.10.10 analysis) at a rate of 17g per m2.

Irrigation is carried out when required (ensuring that water penetrates to 100 – 125mm). Amounts will be 2250 litres per 100m2 on each occasion. All irrigation is carried out using sprinklers. All hosepipes and fittings to be adequate for the purpose. Irrigation of the area must not be allowed to interfere with play. All areas to be irrigated are to be evenly and adequately watered and no localised ponding is allowed to occur.

13

Tennis

At the start of the playing season, normally in April, the courts are marked out using measuring tape or pegs, the tennis posts and nets are erected. All markings conform to Lawn Tennis Association recommendations. A non-toxic whitening compound is used for wet line marking purposes incorporating a fixing agent.

The whole of the tennis court and surrounding area is cut using an approved boxed cylinder mower capable of achieving 78 cuts per running metre set to cut at 6 to 10mm. Task to be undertaken:

Weeks 1 – 8 cut every two weeks. Weeks 9 – 12 cut every week. Weeks 13 – 36 cut twice per week on Tuesdays and Fridays. Weeks 37 – 43 cut every week. Weeks 44 – 52 cut every two weeks.

Spring fertiliser is applied evenly (N fertiliser of 24.0.0. + 2% iron analysis) at a rate of 33g per m2.

Summer fertiliser is applied evenly (14.2.2. analysis) at a rate of 33g per m2.

When turf tonic (7.0.0 + 2% iron analysis) is required this is applied evenly at a rate of 33g per m2.

Top dressing is applied at a rate of 2kg per m2 immediately after hollow tining. The top dressing is well worked into the holes made by the hollow tining.

Irrigation is carried out when necessary, the whole area (ensuring that water penetrates to 100 – 125mm) is irrigated on two occasions each week evenly spaced during the week before 12 noon or after 10 p.m. Amounts will be 2250 litres per 100m2 on each occasion. All irrigation is carried out using sprinklers. All hosepipes and fittings should be adequate for the purpose and no leaking of water is allowed. Irrigation of the area must not interfere with play. All areas irrigated are to be evenly and adequately watered and no localised ponding is allowed to occur.

Throughout the season the courts are overmarked once per week on a Friday immediately after cutting. Overmarking is carried out with an approved white, non toxic marking material, the line width is 1”.

At the end of the season, normally in September, all the posts and nets are dismantled, washed and cleaned then stored away until the following season. Sockets are inspected for damage, replaced as necessary and covered over during the closed season.

14 When necessary the area may need an application of herbicide, mosskiller, lumbricide, fungicide or insecticide, this is always applied in line with the manufacturer’s instructions.

Scarification is carried out to the whole area with an approved machine to a depth of 3mm in two directions. The area is boxed off and all arisings are removed from site immediately after scarifying each way.

Verticutting of the area is carried out in two directions. The machine is set to cut thatch but not to cut into the soil. All arisings are boxed off and removed from site.

Solid tining of the whole area is done with approved machinery fitted with tines. This is undertaken once per two weeks during the correct period. The spiked holes shall be a minimum depth of 100mm at a maximum of 100mm centres.

In order to aerate the playing surface and relieve compaction light slitting is carried out. Due care is necessary to avoid disturbing the playing surface. Ground conditions need to be carefully evaluated before this operation is commenced.

Hollow tining is carried out to a depth of 100mm and to a maximum of 100mm centres. The cores extracted by the machine are then cleared immediately from the fine turf areas by careful raking and sweeping and removed from site and disposed of.

The whole area is rolled using a roller weight not less than 100kg (2cwt) or heavier than 500kg (10cwt). The weight is spread over at least 3 integrated sections of the roller.

Any tarmac tennis courts are swept at a frequency of once per week. They are also weedkilled with a total non-residual herbicide when required. When overmarking is required an approved white, non-toxic marking material is used and the lines are marked 2” in width with base line 4”.

Redgra courts are maintained as follows, selective top dressing is applied to level worn areas. The top dressing operation is preceded by a light scarification of the whole area so that the new material can be “keyed in” to the existing surface and rolled. The material must be laid to a thickness of not less than 2mm over worn areas. All top dressing operations (selective and entire) are followed by further brushing and rolling/luting operations.

In order to bind together the playing surface and create a level surface the area is given a scarification, luting, brushing and rolling treatment.

This operation is carried out at 5 working day intervals.

15 Redgra courts are marked out using a non-toxic marking compound with the aid of appropriate measuring and marking implements, ensuring that dimensions are correct.

16

Athletics

In order to bind together the playing surface and create a level running track the track surface has luting, rolling treatment and brushing, using a 4ft wide roller/lute (the roller to be nor more than 450kg) carried out. This is done at 5 working day intervals.

Marking of the running track is done by using a non-toxic marking compound, with the aid of appropriate measuring and marking implements, ensuring that all dimensions comply with AAA requirements. This is carried out at 5 day intervals.

Ancillary sports are accommodated by measuring and marking out areas to AAA dimensions. Examples of these sports are, shot putt, hammer throw, discuss and javelin.

Redgra track irrigation is carried out when required. The water should penetrate 20mm and not create a water logged surface. The purpose is to provide a firm surface for athletics to take place.

In November, selective top dressing is carried out to worn areas. The top dressing operation will be preceded by a light scarification of the whole area so that the new material can be “keyed in” to the existing surface and rolled. The material must be laid to a thickness of not more than 2mm over worn areas. All top dressing operations (selective and entire) will be followed by further brushing and rolling/luting operations.

Take off boards are inspected on every Thursday of each week to ensure that it is level and exactly positioned in relation to the run-up.

Jumping pits are also inspected on the Thursday of each week and if necessary they are dug and made level as necessary. They are raked to provide sand level at edge of pits crowning to 300mm above ground level in centre. Sand used to make up levels is clean, soft, and white (non-staining). All areas of sand are finished to a neat, smooth condition to enable the impact of the athletes to be absorbed without injury. The sand pit is also disinfected.

Water jump pit - using a pump all water, mud and debris is removed. This is disposed of directing into the nearest manhole. Once cleaned the pit is then disinfected. The pit is then filled to the approved level using clean water direct from the mains supply.

Any contaminated sand is to be removed and replaced with an approved clean, soft, white sand (non-staining) to make up to ground level at edge of pits, crowning to 300mm above ground level in centre.

17

Baseball

Baseball areas are prepared on a Friday each week. The whole of the redgra area is prepared by using a combination of dragbrush, lute, scarifier and roller to the standard required by the Rules of the Sport – British Baseball Federation at a frequency of 1 x 10 working days.

During the Spring the area is scarified to a depth not greater than 12mm. The surface area is then maintained with a lute and roll leaving is in a playable condition.

When required a total non-residual herbicide can be used on the playing surface.

The baseball area is usually cut on Friday of each week using a cylinder mower capable of 36 – 85 cuts per metre set at 12 – 24mm cutting height.

Measure and marking of the pitches should always conform to the British Baseball Federation. The marking shall be in white non-toxic marking material. Overmarking is carried out once per week on a Friday. If extra pitches are required for mid-week fixtures additional overmarking is carried out.

18 KINGSTONUPONHULL CITYCOUNCIL

STRI,Bingley,WestYorkshire,BD161AU Telephone:01274565131 Fax:01274561891 E-mail: [email protected] Website: www.stri.co.uk

ThepurposeoftheSTRIAgronomyserviceistoassistclientsinmattersofagronomic management.Allrecommendationsareofferedfreeofbias.TheSTRIhasnocommercial connectionsorobligations toanymanufacturer,supplierorcontractor.

Date:18th – 29th March2010 HCB/LR KingstonuponHullCityCouncil 1

CONFIDENTIAL

KINGSTONUPONHULL CITYCOUNCIL

ASSESSMENT OF WINTER GAMESPITCHES

DateofVisit 18th – 29th March2010

ObjectofVisit Toobjectivelyassesstheconditionofwintergamespitches andmakerecommendationsfortheirfutureimprovement

1.0 INTRODUCTION

Thisreportfollowsmyrecentinspectionofvariouswintergamespitchessituatedwithinthe KingstonuponHullarea.Thevisitwasrequestedtoprovideanobjectiveassessmentofthe conditionofarepresentativesampleofwintergamespitchestoappraisethestandards beingsetandproviderecommendationsfortheirimprovement.

Itisunderstood that thisreportis toformpartoftheoverallplayingfieldpitchstrategyforthe cityofKingstonuponHull.ThisreportincludestheassessmentoftheParksfootballand rugbypitchesandalsoSecondarySchoolplayingfields.Toprovidearepresentativesample ofthestandardsbeingsetitwasdecidedtoassess1or2pitchespersite.Theassessment methodwasobjectiveinnatureandutilisingstandardprocedurestoprovideacomplete assessmentoftheconditionandperformanceofeachpitch.Thismethodwouldallowusto judgetheresultsagainstreasonabletargetsthatshouldbebeingachievedforthistimeof year.Wecouldalsocomparetheresultsagainstfutureassessmentstodeterminewhether improvementwasbeingmade.Recommendationsaremadewithinthisreporttohelpbring aboutthedesiredimprovement. Theexistingmaintenanceprogrammeiscarriedoutby contractoroperatingunderanagreedmaintenancespecificationthatcanbeadjustedif needed.

TheweatherontherunuptoinspectionsawamixtureofdryweatherinearlyMarchbutit turnedwetlaterinthemonth.

1 KingstonuponHullCityCouncil 2

2.0 EXISTINGMAINTENANCEPROGRAMME

Theexistingmaintenancespecificationisfairlybasicinnaturebutcoversalltheessential maintenanceoperationsrequiredtomaintainwintergamespitchessuccessfully. The followingpointsservetosummarisethevariouselementsoftheexistingmaintenance schedule.

§ Chainharrowingisrecommendedonaregularbasisduringsuitableweather conditionstosmoothout thesurfaceandliftanydebrisoutfromthe turfbase.

§ Solidtiningisalsorecommendedtoaeratethepitchwhengroundconditionsare suitableduringthemainplayingseason.

§ Asinglefertiliserapplicationisrecommendedtomaintainturfhealth throughthemain playingseason.Asingleapplicationofa14:4:4productisrecommendedinAprilto boosttheonsetofstrongspringrecoverygrowth.

§ Provisionismadeforweedcontrolifrequiredusingasuitablyapprovedselective herbicideifrequired.

§ Verti-drainingiscontainedwithinthespecificationtorelievesoilcompactionbutonly whereneeded.

§ Overseedingisrecommendedattheendofeachseasontorestoreafullgrasscover, especiallywithinthegoalmouthsandcentrecircles.Overseedingisrecommended tobecarriedoutusingaspecificseederapplyingqualityseedarateof33g/m².

§ Mowingisduetobecarriedoutasrequiredtomaintainanappropriategrasscover.

Thisisafairlysimplemaintenanceprogrammeaimingtosustainasuitablesurfaceduring theplayingseasonthenrenovateandgeneraterecoveryduringthesummerclosedseason. Theobjectofourassessmentwastoreviewthesuccessof thismaintenanceplan.

3.0 EXISTINGUSAGELEVELS

Theusageofthepitchvariesfromsitetosite.Somepitchessupportacoupleofteamsin boththeSaturdayandSundayleaguesandsowouldbeexpectedtotake2gamesoverthe weekendperiod.Thisisconsideredtobequiteahighlevelofusageandwouldrequirequite ahighlevelofmaintenancetomaintaingoodstandards.

4.0 FIELDASSESSMENTSURVEY

Assessmentinformationwasgathered fromeachsiteusinganumberofvisualandphysical observationsandmeasurements.Eachpitchwasassessedusingcriteria,whichrelatedto eitheritsconditionalsuitabilityorperformancelevelswithanyadditionalobservationsbeing notedunderneath. Theassessmentsheetsareallcontainedwithintheappendixofthis report.Thefollowingcriteriawereusedtoassesstheconditionandperformanceofeach pitch.

2 KingstonuponHullCityCouncil 3

4.1 CONDITION

4.1.1 GrassCover Theoverallgrasscoverwasvisuallyassessedtogivethelevelofwearandtearacrossthe pitch.Thiswasusedtojudgethesuitabilityforplay,thelevelofoveruseandtheneedfor additionalmaintenance.Thegrasscoverwasassessedbywalkingthelengthofthepitch andapercentageoftotalcoverwasgivenat8spacedintervals.Onlylivegrasscoverwas includedinthepercentageobservation.Thetargetlevelforeachareaofthepitchisoutlined in theassessmentform.

4.1.2 SwardContent Thegrassspecieswithinthepitchwasobservedvisuallyatthesameintervalsasoverall coveracrossthelengthofthepitch. Theswardcontentwastakenasameasureofthe conditionandweartoleranceofthepitch. Pitcheswithahigherpercentageofperennial ryegrassareabletosupporthigherlevelsofwintergamesplaythantheothermajorgrass types.Fivemainspecieswerelistedinthesurveyformwithadditionalgrasseslistedas well. Atotalpercentageforeachspecieswasestimatedafterall8pointshadbeen observed.

4.1.3 WeedContent Avisualassessmentoftotalweedcoverwasobservedalongthelengthofthepitchanda totalpercentageofeachweedspecieswasestimated.Weedcontentgivesanindicationof thehealthoftheswardandgeneralsuccessofthemaintenanceprogrammeandgivesan indicationofthelevelofwearthatthepitchcouldendure.Highlevelsofweedinfestation indicatethatthemaintenanceprogrammeisnotworkingsufficiently.

4.1.4 SoilProfile Acorewas takenfromthewingofeachpitchusingaspadetoamaximumdepthof250mm andanaveragewidthof200mm.Theprofilewasphysicallyassessedforthefollowing:

· Thatchdepth – Ameasurementofthatchwastakenusingatapemeasurein millimetres.Thiswastakentoensurethepitchhadadequatedrainageandwasnot affectedbythebuildupoforganicmatteronthesurface.Thatchonwintergames pitchesisusuallyanindicationoflowlevelsofusewithverylittlebuildupoccurringin frequentlyplayedsites.Themaximumdepthofthatchacceptableinthestandards was5mm.

· RootDepth – Thiswasmeasuredinmillimetresusingatapemeasure.Rootdepth givesanindicationofthegeneralhealthandweartoleranceoftheswardandthe levelofgrassestablishmentintheprofile.Shallowrootswouldmakethepitchless able tosustainwear.Theminimumstandarddepthwassetat100mm.

· TopSoilDepth – Thiswasmeasuredtoensurethesubsoillayerwasnotexposed andtherewassufficientdepthoftopsoiltoprovideahealthygrowingenvironment and toincrease thedrainagepotential.Thedepthwasmeasuredinmillimetresusing atapemeasuredown to thesubsoilwiththeminimumstandardbeingsetat200mm.

4.1.4 SoilType Handdeterminationofsoil typewastakentoassess thedrainagepotentialwithinthetopsoil. Thegreatertheparticlesizewithinthesoil themoredrainagepotentialitpossesses.

3 KingstonuponHullCityCouncil 4

4.1.5 SwardHeight Swardheightinfluencesthesuitabilityandsafetyofawintersportspitch. Heightswere measuredat8pointsdownthepitchusingatapemeasure.Thestandardforassessment wassetatbetween30-60mmwhichindicates thatthepitchissafe forplaybutcouldsustain anadequateturfcoverandhealth.Suitabilityofthepitchwasreducediftheswardheight fellaboveorbelowthisstandard.

4.2 SUITABILITY

4.2.1 Hardness ThehardnessofeachpitchwasmeasuredusingaCleggImpactsoiltester. TheClegg ImpactHammercomprisesa0.5kgroundedheadtestmassthatisdroppedontothesurface fromaheightof0.5m.Thedevicemeasuresthepeakdeceleration(gmax)asthetestmass impactsthesurfacewiththeresultsbeingexpressedingravities.Thehigherthevalue,the firmerthesurface. 5measurementsweretakenthroughthemainbodyofeachpitchto provideanaveragefigureforthefirmnessofthesurface.Ourtargetlevelforthistimeof yearwastoachievefirmnesslevelsof70-100gravities.Readingsbelow70weredeemedto betoosoftandpossiblyindicativeofpoordrainagewhilstreadingsabove100wereprobably toohardforwintergamespitchesandmayindicatealevelofsoilcompaction.

4.2.2 MoistureContent ThevolumetricsoilmoisturecontentwasmeasuredusingaThetaMoistureProbe. This resultwouldreflectthelevelofrainfalloccurringpriortoinspectionandalsoindicateany drainageproblems.Atargetlevelofbetween30-50%moisturecontentwasset.Below30% wouldindicateadrysituationthatcouldpossiblyresultinthestressingoutofthegrasscover while50%wouldmaybeindicateapotentialdrainageproblem.

4.2.3 Traction ThetractionofeachpitchwasmeasuredusingaTurfTechInternationalTorquewrench. Thisdeviceusesa torquewrenchto turnastuddedbaseplateandgivesanindicationofthe traction(orstability)ofthesurface.Atthistimeofyearitwasfeltthattractionreadingsof between25-35wouldbedesirable.Certainlyreadingsbelow25Newtonmeterswouldbe anunstablesurfaceonwhich toplay.

4.2.4 StoneContent The topsoilwasbrokendownbyhand torevealanystoneline towithin2mmofthesurface. Thesoilwasthensiftedandanystonesremoved. Thelength,widthanddepthwere measuredusingatapemeasureandthemaximumsizewasrecorded.Anestimationwas madeofthegeneralpercentageoftheoverallstonecontentwithinthesoilprofile.Ahigh stonecontentcanmakeawintergamespitchunsuitableforplay.

4.2.5 SurfaceLevels Thelevelswithineachpitchweredeterminedusingadeviationmeasurementfroma2m straightedge.Atotalof15measurementsweretakenacrossthepitch.Themaximumgap betweenthebottomedgeofthestraightedgeandthegroundwasmeasuredusingatape measure.Anaveragewaslatercalculatedfromthe15pointsandsetagainstamaximum parameterof20mm.Themaximumdeviationfromthestraightedgewasalsorecordedto indicatetheseverityofundulationwithinthepitch. The maximumstandardforaverage pitchundulationwas20mmwithanysinglemeasurementnotexceeding50mm. Thelevel ofundulationsinapitchcanmakeitunsuitableforuse.

4 KingstonuponHullCityCouncil 5

4.2.6 OverallLevels Thelevelsofeachpitchwerevisuallydeterminedbyassessingtheoverallslopeoftheland. Themaximumstandardforpitchslopewassetat2%,whichtranslatesto2mover100m. Thiswasdeterminedvisuallyforbothpitchlengthandwidthwiththegreaterslopebeing recorded.Slopeacrossthewidthofapitchisseenaslessofaconcernthanslopedownthe lengthgiventhedirectionofplay.

5.0 SUMMARY OFRESULTS

Theindividualassessmentsheetsarecontainedwithintheappendixofthisreport. This sectionservestosummarise theresultsobtainedfromeachpitch.

5.1 PARKSFOOTBALLPITCHES

5.1.1 CostelloPlayingFields ForCostellowechoseacoupleoffootballpitchestoprovidearepresentationofthe standardsbeingsetacross thissite.

5.1.1.1Costello-PitchA Thefirstpitchassessedwasthe 4th pitchupworkingfromAnlabyParkRoadnorth.This pitchexhibitedapoorqualitygrasscover.Theunderlyingsoilwasveryheavyinnatureand foundtobeextremelycompacted.Thesurfacewassoftunderfootandindicativeofpoor drainage.Localisedlevelswerealsofoundtobeanissue.

PhotographsofCostello-PitchA.

5 KingstonuponHullCityCouncil 6

Recommendationstoachieveimprovementofthesepitchesmaybesummarisedasbeing:

· Verti-draintorelievesoilcompactionat theendoftheplayingseason. · Overseedat theendoftheseasontoimprovetheswardquality. · Fertilisetomaintaingrowthinspringandpossiblyagainduringthesummer. · Undertakeselectiveweedcontrolasrequiredduringthesummer.

Furtherstudywouldbehelpfultodeterminethepotentialfordrainageandindeedimproving thesurfacelevels.

5.1.1.2CostelloPitchB The 2nd Costellopitchwasadjacenttothecentralpathway.Forthispitchthegrasscover wasofpoorqualityanditwasseentobecuttingupunderplay(indicatingthatthelevelof usagemaybetoohighforthispitch).Theunderlyingsoilwasveryheavyinnatureand foundtobecompacted.Thesurfacewassoftunderfootandundoubtedlydrainagewould help thissituation.Thelevelsthroughoutthispitchwereseen tobesatisfactory.

PhotographsofCostello-PitchB

6 KingstonuponHullCityCouncil 7

Therecommendationsforthefuturemaintenanceofthepitchwouldbeto:

· Verti-draintorelievesoilcompactionat theendoftheplayingseason. · Overseedat theendoftheseasontoimprovetheswardquality. · Fertilisetomaintaingrowthinspringandpossiblyagainduringthesummer. · Undertakeselectiveweedcontrolasrequiredduringthesummer.

Certainlyafeasibilitystudywouldbehelpfulinthisareatooutlinetheoptionsforimproving drainagetoresultinimprovedperformanceandweartolerance.

5.1.2 DanePark Thepitchchosenforassessmentonthissitewasbytheroadawayfromtheporta-cabins. Theswardheightforthispitchhadbeenleftwaytoolongforfootball.Theunderlyingsoil washeavyinnatureandfoundtobecompacted. Extradrainagewouldcertainlyhelp improvethispitch. Localisedpoorsurfacelevelswereanissueespeciallyoverwhat appeared tobeexistingdrainlines.

PhotographsforDanePark

7 KingstonuponHullCityCouncil 8

Therecommendationsforthefuturemaintenanceofthepitchwouldbeto:

· Verti-draintorelievesoilcompactionat theendoftheplayingseason. · Overseedat theendoftheseasontoimprovetheswardquality. · Fertilisetomaintaingrowthinspringandpossiblyagainduringthesummer. · Undertakeselectiveweedcontrolasrequiredduringthesummer.

Certainlyafeasibilitystudywouldbehelpfulinthisareatooutlinetheoptionsforimproving drainagetoresultinimprovedperformanceandweartolerance.

5.1.3 Ennerdale Thechosenpitchwastheonenearesttothecarpark.Herepoorqualitygrasscoverwas notedthatcouldbeimprovedwithanincreasedperennialryegrasscontent.Theunderlying soilwasveryheavyinnatureandthesurfacewassoftindicatingpoordrainage.Localised levelswereseentobearealissuehere.

PhotographsofEnnerdale

8 KingstonuponHullCityCouncil 9

Therecommendationsforthefuturemaintenanceofthepitchwouldbeto:

· Verti-draintorelievesoilcompactionat theendoftheplayingseason. · Overseedat theendoftheseasontoimprovetheswardquality. · Fertilisetomaintaingrowthinspringandpossiblyagainduringthesummer. · Undertakeselectiveweedcontrolasrequiredduringthesummer.

Certainlyafeasibilitystudywouldbehelpfulinthisareatooutlinetheoptionsforimproving drainagetoresultinimprovedperformanceandweartolerance.Thesurfacelevelswould alsobenefitfromimprovement.

5.1.4 GowerPark Thesurfacewasingoodconditionbuttheswarditselfwasquitepoorquality.Anincreasein theperennialryegrasscontentwouldbedesirableandanincreasedleveloffertilisation needed. Quiteahighweedcontentwasalsonoted. Theunderlyingsoilwasheavyin natureandcompactionnoted.

Photographsfor GowerPark

9 KingstonuponHullCityCouncil 10

Therecommendationsforthefuturemaintenanceofthepitchwouldbeto:

· Verti-draintorelievesoilcompactionat theendoftheplayingseason. · Overseedat theendoftheseasontoimprovetheswardquality. · Fertilisetomaintaingrowthinspringandpossiblyagainduringthesummer. · Undertakeselectiveweedcontrolasrequiredduringthesummer.

Certainlyafeasibilitystudywouldbehelpfulinthisareatooutlinetheoptionsforimproving drainagetoresultinimprovedperformanceandweartolerance.Thesurfacelevelswould alsobenefitfromimprovement.

5.1.5 IngsRoad Thequalityof thegrasscoverherecouldbeimprovedwithoverseeding.Theunderlyingsoil iscompactedinnatureandquitestony.Localisedwornareaswerenotedandneedafull renovationattheendoftheseason.Certainlylocalisedlevelsareanissuehere.

PhotographforIngsRoad

10 KingstonuponHullCityCouncil 11

Therecommendationsforthefuturemaintenanceofthepitchwouldbeto:

· Verti-draintorelievesoilcompactionat theendoftheplayingseason. · Overseedat theendoftheseasontoimprovetheswardquality. · Fertilisetomaintaingrowthinspringandpossiblyagainduringthesummer. · Undertakeselectiveweedcontrolasrequiredduringthesummer.

5.1.6 King GeorgeV Thepitchclosesttothecarparkwaschosenforassessment.Thispitchwasheavilyworn andexhibitedextremelypoorqualitycover.Thelevelofusageseemstobeanissuehere andanoverseedingwouldbebeneficial.Theunderlyingsoilwasveryheavyinnatureand compactionwasnoted.Thesurfacewasextremelysoftunderfootindicatingpoordrainage. Overall,thelevelsonthispitchweregood.

PhotographsforKing GeorgeV

11 KingstonuponHullCityCouncil 12

Therecommendationsforthefuturemaintenanceofthepitchwouldbeto:

· Verti-draintorelievesoilcompactionat theendoftheplayingseason. · Overseedat theendoftheseasontoimprovetheswardquality. · Fertilisetomaintaingrowthinspringandpossiblyagainduringthesummer. · Undertakeselectiveweedcontrolasrequiredduringthesummer.

Certainlyafeasibilitystudywouldbehelpfulinthisareatooutlinetheoptionsforimproving drainagetoresultinimprovedperformanceandweartolerance.

5.1.7 AldermanKneeshaw Thepitchnearestthepavilionwaschosen forassessment.Thispitchwasheavilywornand uneventhroughthecentrewhereithadbeenbadlyre-instatedfrompreviousworks.The underlyingsoilwasheavyinnatureandcompacted.Thesurfacewasquite firmasaresult ofdryweatherontherunuptoinspection.Theundulatinglevelsarethemainissueonthis pitchwithseriousgulliesnoted.

PhotographsforAldermanKneeshaw

12 KingstonuponHullCityCouncil 13

Therecommendationsforthefuturemaintenanceofthepitchwouldbeto:

· Verti-draintorelievesoilcompactionat theendoftheplayingseason. · Overseedat theendoftheseasontoimprovetheswardquality. · Fertilisetomaintaingrowthinspringandpossiblyagainduringthesummer. · Undertakeselectiveweedcontrolasrequiredduringthesummer.

Certainlyafeasibilitystudywouldbehelpfulinthisareatooutlinetheoptionsforimproving thesurfacelevels.

5.1.8 LonghillPlayingFields Themiddlefootballpitchwaschosenforassessmenthere. Thispitchexhibitedagood coverbutthequalityoftheswardcouldbeimprovedwithoverseeding.Theunderlyingsoil isheavyinnatureandcompactionwasnoted. Localisedlevelsarecertainlyanissue, mainlysunkendrainlinesthatneedtoppingup.

PhotographsforLonghill

13 KingstonuponHullCityCouncil 14

Therecommendationsforthefuturemaintenanceofthepitchwouldbeto:

· Verti-draintorelievesoilcompactionat theendoftheplayingseason. · Overseedat theendoftheseasontoimprovetheswardquality. · Fertilisetomaintaingrowthinspringandpossiblyagainduringthesummer. · Undertakeselectiveweedcontrolasrequiredduringthesummer.

5.1.9 Mappleton Grove Thispitchwasnotinplayatthetimeofinspection.Evensoitexhibitedapoorqualitygrass coverwithseriousundulations.Iamcertainlynotsurprisedthatthispitchisnotsuitablefor use.

PhotographsforMappleton Grove

Therecommendationsforthefuturemaintenanceofthepitchwouldbeto:

· Verti-draintorelievesoilcompactionat theendoftheplayingseason. · Overseedat theendoftheseasontoimprovetheswardquality. · Fertilisetomaintaingrowthinspringandpossiblyagainduringthesummer. · Undertakeselectiveweedcontrolasrequiredduringthesummer.

Afeasibilitystudyiscertainlyrequiredtodeterminetheoptionsforimprovingthelevelsof thisarea tomakeitmoreappropriateforuse.

5.1.10MasseyStreetRecreation Ground Thispitchwasheavilywornatthetimeofinspection.Thegrassqualitywasofpoorquality andrequiresoverseedingwithperennialryegrasstoimprovetheweartolerance. The underlyingsoilwasheavyinnatureandcompactionwasnoted.Localisedlowspotsare alsoanissuethatneedresolvingattheendoftheseason.

Therecommendationsforthefuturemaintenanceofthepitchwouldbeto:

· Verti-draintorelievesoilcompactionat theendoftheplayingseason. · Overseedat theendoftheseasontoimprovetheswardquality. · Fertilisetomaintaingrowthinspringandpossiblyagainduringthesummer.

14 KingstonuponHullCityCouncil 15

· Undertakeselectiveweedcontrolasrequiredduringthesummer.

Afeasibilitystudyiscertainlyrequiredtodeterminetheoptionsforimprovingthelevelsof thisarea tomakeitmoreappropriateforuse.

5.1.11NoddleHillPlayingField Thepitchclosesttotheplaygroundwaschosenforassessment.Thequalityofthegrass coverneedsimprovinginthisareabyoverseeding.Theunderlyingsoilwasheavyinnature andcompactedandwouldbenefit fromVerti-draining.Poordrainageseemstobethemain issueonthissitewithseriousrutting/divotingnotedindicatingthatthepitchcutsupwhen wet.Thelevelswereverygoodinthisarea.

PhotographsofNoddleHill

Therecommendationsforthemaintenanceof thispitchmaybesummarisedasbeing:

· Verti-draintorelievesoilcompactionat theendoftheplayingseason. · Overseed toimprovetheswardqualityattheendoftheseason. · Fertilisetomaintaingrowthinspringandpossiblyagainduringthesummer. · Undertakeselectiveweedcontrolasrequiredduringthesummer.

Afeasibilitystudywouldbebeneficialtooutlinetheoptionstoimprovethedrainageofthis site.

5.1.12OakRoadPlayingField Acoupleoffootballpitcheswerechosenonthissitetoprovidearepresentativesample.

5.1.12.1OakRoadPitchA Thefirstpitchwasthemiddlepitchalongsidethehedgenearesttothewindmill.Thispitch exhibitedapoorgrasscoverandapoorqualitysward.Thesurfacewaswornandtacky underfoot.Overseedingiscertainlyrequiredtoimprovethequalityofthegrasscoverwith anincreasedproportionofperennialryegrass.Theunderlyingsoilwasheavyinnatureand compactionwasnoted.Thesurfacewassoftunderfootindicatingpoordrainage.Thelevels arecertainlyanissueon thispitchwithnotabledipsandfurrows.

15 KingstonuponHullCityCouncil 16

PhotographsforOakRoadPitchA

Therecommendationsforthemaintenanceof thispitchmaybesummarisedasbeing:

· Verti-draintorelievesoilcompactionat theendoftheplayingseason. · Overseed toimprovetheswardqualityattheendoftheseason. · Fertilisetomaintaingrowthinspringandpossiblyagainduringthesummer. · Undertakeselectiveweedcontrolasrequiredduringthesummer.

Afeasibilitystudywillberequiredtooutlinetheoptionsforimprovementin thedrainageand levelsofthispitch.

5.1.12.2OakRoadPitch B Thesecondpitchwasontheothersideofthehedgetotherugbypitch.Thecoveronthis pitchwasextremelywornandwillrequiresignificantoverseedingattheendoftheplaying

16 KingstonuponHullCityCouncil 17 season.Theunderlyingsoilwasheavyinnatureandcompactedandwouldbenefitfrom Verti-draining.Poordrainagewasevidentinthisareaandlocalisedlevelswerecertainlyan issueaswell.

PhotographsforOakRoadPitchB

Therecommendationsforthemaintenanceof thispitchmaybesummarisedasbeing:

· Verti-draintorelievesoilcompactionat theendoftheplayingseason. · Overseed toimprovetheswardqualityattheendoftheseason. · Fertilisetomaintaingrowthinspringandpossiblyagainduringthesummer. · Undertakeselectiveweedcontrolasrequiredduringthesummer.

Afeasibilitystudyisrequiredtooutlinetheoptionstoimprovethedrainageand thelevelsof thispitch.

17 KingstonuponHullCityCouncil 18

5.1.13PelicanRecreation Ground Thispitchwasdominatedbyfinergrasses(bentandfescues)ratherthanthehardwearing perennialryegrassthatwewoulddesire. Overseedingisrequiredtoimprovethewear toleranceofthispitch.TheunderlyingsoilisheavyinnatureandVerti-drainingisrequiredat theendoftheseasontorelievecompaction.Itisclearthatpoordrainageisalsoanissue onthissite.Levelsarecertainlyanissuewithridgesrunningthroughthemainbodyofthis pitch.

Therecommendationsforthemaintenanceof thispitchmaybesummarisedasbeing:

· Verti-draintorelievesoilcompactionat theendoftheplayingseason. · Overseed toimprovetheswardqualityattheendoftheseason. · Fertilisetomaintaingrowthinspringandpossiblyagainduringthesummer. · Undertakeselectiveweedcontrolasrequiredduringthesummer.

Afeasibilitystudywillberequiredtoattendtoboth thedrainageandlevels.

5.1.14PrincessElizabethPlayingFields Thepitchclosesttothecarparkwaschosen forassessment.Thispitchwaswornthrough thecentreandwillrequireoverseedingattheendoftheseason. Theunderlyingsoilis heavyinnatureandcompactionwasnotedrequiringVerti-draining.Thesurfacewassoft underfootandpoordrainagewasevidentinplaces – localisedsandingwouldbebeneficial todryupwetareas.Certainlylocalisedlevelsareanissueforrenovation.

PhotographsforPrincessElizabethPlayingFields

18 KingstonuponHullCityCouncil 19

Therecommendationsforthemaintenanceof thispitchmaybesummarisedasbeing:

· Verti-draintorelievesoilcompactionat theendoftheplayingseason. · Overseed toimprovetheswardqualityattheendoftheseason. · Fertilisetomaintaingrowthinspringandpossiblyagainduringthesummer. · Undertakeselectiveweedcontrolasrequiredduringthesummer.

Afeasibilitystudywillberequiredtoassessthedrainageof thissite.

5.1.15PickeringPark ThepitchnexttothePickeringRoadentrancewaschosen forassessment.Thisisaweak andwetpitch. Thesurfacewassoftandtackyunderfoot. Thegrasscoverwaspoorin qualityandrequiresoverseedingattheendoftheseason.Theunderlyingsoilwasheavyin natureandwouldbenefitfromVerti-drainingtorelievesoilcompaction.Surfacesweresoft underfootandtherewasevidenceofpoordrainage.Theexistingdrainagedoesnotappear tobesufficienttobeabletosupportheavyplay.

Therecommendationsforthemaintenanceof thispitchmaybesummarisedasbeing:

· Verti-draintorelievesoilcompactionat theendoftheplayingseason. · Overseed toimprovetheswardqualityattheendoftheseason. · Fertilisetomaintaingrowthinspringandpossiblyagainduringthesummer. · Undertakeselectiveweedcontrolasrequiredduringthesummer.

Afeasibilitystudywillberequiredtoassessthedrainageof thissite.

5.1.16SpringheadPlayingField Thispitchwasheavilywornandexhibitedapoorqualitygrasscover. Overseedingwouldbe requiredattheendoftheseasontoestablishahardwearinggrasscoverdominatedby perennialryegrassspecies. Theunderlyingsoilwasheavyinnatureandcompacted identifyingtheneedforVerti-drainingattheendoftheseason. Thesurfacesweresoft underfootandpoordrainageiscertainlyanissue. Localisedlevelsarealsoanissuein places.

19 KingstonuponHullCityCouncil 20

PhotographsforSpringhead

Therecommendationsforthemaintenanceof thispitchmaybesummarisedasbeing:

· Verti-draintorelievesoilcompactionat theendoftheplayingseason. · Overseed toimprovetheswardqualityattheendoftheseason. · Fertilisetomaintaingrowthinspringandpossiblyagainduringthesummer. · Undertakeselectiveweedcontrolasrequiredduringthesummer.

A feasibilitystudywouldcertainlyberequiredtoassessboththedrainageandthelevelson thissite.

5.1.17StonebridgeFootballPitch Thispitchwasgenerallyingoodcondition.Levellingworkwillberequiredattheendofthe seasontorestoreadecentsurface.

20 KingstonuponHullCityCouncil 21

Therecommendationsforthemaintenanceof thispitchmaybesummarisedasbeing:

· Verti-draintorelievesoilcompactionat theendoftheplayingseason. · Overseed toimprovetheswardqualityattheendoftheseason. · Fertilisetomaintaingrowthinspringandpossiblyagainduringthesummer. · Undertakeselectiveweedcontrolasrequiredduringthesummer.

5.2 PARKSRUGBYPITCHES

Selectedrugbypitcheswerealsoassessed.Theassessmentsheetsarecontainedwithin Appendix2.

5.2.1 BricknellRecreation Ground Thepitchnearthepavilioncarparkwaschosenforassessment.Thispitchexhibitedapoor grasscoverthatrequiredoverseedingtoimprove.Thesurfacehadbeenworninlocalised areasandsandapplicationwouldcertainlyhelppreventtheseaffectedareas turningtomud. ThepitchisonaheavysoilwhichwascompactedandwhichwouldbenefitfromVerti- draining.Certainlythispitchispoorlydrainedand thelocalisedlevelsarealsoanissue.

PhotographsofBricknellRecreation Ground

21 KingstonuponHullCityCouncil 22

Therecommendationsforthemaintenanceof thispitchmaybesummarisedasbeing:

· Verti-draintorelievesoilcompactionat theendoftheplayingseason. · Overseed toimprovetheswardqualityattheendoftheseason. · Fertilisetomaintaingrowthinspringandpossiblyagainduringthesummer. · Undertakeselectiveweedcontrolasrequiredduringthesummer.

A feasibilitystudywouldcertainlyberequiredtoassessboththedrainageandthelevelson thissite.

5.2.2 EastParkRugby Thispitchexhibitedaworncoverandthesurfacewasruttedunderplay. Certainly, overseedingisrequiredtore-establishamorehardwearinggrasscoveranditappearsthat theusagelevelmightalsoneedsomefurtherconsideration.Theunderlyingsoilwasheavy innatureandcompactedandwouldbenefit fromVerti-draining.Thispitchispoorlydrained andalsolocalisedlevelsareanissue.

PhotographsofEastParkRugby

22 KingstonuponHullCityCouncil 23

Therecommendationsforthemaintenanceof thispitchmaybesummarisedasbeing:

· Verti-draintorelievesoilcompactionat theendoftheplayingseason. · Overseed toimprovetheswardqualityattheendoftheseason. · Fertilisetomaintaingrowthinspringandpossiblyagainduringthesummer. · Undertakeselectiveweedcontrolasrequiredduringthesummer.

Afeasibilitystudywouldbebeneficial toimprovethedrainage.

5.2.3 EastPark – TowerGrange Thispitchexhibitedapoorgrasscoverandwouldbenefitfromoverseeding.Theunderlying soilwasheavyandcompactedandwouldbenefitfromVerti-draining.Annualtopdressing wouldcertainlyhelpamelioratetheuppersoilprofiletoprovideamorestablesurfaceon whichtoplay.Generallythelevelsaregoodonthispitch.

PhotographsforTowerGrange

23 KingstonuponHullCityCouncil 24

Therecommendationsforthemaintenanceof thispitchmaybesummarisedasbeing:

· Verti-draintorelievesoilcompactionat theendoftheplayingseason. · Overseed toimprovetheswardqualityattheendoftheseason. · Fertilisetomaintaingrowthinspringandpossiblyagainduringthesummer. · Undertakeselectiveweedcontrolasrequiredduringthesummer.

Afeasibilitystudywouldcertainlyberequiredtoimprovethedrainageofthissite.

5.2.4 MasseyBeecroftParkRugby Thispitchwaswornatthetimeofinspectionandweneedtoestablishagreaterproportion ofperennialryegrasstoestablishaharderwearinggrasscover.Theunderlyingsoilisvery heavyinnatureandpronetocuttingupunderplay.Thelevelsonthispitchweregenerally good.

Themaintenancerecommendationstoimprove thispitchcanbesummarisedasbeing:

· Verti-draintorelievesoilcompactionat theendoftheplayingseason. · Overseed toimprovetheswardqualityattheendoftheseason. · Fertilisetomaintaingrowthinspringandpossiblyagainduringthesummer. · Undertakeselectiveweedcontrolasrequiredduringthesummer.

5.2.5 OakRoadRugby Thispitchwasveryheavyunderfoot.Theworncoverinplacesrequiredoverseeding.The heavysoilneedsVerti-draininganddrainagetoimproveitsperformance.Thelevelscould beimproved.

PhotographsforOakRoadRugby

24 KingstonuponHullCityCouncil 25

Therecommendationsforthemaintenanceof thispitchmaybesummarisedasbeing:

· Verti-draintorelievesoilcompactionat theendoftheplayingseason. · Overseed toimprovetheswardqualityattheendoftheseason. · Fertilisetomaintaingrowthinspringandpossiblyagainduringthesummer. · Undertakeselectiveweedcontrolasrequiredduringthesummer.

Afeasibilitystudywouldbebeneficialfor thedrainageandlevels.

5.2.6 CostelloRugby Thispitchexhibitedaweakcoverandrequiresoverseedingattheendoftheseason.The surfacewassoftunderfootandexhibitedpoordrainageandlowtractionreadings.Certainly drainagewouldhelpimprovethesituation.Generally thelevelsweregoodonthissite.

PhotographsofCostellorugby

25 KingstonuponHullCityCouncil 26

Therecommendationsforthemaintenanceof thispitchmaybesummarisedasbeing:

· Verti-draintorelievesoilcompactionat theendoftheplayingseason. · Overseed toimprovetheswardqualityattheendoftheseason. · Fertilisetomaintaingrowthinspringandpossiblyagainduringthesummer. · Undertakeselectiveweedcontrolasrequiredduringthesummer.

Afeasibilitystudywouldbebeneficialfor thedrainage.

5.2.7 ShawParkRugby Thispitchwasn’tinbadconditionbutthegrasscoverwasalittleweakandweedy.Fertiliser andweedcontrolwillberequiredduring thegrowingseason.Theunderlyingsoilwasheavy andcompactedandrequiredVerti-draining.Thesurfacewassoftunderfootindicatingpoor drainage.Thelevelswerecertainlyanissue.

PhotographsforShawPark

26 KingstonuponHullCityCouncil 27

Therecommendationsforthemaintenanceof thispitchmaybesummarisedasbeing:

· Verti-draintorelievesoilcompactionat theendoftheplayingseason. · Overseed toimprovetheswardqualityattheendoftheseason. · Fertilisetomaintaingrowthinspringandpossiblyagainduringthesummer. · Undertakeselectiveweedcontrolasrequiredduringthesummer.

Afeasibilitystudywouldbebeneficialfor thedrainageandlevels.

5.3 SCHOOLPITCHES

Anumberofsecondaryschoolplayingfieldswereassessedtoreviewtheirconditionand performance.TheassessmentsheetsarecontainedwithinAppendix3.

5.3.1 AndrewMarvell The footballpitchnearestto thegatewaschosen forassessment.Apoorqualitycoverwas noted,whichwasweakandworn,especiallythroughthecentre. Overseedingand appropriatefertilisingisrequiredtosustainahealthierandhardwearinggrasscover.The underlyingsoilwasheavyinnatureandcompactedandwouldbenefit fromVerti-drainingat theendofeachseason. Thispitchexhibitedpoordrainageandcertainlysubsidence certainlyseemstobeanissueaffectingthelevels.

Themaintenancerecommendationstoimprove thispitchcanbesummarisedasbeing:

· Verti-draintorelievesoilcompactionat theendoftheplayingseason. · Overseed toimprovetheswardqualityattheendoftheseason. · Fertilisetomaintaingrowthinspringandpossiblyagainduringthesummer. · Undertakeselectiveweedcontrolasrequiredduringthesummer.

Afeasibilitystudywouldbebeneficialfor thedrainageandlevels.

27 KingstonuponHullCityCouncil 28

PhotographsforAndrewMarvell

5.3.2 DavidListerSchool Herethepitchwasheavilywornandweakthroughout.Properfertilising,overseedingand appropriateusageisrequired.Theunderlyingsoilwasheavyinnatureandcompact.The surfacewassoftunderfootindicatingpoordrainage.Thelevelsweresatisfactory.

Themaintenancerecommendationstoimprove thispitchcanbesummarisedasbeing:

· Verti-draintorelievesoilcompactionat theendoftheplayingseason. · Overseed toimprovetheswardqualityattheendoftheseason. · Fertilisetomaintaingrowthinspringandpossiblyagainduringthesummer. · Undertakeselectiveweedcontrolasrequiredduringthesummer.

Afeasibilitystudywouldbebeneficialfor thedrainageatthissite.

28 KingstonuponHullCityCouncil 29

PhotographsforDavidListerSchool

5.3.3 MaletLambertFootballPitch Thispitchexhibitedapoorqualitygrasscoverthatwasheavilyworn.Overseeingandan appropriatefertiliserarerequiredtomaintainahealthiergrasscover.Theunderlyingsoil washeavyinnatureandcompactandwouldbenefit fromVerti-drainingonanannualbasis. Localisedlowspotswerenoted.

Themaintenancerecommendationstoimprove thispitchcanbesummarisedasbeing:

· Verti-draintorelievesoilcompactionat theendoftheplayingseason. · Overseed toimprovetheswardqualityattheendoftheseason. · Fertilisetomaintaingrowthinspringandpossiblyagainduringthesummer. · Undertakeselectiveweedcontrolasrequiredduringthesummer.

Afeasibilitystudywouldbebeneficialfor thedrainageandlevels.

29 KingstonuponHullCityCouncil 30

5.3.4 StMary’sCollege Thefarfootballpitchwaschosenforassessment.Thispitchwasnotinplayatthetimeof inspection.Levellingworkhadbeendonetohelpimprovetheplayabilityofthispitch.The surfacewassoftunderfootandexhibitedpoordrainage.

Therecommendationsforthemaintenanceof thispitchmaybesummarisedasbeing:

· Verti-draintorelievesoilcompactionat theendoftheplayingseason. · Overseed toimprovetheswardqualityattheendoftheseason. · Fertilisetomaintaingrowthinspringandpossiblyagainduringthesummer. · Undertakeselectiveweedcontrolasrequiredduringthesummer.

Afeasibilitystudywouldbebeneficialfor thedrainageandlevels.

5.3.4 SirHenryCooperSchool Thispitchwassoftandmuddy.Weakcoverwasexhibitedthroughout.Theunderlyingsoil isheavyandcompactedandrequiresVerti-drainingandwouldbenefit fromtopdressingon anannualbasis.Poordrainagewasnotedandthelevelscouldbeimproved.

PhotographforSirHenryCooperSchool

Themaintenancerecommendationstoimprove thispitchcanbesummarisedasbeing:

· Verti-draintorelievesoilcompactionat theendoftheplayingseason. · Overseed toimprovetheswardqualityattheendoftheseason. · Fertilisetomaintaingrowthinspringandpossiblyagainduringthesummer. · Undertakeselectiveweedcontrolasrequiredduringthesummer.

Afeasibilitystudywouldbebeneficialfor thedrainageandlevels.

5.3.5 SydneySmithSchool-Rugby Thispitchwasseentobeholdingupwell.Poorcoverwasnotedandrequiredoverseeding. Appropriatefertilisingandweedcontrolwouldalsobebeneficialthissummer.Poordrainage wasnotedandlocalisedlevelsareanissue.

30 KingstonuponHullCityCouncil 31

Therecommendationsforthemaintenanceof thispitchmaybesummarisedasbeing:

· Verti-draintorelievesoilcompactionat theendoftheplayingseason. · Overseed toimprovetheswardqualityattheendoftheseason. · Fertilisetomaintaingrowthinspringandpossiblyagainduringthesummer. · Undertakeselectiveweedcontrolasrequiredduringthesummer.

Afeasibilitystudywouldbebeneficialfor thedrainageandlevels.

5.3.6 ArchbishopSentamu Thispitchexhibitedawornsurfaceandpoorgrasscoverthatwasbeinginvadedbyweeds. Overseeding,fertilisingandselectiveweedcontrolshouldallbecarriedoutasamatterof routine.Theunderlyingsoilwasheavyinnatureandcompactedandwouldbenefitfrom Verti-drainingonanannualbasis.Thesurfacewasslightlysoftunderfootandwouldbenefit fromdrainage.Ingeneral thelevelsweregoodon thispitch.

Therecommendationsforthemaintenanceof thispitchmaybesummarisedasbeing:

· Verti-draintorelievesoilcompactionat theendoftheplayingseason. · Overseed toimprovetheswardqualityattheendoftheseason. · Fertilisetomaintaingrowthinspringandpossiblyagainduringthesummer. · Undertakeselectiveweedcontrolasrequiredduringthesummer.

Afeasibilitystudywouldberequiredtoappraisethedrainageofthispitch.

5.3.7 HighfieldArtCollege Thepitchnearesttotheschoolbuildingwaschosenforassessment.Thispitchexhibiteda weakandweedygrasscover.Overseeding,fertilisingandeventuallyweedcontrolwouldall bebeneficialonthissite.Theunderlyingsoilwasheavyandcompactionwasnotedand Verti-drainingwouldcertainlyhelponanannualbasis. Thesurfacewassoftunderfoot indicatingpoordrainage.Undulatinglevelsarecertainlyanissue.

PhotographofHighfieldArtCollege

31 KingstonuponHullCityCouncil 32

Therecommendationsforthemaintenanceof thispitchmaybesummarisedasbeing:

· Verti-draintorelievesoilcompactionat theendoftheplayingseason. · Overseed toimprovetheswardqualityattheendoftheseason. · Fertilisetomaintaingrowthinspringandpossiblyagainduringthesummer. · Undertakeselectiveweedcontrolasrequiredduringthesummer.

Afeasibilitystudywouldbebeneficialfor thedrainageandlevels.

5.3.8 Sirius Thispitchexhibitedawornandweakcoverandwouldbenefitfromoverseedingattheend oftheseasonandappropriate fertilising.Theunderlyingsoilisheavyinnatureandrequires Verti-drainingonanannualbasis.Thesoilusedforlevellingworkwasinappropriatelystony.

Therecommendationsforthemaintenanceof thispitchmaybesummarisedasbeing:

· Verti-draintorelievesoilcompactionat theendoftheplayingseason. · Overseed toimprovetheswardqualityattheendoftheseason. · Fertilisetomaintaingrowthinspringandpossiblyagainduringthesummer. · Undertakeselectiveweedcontrolasrequiredduringthesummer.

5.4 DISCUSSION OFRESULTS Thepitcheswereinspectedtowardstheendofthewintergamesplayingseason. Asa resultthosepitchesthatwereinplaywerewornatthetimeofinspection.Thelevelofwear wasvariablebutitwasfeltthatall thepitcheswereverysimilarintheirnature.

Allthepitchesarefoundedonaheavysoilthatispronetocompactionandslowtodrain. Thegrasscoverwasgenerallyofpoorqualityandweakatthetimeofinspection.Weeds werebeginningtoinvadeonanumberofsites.Theseissuespromptedastandardsetof maintenancerecommendationstobringaboutanimprovement…

Therecommendationsforthemaintenanceof thispitchmaybesummarisedasbeing:

· Verti-draintorelievesoilcompactionat theendoftheplayingseason. · Overseed toimprovetheswardqualityattheendoftheseason. · Fertilisetomaintaingrowthinspringandpossiblyagainduringthesummer. · Undertakeselectiveweedcontrolasrequiredduringthesummer.

Itisfeltthattheexistingmaintenanceplanisnotadequatelydealingwiththeissuesofsoil compactionandratherthanbeingaprovisionalitemitshouldberegardedasbeinga standardoperationforallpitchesinthespring.Alesscompactedsoilwillprovideabetter growingenvironment.

Thequalityofthegrasscoverisimportantbecauseitprovideswear tolerance. Overseeding withtopratedvarietiesofperennialryegrasswillalsoimprovetheperformanceofthe pitches.Thisshouldbecarriedout throughoutthepitchesusingaspecificoverseeder.

Acoupleoffertiliserapplicationswouldhelpstrengthentheswardbetterratherthanthe singleapplication thatiscurrentlyspecified.

Weedcontrolisnecessarytoestablishafullandhardwearinggrasscover.

32 KingstonuponHullCityCouncil 33

So,itisfeltthatbyintensifyingthemaintenancethatimprovementintheperformanceofthe pitchescouldbeachieved.

Thepoordrainageandundulatinglevelspromptedarecommendation forafurtherfeasibility studyonmostsitestooutlinetheoptionsavailable. ContactKayBinns,STRIDesign Department(01274565131)forfurtherinformation.

Thefollowingrecommendationssectionservestooutlinethegeneralmaintenance requirementsforthepitchesandgivespointerstowhereintensificationoftheexisting specificationmaybebeneficial.Itisunderstoodthatbecausetherearesomanypitches involvedthatanupgradeofthemaintenanceofallthepitcheswouldbeimpracticalbutitis feltthat theselectionofafewsitesforintensifiedmaintenancewouldhighlightthebenefitsof the treatmentsandallowyoutoevaluateawideradoption.

6.0 MAINTENANCEREQUIREMENTS

6.1 MowingHeight&Frequency ScheduleweeklymowingbetweenthemonthsofAprilandtheendofOctober.Astandard heightofcutof25-38mmisappropriateforthefootballpitches,cutatthehigherendofthis rangetowardstheendofthesummeratthestartofthenewseason,leavingalittlemore grassonthepitcheswillhelptoimproveweartolerance.Inferiormowingprogramsinwinter thintheturfdensityandactuallyreducesweartolerance(i.e.grassesrespondtoregular mowingandmoderatewearbyproducingnewshoots).

6.2 MowingPattern Thedesirewithinturfisforadense,uprightsward.Toachievethisaim,thefieldsshouldbe mowninadifferentdirectioneachtime(e.g.N-S,E-W,S-N,W-E).Togofurther,abroom attachmentcouldbeemployed,particularlyifwormcastsarepresent(theoperationwould alsohelptobreak-upwormcasts).

6.3 WeedControl Goodcontrolofweedscanbeachievedthroughtheappropriateuseofselectiveherbicides. Ensurethatthepeopleconductingthesprayingholdthecorrectcertificatesofcompetence andthatallsprayingiscarriedoutstrictlyinaccordancewithmanufacturer’sinstructionsand currentsprayingregulationsfollowingcompletionofaCOSHHassessment.

Wherecloverwasasignificantcontributortoweedcontentatmylastvisitanditwillbe necessarytoensurethattheselectiveherbicidecontainsmecoprop–Pasoneoftheactive ingredients.Cloverisadifficultweedtocontrolbutshouldrespondreasonablywelltothis particularactiveingredientifappliedatthecorrect time.

Avoidsprayingaselectiveherbicidesixweeksorsoeithersideofoverseeding,

6.4 SpringRenovationProgramme Itisveryimportant that therenovationprogrammeiscarriedoutasswiftlyaspossibleat the endoftheplayingseasontotakeadvantageofshowerywarmweatherconditionswhich tendtoprevailinlatespring/earlysummerandtogivetherenovatedpitchesagoodchance ofrecoveringbeforebeingsubjecttothestartofthenewseasonlaterinthesummer. Organisethedeliveryofmaterialstoenablethefollowingprogrammeofworktobecarried outassoonasthelastgameshavebeenplayed.

Thepitchesshouldbeverti-drainedattheearliestavailableopportunityattheendofthe season. Verti-draintinescanpenetratetodepthsof250-300mmandworkswitha heaving/forkingaction,whichcreatessoilcracking.Thebiggestbenefitisimproveddrainage

33 KingstonuponHullCityCouncil 34 andaerationonappropriatesoils.Yourabilitytovertidrainwillbegovernedbythestone contentin thesoilandthedepthof thestonebase.

ThepitcheswillneedtobeVerti-drainedattheendoftheplayingseasontorelieveany compactionthroughtodepth,increaseairexchangetopromotehealthygrassgrowthand furtherrootdevelopment.Schedulethetreatmentwhensoilprofilesarereasonablydryto getmaximumbenefitfrom the treatment.

Thiswouldservetorelievethecompactionoftheheavysoilandcreateagrowing environmentmoresuited totheproductionofweartolerantturf.Obviously,thereareahuge numberofpitchestocoverandsoselectiveclosureontherunuptotheendofseason wouldbebeneficial.

Overseedingwillalsobebeneficialonall thepitches,notjusttorepairbareareasbutalso to improvethequalityoftheswardingeneral. Theprovisionofafullandhealthysward dominatedbyhardwearingvarietiesofperennialryegrasswillradicallyimprovethe performanceofthepitches.UsetopratedryegrasscultivarsascontainedwithintheSTRI TurfgrassSeedbooklet2010.Applyatarateof35g/m2 inspring.Itisimportanttousea drillordisc-seedertoplacetheseedintotheuppersoilprofiletomaximisegerminationand establishment.

Fertilisewiththespecifiedproduct14-4-4(orsimilar12-6-6forexample)toboostrecovery andaidthegerminationandestablishmentof theseeds.

6.5 LocalisedLowSpots Lowspotswillalmostinvariablydevelopingoalmouthsandalsoinotherhighwearareason thefields.Watercollectsinsuchareasandtheyremainsaturatedforlongerthanthe remainderofthefield.Asaresulttheyaremorepronetowearandcompactionandifthey arenot treatedtheywillbecomepermanentfeatures.

Giventhatsuchareasareparticularlypronetocompaction,moreintensivecompactionrelief shouldbeundertaken.Soilshouldthenbeimportedtorestorelevelsasrequired.Thissoil shouldbeconsolidated(notcompacted)priortosowingwithryegrassatarateof35g/m2. Treatinglowareasinthismanneronanannualbasiswillhelptoavoidthedevelopmentof mudholesthatoccurinpreciselythesameplaceyearafteryear.

6.6 SpikersAndSlitTiners Spikingandslittiningkeepssurfaceopenandaidstheinfiltrationofwaterwhilstpromoting rootdevelopmentandoffsettingthesealingoftheimmediatesurfacethatoccursunderplay inwetconditions.Theseoperationsdonotachieveshatteringandimprovementofthesub- soiltothesamedegreeasvertidraining.However,theycauseminimalsurfacedisruption andspeedofoperationpermitstheirfrequentuseovertheplayingseason.Spikersandslit tinersshouldnotbeexclusivelyrelieduponforcompactionreliefbuttheyshouldbe employedduringtheseason tokeepthesurfaceopen.

Implementationofanadequatemechanicalaerationprogram(asdetailedabove)is recommendedaspartofthemaintenanceoperation.Thetypeoftreatmentbestsuitedto anysportsfieldwilldependuponthenatureanddepthofthecompactionproblem. Rememberthatnoneoftheabovetreatmentsismutuallyexclusiveandacombinationof compaction-relieving treatmentsismostoftenthebestoption.

Frequencywilldependupontheseverityanddepthoftheproblem,theeffectivenessofthe treatment,andsoilcharacteristics.Insomecasestoo frequenttreatmentscanleadtoother problems.

34 KingstonuponHullCityCouncil 35

Timingwilldependontheusageprogramofthefieldandthedegreeofacceptablesurface disruption.Treatmentshouldbescheduled foraperiodwhensoilconditionsarelikelytobe suitable.Different treatmentsaremosteffectiveatparticularsoilmoisturelevels.Excessively drysoilsaredifficulttopenetrate.Excessivelywetsoilsareunsuitableifsoilshatteringis desired.

6.6 FertiliserRequirements Ouraimispromotestrongrecoverygrowthinthespringthenstrengthentheswardpriorto thestartoftheplayingseason. Thismaybeachievewith2applicationsofthe14-4-4 fertiliseralreadycontainedwithinthespecification. Applyatarateof35g/m2 when conditionsaresuitableinMayandAugust.Alwaysapplyevenlywhenrainisduetoprevent scorchingthe turf.

Signed

HENRYBECHELETB.Sc.(Hons)MBPR,RIPTA TurfgrassAgronomist

35 APPENDIX1

PARKSFOOTBALL Site: CostelloPlaying Fields Pitch: 4thPitch up fromAnlabyParkRoadNorth

PerformanceAssessment

Assessment Methodofcollection Collectionpoints Data Data Benchmark Pass/Fail

Cover Visualassessment Goalmouth 40 >20% Pass

% Live grasscover Penalty box 65 >50% Pass

Midfield 80 >60% Pass

Centrecircle 70 >50% Pass

Midfield 60 >60% Pass

Penalty box 35 >50% Pass

Goalmouth 40 >20% Pass

Wing 100 >80% Pass

SwardContent Visualassessment Ryegrass 20 >50% Fail

%eachspecies Bentgrass 40

Fescue

Annualmeadow grass 40 <30% Fail

Yorkshirefog <5%

Other(specify)

Other(specify)

Sward height mm 30mm 30-60mm Pass

WeedContent Visualassessment Total <1% <10% Pass

Mainspecies list Daisy

Mainspecies list Dandelion

Mainspecies list

Mainspecies list

SoilProfile 50mmcoresample Thatch depth 0 <5mm Pass

mm Root depth >150mm >100mm Pass

Topsoil depth >150mm >150mm Pass

Problems noted heavysoil/poordrainage

Soil Texture Hand determination Texturalcategory ClayLoam

SuitabilityAssessment

Hardness 0.5kgCleggHammer Average of5samples 56 70-100 Grv Fail

MoistureContent ThetaProbe Representativereading 53.1 30-50% Fail

Tractionvalue TurfTech torquewrench Average of3readings 28 25-60Nm Pass

Stonecontent Physicalassessment %stoneabove10mm <1% <5% Pass

oftopsoilsample Maximumstonesize >15mm

Surface levels Deviationfroma2m Average of15samples 13 <20mm Pass

straightedge Maximum deviation 60 <50mm Fail

Fall Visual determination Above2% <2% <2% Pass

NOTES: includeestimated drainage potential Poorqualitycover Heavysoilcompactec Softsurfaceandpoordrainage Localisedlevelsanissue Recommendations: Verti-drain torelievesoilcompaction,overseeding toimproveswardquality, Fertilise tomaintangrowth,Selectiveweedcontrol. Feasibility study required for: Drainage,Levels Weathersummaryfor last5 days Rainoverweekend.

Dateofassessment: 22/03/2010

Assessedby: HenryBechelet Site: CostelloPlaying Fields Pitch: 4thPitch up fromAnlabyParkRoadNorth

PerformanceAssessment

Assessment Methodofcollection Collectionpoints Data Data Benchmark Pass/Fail

Cover Visualassessment Goalmouth 40 >20% Pass

% Live grasscover Penalty box 65 >50% Pass

Midfield 80 >60% Pass

Centrecircle 70 >50% Pass

Midfield 60 >60% Pass

Penalty box 35 >50% Pass

Goalmouth 40 >20% Pass

Wing 100 >80% Pass

SwardContent Visualassessment Ryegrass 20 >50% Fail

%eachspecies Bentgrass 40

Fescue

Annualmeadow grass 40 <30% Fail

Yorkshirefog <5%

Other(specify)

Other(specify)

Sward height mm 30mm 30-60mm Pass

WeedContent Visualassessment Total <1% <10% Pass

Mainspecies list Daisy

Mainspecies list Dandelion

Mainspecies list

Mainspecies list

SoilProfile 50mmcoresample Thatch depth 0 <5mm Pass

mm Root depth >150mm >100mm Pass

Topsoil depth >150mm >150mm Pass

Problems noted heavysoil/poordrainage

Soil Texture Hand determination Texturalcategory ClayLoam

SuitabilityAssessment

Hardness 0.5kgCleggHammer Average of5samples 56 70-100 Grv Fail

MoistureContent ThetaProbe Representativereading 53.1 30-50% Fail

Tractionvalue TurfTech torquewrench Average of3readings 28 25-60Nm Pass

Stonecontent Physicalassessment %stoneabove10mm <1% <5% Pass

oftopsoilsample Maximumstonesize >15mm

Surface levels Deviationfroma2m Average of15samples 13 <20mm Pass

straightedge Maximum deviation 60 <50mm Fail

Fall Visual determination Above2% <2% <2% Pass

NOTES: includeestimated drainage potential Poorqualitycover Heavysoilcompactec Softsurfaceandpoordrainage Localisedlevelsanissue Recommendations: Verti-drain torelievesoilcompaction,overseeding toimproveswardquality, Fertilise tomaintangrowth,Selectiveweedcontrol. Feasibility study required for: Drainage,Levels Weathersummaryfor last5 days Rainoverweekend.

Dateofassessment: 22/03/2010

Assessedby: HenryBechelet Site:DanePark Pitch:Bytheroadawayfromthe portacabins

PerformanceAssessment

Assessment Methodofcollection Collectionpoints Data Data Benchmark Pass/Fail

Cover Visualassessment Goalmouth 20 >20%

% Live grasscover Penalty box 50 >50%

Midfield 80 >60%

Centrecircle 70 >50%

Midfield 80 >60%

Penalty box 70 >50%

Goalmouth 0 >20%

Wing 100 >80%

SwardContent Visualassessment Ryegrass 20 >50%

%eachspecies Bentgrass 40

Fescue

Annualmeadow grass 40 <30%

Yorkshirefog <5%

Other(specify)

Other(specify)

Sward height mm 100mm 30-60mm

WeedContent Visualassessment Total up to5%inplaces <10%

Mainspecies list Clover

Mainspecies list Buttercup

Mainspecies list Daisy

Mainspecies list Dandelion

SoilProfile 50mmcoresample Thatch depth 0 <5mm

mm Root depth 200mm >100mm

Topsoil depth >150mm >150mm

Problems noted heavysoil

Soil Texture Hand determination Texturalcategory ClayLoam

SuitabilityAssessment

Hardness 0.5kgCleggHammer Average of5samples 73 70-100 Grv

MoistureContent ThetaProbe Representativereading 46.7 30-50%

Tractionvalue TurfTech torquewrench Average of3readings 33 25-60Nm

Stonecontent Physicalassessment %stoneabove10mm <1% <5%

oftopsoilsample Maximumstonesize >15mm

Surface levels Deviationfroma2m Average of15samples 18 <20mm

straightedge Maximum deviation 40 <50mm

Fall Visual determination Above2% <2% <2%

NOTES: includeestimated drainage potential Poorqualitycoverbeingleftway toolong for football Heavysoilcompactec Extradrainagewould Localisedlevelsanissueespeciallyoverpreviousdrainlines Recommendations: Verti-drain torelievesoilcompaction,overseeding toimproveswardquality, Fertilise tomaintangrowth,Selectiveweedcontrol. Feasibility study required for: Drainage Weathersummaryfor last5 days Rainindaysprior toinspection

Dateofassessment: 24/03/2010

Assessedby: HenryBechelet Site:Ennerdale Pitch:Nearestthecar park

PerformanceAssessment

Assessment Methodofcollection Collectionpoints Data Data Benchmark Pass/Fail

Cover Visualassessment Goalmouth 0 >20% Fail

% Live grasscover Penalty box 20 >50% Fail

Midfield 50 >60% Fail

Centrecircle 60 >50% Pass

Midfield 50 >60% Fail

Penalty box 50 >50% Pass

Goalmouth 20 >20% Pass

Wing 100 >80% Pass

SwardContent Visualassessment Ryegrass 50 >50% Pass

%eachspecies Bentgrass

Fescue

Annualmeadow grass 50 <30% Fail

Yorkshirefog <5% Pass

Other(specify)

Other(specify)

Sward height mm 50mm 30-60mm Pass

WeedContent Visualassessment Total <1% <10% Pass

Mainspecies list Clover

Mainspecies list Dandelion

Mainspecies list

Mainspecies list

SoilProfile 50mmcoresample Thatch depth 0 <5mm Pass

mm Root depth >100mm >100mm Pass

Topsoil depth >150mm >150mm Pass

Problems noted Heavysoil

Soil Texture Hand determination Texturalcategory ClayLoam

SuitabilityAssessment

Hardness 0.5kgCleggHammer Average of5samples 56 70-100 Grv Fail

MoistureContent ThetaProbe Representativereading 53.1 30-50% Fail

Tractionvalue TurfTech torquewrench Average of3readings 22 25-60Nm Fail

Stonecontent Physicalassessment %stoneabove10mm <1% <5% Pass

oftopsoilsample Maximumstonesize >15mm Pass

Surface levels Deviationfroma2m Average of15samples 25 <20mm Fail

straightedge Maximum deviation 70 <50mm Fail

Fall Visual determination Above2% <2% <2% Pass

NOTES: includeestimated drainage potential QualityofcovercouldbeimprovedwithPerennialRyegrass Heavysoil Softsurfaceandpoordrainage Localisedlevelsarealissue Recommendations: Verti-drain torelievesoilcompaction,overseeding toimproveswardquality, Fertilise tomaintangrowth,Selectiveweedcontrol. Feasibility study required for: Drainage,Levels Weathersummaryfor last5 days Rainindaysprior toinspection

Dateofassessment: 24/03/2010

Assessedby: HenryBechelet Site: GowerRoad Pitch:

PerformanceAssessment

Assessment Methodofcollection Collectionpoints Data Data Benchmark Pass/Fail

Cover Visualassessment Goalmouth 0 >20% Fail

% Live grasscover Penalty box 70 >50% Pass

Midfield 90 >60% Pass

Centrecircle 80 >50% Pass

Midfield 90 >60% Pass

Penalty box 50 >50% Pass

Goalmouth 0 >20% Fail

Wing 98 >80% Pass

SwardContent Visualassessment Ryegrass 10 >50% Fail

%eachspecies Bentgrass 20

Fescue

Annualmeadow grass 70 <30% Fail

Yorkshirefog <5% Pass

Other(specify)

Other(specify)

Sward height mm 30mm 30-60mm Pass

WeedContent Visualassessment Total <10% <10% Pass

Mainspecies list Buttercup

Mainspecies list Daisy

Mainspecies list Dandelion

Mainspecies list Clover

SoilProfile 50mmcoresample Thatch depth 0 <5mm Pass

mm Root depth 150mm >100mm Pass

Topsoil depth >150mm >150mm Pass

Problems noted heavysoil

Soil Texture Hand determination Texturalcategory ClayLoam

SuitabilityAssessment

Hardness 0.5kgCleggHammer Average of5samples 84 70-100 Grv Pass

MoistureContent ThetaProbe Representativereading 47.3 30-50% Pass

Tractionvalue TurfTech torquewrench Average of3readings 27 25-60Nm Pass

Stonecontent Physicalassessment %stoneabove10mm <5% <5% Pass

oftopsoilsample Maximumstonesize 30mm >15mm Fail

Surface levels Deviationfroma2m Average of15samples 16 <20mm Pass

straightedge Maximum deviation 60 <50mm Fail

Fall Visual determination Above2% <2% <2% Pass

NOTES: includeestimated drainage potential Goodsurfacebutpoorqualitycover.Need toincreasePerennialryegrasscontentanf feedproperly. Heavysoilcompactec Weedswillneedcontrolling.

Recommendations: Verti-drain torelievesoilcompaction,overseeding toimproveswardquality, Fertilise tomaintangrowth,Selectiveweedcontrol. Feasibility study required for: Drainage,Levels Weathersummaryfor last5 days RainIndaysprior toinspection.

Dateofassessment: 24/03/2010

Assessedby: HenryBechelet Site: IngsRoad Pitch:

PerformanceAssessment

Assessment Methodofcollection Collectionpoints Data Data Benchmark Pass/Fail

Cover Visualassessment Goalmouth 0 >20% Fail

% Live grasscover Penalty box 30 >50% Fail

Midfield 50 >60% Fail

Centrecircle 55 >50% Pass

Midfield 70 >60% Pass

Penalty box 50 >50% Pass

Goalmouth 0 >20% Fail

Wing 90 >80% Pass

SwardContent Visualassessment Ryegrass 40 >50% Fail

%eachspecies Bentgrass

Fescue

Annualmeadow grass 60 <30% Fail

Yorkshirefog <5% Pass

Other(specify)

Other(specify)

Sward height mm 30mm 30-60mm Pass

WeedContent Visualassessment Total <1% <10% Pass

Mainspecies list Daisy

Mainspecies list Dandelion

Mainspecies list

Mainspecies list

SoilProfile 50mmcoresample Thatch depth 0 <5mm Pass

mm Root depth >100mm >100mm Pass

Topsoil depth 150mm >150mm Pass

Problems noted heavysoil/compacted/stones

Soil Texture Hand determination Texturalcategory ClayLoam

SuitabilityAssessment

Hardness 0.5kgCleggHammer Average of5samples 67 70-100 Grv Fail

MoistureContent ThetaProbe Representativereading 46.8 30-50% Pass

Tractionvalue TurfTech torquewrench Average of3readings 28 25-60Nm Pass

Stonecontent Physicalassessment %stoneabove10mm <5%in top(>5%below100mm) <5% Pass

oftopsoilsample Maximumstonesize 20 >15mm Fail

Surface levels Deviationfroma2m Average of15samples 23 <20mm Fail

straightedge Maximum deviation 90 <50mm Fail

Fall Visual determination Above2% <2% <2% Pass

NOTES: includeestimated drainage potential Qualityofcovercouldbeimprovedwithoverseeding Heavysoilcompactecandstoney Localisedwornareaswillneed fullrenovation tolevelatendofseason Localisedlevelscertainlyanissue Recommendations: Verti-drain torelievesoilcompaction,overseeding toimproveswardquality, Fertilise tomaintangrowth,Selectiveweedcontrol.

Weathersummaryfor last5 days Raindayprior toinspection

Dateofassessment: 23/03/2010

Assessedby: HenryBechelet Site:King George V Pitch:Bycar park

PerformanceAssessment

Assessment Methodofcollection Collectionpoints Data Data Benchmark Pass/Fail

Cover Visualassessment Goalmouth 2 >20% Fail

% Live grasscover Penalty box 15 >50% Fail

Midfield 50 >60% Fail

Centrecircle 20 >50% Fail

Midfield 45 >60% Fail

Penalty box 5 >50% Fail

Goalmouth 0 >20% Fail

Wing 90 >80% Pass

SwardContent Visualassessment Ryegrass 20 >50% Fail

%eachspecies Bentgrass 10

Fescue

Annualmeadow grass 70 <30% Fail

Yorkshirefog <5% Pass

Other(specify)

Other(specify)

Sward height mm 40mm 30-60mm Pass

WeedContent Visualassessment Total 1-2% <10% Pass

Mainspecies list Clover

Mainspecies list Dandelion

Mainspecies list Daisy

Mainspecies list

SoilProfile 50mmcoresample Thatch depth 0 <5mm Pass

mm Root depth >100mm >100mm Pass

Topsoil depth >150mm >150mm Pass

Problems noted heavysoil/poordrainage

Soil Texture Hand determination Texturalcategory SiltyClayLoam

SuitabilityAssessment

Hardness 0.5kgCleggHammer Average of5samples 70 70-100 Grv Pass

MoistureContent ThetaProbe Representativereading 49.2 30-50% Pass

Tractionvalue TurfTech torquewrench Average of3readings 27 25-60Nm Pass

Stonecontent Physicalassessment %stoneabove10mm <1% <5% Pass

oftopsoilsample Maximumstonesize >15mm Pass

Surface levels Deviationfroma2m Average of15samples 13 <20mm Pass

straightedge Maximum deviation 50 <50mm Pass

Fall Visual determination Above2% <2% <2% Pass

NOTES: includeestimated drainage potential Veryheavilyworn.Poorqualitycover Heavysoilcompactec Softsurfaceandpoordrainage Levelsgood Recommendations: Verti-drain torelievesoilcompaction,overseeding toimproveswardquality, Fertilise tomaintangrowth,Selectiveweedcontrol. Feasibility study required for: Drainage Weathersummaryfor last5 days Rainoverweekend.

Dateofassessment: 22/03/2010

Assessedby: HenryBechelet Site:AldermanKneeshaw Pitch:NearestPavilion

PerformanceAssessment

Assessment Methodofcollection Collectionpoints Data Data Benchmark Pass/Fail

Cover Visualassessment Goalmouth 0 >20% Fail

% Live grasscover Penalty box 50 >50% Pass

Midfield 75 >60% Pass

Centrecircle 20 >50% Fail

Midfield 40 >60% Fail

Penalty box 50 >50% Pass

Goalmouth 0 >20% Fail

Wing 85 >80% Pass

SwardContent Visualassessment Ryegrass 40 >50% Fail

%eachspecies Bentgrass 20

Fescue

Annualmeadow grass 40 <30% Fail

Yorkshirefog <5% Pass

Other(specify)

Other(specify)

Sward height mm 30mm 30-60mm Pass

WeedContent Visualassessment Total <5% <10% Pass

Mainspecies list Daisy

Mainspecies list Buttercup

Mainspecies list Dandelion

Mainspecies list Clover

SoilProfile 50mmcoresample Thatch depth 0 <5mm Pass

mm Root depth 150mm >100mm Pass

Topsoil depth >150mm >150mm Pass

Problems noted heavysoil/compected throughcentre

Soil Texture Hand determination Texturalcategory ClayLoam

SuitabilityAssessment

Hardness 0.5kgCleggHammer Average of5samples 79 70-100 Grv Pass

MoistureContent ThetaProbe Representativereading 47.5 30-50% Pass

Tractionvalue TurfTech torquewrench Average of3readings 28 25-60Nm Pass

Stonecontent Physicalassessment %stoneabove10mm <1% <5% Pass

oftopsoilsample Maximumstonesize >15mm

Surface levels Deviationfroma2m Average of15samples 20 <20mm Fail

straightedge Maximum deviation 60 <50mm Fail

Fall Visual determination Above2% <2% <2% Pass

NOTES: includeestimated drainage potential Pitchwornanduneven through thecentrewherebadlyreinstated. Heavysoilcompactec Firmsurface Undulatinglevels themainissue-seriousgullies! Recommendations: Verti-drain torelievesoilcompaction,overseeding toimproveswardquality, Fertilise tomaintangrowth,Selectiveweedcontrol. Feasibility study required for: Levels Weathersummaryfor last5 days Relativelydryonrunup toinspection

Dateofassessment: 18/03/2010

Assessedby: HenryBechelet Site: Longhill Playing Fields Pitch: Middlefootball pitch

PerformanceAssessment

Assessment Methodofcollection Collectionpoints Data Data Benchmark Pass/Fail

Cover Visualassessment Goalmouth 50 >20% Pass

% Live grasscover Penalty box 75 >50% Pass

Midfield 85 >60% Pass

Centrecircle 65 >50% Pass

Midfield 70 >60% Pass

Penalty box 40 >50% Fail

Goalmouth 50 >20% Pass

Wing 100 >80% Pass

SwardContent Visualassessment Ryegrass 35 >50% Fail

%eachspecies Bentgrass 40

Fescue

Annualmeadow grass 20 <30% Pass

Yorkshirefog 5 <5% Pass

Other(specify)

Other(specify)

Sward height mm 30mm 30-60mm Pass

WeedContent Visualassessment Total <5% <10% Pass

Mainspecies list Moss

Mainspecies list Daisy

Mainspecies list Dandelion

Mainspecies list Clover

SoilProfile 50mmcoresample Thatch depth 0 <5mm Pass

mm Root depth 150mm >100mm Pass

Topsoil depth >150mm >150mm Pass

Problems noted heavysoil/poordrainage(drainageinstalled)

Soil Texture Hand determination Texturalcategory ClayLoam

SuitabilityAssessment

Hardness 0.5kgCleggHammer Average of5samples 74 70-100 Grv Pass

MoistureContent ThetaProbe Representativereading 46.4 30-50% Pass

Tractionvalue TurfTech torquewrench Average of3readings 28 25-60Nm Pass

Stonecontent Physicalassessment %stoneabove10mm <1% <5% Pass

oftopsoilsample Maximumstonesize >15mm

Surface levels Deviationfroma2m Average of15samples 26 <20mm Fail

straightedge Maximum deviation 60 <50mm Fail

Fall Visual determination Above2% <2% <2% Pass

NOTES: includeestimated drainage potential Goodcover, thequalityof theswardcouldbeimprovedwithoverseeding Heavysoilcompactec Localisedlevelsanissue,mainlysunkendrainlinesneed toppingup

Recommendations: Verti-drain torelievesoilcompaction,overseeding toimproveswardquality, Fertilise tomaintangrowth,Selectiveweedcontrol.

Weathersummaryfor last5 days Rainoverweekend.

Dateofassessment: 23/03/2010

Assessedby: HenryBechelet Site:Mappleton Grove(not in play) Pitch:

PerformanceAssessment

Assessment Methodofcollection Collectionpoints Data Data Benchmark Pass/Fail

Cover Visualassessment Goalmouth 100 >20% Pass

% Live grasscover Penalty box 100 >50% Pass

Midfield 100 >60% Pass

Centrecircle 100 >50% Pass

Midfield 100 >60% Pass

Penalty box 100 >50% Pass

Goalmouth 100 >20% Pass

Wing 100 >80% Pass

SwardContent Visualassessment Ryegrass 20 >50% Pass

%eachspecies Bentgrass 40

Fescue

Annualmeadow grass 30 <30% Pass

Yorkshirefog 10 <5% Fail

Other(specify)

Other(specify)

Sward height mm >60mm 30-60mm Fail

WeedContent Visualassessment Total <1% <10% Pass

Mainspecies list Daisy

Mainspecies list Dandelion

Mainspecies list Clover

Mainspecies list Buttercup

SoilProfile 50mmcoresample Thatch depth 0 <5mm Pass

mm Root depth >100mm >100mm Pass

Topsoil depth >150mm >150mm Pass

Problems noted Nomajorcompaction

Soil Texture Hand determination Texturalcategory ClayLoam

SuitabilityAssessment

Hardness 0.5kgCleggHammer Average of5samples N/A 70-100 Grv

MoistureContent ThetaProbe Representativereading N/A 30-50%

Tractionvalue TurfTech torquewrench Average of3readings N/A 25-60Nm

Stonecontent Physicalassessment %stoneabove10mm <5% <5% Pass

oftopsoilsample Maximumstonesize >15mm

Surface levels Deviationfroma2m Average of15samples 31 <20mm Fail

straightedge Maximum deviation 70 <50mm Fail

Fall Visual determination Above2% <2% <2% Pass

NOTES: includeestimated drainage potential Poorqualitycover Undulatingpitchnotinuse

Recommendations: Verti-drain torelievesoilcompaction,overseeding toimproveswardquality, Fertilise tomaintangrowth,Selectiveweedcontrol. Feasibility study required for: Levels Weathersummaryfor last5 days Dryonrun-up toinspection.

Dateofassessment: 18/03/2010

Assessedby: HenryBechelet Site:MasseyStreetRecreation Ground Pitch: Football

PerformanceAssessment

Assessment Methodofcollection Collectionpoints Data Data Benchmark Pass/Fail

Cover Visualassessment Goalmouth 0 >20% Fail

% Live grasscover Penalty box 30 >50% Fail

Midfield 20 >60% Fail

Centrecircle 10 >50% Fail

Midfield 25 >60% Fail

Penalty box 30 >50% Fail

Goalmouth 0 >20% Fail

Wing 90 >80% Pass

SwardContent Visualassessment Ryegrass 30 >50% Fail

%eachspecies Bentgrass 10

Fescue

Annualmeadow grass 60 <30%

Yorkshirefog <5% Pass

Other(specify)

Other(specify)

Sward height mm 30mm 30-60mm Pass

WeedContent Visualassessment Total <1% <10% Pass

Mainspecies list Daisy

Mainspecies list Dandelion

Mainspecies list Clover

Mainspecies list

SoilProfile 50mmcoresample Thatch depth 0 <5mm Pass

mm Root depth >150mm >100mm Pass

Topsoil depth >100mm >150mm Pass

Problems noted heavysoil

Soil Texture Hand determination Texturalcategory ClayLoam

SuitabilityAssessment

Hardness 0.5kgCleggHammer Average of5samples 73.6 70-100 Grv Pass

MoistureContent ThetaProbe Representativereading 49.4 30-50% Pass

Tractionvalue TurfTech torquewrench Average of3readings 32 25-60Nm Pass

Stonecontent Physicalassessment %stoneabove10mm <5%(below100mm) <5% Pass

oftopsoilsample Maximumstonesize 15 >15mm Pass

Surface levels Deviationfroma2m Average of15samples 17 <20mm Pass

straightedge Maximum deviation 40 <50mm Pass

Fall Visual determination Above2% <2% <2% Pass

NOTES: includeestimated drainage potential Heavilyworn.Poorqualitycoverneedsoverseedingwithperennialryegrass Heavysoilcompactec Localisedlowspotsanissue toresolveatendofseason

Recommendations: Verti-drain torelievesoilcompaction,overseeding toimproveswardquality, Fertilise tomaintangrowth,Selectiveweedcontrol.

Weathersummaryfor last5 days Rainoverweekend.

Dateofassessment: 22/03/2010

Assessedby: HenryBechelet Site:NoddleHillPlaying Field Pitch:ByPlayground

PerformanceAssessment

Assessment Methodofcollection Collectionpoints Data Data Benchmark Pass/Fail

Cover Visualassessment Goalmouth 0 >20% Fail

% Live grasscover Penalty box 30 >50% Fail

Midfield 60 >60% Pass

Centrecircle 50 >50% Pass

Midfield 50 >60% Fail

Penalty box 50 >50% Pass

Goalmouth 60 >20% Pass

Wing 95 >80% Pass

SwardContent Visualassessment Ryegrass 50 >50% Pass

%eachspecies Bentgrass 20

Fescue

Annualmeadow grass 30 <30% Pass

Yorkshirefog <5% Pass

Other(specify)

Other(specify)

Sward height mm 30mm 30-60mm Pass

WeedContent Visualassessment Total <1% <10% Pass

Mainspecies list Daisy

Mainspecies list Clover

Mainspecies list

Mainspecies list

SoilProfile 50mmcoresample Thatch depth 0 <5mm Pass

mm Root depth >100mm >100mm Pass

Topsoil depth >150mm >150mm Pass

Problems noted heavysoil

Soil Texture Hand determination Texturalcategory ClayLoam

SuitabilityAssessment

Hardness 0.5kgCleggHammer Average of5samples 84 70-100 Grv Pass

MoistureContent ThetaProbe Representativereading 47.4 30-50% Pass

Tractionvalue TurfTech torquewrench Average of3readings 22 25-60Nm Pass

Stonecontent Physicalassessment %stoneabove10mm <5% <5% Pass

oftopsoilsample Maximumstonesize <10mm >15mm Pass

Surface levels Deviationfroma2m Average of15samples 12 <20mm Pass

straightedge Maximum deviation 20 <50mm Pass

Fall Visual determination Above2% <2% <2% Pass

NOTES: includeestimated drainage potential Shouldwork toimprove thequalityof thecover Heavysoilcompactec Poordrainageseems tobe themainissuewithseriousrutting/divotingindicating that thepitchcutsupwhenwet. Levelsgreat Recommendations: Verti-drain torelievesoilcompaction,overseeding toimproveswardquality, Fertilise tomaintangrowth,Selectiveweedcontrol. Feasibility study required for: Drainage Weathersummaryfor last5 days Dryonrun-up toinspection

Dateofassessment: 18/03/2010

Assessedby: HenryBechelet Site:OakRoadPlaying Fields Pitch: Middlealongside hedge nearest windmill

PerformanceAssessment

Assessment Methodofcollection Collectionpoints Data Data Benchmark Pass/Fail

Cover Visualassessment Goalmouth 2 >20% Fail

% Live grasscover Penalty box 30 >50% Fail

Midfield 40 >60% Fail

Centrecircle 75 >50% Pass

Midfield 60 >60% Pass

Penalty box 15 >50% Fail

Goalmouth 1 >20% Fail

Wing 90 >80% Pass

SwardContent Visualassessment Ryegrass 10 >50% Fail

%eachspecies Bentgrass 10

Fescue

Annualmeadow grass 80 <30% Fail

Yorkshirefog <5% Pass

Other(specify)

Other(specify)

Sward height mm 30mm 30-60mm Pass

WeedContent Visualassessment Total <1% <10% Pass

Mainspecies list Buttercup

Mainspecies list Daisy

Mainspecies list

Mainspecies list

SoilProfile 50mmcoresample Thatch depth 0 <5mm Pass

mm Root depth >150mm >100mm Pass

Topsoil depth >150mm >150mm Pass

Problems noted heavysoilcompacted

Soil Texture Hand determination Texturalcategory SiltyClayLoam

SuitabilityAssessment

Hardness 0.5kgCleggHammer Average of5samples 66 70-100 Grv Fail

MoistureContent ThetaProbe Representativereading 48.5 30-50% Pass

Tractionvalue TurfTech torquewrench Average of3readings 27 25-60Nm Fail

Stonecontent Physicalassessment %stoneabove10mm <5% <5% Pass

oftopsoilsample Maximumstonesize >15mm

Surface levels Deviationfroma2m Average of15samples 24 <20mm Fail

straightedge Maximum deviation 60 <50mm Fail

Fall Visual determination Above2% <2% <2% Pass

NOTES: includeestimated drainage potential Poorcoverandpoorqualitysward. Wornand tackysurface.Needsoverseeding. Heavysoilcompactec Softsurfaceandpoordrainage Levels an issue with notable dips and furrows Recommendations: Verti-drain torelievesoilcompaction,overseeding toimproveswardquality, Fertilise tomaintangrowth,Selectiveweedcontrol. Feasibility study required for: Drainage,Levels Weathersummaryfor last5 days Rainindayprior toinspectionweekend.

Dateofassessment: 24/03/2010

Assessedby: HenryBechelet Site: OakRoadPlayingFields Pitch: Onothersideofhedgetorugby

PerformanceAssessment

Assessment Methodofcollection Collectionpoints Data Data Benchmark Pass/Fail

Cover Visualassessment Goalmouth 2 >20% Fail Pass Fail

%Livegrasscover Penaltybox 30 >50% Fail Pass Fail

Midfield 50 >60% Fail Pass Fail

Centrecircle 30 >50% Fail Pass Fail

Midfield 60 >60% Pass Pass Fail

Penaltybox 20 >50% Fail Pass Fail

Goalmouth 10 >20% Fail Pass Fail

Wing 100 >80% Pass Pass Fail

SwardContent Visualassessment Ryegrass 20 >50% Fail Pass Fail

%eachspecies Bentgrass 40 Pass Fail

Fescue Pass Fail

Annualmeadowgrass 40 <30% Fail Pass Fail

Yorkshirefog <5% Pass Pass Fail

Other(specify) Pass Fail

Other(specify) Pass Fail

Swardheight mm 30mm 30-60mm Pass Pass Fail

WeedContent Visualassessment Total <5% <10% Pass Pass Fail

Mainspecieslist Moss(especiallyalonghedge10-20%inplaces) Pass Fail

Mainspecieslist Daisy Pass Fail

Mainspecieslist Dandelion Pass Fail

Mainspecieslist Buttercup Pass Fail

SoilProfile 50mmcoresample Thatchdepth 10mm <5mm Fail Pass Fail

mm Rootdepth >150mm >100mm Pass Pass Fail

Topsoildepth >150mm >150mm Pass Pass Fail

Problemsnoted heavysoilcompacted throughcentre Pass Fail

SoilTexture Handdetermination Texturalcategory ClayLoam Pass Fail

Pass Fail SuitabilityAssessment Pass Fail

Hardness 0.5kgCleggHammer Averageof5samples 64 70-100 Grv Fail Pass Fail

MoistureContent ThetaProbe Representativereading 50.3 30-50% Fail Pass Fail

Tractionvalue TurfTechtorquewrench Averageof3readings 25 25-60Nm Pass Pass Fail

Stonecontent Physicalassessment %stoneabove10mm <1% <5% Pass Pass Fail

oftopsoilsample Maximumstonesize >15mm Pass Fail

Surfacelevels Deviationfroma2m Averageof15samples 19 <20mm Pass Pass Fail

straightedge Maximumdeviation 40 <50mm Pass Pass Fail

Fall Visualdetermination Above2% <2% <2% Pass Pass Fail

NOTES:includeestimateddrainagepotential Worncover Heavysoilcompactec Poordrainage Localisedlevelsanissue Recommendations: Verti-drain torelievesoilcompaction,overseeding toimproveswardquality,Fertilise tomaintangrowth,Selectiveweedcontrol. Feasibilitystudyrequired for: Drainage, Levels Weathersummaryforlast5days Rainindaysprior toinspection.

Dateofassessment: 24/03/2010

Assessedby: HenryBechelet Site:PelicanRecreation Ground Pitch:

PerformanceAssessment

Assessment Methodofcollection Collectionpoints Data Data Benchmark Pass/Fail

Cover Visualassessment Goalmouth 0 >20% Fail

% Live grasscover Penalty box 20 >50% Fail

Midfield 60 >60% Pass

Centrecircle 80 >50% Pass

Midfield 40 >60% Fail

Penalty box 20 >50% Fail

Goalmouth 0 >20% Fail

Wing 90 >80% Pass

SwardContent Visualassessment Ryegrass 20 >50% Fail

%eachspecies Bentgrass 40

Fescue

Annualmeadow grass 40 <30% Fail

Yorkshirefog <5% Pass

Other(specify)

Other(specify)

Sward height mm 30mm 30-60mm Pass

WeedContent Visualassessment Total <1% <10% Pass

Mainspecies list Daisy

Mainspecies list Buttercup

Mainspecies list Dandelion

Mainspecies list

SoilProfile 50mmcoresample Thatch depth 0 <5mm Pass

mm Root depth >100mm >100mm Pass

Topsoil depth >150mm >150mm Pass

Problems noted Soilcompaction

Soil Texture Hand determination Texturalcategory ClayLoam

SuitabilityAssessment

Hardness 0.5kgCleggHammer Average of5samples 77 70-100 Grv Pass

MoistureContent ThetaProbe Representativereading 48.4 30-50% Pass

Tractionvalue TurfTech torquewrench Average of3readings 36 25-60Nm Pass

Stonecontent Physicalassessment %stoneabove10mm <1% <5% Pass

oftopsoilsample Maximumstonesize >15mm

Surface levels Deviationfroma2m Average of15samples 12 <20mm Pass

straightedge Maximum deviation 30 <50mm Pass

Fall Visual determination Above2% <2% <2% Pass

NOTES: includeestimated drainage potential Finegrassdominatedweaksward-need tooverseedwithperennilaryegrass Heavysoilcompactec-need tovertidrain Poordrainageanissue Levelsanissuewithridgesrunning through thepitch Recommendations: Verti-drain torelievesoilcompaction,overseeding toimproveswardquality, Fertilise tomaintangrowth,Selectiveweedcontrol. Feasibility study required for: Drainage,Levels Weathersummaryfor last5 days Rainnightbeforeinspection.

Dateofassessment: 23/03/2010

Assessedby: HenryBechelet Site:PrincessElizabethPlaying Fields Pitch:Closesttocar park

PerformanceAssessment

Assessment Methodofcollection Collectionpoints Data Data Benchmark Pass/Fail

Cover Visualassessment Goalmouth 0 >20% Fail

% Live grasscover Penalty box 30 >50% Fail

Midfield 90 >60% Pass

Centrecircle 50 >50% Pass

Midfield 70 >60% Pass

Penalty box 45 >50% Fail

Goalmouth 20 >20% Pass

Wing 100 >80% Pass

SwardContent Visualassessment Ryegrass 30 >50% Fail

%eachspecies Bentgrass 20

Fescue

Annualmeadow grass 50 <30% Fail

Yorkshirefog <5% Pass

Other(specify)

Other(specify)

Sward height mm 60mm 30-60mm Pass

WeedContent Visualassessment Total 5% <10% Pass

Mainspecies list Clover

Mainspecies list Buttercup

Mainspecies list Daisy

Mainspecies list Dandelion

SoilProfile 50mmcoresample Thatch depth 0 <5mm Pass

mm Root depth >150mm >100mm Pass

Topsoil depth >150mm >150mm Pass

Problems noted heavysoil

Soil Texture Hand determination Texturalcategory ClayLoam

SuitabilityAssessment

Hardness 0.5kgCleggHammer Average of5samples 72 70-100 Grv Pass

MoistureContent ThetaProbe Representativereading 59.6 30-50% Fail

Tractionvalue TurfTech torquewrench Average of3readings 18 25-60Nm Fail

Stonecontent Physicalassessment %stoneabove10mm <1% <5% Fail

oftopsoilsample Maximumstonesize >15mm

Surface levels Deviationfroma2m Average of15samples 21 <20mm Fail

straightedge Maximum deviation 70 <50mm Fail

Fall Visual determination Above2% <2% <2% Pass

NOTES: includeestimated drainage potential Worncover through thecentre Heavysoilcompactec Softsurfaceandpoordrainageinplaces-localisedsandingwouldbebeneficial todryupwetareas. Localisedlevelsanissue forrenovation Recommendations: Verti-drain torelievesoilcompaction,overseeding toimproveswardquality, Fertilise tomaintangrowth,Selectiveweedcontrol. Feasibility study required for: Drainage Weathersummaryfor last5 days Rainindaysprior toinspection.

Dateofassessment: 24/03/2010

Assessedby: HenryBechelet Site:PickeringPark Pitch:NexttoPickeringRoadentrance

PerformanceAssessment

Assessment Methodofcollection Collectionpoints Data Data Benchmark Pass/Fail

Cover Visualassessment Goalmouth 0 >20% Fail

% Live grasscover Penalty box 60 >50% Pass

Midfield 80 >60% Pass

Centrecircle 20 >50% Fail

Midfield 70 >60% Pass

Penalty box 40 >50% Fail

Goalmouth 15 >20% Fail

Wing 95 >80% Pass

SwardContent Visualassessment Ryegrass 20 >50% Fail

%eachspecies Bentgrass 40

Fescue

Annualmeadow grass 40 <30% Fail

Yorkshirefog <5% Pass

Other(specify)

Other(specify)

Sward height mm 30mm 30-60mm Pass

WeedContent Visualassessment Total <1% <10% Pass

Mainspecies list Mossinshade

Mainspecies list Buttercup

Mainspecies list Daisy

Mainspecies list Clover

SoilProfile 50mmcoresample Thatch depth 0 <5mm Pass

mm Root depth >100mm >100mm Pass

Topsoil depth >150mm >150mm Pass

Problems noted Veryheavysoil

Soil Texture Hand determination Texturalcategory ClayLoam

SuitabilityAssessment

Hardness 0.5kgCleggHammer Average of5samples 60 70-100 Grv Fail

MoistureContent ThetaProbe Representativereading 52.1 30-50% Fail

Tractionvalue TurfTech torquewrench Average of3readings 18 25-60Nm Fail

Stonecontent Physicalassessment %stoneabove10mm <1% <5% Pass

oftopsoilsample Maximumstonesize >15mm

Surface levels Deviationfroma2m Average of15samples 20 <20mm Fail

straightedge Maximum deviation 40 <50mm Pass

Fall Visual determination Above2% <2% <2% Pass

NOTES: includeestimated drainage potential Weakandwetpitch.Surfacesoftand tacky.Poorqualitycoverneedsoverseeding Heavysoil Softsurfaceandpoordrainage.Existingdrainagenotsufficient.

Recommendations: Verti-drain torelievesoilcompaction,overseeding toimproveswardquality, Fertilise tomaintangrowth,Selectiveweedcontrol. Feasibility study required for: Drainage Weathersummaryfor last5 days Rainprior toinspection

Dateofassessment: 23/03/2010

Assessedby: HenryBechelet Site:SpringheadPlaying Field Pitch:

PerformanceAssessment

Assessment Methodofcollection Collectionpoints Data Data Benchmark Pass/Fail

Cover Visualassessment Goalmouth 0 >20% Fail

% Live grasscover Penalty box 50 >50% Pass

Midfield 70 >60% Pass

Centrecircle 50 >50% Pass

Midfield 30 >60% Fail

Penalty box 70 >50% Pass

Goalmouth 90 >20% Pass

Wing 85 >80% Pass

SwardContent Visualassessment Ryegrass 30 >50% Fail

%eachspecies Bentgrass 20

Fescue

Annualmeadow grass 50 <30% Fail

Yorkshirefog <5% Pass

Other(specify)

Other(specify)

Sward height mm 30mm 30-60mm Pass

WeedContent Visualassessment Total <1% <10% Pass

Mainspecies list Daisy

Mainspecies list Dandelion

Mainspecies list

Mainspecies list

SoilProfile 50mmcoresample Thatch depth 0 <5mm Pass

mm Root depth >100mm >100mm Pass

Topsoil depth >150mm >150mm Pass

Problems noted heavysoil

Soil Texture Hand determination Texturalcategory ClayLoam

SuitabilityAssessment

Hardness 0.5kgCleggHammer Average of5samples 68 70-100 Grv Fail

MoistureContent ThetaProbe Representativereading 46.3 30-50% Pass

Tractionvalue TurfTech torquewrench Average of3readings 28 25-60Nm Pass

Stonecontent Physicalassessment %stoneabove10mm <5% <5% Pass

oftopsoilsample Maximumstonesize >15mm

Surface levels Deviationfroma2m Average of15samples 21 <20mm Fail

straightedge Maximum deviation 60 <50mm Fail

Fall Visual determination Above2% <2% <2% Pass

NOTES: includeestimated drainage potential Poorqualitycoverheavilyworn Heavysoilcompactec Softsurfaceandpoordrainage Localisedlevelsanissueinplaces Recommendations: Verti-drain torelievesoilcompaction,overseeding toimproveswardquality, Fertilise tomaintangrowth,Selectiveweedcontrol. Feasibility study required for: Drainage,Levels Weathersummaryfor last5 days Rainoverweekend.

Dateofassessment: 22/03/2010

Assessedby: HenryBechelet Site:Stonebridge FootballPitches Pitch:

PerformanceAssessment

Assessment Methodofcollection Collectionpoints Data Data Benchmark Pass/Fail

Cover Visualassessment Goalmouth 0 >20% Fail

% Live grasscover Penalty box 50 >50% Pass

Midfield 85 >60% Pass

Centrecircle 50 >50% Pass

Midfield 40 >60% Fail

Penalty box 20 >50% Fail

Goalmouth 0 >20% Fail

Wing 80 >80% Pass

SwardContent Visualassessment Ryegrass 30 >50% Fail

%eachspecies Bentgrass 20

Fescue

Annualmeadow grass 40 <30% Fail

Yorkshirefog 10 <5% Fail

Other(specify)

Other(specify)

Sward height mm 30mm 30-60mm Pass

WeedContent Visualassessment Total <5% <10% Pass

Mainspecies list Daisy

Mainspecies list Clover

Mainspecies list

Mainspecies list

SoilProfile 50mmcoresample Thatch depth 0 <5mm Pass

mm Root depth >150mm >100mm Pass

Topsoil depth >150mm >150mm Pass

Problems noted heavysoilcompacted

Soil Texture Hand determination Texturalcategory ClayLoam

SuitabilityAssessment

Hardness 0.5kgCleggHammer Average of5samples 87 70-100 Grv Pass

MoistureContent ThetaProbe Representativereading 45.1 30-50% Pass

Tractionvalue TurfTech torquewrench Average of3readings 35 25-60Nm Pass

Stonecontent Physicalassessment %stoneabove10mm <5% <5% Pass

oftopsoilsample Maximumstonesize >15mm

Surface levels Deviationfroma2m Average of15samples 15 <20mm Pass

straightedge Maximum deviation 30 <50mm Pass

Fall Visual determination Above2% <2% <2% Pass

NOTES: includeestimated drainage potential Generallyingoodcondition Levelingworkrequiredatendofseason

Recommendations: Verti-drain torelievesoilcompaction,overseeding toimproveswardquality, Fertilise tomaintangrowth,Selectiveweedcontrol.

Weathersummaryfor last5 days Dry

Dateofassessment: 18/03/2010

Assessedby: HenryBechelet APPENDIX2

PARKS RUGBY Site: BricknellRecreationGround Pitch:Nearpavillioncarpark

PerformanceAssessment

Assessment Methodofcollection Collectionpoints Data Data Benchmark Pass/Fail

Cover Visualassessment Underposts 50 >20% Pass

%Livegrasscover Inside22 30 >50% Fail

Midfield 40 >60% Fail

Halfway 30 >50% Fail

Midfield 40 >60% Fail

Inside22 30 >50% Fail

Underposts 15 >20% Fail

Wing 50 >80% Fail

SwardContent Visualassessment Ryegrass 40 >50% Fail

%eachspecies Bentgrass 20

Fescue

Annualmeadowgrass 40 <30% Fail

Yorkshirefog <5% Pass

Other(specify)

Other(specify)

Swardheight mm 30 30-60mm Pass

WeedContent Visualassessment Total <1% <10% Pass

Mainspecieslist Daisy

Mainspecieslist

Mainspecieslist

Mainspecieslist

Soil Profile 50mmcoresample Thatchdepth 0 <5mm Pass

mm Rootdepth >100mm >100mm Pass

Topsoildepth 100 >150mm Pass

Problemsnoted heavysoilcompacted

SoilTexture Handdetermination Texturalcategory ClayLoam

SuitabilityAssessment

Hardness 0.5kgCleggHammer Averageof5samples 76 70-100Grv Pass

MoistureContent Theta Probe Representativereading 46.8 30-50% Pass

Tractionvalue TurfTech torquewrench Averageof3readings 22 25-60Nm Fail

Stonecontent Physicalassessment %stoneabove10mm 0 <5% Pass

oftopsoilsample Maximumstonesize >15mm

Surfacelevels Deviationfroma2m Averageof15samples 28 <20mm Fail

straightedge Maximumdeviation 60 <50mm Fail

Fall Visualdetermination Above2% <2% <2% Pass

NOTES:includeestimateddrainagepotential Poorqualitycoverneedsoverseeding. Pitchbeingworninlocalisedareas. Suitablesandapplicationwouldhelpprevent turning tomud. Heavysoilcompactec Poordrainage Localisedlevelsanissue Recommendations: Verti-drain torelievesoilcompaction,overseeding toimproveswardquality,Fertilise tomaintangrowth, Selectiveweedcontrol. Feasibility study required for: Drainage, Levels Weathersummaryforlast5days Rainoverweekend.

Dateofassessment: 22/03/2010

Assessedby: Henry Bechelet Site: East Park Pitch:Rugby

PerformanceAssessment

Assessment Methodofcollection Collectionpoints Data Data Benchmark Pass/Fail

Cover Visualassessment Underposts 0 >20% Fail

%Livegrasscover Inside22 50 >50% Pass

Midfield 80 >60% Pass

Halfway 60 >50% Pass

Midfield 70 >60% Pass

Inside22 60 >50% Pass

Underposts 50 >20% Pass

Wing 80 >80% Pass

SwardContent Visualassessment Ryegrass 35 >50% Fail

%eachspecies Bentgrass 10

Fescue

Annualmeadowgrass 50 <30% Fail

Yorkshirefog 5 <5% Pass

Other(specify)

Other(specify)

Swardheight mm 30 30-60mm Pass

WeedContent Visualassessment Total <1% <10% Pass

Mainspecieslist Daisy

Mainspecieslist Clover

Mainspecieslist

Mainspecieslist

Soil Profile 50mmcoresample Thatchdepth 0 <5mm Pass

mm Rootdepth 100 >100mm Pass

Topsoildepth >150 >150mm Pass

Problemsnoted Compactedsoil

SoilTexture Handdetermination Texturalcategory ClayLoam

SuitabilityAssessment

Hardness 0.5kgCleggHammer Averageof5samples 78 70-100Grv Pass

MoistureContent Theta Probe Representativereading 47.9 30-50% Pass

Tractionvalue TurfTech torquewrench Averageof3readings 28 25-60Nm Pass

Stonecontent Physicalassessment %stoneabove10mm <5% <5% Pass

oftopsoilsample Maximumstonesize >15mm

Surfacelevels Deviationfroma2m Averageof15samples 21 <20mm Fail

straightedge Maximumdeviation 90 <50mm Fail

Fall Visualdetermination Above2% <2% <2% Pass

NOTES:includeestimateddrainagepotential Worncover,surfacerutted-overseedandconsiderusagelevel Heavysoilcompactec Poordrainage Localisedlevelsanissue Recommendations: Verti-drain torelievesoilcompaction,overseeding toimproveswardquality,Fertilise tomaintangrowth, Selectiveweedcontrol. Feasibility study required for: Drainage Weathersummaryforlast5days Dryfor3weeks

Dateofassessment: 18/03/2010

Assessedby: Henry Bechelet Site: East Park Pitch:TowerGrange

PerformanceAssessment

Assessment Methodofcollection Collectionpoints Data Data Benchmark Pass/Fail

Cover Visualassessment Underposts 30 >20% Pass

%Livegrasscover Inside22 60 >50% Pass

Midfield 60 >60% Pass

Halfway 5 >50% Fail

Midfield 80 >60% Pass

Inside22 40 >50% Fail

Underposts 40 >20% Pass

Wing 90 >80% Pass

SwardContent Visualassessment Ryegrass 20 >50% Fail

%eachspecies Bentgrass 5

Fescue

Annualmeadowgrass 70 <30% Fail

Yorkshirefog 5 <5% Pass

Other(specify)

Other(specify)

Swardheight mm 25 30-60mm Fail

WeedContent Visualassessment Total <1% <10% Pass

Mainspecieslist Daisy

Mainspecieslist

Mainspecieslist

Mainspecieslist

Soil Profile 50mmcoresample Thatchdepth 0 <5mm Pass

mm Rootdepth 150 >100mm Pass

Topsoildepth >150 >150mm Pass

Problemsnoted Stoney Soil

SoilTexture Handdetermination Texturalcategory Loamy

SuitabilityAssessment

Hardness 0.5kgCleggHammer Averageof5samples 75 70-100Grv Pass

MoistureContent Theta Probe Representativereading 49.7 30-50% Pass

Tractionvalue TurfTech torquewrench Averageof3readings 25 25-60Nm Pass

Stonecontent Physicalassessment %stoneabove10mm <5% <5% Pass

oftopsoilsample Maximumstonesize 15 >15mm Pass

Surfacelevels Deviationfroma2m Averageof15samples 15 <20mm Pass

straightedge Maximumdeviation 30 <50mm Pass

Fall Visualdetermination Above2% <2% <2% Pass

NOTES:includeestimateddrainagepotential Poorqualitycover Heavysoilcompactec Wouldbenefitfromannual topdressing toameliorate thesoilprofile Levelsgood Recommendations: Verti-drain torelievesoilcompaction,overseeding toimproveswardquality,Fertilise tomaintangrowth, Selectiveweedcontrol. Feasibility study required for: Drainage Weathersummaryforlast5days Dryfor3weeks

Dateofassessment: 18/03/2010

Assessedby: Henry Bechelet Site: MasseyBeecroft Park Pitch:Rugby

PerformanceAssessment

Assessment Methodofcollection Collectionpoints Data Data Benchmark Pass/Fail

Cover Visualassessment Underposts 20 >20% Pass

%Livegrasscover Inside22 40 >50% Fail

Midfield 40 >60% Fail

Halfway 30 >50% Fail

Midfield 30 >60% Fail

Inside22 30 >50% Fail

Underposts 50 >20% Pass

Wing 70 >80% Fail

SwardContent Visualassessment Ryegrass 50 >50% Pass

%eachspecies Bentgrass 10

Fescue

Annualmeadowgrass 40 <30% Fail

Yorkshirefog (patches) <5% Pass

Other(specify)

Other(specify)

Swardheight mm 30 30-60mm Pass

WeedContent Visualassessment Total <5% <10% Pass

Mainspecieslist Daisy

Mainspecieslist Dandelion

Mainspecieslist Clover

Mainspecieslist

Soil Profile 50mmcoresample Thatchdepth 0 <5mm Pass

mm Rootdepth 150 >100mm Pass

Topsoildepth 150 >150mm Pass

Problemsnoted Sandysoiloverclaybase

SoilTexture Handdetermination Texturalcategory Sandyloam/ClayLoam

SuitabilityAssessment

Hardness 0.5kgCleggHammer Averageof5samples 80 70-100Grv Pass

MoistureContent Theta Probe Representativereading 42.8 30-50% Pass

Tractionvalue TurfTech torquewrench Averageof3readings 25 25-60Nm Pass

Stonecontent Physicalassessment %stoneabove10mm <5% <5% Pass

oftopsoilsample Maximumstonesize 10 >15mm Pass

Surfacelevels Deviationfroma2m Averageof15samples 15 <20mm Pass

straightedge Maximumdeviation 30 <50mm Pass

Fall Visualdetermination Above2% <2% <2% Pass

NOTES:includeestimateddrainagepotential Worncover,need toestablishagreaterproportionofperennialryegrass Underlyingheavysoilsowillcutupunderplay Levelsgood

Recommendations: Verti-drain torelievesoilcompaction,overseeding toimproveswardquality,Fertilise tomaintangrowth, Selectiveweedcontrol. Feasibility study required for: Weathersummaryforlast5days Rainoverweekend.

Dateofassessment: 22/03/2010

Assessedby: Henry Bechelet Site: OakRoad Pitch:Rugby

PerformanceAssessment

Assessment Methodofcollection Collectionpoints Data Data Benchmark Pass/Fail

Cover Visualassessment Underposts 40 >20% Pass

%Livegrasscover Inside22 60 >50% Pass

Midfield 45 >60% Fail

Halfway 40 >50% Fail

Midfield 35 >60% Fail

Inside22 60 >50% Pass

Underposts 60 >20% Pass

Wing 60 >80% Fail

SwardContent Visualassessment Ryegrass 40 >50% Fail

%eachspecies Bentgrass 20

Fescue

Annualmeadowgrass 40 <30% Fail

Yorkshirefog <5% Pass

Other(specify)

Other(specify)

Swardheight mm 50 30-60mm Pass

WeedContent Visualassessment Total <1% <10% Pass

Mainspecieslist Clover

Mainspecieslist Daisy

Mainspecieslist Dandelion

Mainspecieslist Buttercup

Soil Profile 50mmcoresample Thatchdepth 0 <5mm Pass

mm Rootdepth >150 >100mm Pass

Topsoildepth >150 >150mm Pass

Problemsnoted heavysoil

SoilTexture Handdetermination Texturalcategory SiltyClayLoam

SuitabilityAssessment

Hardness 0.5kgCleggHammer Averageof5samples 63 70-100Grv Fail

MoistureContent Theta Probe Representativereading 58 30-50% Fail

Tractionvalue TurfTech torquewrench Averageof3readings 28 25-60Nm Pass

Stonecontent Physicalassessment %stoneabove10mm <5% Pass

oftopsoilsample Maximumstonesize >15mm

Surfacelevels Deviationfroma2m Averageof15samples 14 <20mm Pass

straightedge Maximumdeviation 20 <50mm Pass

Fall Visualdetermination Above2% <2% <2% Pass

NOTES:includeestimateddrainagepotential Heavy Pitch Worncoverinplacesneedsoverseeding Heavysoilneedsvertidrainganddrainage Levelscouldbeimproved Recommendations: Verti-drain torelievesoilcompaction,overseeding toimproveswardquality,Fertilise tomaintangrowth, Selectiveweedcontrol. Feasibility study required for: Drainage, Levels Weathersummaryforlast5days Rainindayprior toinspectionandoverweekend.

Dateofassessment: 24/03/2010

Assessedby: Henry Bechelet Site: Costello PlayingFields Pitch:Rugby

PerformanceAssessment

Assessment Methodofcollection Collectionpoints Data Data Benchmark Pass/Fail

Cover Visualassessment Underposts 50 >20% Pass

%Livegrasscover Inside22 65 >50% Pass

Midfield 85 >60% Pass

Halfway 25 >50% Fail

Midfield 60 >60% Pass

Inside22 45 >50% Fail

Underposts 35 >20% Pass

Wing 80 >80% Pass

SwardContent Visualassessment Ryegrass 30 >50% Fail

%eachspecies Bentgrass 20

Fescue

Annualmeadowgrass 50 <30% Fail

Yorkshirefog <5% Pass

Other(specify)

Other(specify)

Swardheight mm 30 30-60mm Pass

WeedContent Visualassessment Total <1% <10% Pass

Mainspecieslist Daisy

Mainspecieslist Dandelion

Mainspecieslist

Mainspecieslist

Soil Profile 50mmcoresample Thatchdepth 0 <5mm Pass

mm Rootdepth 100 >100mm Pass

Topsoildepth >150 >150mm Pass

Problemsnoted heavysoil

SoilTexture Handdetermination Texturalcategory ClayLoam

SuitabilityAssessment

Hardness 0.5kgCleggHammer Averageof5samples 70 70-100Grv Pass

MoistureContent Theta Probe Representativereading 63.8 30-50% Fail

Tractionvalue TurfTech torquewrench Averageof3readings 20 25-60Nm Fail

Stonecontent Physicalassessment %stoneabove10mm 0 <5% Pass

oftopsoilsample Maximumstonesize >15mm

Surfacelevels Deviationfroma2m Averageof15samples 8 <20mm Pass

straightedge Maximumdeviation 20 <50mm Pass

Fall Visualdetermination Above2% <2% <2% Pass

NOTES:includeestimateddrainagepotential Weakcoverrequiresoverseeding Poor traction Softsurfaceandpoordrainage Goodlevels Recommendations: Verti-drain torelievesoilcompaction,overseeding toimproveswardquality,Fertilise tomaintangrowth, Selectiveweedcontrol. Feasibility study required for: Drainage Weathersummaryforlast5days Rainoverweekend.

Dateofassessment: 22/03/2010

Assessedby: Henry Bechelet Site: Shaw Park Pitch:Rugby

PerformanceAssessment

Assessment Methodofcollection Collectionpoints Data Data Benchmark Pass/Fail

Cover Visualassessment Underposts 50 >20% Pass

%Livegrasscover Inside22 60 >50% Pass

Midfield 70 >60% Pass

Halfway 70 >50% Pass

Midfield 85 >60% Pass

Inside22 70 >50% Pass

Underposts 40 >20% Pass

Wing 90 >80% Pass

SwardContent Visualassessment Ryegrass 50 >50% Pass

%eachspecies Bentgrass 20

Fescue

Annualmeadowgrass 30 <30% Pass

Yorkshirefog <5% Pass

Other(specify)

Other(specify)

Swardheight mm 60 30-60mm Pass

WeedContent Visualassessment Total <10% <10% Pass

Mainspecieslist Dandelion

Mainspecieslist Daisy

Mainspecieslist Clover

Mainspecieslist Buttercup

Soil Profile 50mmcoresample Thatchdepth 0 <5mm Pass

mm Rootdepth 150 >100mm Pass

Topsoildepth >150 >150mm Pass

Problemsnoted heavysoil/compacted

SoilTexture Handdetermination Texturalcategory ClayLoam

SuitabilityAssessment

Hardness 0.5kgCleggHammer Averageof5samples 58 70-100Grv Fail

MoistureContent Theta Probe Representativereading 52.9 30-50% Fail

Tractionvalue TurfTech torquewrench Averageof3readings 27 25-60Nm Pass

Stonecontent Physicalassessment %stoneabove10mm <5% <5% Pass

oftopsoilsample Maximumstonesize >15mm

Surfacelevels Deviationfroma2m Averageof15samples 21 <20mm Fail

straightedge Maximumdeviation 40 <50mm Pass

Fall Visualdetermination Above2% <2% <2% Pass

NOTES:includeestimateddrainagepotential Not toobadbutcoveralittleweakandweedy Heavysoilcompactecneedsmanagement Softsurfaceandpoordrainage Levelsanissue Recommendations: Verti-drain torelievesoilcompaction,overseeding toimproveswardquality,Fertilise tomaintangrowth, Selectiveweedcontrol. Feasibility study required for: Drainage, Levels Weathersummaryforlast5days Rainoverweekend.

Dateofassessment: 22/03/2010

Assessedby: Henry Bechelet APPENDIX3

SCHOOLPLAYINGFIELDS Site: AndrewMarvell Pitch: Football pitch nearestthe gate

PerformanceAssessment

Assessment Methodofcollection Collectionpoints Data Data Benchmark Pass/Fail

Cover Visualassessment Goalmouth 10 >20% Fail

% Live grasscover Penalty box 40 >50% Fail

Midfield 60 >60% Pass

Centrecircle 35 >50% Fail

Midfield 65 >60% Pass

Penalty box 70 >50% Pass

Goalmouth 10 >20% Fail

Wing 100 >80% Pass

SwardContent Visualassessment Ryegrass 30 >50% Fail

%eachspecies Bentgrass 30

Fescue

Annualmeadow grass 40 <30% Fail

Yorkshirefog <5% Pass

Other(specify)

Other(specify)

Sward height mm 45 30-60mm Pass

WeedContent Visualassessment Total <1% <10% Pass

Mainspecies list Daisy

Mainspecies list Dandelion

Mainspecies list Clover

Mainspecies list

SoilProfile 50mmcoresample Thatch depth 0 <5mm Pass

mm Root depth >100mm >100mm Pass

Topsoil depth >150mm >150mm Pass

Problems noted heavysoil/compacted

Soil Texture Hand determination Texturalcategory ClayLoam

SuitabilityAssessment

Hardness 0.5kgCleggHammer Average of5samples 71 70-100 Grv Pass

MoistureContent ThetaProbe Representativereading 53.3 30-50% Fail

Tractionvalue TurfTech torquewrench Average of3readings 29 25-60Nm Pass

Stonecontent Physicalassessment %stoneabove10mm <5% <5% Pass

oftopsoilsample Maximumstonesize >15 >15mm Fail

Surface levels Deviationfroma2m Average of15samples 28 <20mm Fail

straightedge Maximum deviation 60 <50mm Fail

Fall Visual determination Above2% <2% <2% Pass

NOTES: includeestimated drainage potential Poorqualitycover,weak,wornswardespecially through thecentre Heavysoilcompactec Poordrainage Subsidencelevelsanissue Recommendations: Verti-drain torelievesoilcompaction,overseeding toimproveswardquality, Fertilise tomaintangrowth,Selectiveweedcontrol. Feasibility study required for: Drainage,Levels Weathersummaryfor last5 days HeavyRainprior toinspection.

Dateofassessment: 30/03/2010

Assessedby: HenryBechelet Site: DavidLister Pitch: Football

PerformanceAssessment

Assessment Methodofcollection Collectionpoints Data Data Benchmark Pass/Fail

Cover Visualassessment Goalmouth 0 >20% Fail

% Live grasscover Penalty box 50 >50% Pass

Midfield 50 >60% Fail

Centrecircle 60 >50% Pass

Midfield 10 >60% Fail

Penalty box 10 >50% Fail

Goalmouth 0 >20% Fail

Wing 80 >80% Pass

SwardContent Visualassessment Ryegrass 20 >50% Fail

%eachspecies Bentgrass 20

Fescue

Annualmeadow grass 60 <30% Fail

Yorkshirefog <5% Pass

Other(specify)

Other(specify)

Sward height mm 40mm 30-60mm Pass

WeedContent Visualassessment Total <1% <10% Pass

Mainspecies list Daisy

Mainspecies list Dandelion

Mainspecies list Clover

Mainspecies list Buttercup

SoilProfile 50mmcoresample Thatch depth <5 <5mm Pass

mm Root depth >100mm >100mm Pass

Topsoil depth >150mm >150mm Pass

Problems noted Heavysoil/compacted

Soil Texture Hand determination Texturalcategory ClayLoam

SuitabilityAssessment

Hardness 0.5kgCleggHammer Average of5samples 66 70-100 Grv Fail

MoistureContent ThetaProbe Representativereading 49.1 30-50% Pass

Tractionvalue TurfTech torquewrench Average of3readings 22 25-60Nm Fail

Stonecontent Physicalassessment %stoneabove10mm 0 <5% Pass

oftopsoilsample Maximumstonesize >15mm

Surface levels Deviationfroma2m Average of15samples 17 <20mm Pass

straightedge Maximum deviation 30 <50mm Pass

Fall Visual determination Above2% <2% <2% Pass

NOTES: includeestimated drainage potential Heavilywornandweakcover Heavysoilcompactec Softsurface,drainagewouldhelp Levels OK Recommendations: Verti-drain torelievesoilcompaction,overseeding toimproveswardquality, Fertilise tomaintangrowth,Selectiveweedcontrol. Feasibility study required for: Drainage Weathersummaryfor last5 days Rainoverweekend.

Dateofassessment: 22/03/2010

Assessedby: HenryBechelet Site:Malet Lambert Pitch: Football

PerformanceAssessment

Assessment Methodofcollection Collectionpoints Data Data Benchmark Pass/Fail

Cover Visualassessment Goalmouth 0 >20% Fail

% Live grasscover Penalty box 40 >50% Fail

Midfield 50 >60% Fail

Centrecircle 60 >50% Pass

Midfield 50 >60% Fail

Penalty box 60 >50% Pass

Goalmouth 10 >20% Fail

Wing 80 >80% Pass

SwardContent Visualassessment Ryegrass 30 >50% Fail

%eachspecies Bentgrass 10

Fescue

Annualmeadow grass 60 <30% Fail

Yorkshirefog <5% Pass

Other(specify)

Other(specify)

Sward height mm 40 30-60mm Pass

WeedContent Visualassessment Total <5% <10% Pass

Mainspecies list Clover

Mainspecies list Daisy

Mainspecies list Dandelion

Mainspecies list

SoilProfile 50mmcoresample Thatch depth 0 <5mm Pass

mm Root depth >100 >100mm Pass

Topsoil depth >100mm >150mm Pass

Problems noted Compaction

Soil Texture Hand determination Texturalcategory ClayLoam

SuitabilityAssessment

Hardness 0.5kgCleggHammer Average of5samples 65 70-100 Grv Fail

MoistureContent ThetaProbe Representativereading 60.7 30-50% Fail

Tractionvalue TurfTech torquewrench Average of3readings 23 25-60Nm Fail

Stonecontent Physicalassessment %stoneabove10mm 0 <5% Pass

oftopsoilsample Maximumstonesize >15mm

Surface levels Deviationfroma2m Average of15samples 19 <20mm Pass

straightedge Maximum deviation 30 <50mm Pass

Fall Visual determination Above2% <2% <2% Pass

NOTES: includeestimated drainage potential Poorqualitycoverworn Heavysoilcompactec Localisedlowspots

Recommendations: Verti-drain torelievesoilcompaction,overseeding toimproveswardquality, Fertilise tomaintangrowth,Selectiveweedcontrol. Feasibility study required for: Drainage,levels Weathersummaryfor last5 days Rainindaysprior toinspection

Dateofassessment: 25/03/2010

Assessedby: HenryBechelet Site:StMarysCollege Pitch: Far Football

PerformanceAssessment

Assessment Methodofcollection Collectionpoints Data Data Benchmark Pass/Fail

Cover Visualassessment Goalmouth 0 >20% Fail

% Live grasscover Penalty box 80 >50% Pass

Midfield 90 >60% Pass

Centrecircle 100 >50% Pass

Midfield 90 >60% Pass

Penalty box 100 >50% Pass

Goalmouth 0 >20% Fail

Wing 100 >80% Pass

SwardContent Visualassessment Ryegrass 20 >50% Fail

%eachspecies Bentgrass 70

Fescue

Annualmeadow grass 10 <30% Pass

Yorkshirefog <5% Pass

Other(specify)

Other(specify)

Sward height mm 40 30-60mm Pass

WeedContent Visualassessment Total <1% <10% Pass

Mainspecies list Daisy

Mainspecies list Dandelion

Mainspecies list Buttercup

Mainspecies list Clover

SoilProfile 50mmcoresample Thatch depth 5mm <5mm Pass

mm Root depth >100mm >100mm Pass

Topsoil depth >150mm >150mm Pass

Problems noted Heavysoil

Soil Texture Hand determination Texturalcategory ClayLoam

SuitabilityAssessment

Hardness 0.5kgCleggHammer Average of5samples 50 70-100 Grv Fail

MoistureContent ThetaProbe Representativereading 61.7 30-50% Fail

Tractionvalue TurfTech torquewrench Average of3readings 23 25-60Nm Fail

Stonecontent Physicalassessment %stoneabove10mm 0 <5% Pass

oftopsoilsample Maximumstonesize >15mm Pass

Surface levels Deviationfroma2m Average of15samples 26 <20mm Fail

straightedge Maximum deviation 50 <50mm Pass

Fall Visual determination Above2% <2% <2% Pass

NOTES: includeestimated drainage potential Notinplay Levelingworkbeendone Softsurfaceandpoordrainage Localisedlevelsarealissue Recommendations: Verti-drain torelievesoilcompaction,overseeding toimproveswardquality, Fertilise tomaintangrowth,Selectiveweedcontrol. Feasibility study required for: Drainage,Levels Weathersummaryfor last5 days Rainindaysprior toinspection

Dateofassessment: 30/03/2010

Assessedby: HenryBechelet Site:SirHenryCooper Pitch: Football

PerformanceAssessment

Assessment Methodofcollection Collectionpoints Data Data Benchmark Pass/Fail

Cover Visualassessment Goalmouth 20 >20% Fail

% Live grasscover Penalty box 25 >50% Pass

Midfield 55 >60% Pass

Centrecircle 20 >50% Pass

Midfield 30 >60% Pass

Penalty box 50 >50% Pass

Goalmouth 10 >20% Fail

Wing 90 >80% Pass

SwardContent Visualassessment Ryegrass 20 >50% Fail

%eachspecies Bentgrass 10

Fescue

Annualmeadow grass 70 <30% Fail

Yorkshirefog <5% Pass

Other(specify)

Other(specify)

Sward height mm 50 30-60mm Pass

WeedContent Visualassessment Total <10% <10% Pass

Mainspecies list Moss

Mainspecies list Daisy

Mainspecies list Dandelion

Mainspecies list

SoilProfile 50mmcoresample Thatch depth 0 <5mm Pass

mm Root depth >150mm >100mm Pass

Topsoil depth >150mm >150mm Pass

Problems noted heavycompactedsoil

Soil Texture Hand determination Texturalcategory ClayLoam

SuitabilityAssessment

Hardness 0.5kgCleggHammer Average of5samples 54 70-100 Grv Pass

MoistureContent ThetaProbe Representativereading 55.2 30-50% Pass

Tractionvalue TurfTech torquewrench Average of3readings 18 25-60Nm Pass

Stonecontent Physicalassessment %stoneabove10mm <1% <5% Pass

oftopsoilsample Maximumstonesize 10mm >15mm Fail

Surface levels Deviationfroma2m Average of15samples 23 <20mm Pass

straightedge Maximum deviation 60 <50mm Fail

Fall Visual determination Above2% <2% <2% Pass

NOTES: includeestimated drainage potential Muddyandsoftpitch Weakcover Heavysoilcompactecneedsvertidrainingand topdressing Poordrainage Levelscouldbeimproved Recommendations: Verti-drain torelievesoilcompaction,overseeding toimproveswardquality, Fertilise tomaintangrowth,Selectiveweedcontrol. Feasibility study required for: Drainage,Levels Weathersummaryfor last5 days RainIndaysprior toinspection.

Dateofassessment: 30/03/2010

Assessedby: HenryBechelet Site: SydneySmithSchool Pitch:Rugby

PerformanceAssessment

Assessment Methodofcollection Collectionpoints Data Data Benchmark Pass/Fail

Cover Visualassessment Under posts 70 >20% Pass

% Live grasscover Inside22 50 >50% Pass

Midfield 65 >60% Pass

Half way 70 >50% Pass

Midfield 70 >60% Pass

Inside22 80 >50% Pass

Under posts 35 >20% Pass

Wing 80 >80% Pass

SwardContent Visualassessment Ryegrass 40 >50% Fail

%eachspecies Bentgrass 20

Fescue

Annualmeadow grass 40 <30% Fail

Yorkshirefog <5% Pass

Other(specify)

Other(specify)

Sward height mm 40 30-60mm Pass

WeedContent Visualassessment Total <5% <10% Pass

Mainspecies list Clover

Mainspecies list Buttercup

Mainspecies list Dandelion

Mainspecies list Daisy

SoilProfile 50mmcoresample Thatch depth 0 <5mm Pass

mm Root depth >100mm >100mm Pass

Topsoil depth >150 >150mm Pass

Problems noted

Soil Texture Hand determination Texturalcategory ClayLoam

SuitabilityAssessment

Hardness 0.5kgCleggHammer Average of5samples 50 70-100 Grv Fail

MoistureContent ThetaProbe Representativereading 53.8 30-50% Fail

Tractionvalue TurfTech torquewrench Average of3readings 23 25-60Nm Fail

Stonecontent Physicalassessment %stoneabove10mm 0 <5% Pass

oftopsoilsample Maximumstonesize >15mm

Surface levels Deviationfroma2m Average of15samples 23 <20mm Fail

straightedge Maximum deviation 50 <50mm Pass

Fall Visual determination Above2% <2% <2% Pass

NOTES: includeestimated drainage potential Pitchholdingupwell Poorcoverrequiresoverseeding Poordrainage Localisedlevelsanissue Recommendations: Verti-drain torelievesoilcompaction,overseeding toimproveswardquality, Fertilise tomaintangrowth,Selectiveweedcontrol. Feasibility study required for: Drainage,Levels Weathersummaryfor last5 days Rainoverweekend.

Dateofassessment: 25/03/2010

Assessedby: HenryBechelet Site:ArchbishopSentamu Pitch: Football

PerformanceAssessment

Assessment Methodofcollection Collectionpoints Data Data Benchmark Pass/Fail

Cover Visualassessment Goalmouth 10 >20% Fail

% Live grasscover Penalty box 30 >50% Fail

Midfield 40 >60% Fail

Centrecircle 10 >50% Fail

Midfield 10 >60% Fail

Penalty box 10 >50% Fail

Goalmouth 0 >20% Fail

Wing 90 >80% Pass

SwardContent Visualassessment Ryegrass 20 >50% Fail

%eachspecies Bentgrass 30

Fescue

Annualmeadow grass 50 <30% Pass

Yorkshirefog <5% Pass

Other(specify)

Other(specify)

Sward height mm 40mm 30-60mm Pass

WeedContent Visualassessment Total <5% <10% Pass

Mainspecies list Moss

Mainspecies list Dandelion

Mainspecies list Daisy

Mainspecies list Clover

SoilProfile 50mmcoresample Thatch depth 0 <5mm Pass

mm Root depth >100mm >100mm Pass

Topsoil depth 150mm >150mm Pass

Problems noted heavysoil/poordrainage

Soil Texture Hand determination Texturalcategory ClayLoam

SuitabilityAssessment

Hardness 0.5kgCleggHammer Average of5samples 67 70-100 Grv Fail

MoistureContent ThetaProbe Representativereading 53.4 30-50% Fail

Tractionvalue TurfTech torquewrench Average of3readings 22 25-60Nm Fail

Stonecontent Physicalassessment %stoneabove10mm <5% <5% Pass

oftopsoilsample Maximumstonesize >15mm Pass

Surface levels Deviationfroma2m Average of15samples 19 <20mm Pass

straightedge Maximum deviation 50 <50mm Pass

Fall Visual determination Above2% <2% <2% Pass

NOTES: includeestimated drainage potential Wornsurface.Poorqualitycover. Weedy Heavysoilcompactec Slightlysoftsurfaceandpoordrainage Levelsgood Recommendations: Verti-drain torelievesoilcompaction,overseeding toimproveswardquality, Fertilise tomaintangrowth,Selectiveweedcontrol. Feasibility study required for: Drainage Weathersummaryfor last5 days Rainoverweekend.

Dateofassessment: 25/03/2010

Assessedby: HenryBechelet Site:HighfieldArtCollege Pitch:Nearestfootball

PerformanceAssessment

Assessment Methodofcollection Collectionpoints Data Data Benchmark Pass/Fail

Cover Visualassessment Goalmouth 40 >20% Pass

% Live grasscover Penalty box 55 >50% Pass

Midfield 40 >60% Fail

Centrecircle 50 >50% Pass

Midfield 75 >60% Pass

Penalty box 75 >50% Pass

Goalmouth 30 >20% Pass

Wing 95 >80% Pass

SwardContent Visualassessment Ryegrass 20 >50% Fail

%eachspecies Bentgrass 10

Fescue

Annualmeadow grass 70 <30% Fail

Yorkshirefog <5% Pass

Other(specify)

Other(specify)

Sward height mm 40 30-60mm Pass

WeedContent Visualassessment Total <10% <10% Pass

Mainspecies list Daisy

Mainspecies list Clover

Mainspecies list Dandelion

Mainspecies list

SoilProfile 50mmcoresample Thatch depth 0 <5mm Pass

mm Root depth >100mm >100mm Pass

Topsoil depth >150mm >150mm Pass

Problems noted heavysoil/compected/poordrainage

Soil Texture Hand determination Texturalcategory ClayLoam

SuitabilityAssessment

Hardness 0.5kgCleggHammer Average of5samples 69 70-100 Grv Fail

MoistureContent ThetaProbe Representativereading 49.2 30-50% Pass

Tractionvalue TurfTech torquewrench Average of3readings 21 25-60Nm Fail

Stonecontent Physicalassessment %stoneabove10mm <1% <5% Pass

oftopsoilsample Maximumstonesize 15 >15mm

Surface levels Deviationfroma2m Average of15samples 21 <20mm Fail

straightedge Maximum deviation 60 <50mm Fail

Fall Visual determination Above2% <2% <2% Pass

NOTES: includeestimated drainage potential Weakcoverandweedy Heavysoilcompactec Softsurfacepoordrainage Undulatinglevelsanissue Recommendations: Verti-drain torelievesoilcompaction,overseeding toimproveswardquality, Fertilise tomaintangrowth,Selectiveweedcontrol. Feasibility study required for: Levelsanddrainage Weathersummaryfor last5 days Relativelydryonrunup toinspection

Dateofassessment: 30/03/2010

Assessedby: HenryBechelet Site:Sirius Pitch: Football pitch

PerformanceAssessment

Assessment Methodofcollection Collectionpoints Data Data Benchmark Pass/Fail

Cover Visualassessment Goalmouth 0 >20% Fail

% Live grasscover Penalty box 30 >50% Fail

Midfield 40 >60% Fail

Centrecircle 30 >50% Fail

Midfield 70 >60% Pass

Penalty box 30 >50% Fail

Goalmouth 0 >20% Fail

Wing 80 >80% Pass

SwardContent Visualassessment Ryegrass 20 >50% Fail

%eachspecies Bentgrass

Fescue

Annualmeadow grass 80 <30% Fail

Yorkshirefog <5% Pass

Other(specify)

Other(specify)

Sward height mm 30mm 30-60mm Pass

WeedContent Visualassessment Total <10% <10% Pass

Mainspecies list Clover

Mainspecies list Daisy

Mainspecies list Dandelion

Mainspecies list

SoilProfile 50mmcoresample Thatch depth 0 <5mm Pass

mm Root depth 80mm >100mm Fail

Topsoil depth >150mm >150mm Pass

Problems noted Compactedheavysoil

Soil Texture Hand determination Texturalcategory ClayLoam

SuitabilityAssessment

Hardness 0.5kgCleggHammer Average of5samples 66 70-100 Grv Pass

MoistureContent ThetaProbe Representativereading 58.3 30-50% Fail

Tractionvalue TurfTech torquewrench Average of3readings 33 25-60Nm Pass

Stonecontent Physicalassessment %stoneabove10mm <5% <5% Pass

oftopsoilsample Maximumstonesize >20mm >15mm

Surface levels Deviationfroma2m Average of15samples 19 <20mm Pass

straightedge Maximum deviation 50 <50mm Pass

Fall Visual determination Above2% <2% <2% Pass

NOTES: includeestimated drainage potential Wornsurfaceweakcover Heavysoilcompactec Levelsrolling (soilused forlevelingisstony) Recommendations: Verti-drain torelievesoilcompaction,overseeding toimproveswardquality, Fertilise tomaintangrowth,Selectiveweedcontrol. Feasibility study required for: Drainageandlevels Weathersummaryfor last5 days Rainoverweekend.

Dateofassessment: 30/03/2010

Assessedby: HenryBechelet

KINGSTON UPON HULL CITY COUNCIL

STRI, Bingley, West Yorkshire, BD16 1AU Telephone: 01274 565131 Fax: 01274 561891 E-mail: [email protected] Website: www.stri.co.uk

The purpose of the STRI Agronomy service is to assist clients in matters of agronomic management. All recommendations are offered free of bias. The STRI has no commercial connections or obligations to any manufacturer, supplier or contractor.

Date: 22nd July 2010 HCB/LR

CONFIDENTIAL

KINGSTON UPON HULL CITY COUNCIL

ASSESSMENT OF SUMMER SPORTS FACILITIES

.

1.0 INTRODUCTION

This report serves to formalise the results of the assessment of the various summer sports surfaces situated within the Kingston upon Hull area. The assessment was requested to provide an objective assessment of the condition of all the various summer sports surfaces . The aim was to appraise the standards being set and provide recommendations for improvements where necessary.

It is understood that this report is to form a part of the overall playing field strategy for the city of Kingston upon Hull. This report incorporates assessments of the bowling greens, cricket tables and golf facilities. The assessment was carried out using objective measures and recognised standards to benchmark the key performance indicators as well as the agronomic factors that affect them. The aim was to build an accurate picture of the current situation and also allow us to monitor progress in the future.

The site visits were carried out throughout the summer and early autumn of 2010 to conduct the assessment when all the various areas were still in play. The weather during spring and early summer was extremely dry in the Hull area to place drought stress on the situation. Thankfully, the dry weather relented during August and September to provide better growing conditions. It has, however, bee quite a tough year for the maintenance of turf in 2010.

2.0 BOWLING GREENS

The Council maintain a significant number of flat bowling greens in the area. The aim when maintaining the greens is to create firm, fine, smooth, true and level surfaces that allow the game of flat green lawn bowls to be played properly. The surfaces should be well-paced to allow for skilful play and level enough to provide an even draw on both hands. The assessment aimed to provide an accurate measure of all the key playing quality attributes as well as the various agronomic factors that affect them.

2.1 ASSESSMENT METHOD The greens were assessed using a standardised method. The copies of each assessment form are contained in the appendix of this report. All target ranges are based on research findings and aim to provide a reasonable and attainable level of performance.

2.1.1 Sward Content Our ideal sward composition for a bowling green would be to provide a surface that is dominated by and even blend fine bent and fescue grass species. These grass types

Kingston upon Hull City Council – Summer Sports Surfaces 2 provide naturally firm, fine and drought tolerant surface that is ideally suited for the production of high quality bowling surfaces. We would also wish for minimal coarse grass content or broad leaved weed infestation.

The sward content assessment was made using a 10x100cm grid that was divided into 10cm squares. Each of the squares was scored for the primary and secondary species and this was replicated in 5 areas across each green. The percentage sward species content was then calculated from the results.

2.1.2 Mowing Mowing is a critically important maintenance operation for the production of a good quality bowling surface. The aim should be to provide a good even surface on which to play. The benchmark figure was to not mow the green any lower than 4mm as this would cause the sward to thin out under play and increase the risk of dry patch and disease developing. The height of cut was measured.

The quality of the cut was rated visually to identify if the mower wasn’t being set correctly. An uneven cut, a ragged cut or missed areas would all be noted.

2.1.3 Speed of Green The bowling surface needs to be well paced to allow woods to run freely and finish out well. The speed of the bowling surfaces was rated subjectively by delivering woods across each green and categorising the speed based on the strength of delivery required to reach a full length and a visual assessment of the way in which the wood finished out.

§ A “slow” surface would be one that was difficult to deliver the wood across the green. § A “satisfactory” surface was one where the end could be easily reached but the woods were still slowing up quite quickly. § A “good” surface was one that was well paced where the bowl could be easily delivered across the green and was seen to be finishing out well. § A “fast” surface was one where very little effort was required to get the wood across the green and woods were finishing out extremely well.

For municipal bowling greens our minimum standard would be for the surface to be satisfactory at least.

2.1.4 Smoothness The smoothness of the surface was rated by scoring the number of distinct “bobbles” occurring through the passage of the woods crossing the green. Three pairs of woods were scored in three different directions then the average scored. A “bobble” is defined as a distinctive event where the wood leaves the ground. When maintaining the bowling green or aim is to provide as smooth a surface as possible with very little bobble. The benchmark figure for failure was if the woods “bobbled” on more than 5 occasions during each roll.

2.1.5 Surface Firmness A bowling green needs to be firm to play well. A firm surface is a fast surface. Woods sink into a soft surface to slow it down. The firmness of the surface was rated using a Clegg Impact soil tester. A round headed 0.5kg test weight was delivered from a 50cm drop height on 9 locations across the green. An average was calculated and the results given in gravities. This provided an accurate measure of the firmness of the surfaces. A target of between 90-110 gravities is an ideally firm surface on which to play. Results below 70 gravities are a unacceptably soft surface that would become footprinted and uneven under play. . Kingston upon Hull City Council – Summer Sports Surfaces 3

2.1.6 Moisture Content The moisture content of each green was measured using a Theta Probe. Nine readings were taken across the green to provide an overall average figure. The soil moisture content is important for the production of a healthy growing environment and also influences the firmness of the surface. The target range of 10 – 25% moisture content is a soil that is able to support healthy growth and provide a firm surface on which to play.

2.1.7 Surface Levels Our aim is to create as level a surface as possible to provide an even draw on each hand. The internal levels of each green was measured using a 2m straight edge. The straight edge was placed on to the surface across the whole green and the maximum distance between the green surface and the bottom edge of the straight edge was measured. 15 readings were taken across each green. The benchmark level of acceptability was a maximum of 6 mm for any single reading and an overall average of 4 mm.

2.1.8 Soil Profile During the course of each inspection a visual appraisal was made of the soil profile. This provided a measure of the depth of thatch present at the turf base , the extent of the desirable rootzone/soil layer and the depth of the rooting. This serves to give direction for the future soil management strategies. Our aim when maintaining the soil profile is to create as firm a surface as possible and a healthy growing environment.

2.1.9 Organic Matter Testing Samples were taken from each green to provide a measure of the organic matter content within the upper soil profile. Nine 12 mm core samples were taken from each green to a depth of 80 mm then the samples were submitted to our laboratory for Loss on Ignition testing. This would serve to provide an accurate measure of the organic matter content through the upper soil profile.

In the laboratory, each core sample would be divided into 0-40 mm and 40-80 depths then dried out before placing in an oven to burn off the organic matter content. The samples were weighed before and after the burning off the organic matter to provide a measure of the % weight of organic matter lost on ignition. This allows us to accurately measure the organic matter content and compare the results against desired standards.

Our target ranges for the 0-40 mm level are 7% moving down to 5% at 40-80 mm. These target ranges create a healthy growing environment and a firm surface on which to play.

2.2 BOWLING GREEN ASSESSMENT RESULTS The following table serves to summarise the results of the testing. The detailed assessment forms are contained within the appendix.

Kingston upon Hull City Council – Summer Sports Surfaces 4

Bowls Summary Table

P.E.P.F. 1 P.E.P.F. 2 Springhead 1 Springhead 2 West Park 1 West Park 2 West Park 3 East Park 1 East Park 2 East Park 3 Costello Pelican Park Victoria Dock Ald. Knees. 1 Ald Knees 2. Ald Knees. 3 Cover and Content Fescue Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Fail Pass Pass Pass Pass Browntop Bent Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Fail Pass Pass Pass Pass AMG Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Fail Pass Pass Pass Pass Yorkshire Fog Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Fail Pass Pass Pass Pass Ryegrass Fail Fail Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Fail Fail Pass Pass Pass Fail Bare Ground Fail Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Fail Fail Fail Pass Pass Fail Moss Fail Pass Fail Fail Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Fail Fail Pass Pass Pass Clover Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Fail Fail Fail Fail Fail Pass Daisy Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Fail Fail Pass Fail Fail Pass Pearlwort Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Fail Fail Pass Pass Pass Pass Other Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Fail Fail Fail Pass Fail Fail Total weeds Fail Fail Fail Fail Pass Pass Pass Pass Fail Pass Fail Fail Fail Fail Fail Fail Mowing Quality of cut Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Fail Fail Fail Pass Pass Fail Height of cut Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Fail Fail Fail Pass Pass Pass Performance Indicators Speed of Green Slow/sat./good/fast Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Fail Fail Pass Pass Pass Fail Smoothness Test 1 Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Fail Fail Fail Pass Pass Fail Test 2 Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Fail Fail Fail Pass Pass Fail Test 3 Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Fail Fail Fail Pass Pass Fail Firmness Ave. from 9 Fail Fail Fail Fail Pass Pass Pass Fail Fail Fail Pass Fail Fail Fail Fail Fail Moisture Ave. from 9 Fail Fail Pass Fail Pass Pass Pass Fail Fail Fail Pass Fail Fail Pass Pass Pass Level Survey Straight edge -Max. Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Fail Pass Pass Pass Pass Fail Fail Fail Pass Pass Fail Ave. of 15 readings Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Fail Pass Pass Pass Pass Fail Fail Fail Pass Pass Fail Soil Profile Core profile Thatch depth Fail Fail Fail Fail Pass Pass Pass Fail Fail Pass Pass Fail Pass Pass Pass Fail Root depth Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Fail Fail Pass Pass Pass

Organic Matter Testing 0-40mm Fail Fail Fail Fail Fail Fail Fail Fail Fail Fail Fail Fail Pass Fail Fail Fail (% Loss on Ignition) 40-80mm Fail Fail Fail Fail Fail Fail Fail Fail Pass Fail Fail Fail Pass Fail Fail Fail

2.2.1 Princess Elizabeth Playing Fields Green No 1 (Pavilion) - 06/08/2010

The sward was fine in nature but the surface was soft and suffering from the development of dry patch in places. The cause of the softness and dry patch was as a result of the accumulation of organic matter at the turf base. This was confirmed by the loss on ignition organic matter content test. Hollow tining and top dressing is required on an annual basis for the foreseeable future to resolve these issues. Kingston upon Hull City Council – Summer Sports Surfaces 5

The surface was quite weedy with pearlwort and also contained coarse perennial ryegrass patches. Certainly treatment with selective herbicide is required to control invading broad leaved weeds.

The levels were quite variable and could be improved with heavy top dressing at the end of each season.

The underlying soil was found to be compacted and requires regular aeration especially during the closed season to create an open structured growing environment that is conducive to root development and good drainage.

The soil was compacted to depth.

The priorities for the maintenance of this green are as follows:

Kingston upon Hull City Council – Summer Sports Surfaces 6

· Reduce the level of organic matter at the turf base with hollow tining and top dressing. · Improve the surface levels with top dressing at the end of the season. · Use wetting agent to control dry patch. · Aerate to maintain a healthy soil profile. · Control invading weeds.

An overall programme of work will be outlined in the following recommendations section.

2.2.2 Princess Elizabeth Playing Fields Green No 2 – 06/08/2010

A full cover was presented at the time of inspection

The sward was fine in nature and woods were running well but the surface levels were found to be relatively poor. Top dressings were required at the end of each season to attend to these levels.

The sward is dominated by fine bents and fescues.

Kingston upon Hull City Council – Summer Sports Surfaces 7

This green was found to be quite mossy and regular treatment with sulphate of iron is required throughout the year to prevent moss from smothering out the sward.

The weed Pearlwort was also found to be widespread and requiring treatment with selective herbicide.

The surface was found to be soft, primarily as a result of the accumulation of organic matter at the turf base. This was confirmed by the loss on ignition organic matter content test. Hollow tining and heavy top dressing at the end of the season would serve to improve the surface firmness, which in turn would improve the speed of the green further.

The underlying soil was compacted and required aeration throughout the closed season to create a more open structured and healthy growing environment that is conducive to healthy growth.

The upper soil profile contains too much organic matter and the underlying soil was compacted

The priorities for the maintenance of this green may be summarised as being:

· Hollow tine to reduce the level of organic matter at the turf base. · Top dress to improve the surface levels. · Treat with sulphate of iron to control invading moss. · Treat with selective herbicide to control invading weeds. · Aerate to maintain a healthy growing environment.

An overall programme of work will be outlined in the following recommendations section.

2.2.3 Springhead Park Green No 1 (Pavilion) – 05/08/2010 This green was satisfactory but struggling due to thatch accumulation at the turf base. The high organic matter content at the turf base had led to the development of dry patch, moss invasion, softening of the surface and bare areas developing. The focus for this green needs to be on reducing the level of organic matter at the turf base with hollow tining and top dressing at the end of each season. Kingston upon Hull City Council – Summer Sports Surfaces 8

The green had suffered the development of widespread dry patch.

Moss invasion was widespread.

The upper soil profile contains too much organic matter (11.8%) to increase the risk of dry patch and moss developing. Kingston upon Hull City Council – Summer Sports Surfaces 9

The lower soil profile was compacted and in need of regular aeration.

The levels were generally satisfactory but clearly some runs were evident. Heavy top dressing at the end of each season worked in using a long straight edge would serve to improve the surface levels.

The priorities for the maintenance of this green may be summarised as being:

· Reduce the level of organic matter at the turf base by hollow tining and top dressing at the end of each season. · Improve the surface levels by top dressing heavily at the end of the season and working the dressing in using a long straight edge. · Control invading moss. · Prevent the development of dry patch with the use of wetting agent and with regular aeration. · Aerate to maintain a healthy soil profile.

An overall programme of work will be outlined in the following recommendations section.

2.2.4 Springhead Park Green No 2 – 05/08/2010 Again, this green was struggling with the development of dry patch, moss invasion, droughted areas and also the surface was soft and chipping out under play. All these problems are directly related to the level of organic matter at the turf base, which was found to be high by soil testing. Hollow tining and heavy top dressing was required to work at reducing the level of organic matter and firm up the surface and make it less likely to develop dry patch and suffer moss invasion. Clearly, wetting agent would be beneficial during the playing season to prevent the soil from becoming water repellent during dry periods of weather.

The surface levels were generally found to be satisfactory but as always can be attended to with heavy top dressing at the end of each year.

The underlying soil was found to be compacted and regular aeration is required to maintain an open structured and healthy growing environment.

Kingston upon Hull City Council – Summer Sports Surfaces 10

The green was suffering widespread dry patch and moss invasion…

…due to the accumulation of organic matter at the turf base.

Kingston upon Hull City Council – Summer Sports Surfaces 11

The priorities for the maintenance of this green can be summarised as being:

· Hollow tine to reduce the influence of the organic matter at the turf base. · Top dress to continually work at improving the surface levels. · Treat the green with sulphate of iron to control invading moss. · Use wetting agent to prevent the development of dry patch. · Aerate to maintain a healthy soil profile.

An overall programme of work will be outlined in the following recommendations section.

2.2.5 West Park Green No 1 (Ladies) – 05/08/2010

This green was in really good condition at the time of inspection. The surface was firm and fine and playing extremely well. The sward was dense and healthy with no major areas of weakness noted.

Kingston upon Hull City Council – Summer Sports Surfaces 12

The surface was dry but no dry patch was noted and the surface was consistent as a result.

Some red thread disease was noted but it was felt that this was more as a result of the dry weather conditions rather than being an indication of a deficiency in the maintenance programme. No action was required with this disease being superficial rather than overly damaging.

The fescue dominance of this sward makes it prone to developing the disease red thread in the summer

The surface levels on this green were generally satisfactory but clearly some runs were evident. Heavy top dressing should be applied at the end of each season and worked in using a long straight edge to constantly work at improving surface levels.

The upper soil profile initially didn’t appear to be too thatchy but the loss on ignition test revealed the organic matter content to still be too high. Hollow tining and top dressing would be beneficial at the end of the season to work at reducing the level of organic matter at the turf base. This will improve the overall performance of this green.

Kingston upon Hull City Council – Summer Sports Surfaces 13

The underlying soil was compacted and required aeration to create an open structured free draining growing environment.

The 1st green was in good condition but the priorities for its maintenance should involve:

· Hollow tine and top dress to reduce the influence of the organic matter at the turf base. · Top dress to improve the surface levels. · Overseed to continually improve the sward · Maintain turf health with the judicious use of fertiliser and irrigation inputs. · Relieve the soil compaction with aeration through the autumn and winter period.

An overall programme of work will be outlined in the following recommendations section.

2.5 West Park Green No 2 (middle) – 05/08/2010

This surface was also in good condition at the time of inspection. Woods were seen to be running well across the firm and fine surface.

Generally the health of the sward was found to be good with the presence of some Dollar spot disease may indicate a need for a slight increase in the fertiliser input. It was not felt that this disease was in danger of causing too much damage and so immediate fungicide control was required.

Weed infestations were noted and required control.

The main problem with this green was the poor surface levels. Heavy top dressing (3-4 tonnes) is required for the end of each year to help improve the situation. The top dressing should be worked in using a long straight edge to help fill any localised low spots.

The upper soil profile visually was in good condition but that soil testing revealed the organic matter content to be too high. Solid tining and top dressing should be carried out at the end of each season to integrate sandy material down into the upper soil profile to dilute the level of organic matter at the turf base. Kingston upon Hull City Council – Summer Sports Surfaces 14

Dollar spot disease was evident.

Broad leafed weeds were present and in need of control.

The underlying soil was compacted and required regular aeration to create a healthy growing environment.

The priority for this green was to carry out a good end of season renovation involving:

· Solid tining and top dressing to reduce the influence of the organic matter at the turf base. · Work the top dressing in using a long straight edge to improve surface levels. · Aeration to relieve soil compaction. · Overseeding to improve the quality of the sward.

An overall programme of work will be outlined in the following recommendations section.

Kingston upon Hull City Council – Summer Sports Surfaces 15

2.2.6 West Park Green No 3 – 05/08/2010

This green was in good condition at the time of inspection. The sward is fescue dominated to provide a firm, fine and fast surface on which to play.

The sward was dominated by fine bents and fescues.

The general health of the sward was good and it was felt that the fertiliser programme was set at the right level.

Whilst the green was dry no dry patch was evident and the surface was consistent as a result.

In general, it was felt that the levels were satisfactory but could be improved with heavier top dressing at the end of each season. Kingston upon Hull City Council – Summer Sports Surfaces 16

The surface levels are variable.

The organic matter content in the upper soil profile is a little bit too high and requires dilution with the incorporation of top dressing at the end of each season.

The underlying soil was compacted and requires aeration through the autumn and winter period to create a more open structured growing environment that is conducive to root development.

The priorities for the maintenance of the green can be summarised as being:

· Solid tining and top dress at the end of the season to integrate sandy top dressing down into the upper soil profile to reduce the influence of the organic matter at the turf base. · Overseed to continually maintain and improve the quality of the sward. · Top dress at the end of the season to improve the surface levels. · Aerate to maintain a healthy growing environment.

An overall programme of work will be outlined in the following recommendations section.

2.2.7 East Park 1 Green No 1 – 22/07/2010

Kingston upon Hull City Council – Summer Sports Surfaces 17

This green exhibited a good cover at the time of inspection. The surface was firm, fine smooth and fast to provide an excellent surface on which to play. The sward is dominated by fine bents and fescues to provide an ideal surface on which to play.

The general health of the sward was seen to be good at the time of inspection and the fertiliser programme is set at the right level.

Some take-all patch disease was evident and required immediate treatment with fungicide (as discussed with the greenkeeper).

Dry patch was evident and required regular in-season aeration, the use of wetting agent and more focused localised irrigation.

Weeds were present within the green and in need of control.

In general, the levels were seen to be satisfactory but could be improved with continuation of the heavy end of season top dressing.

Organic matter is present at the turf base and requires continued efforts to reduce it by hollow tining and heavy top dressing at the end of each season. This will help firm up the surface.

The upper soil profile contains too much organic matter

Although based on a sandy rootzone, regular aeration is still required during the autumn and winter especially to maintain an open structure conducive to root development. Rooting seemed to be good and extended to depth.

The priorities for the maintenance of this green may be summarised as being:

· Hollow tine to reduce the influence of the organic matter at the turf base. · Top dress to improve surface levels. · Control invading weeds. · Control disease outbreaks. · Aerate to maintain a healthy growing environment Kingston upon Hull City Council – Summer Sports Surfaces 18

An overall programme of work will be outlined in the following recommendations section.

2.2.8 East Park Green No 2 – 22/07/2010

This green was in good condition at the time of inspection. The surface was firm and fine and dominated by fescue and bentgrass species. Annual meadow grass was seen to be invading but not overrunning the sward.

The sward is fine grass dominant.

The health of the sward was seen to be good and the fertiliser programme well set. There was no evidence of any dry patch at the time of inspection. Take all patch disease was evident and treatment with a fungicide was recommended.

Kingston upon Hull City Council – Summer Sports Surfaces 19

Take-all patch disease was evident and in need of control.

Weeds were also in need of control.

Levels were found to be satisfactory but could be improved with continuation of a heavy end of season top dressing programme.

High levels of organic matter at the turf base was the continual focus to reduce this because it makes the surface soft, water retentive and run the risk of diseases developing.

The rootzone was in good condition and the root development was seen to be good. Regular aeration is required to maintain and improve the condition of this rootzone. Kingston upon Hull City Council – Summer Sports Surfaces 20

The upper soil profile contains too much organic matter.

The priority for the maintenance of this green were as follows:

· Treat with fungicide immediately to control take-all patch disease. · Hollow tine and top dress heavily at the end of the season to focus on reducing the influence of the organic matter at the turf base. · Work top dressing in using a long straight edge to improve the surface levels. · Maintain turf health with the appropriate use of fertiliser and irrigation. · Use wetting agent to prevent the development of dry patch.

An overall programme of work will be outlined in the following recommendations section.

2.2.9 East Park Green No 3 – 22/07/2010

Kingston upon Hull City Council – Summer Sports Surfaces 21

This green exhibited a good cover at the time of inspection. The surface was extremely fine and dominated by fine bents and fescues. Patches of annual meadow grass and broad leaved weeds were all present and in need of control.

The sward was dominated by fine bent and fescue grass species.

The general health of the sward was good and the fertiliser programme seemed well set. Dry patch was present and highlighted the need for reduction in the level of organic matter in the turf base and continued use of wetting agent and hand watering through the main playing season.

Dry patch was affecting the soil and needs to be managed properly.

Kingston upon Hull City Council – Summer Sports Surfaces 22

The surface was soft due to high moisture and organic matter content. A reduction in the irrigation input was recommended as was the continuation of the hollow tining to reduce the level of organic matter at the turf base.

The upper soil profile contains too much organic matter to soften the surface and increase the risk of dry patch developing

The levels were seen to be satisfactory but could be improved with continuation of a heavy autumn top dressing coupled with the use of a long straight edge to help fill localised low spots.

Rooting into the underlying rootzone was seen to be good but aeration was required to maintain and improve the situation.

The priority for the maintenance of the green is as follows:

· Hollow tine and top dress to reduce the influence of the organic matter at the turf base. · Work the top dressing with a long straight to help improve the surface levels. · Prevent the development of dry patch with the use of wetting agents, focused irrigation and regular summer aeration. · Control invading weeds with selective herbicide as required. · Maintain turf health with the judicious use of fertiliser and irrigation

An overall programme of work will be outlined in the following recommendations section.

2.2.10 Costello Park – 13/07/2010 The Costello greens have been abandoned and were in extremely poor condition at the time of inspection. The grass cover was droughted uneven and weedy. Full scale resurfacing/turfing would be required for these greens to bring them back into play. Certainly the levels would need attention with re-turfing work. Significant thatch accumulation was present at the turf base and requiring complete removal prior to resurfacing work. The underlying soil is also compacted and would require cultivation to relieve the compaction and provide a better growing environment. Kingston upon Hull City Council – Summer Sports Surfaces 23

All the Costello greens had been abandoned

The surfaces were weedy, stressed and uneven.

The soil profiles were thatchy with underlying compaction. Kingston upon Hull City Council – Summer Sports Surfaces 24

These greens would require removal of the turf and the thatch prior to cultivation and levelling of the soil profile before resurfacing using a high quality fine grass dominated imported turf.

2.2.11 Pelican Park – 05/08/2010

This green was also abandoned. The grass cover was in extremely poor condition comprising a mix of bare area and coarse grass clumps.

The underlying soil was extremely compacted and the surface levels were terrible. This green will need complete reconstruction if it is to be brought back to a suitable standard.

2.2.12 Victoria Dock – 02/07/2010 This green was constructed extremely poorly. At the time of inspection the surface was extremely dry and stressed to make it uneven. The rootzone is very sandy in nature and requires quite a high irrigation input to maintain turf health during dry periods of weather. Kingston upon Hull City Council – Summer Sports Surfaces 25

The green was stressed…

…and had lost a significant amount of grass cover during the dry weather.

The levels are extremely poor and warrants resurfacing with the removal of the turf, re- levelling of the underlying rootzone prior to resurfacing using high quality imported turf. There are very few areas on this green that are level enough to be appropriate for a game of flat green bowls. Kingston upon Hull City Council – Summer Sports Surfaces 26

The soil profile was severely droughted.

The priority for the maintenance of the green is as follows:

· Level the surface · Provide irrigation · Fertilise properly

An overall programme of work will be outlined in the following recommendations section.

2.2.13 Alderman Kneeshaw Green No 1 (Far) – 16/09/2010

This green was in beautiful condition at the time of inspection. The sward was extremely fine in nature to provide a good smooth surface on which to play. The speed was also good but the surface was marginally soft. No major bare areas were noted but localised overseeding was required here and there as part of the end of season renovations. Kingston upon Hull City Council – Summer Sports Surfaces 27

The sward comprises a fine blend of bents and fescues.

But some weeds were evident.

The levels generally were good but as always the green would benefit from heavy top dressing at the end of each year to constantly work at improving them.

The surface was slightly soft due to the accumulation of organic matter in the top 20mm. Hollow tining is required on an annual basis for the foreseeable future to help firm the surface up and help create a healthier growing environment.

The underlying soil was found to be slightly compacted and requires aeration during the autumn and winter period to provide air space for drainage and root development. Kingston upon Hull City Council – Summer Sports Surfaces 28

The upper soil profile is thatchy to make the surface soft and the underlying soil is compacted.

The priorities for the maintenance of this green would be as follows:

· Hollow tine and heavily top dress as part of the end of season renovations to reduce the influence of the organic matter at the turf base. · Overseed localised areas to restore full grass cover before the onset of winter dormancy. · Work top dressing in using a long straight edge to help improve the surface levels. · Aerate through the autumn and winter to help maintain a healthy growing environment.

An overall programme of work will be outlined in the following recommendations section.

2.2.14 Alderman Kneeshaw Green No 2 (by entry gate) - 16/09/2010

Kingston upon Hull City Council – Summer Sports Surfaces 29

This green was also in good condition at the time of inspection exhibiting a firm and fine grass dominated surface. No major bare areas were noted but localised overseeding was required here and there where an element of dry patch had developed during the summer.

Some bare areas were noted and in need for restoration by overseeding.

The levels were generally good but as always they would benefit from heavy top dressing at the end of the year.

The surface was marginally soft due to the presence of organic matter in the top 20mm. Hollow tining would certainly be beneficial on an annual basis to help firm up the surface. The soil profile would benefit from aeration to maintain a healthy growing environment.

The upper soil profile is thatchy and the underlying soil is compacted.

Kingston upon Hull City Council – Summer Sports Surfaces 30

The objectives for the maintenance of the green may be summarised as being:

· Hollow tine and top dress at the end of each season to reduce the influence of the organic matter at the turf base and improve the surface firmness. · Aerate to maintain a healthy soil profile. · Overseed bare areas at the end of the season to restore a full and fine grass dominant surface. · Work top dressing in using a long straight edge to improve the surface levels.

An overall programme of work will be outlined in the following recommendations section.

2.2.15 Alderman Kneeshaw (Abandoned) - 16/09/2010 A couple of the greens were abandoned and would need full scale re-surfacing to reinstate a decent bowling surface.

Kingston upon Hull City Council – Summer Sports Surfaces 31

2.3 SUMMARY TO BOWLING GREENS

So, generally the greens that were in play were in acceptable condition but most were a little soft as a result of the accumulation of organic matter at the turf base. Hollow tining and heavy top dressing should be carried out on all the greens for the next 2-3 years to try to reduce the level of thatch and help firm the surfaces up. The top dressing should be worked in using a long straight edge to improve the levels. General maintenance routines would help maintain a healthy soil profile, reduce weed and moss invasion and generally help maintain good playing qualities. It is only the abandoned greens that (unsurprisingly) were of extremely poor quality and they would all require significant work to bring them back into play if required.

2.4 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR BOWLING GREENS

2.4.1 WINTER OPERATIONS 2.4.1.1 Sulphate of Iron The greens should be sprayed with sulphate of iron every 6 to 8 weeks during the autumn and winter period to harden the sward against disease attack and scorch any invading moss. Vitax 50:50 soluble iron is ideal for this task.

2.4.1.2 Aeration The greens should be spiked whenever ground conditions permit on a monthly basis throughout the winter period. This will serve to keep the surface open and work the underlying soil to encourage root development. Solid or chisel tining should be employed whenever ground conditions are suitable and the soil is dry enough to leave the tine holes open to the air.

2.4.1.3 Mowing The greens should be mown whenever required during the winter period at a level of 7-8 mm.

2.4.1.4 Switching Switching should be carried out to remove dew and scatter worm casts whenever required. This will greatly reduce the risk of disease outbreaks and weed infestations.

Kingston upon Hull City Council – Summer Sports Surfaces 32

2.4.2 SPRING OPERATIONS 2.4.2.1 Lawn Sand Boost early season growth with an application of lawn sand in March. Apply at a rate of 70g/m². This will serve to boost growth and also scorch any invading moss.

2.4.2.2 Scarification The greens should be scarified before the start of the season but only if spring growth has been established. This will serve to prepare firm and true surfaces on which to play and also remove any invading moss.

2.4.2.3 Mowing Gradually increase the frequency of mowing as growth emerges. Reduce the height of cut as the sward strengthens to reach the summer level of 5 mm by the end of May. Ideally, the greens should be mown 3 times a week with each treatment being carried out corner to corner.

2.4.2.4 Wetting Agent With dry patch prevention is better than cure. Treat the greens with wetting agent at the start of the season to treat the soil and prevent it from becoming hydrophobic during periods of dry weather.

2.4.2.5 Fertiliser Sustain turf health through spring and summer with an application of an 8:0:0 powdered fertiliser sometime in May. This will serve to even up the grass cover and maintain turf health through the playing season.

2.4.3 SUMMER OPERATIONS 2.4.3.1 Aeration The greens should be solid tined on a monthly basis throughout the summer months to keep the surfaces open and receptive to effective water infiltration.

2.4.3.2 Mowing Continue to mow the greens three times per week during this period to maintain playing qualities. The cutting height should be set at around 5 mm but may be taken lower if there is no adverse impact. Don’t cut too low during periods of stress as this will only cause thinning of the sward and cause the surface to become uneven.

2.4.3.3 Verticutting The greens should be lightly verticut on a monthly basis to keep the surfaces firm, smooth and running true. Verticutting should only be undertaken if growth is strong.

2.4.3.4 Selective Weed Control Control invading weeds as they emerge on a localised basis using Lawn trigger sprays or Weed free aerosols.

2.4.4 AUTUMN OPERATIONS 2.4.4.1 End of Season Renovations The end of season renovations should be carried out as soon as each green comes out of play to maximise the time available for recovery, germination and establishment of the new seedlings.

The renovation should firstly involve scarification into the turf base in two directions at a slight angle to each other. The blades should be set to penetrate through the turf base to remove unwanted organic matter and provide a bed for subsequent top dressing and overseeding. Kingston upon Hull City Council – Summer Sports Surfaces 33

The greens should then be hollow tined using 12 mm tines set at 50 mm spacings, aiming to penetrate to a depth of at least 10 cm. Overseed any bare areas or greens such as at Alderman Kneeshaw using quality bent and fescue seed applied at a rate of 35g/m².

Finish off with top dressing with approximately 5 tonnes of medium/coarse lime-free sand for each green, applied dry to a dry surface and then brushed into the turf base and down tine holes. A lute should be used to iron out discrepancies in the surface levels.

2.4.4.2 Disease Control Strategy You should take an integrated approach towards disease control involving both cultural and chemical methods. It is imperative that we keep disease scarring at bay during the winter months so that the greens can recover in spring from a position of strength. The following measures should be undertaken to minimise the potential for disease activity.

· Switch to remove dew from the surfaces · Do not apply any nitrogen after September · Maintain a sensible winter cutting height · Apply sulphate of iron every 6 to 8 weeks to harden the sward against disease attack · Monitor the greens for disease activity every day

Potentially damaging outbreaks should be controlled using a suitably approved amenity fungicide. These should be applied according to the manufacturer’s recommended rates and taking heed of all safety precautions. As a general rule of thumb systemic active ingredients should be used whilst growth is proceeding strongly whilst contact materials should be used when grass growth is dormant.

2.4.4.3 Mowing Raise the cutting level to the winter height of 7 mm immediately after the end of season renovations. Continue to mow the greens as and when growth requires.

2.4.4.4 Switching Continue to switch the greens to remove dew. Dew removal into the autumn serves to maximise any potential recovery growth opportunities.

5.0 CRICKET TABLES Our aim when maintaining cricket tables is to provide consistently firm, level and wear tolerant surfaces that provide a good and consistent bounce of the ball.

5.1 ASSESSEMENT METHOD

5.1.1 Sward Content The ideal blend for a good fine, even and hardwearing grass cover would be to establish an even blend of bent, fescue and hard wearing dwarf perennial ryegrass species. Weeds are undesirable because they lead to inconsistencies of performance. The sward content was assessed using a 10cm x 100cm grid that was divided into 10cmx10cm squares. For each square the dominant and then secondary species were scored. This method was replicated in 5 locations across the square then the percentage for each species was calculated. This assessment serves to give a good indication of the current sward species composition.

Kingston upon Hull City Council – Summer Sports Surfaces 34

5.1.2 Surface Firmness Surface firmness is a key attribute for cricket tables. The aim is to provide a good firm surface to provide a good bounce of the ball from bowling. The firmness of the surface was measured using a Clegg Impact Hammer with 0.5kg round headed test weight delivered from a 50cm drop height. The average being from 9 readings taken across the square. Our target range was to achieve a reasonable standard for the required standard of cricket (>130 gravities).

5.1.3 Moisture Content Generally, cricket tables need to be dry to allow the creation of firm surfaces but not too dry to allow us to maintain a healthy sward. The moisture content was measured using a Theta Probe with readings taken from 6 locations from across each square to provide a good representative average. The target range of 10 – 30% is deemed to be appropriate for the production of firm surfaces and a healthy sward.

5.1.4 Surface Levels The surface levels were assessed visually to provide a general classification. “Poor” levels were classified where the surface was uneven and possibly would provide a dangerously inconsistent bounce of the ball. “Satisfactory” levels were generally considered to be appropriate for the standard of cricket being played. “Good” levels were where the surface was found to be extremely flat.

5.1.5 Soil Profile Generally we create firm surfaces by managing the soil profile correctly. Our aim would be to create a loam dominated upper soil profile without any layering that would cause low bounce. Root development is also essential to help bind the soil together and also to maintain a healthy sward. During the course of the assessment each soil profile was assessed visually for the level of thatch, thickness of loam and depth of rooting.

5.2 CRICKET TABLE ASSESSMENT RESULTS The following table serves to summarise the results of the testing. The detailed assessment forms are contained within the appendix.

Kingston upon Hull City Council – Summer Sports Surfaces 35

Cricket Summary Table

Ald. Kneesh. Costello 1 Costello 2 Costello 3 Oak Road 1 Oak Road 2 Pelican Park P.E.P.F 1 P.E.P.F 2 Cover and Content Fescue Pass Pass Fail Fail Fail Pass Pass Fail Fail Browntop Bent Fail Fail Pass Fail Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Ryegrass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Fail Fail Fail AMG Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Yorkshire Fog Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Bare Ground Pass Pass Pass Fail Fail Fail Fail Pass Pass Moss Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Clover Fail Fail Pass Pass Pass Pass Fail Pass Pass Daisy Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pearlwort Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Other Pass Pass Fail Fail Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Total weeds Fail Fail Fail Fail Pass Pass Fail Pass Pass Performance Indicators Firmness Ave. from 9 Pass Pass Fail Fail Fail Fail Fail Fail Fail Moisture Ave. from 6 Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Levels Poor/Sat/good Pass Fail Fail Fail Pass Fail Fail Fail Fail Soil Profile Core profile Thatch depth Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Thickness Loam Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Root depth Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Layering Pass Pass Fail Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass

5.2.1 Alderman Kneeshaw Cricket Table No 1 – 16/09/2010

This square was very weedy and required treatment with selective herbicide. The quality of the background sward was generally good but requires annual overseeding at the end of each season to build an ever-greater proportion of fine fescues and perennial ryegrass species. Kingston upon Hull City Council – Summer Sports Surfaces 36

The table was infested with weeds.

The ends were worn and in need of renovation.

Worm casting was also apparent to bring weed seeds to the surface for germination and establishment.

In general, the levels were seen to be satisfactory with no major dips noted.

Kingston upon Hull City Council – Summer Sports Surfaces 37

The firmness of the surface could be improved with an increased level of rolling especially at the start of the season.

The soil profile was generally in good condition with no thatch noted. A good thickness of loam was present and rooting was seen to be extending to depth. Aeration at the end of season is desirable to create air space for further root development.

The soil profile is in good condition it just needs rolling at the start of the season to consolidate firm.

The priorities for the maintenance of this square would be as follows:

· Roll in spring to consolidate the surface firm. · Undertake weed control to control invading weeds. · Overseed in the autumn to improve the quality of the sward. · Aerate in the winter to improve the growing environment.

An overall programme of work will be outlined in the following recommendations section.

5.2.2 Costello Park Cricket Table No 1 (Car park end) – 03/09/2010

Kingston upon Hull City Council – Summer Sports Surfaces 38

This table was in poor condition at the time of inspection. The sward quality is extremely poor and needs annual overseeding to increase the fescue component of the blend.

A significant proportion of weeds were noted and in need of treatment with selective herbicide during the growing season next year.

The levels were extremely poor on this table and resurfacing may be considered.

The surface levels were extremely poor.

In general, the firmness of the surface was good at the time of inspection. This is a reflection of the soil profile being in good condition. No thatch was noted, the thickness of loam was satisfactory and root development was good. Some layering was noted but it wasn’t thought to be affecting the surface firmness although it may result in an inconsistent bounce occurring. Continue top dressing at the end of each year is required to build an ever greater and more consistent thickness of loam at the turf base. Kingston upon Hull City Council – Summer Sports Surfaces 39

Aeration is required following the main playing season to create air space for root development. Roots form the foundation of a healthy and wear tolerant sward.

The maintenance of the cricket table should involve the following:

· Rolling in the spring to consolidate the surface firm. · Control invading weeds using selective herbicide. · Renovate at the end of the season involving scarification, top dressing and aeration to remove thatch, build an ever-greater thickness of loam and create a healthy growing environment. · Overseed as part of the renovations to restore a full and desirable grass cover. · Aerate in the autumn to create air space for further root development.

An overall programme of work will be outlined in the following recommendations section.

5.2.3 Costello Park Cricket Table No 2 (middle) – 03/09/2010

The sward quality was extremely poor at the time of inspection and requires overseeding at the end of the season throughout to improve the quality of the blend with an increased level of fescue and quality perennial ryegrass species.

This table was extremely weedy and in need of treatment with selective herbicide during the growing season next year.

The levels were poor and surfacing may be required.

The firmness levels could be improved with rolling and good soil management.

In general, the soil was in good condition but aeration is required during the winter to encourage root development. Layering was noted within the soil profile and continued top dressing at the end of each season will help reduce its impact.

The objectives for the maintenance of the green should involve:

· Consideration of re-levelling. Kingston upon Hull City Council – Summer Sports Surfaces 40

· Rolling in the spring to firm the surface. · Undertake selective weed control during the growing season. · Undertake full scale autumn renovations to improve the quality of the sward, build an ever greater thickness of top dressing and relieve soil compaction. · Aerate after the end of the season to create air space for drainage and root development.

An overall programme of work will be outlined in the following recommendations section.

5.2.4 Costello Park Cricket Table No 3 (Lake end) – 03/09/2010

The quality of the sward was extremely poor on this table and annual overseeding is required. The table was extremely weedy and in need of treatment.

The levels were extremely poor and resurfacing may need to be considered.

Kingston upon Hull City Council – Summer Sports Surfaces 41

The firmness levels could be improved by rolling and good soil management.

The soil profile was generally in good condition with no thatch noted, a good thickness of loam present, good rooting and no layering present.

The soil profile is in good condition.

Aeration is required after the end of season to relieve compaction and provide air space for root development.

The priority for the future maintenance of the table should be:

· Consider re-levelling · Roll in the spring to consolidate the table firm. · Undertake weed control to control invading weeds. · Carry out autumn renovations to improve the quality of the sward, build an ever greater thickness of top dressing at the turf base. · Aerate to improve root development.

An overall programme of work will be outlined in the following recommendations section.

5.2.5 Oak Road Cricket Table No 1 (nearest car park) - 03/09/2010 The ends of each strip were worn and in need of renovation at the end of the playing season. The sward quality could be improved with annual overseeding.

The levels were generally satisfactory but would benefit from annual top dressing.

The firmness levels could be improved by rolling at the start of the season and good soil management.

The soil profile was generally in good condition with very little thatch present, a satisfactory thickness of loam and good rooting extended to depth. No layering was noted. Aeration is required during the winter to encourage root development.

Kingston upon Hull City Council – Summer Sports Surfaces 42

The ends were worn…

…and in need of overseeding.

Weeds were in need of control.

The maintenance of this table should involve:

· Rolling in the spring. · Good in-season surface preparation routines. · Selective weed control Kingston upon Hull City Council – Summer Sports Surfaces 43

· Autumn renovations to restore a full grass cover and improve the general quality of the table. · Aerate through the end of the season to improve root development.

An overall programme of work will be outlined in the following recommendations section.

5.2.5 Oak Road Cricket Table No 2 - 03/09/2010

The ends were worn on this table also and in need of renovation at the end of the season. The sward quality could certainly be improved with annual overseeding.

The levels on this table were generally poor with a dip running through the whole table. This is a square where re-levelling could be considered.

The firmness of the surface could be improved by rolling and good soil management. The soil profile was generally in good condition with no thatch noted, a good thickness of loam and good rooting to depth. Kingston upon Hull City Council – Summer Sports Surfaces 44

The soil profile was in good condition.

Aeration is required at the end of the season to encourage root development.

The maintenance of the square should involve:

· Re-levelling. · Rolling in the spring to consolidate the firmness hard. · Renovate in the autumn to overseed and build an ever-greater thickness of loam. · Aerate to maintain a healthy soil profile.

An overall programme of work will be outlined in the following recommendations section.

5.2.6 Pelican Park Cricket Table No 1 – 05/08/2010

Kingston upon Hull City Council – Summer Sports Surfaces 45

The ends were worn on this square and in need of renovation at the end of the season. The sward quality could be improved with annual overseeding to increase the perennial ryegrass content to improve the wear tolerance of this table.

The ends were worn…

…but the renovation process had already begun.

Clover was present and in need of control.

The levels were generally satisfactory and annual top dressing would help improve the situation. The firmness levels could be improved by rolling in the spring and good soil management.

Kingston upon Hull City Council – Summer Sports Surfaces 46

In general the soil profile was seen to be in good condition but aeration is required in the winter to encourage root development.

The soil profile was generally in good condition but would benefit from annual aeration and incorporation of top dressing

The maintenance of this table should involve:

· Rolling in the spring. · Good surface preparations routines during the summer. · Renovate in the autumn to restore a full and healthy grass cover. · Aerate in the winter to encourage root development.

An overall programme of work will be outlined in the following recommendations section.

5.2.7 Princess Elizabeth Cricket Table No 1 – 03/09/2010

Kingston upon Hull City Council – Summer Sports Surfaces 47

The sward quality could be improved with annual overseeding. Weeds were evident and in need of control.

The levels on this table are poor and we should consider levelling.

Firmness levels could be improved by rolling and good soil management.

The soil profile was in good condition but an element of organic matter was present at the turf base. Scarification should form part of the end of season renovations and pre-season preparation work.

The upper soil profile contained and element of organic matter to soften the surface and scarification is needed at the end of the season.

In general, a good thickness of loam was presented and rooting was seen to be extending to depth. No major layering was noted.

Kingston upon Hull City Council – Summer Sports Surfaces 48

The maintenance should involve the following measures:

· Rolling in the spring. · Good surface preparation routines during the main playing season. · Autumn renovation to restore and improve the quality of the sward and build an ever greater thickness of the top dressing at the turf base. · Aerate during the winter to encourage root development.

An overall programme of work will be outlined in the following recommendations section.

5.2.9 Princess Elizabeth Cricket Table No 2 - 03/09/2010

Sward quality could be improved with annual overseeding to increase the fescue and ryegrass content of the sward. This will help improve the drought and the wear tolerance of the surface. Overseeding should be carried out in the autumn and as soon as the tables come out of play. Weeds were also widespread.

Kingston upon Hull City Council – Summer Sports Surfaces 49

The levels could be improved with annual top dressing.

The firmness levels were low but could be improved by rolling at the start of the season and good soil management.

In general, the soil profile was in good condition. An element of organic matter was noted at the turf base that would require removal in the autumn with scarification to prevent layering from occurring. A good thickness of loam was presented and rooting was seen to be extending to depth. No major layering was noted.

The maintenance of this table should involve the following measures:

· Rolling in the spring. · Good surface preparations routines during the summer. · Selective weed control · Renovation in the autumn to restore a full and healthy grass cover and attend to the surface levels. · Aerate in the autumn/winter to encourage root development.

An overall programme of work will be outlined in the following recommendations section.

5.3 SUMMARY TO CRICKET TABLES

The quality of the cricket tables was found to be variable during the course of the inspection. A number of failures were noted with the quality of grass cover highlighting the need for annual overseeding. A number of the tables were also quite weedy, identifying the need for annual selective weed control. The main point of failure however was that the surfaces weren’t very firm and would benefit from rolling in the spring. The surface levels were also a point of concern as they can lead to inconsistent performance. In general, the soil profiles were in good condition it is just that an increased level of maintenance was required to improve the firmness and levels.

The following recommendations section serves to outline the general maintenance requirements for the cricket tables. Kingston upon Hull City Council – Summer Sports Surfaces 50

5.4 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CRICKET TABLES

5.4.1 WINTER OPERATIONS 5.4.1.1 Aeration In order to improve root growth, encourage thatch breakdown and to mix clay loam into the topsoil, each table should be aerated every 14 to 21 days throughout late autumn and winter. This operation should cease in early January as we do not want spike marks still in evidence at the time of the next cricket season.

5.4.1.2 Mowing The tables should be kept mown at alevel of 8-10mm whenever required during the winter period.

5.4.1.3 Worm Cast Control Treat the tables with a suitably approved amenity lumbricide to control worm casting if required.

5.4.2 SPRING OPERATIONS 5.4.2.1 Mowing Gradually lower the cutting level to 8mm as growth strengthens in the spring. Individual wickets as they are prepared should then be cut down to a level of 3-4mm.

5.4.2.2 Rolling Pre-season rolling should be undertaken to all the tables when ground and weather conditions are suitable. This should be undertaken hopefully in late February or early March when soil conditions are suitable. Initial consolidation should be undertaken using a light roller weighing about ½ tonne. This should then be followed with a slightly heavier unit covering the table about 7 times in different directions. The aim should be to evenly compact the top 3 in. or so of the soil.

5.4.2.3 Scarification Carry out an overall scarification once in spring when growth has been resumed. Do not scarify the surface too severely at this time.

5.4.2.4 Fertiliser Spring fertiliser treatments should be carried out in the first half of April. A balanced NPK feed can be used (12-4-6 or similar).

5.4.3 SUMMER OPERATIONS 5.4.3.1 Mowing Gradually lower the cutting level to 8mm as growth strengthens in the spring. Individual wickets as they are prepared should then be cut down to a level of 3-4mm.

5.4.3.2 Wicket Preparation Prepare the wickets by repeatedly verticutting, rolling and mowing down the height of cut.

5.4.3.3 Wicket Renovation Wickets should be renovated as they come out of play. In the case of the strips that will be required again for play, then renovation should be confined to repair of the wicket ends. These should be hand forked and levelled using a suitable loam, possibly overseeding with perennial ryegrass at this time.

Where a wicket strip is not going to be played again during the current season then it should be thoroughly scarified and spiked before overseeding the entire strip with a perennial ryegrass mix. Wicket ends should be levelled and overseeded at the same time. Use only Kingston upon Hull City Council – Summer Sports Surfaces 51 good dwarf varieties of perennial ryegrass as listed in Turfgrass Seed. Oversowing should be undertaken at a rate of 35g/m².

5.4.3.4 Fertiliser Continue to maintain healthy growth with the application of fertiliser on a couple of occasions during the playing season. A balanced NPK 12:4:6 or similar fertiliser would be suitable for this task.

5.4.3.5 Selective Weed Control Treat the tables with a suitably approved amenity herbicide to control invading weeds.

5.4.4 AUTUMN OPERATIONS 5.4.4.1 Mowing When the cricket season finishes raise the cutting level to 8-10mm and continue to top at this level through the autumn, winter and early spring. The grass should never be allowed to grow long during periods of growth.

5.4.4.2 Scarification In the early autumn each table should be thoroughly scarified. This will serve to remove organic matter from the turf base. Scarify in two to three directions to provide a good bed for subsequent top dressing and overseeding.

5.4.4.3 Aeration Shortly after scarifying, each table should be solid tined repeatedly in three to four directions. You should be aiming to provide open holes to a depth of at least 100mm. This will serve to relieve soil compaction and allow subsequent top dressing and overseeding to key in.

5.4.4.4 Top Dressing Top dress each table with Mendip loam applied at a rate of between 2 and 3kg/m². The material should be evenly spread over the table and then thoroughly brushed or drag matted into the spiked surface. It is essential to try and incorporate this material through the soil profile, not simply to create a layer on the surface.

5.4.4.5 Overseeding As part of the top dressing process the entire table should be overseeded with top rated varieties of dwarf perennial ryegrass, applied at a rate of 35g/m².

6.0 GOLF COURSES

The Sutton Park and Springhead Park golf courses were assessed as was the Dane Park Pitch and Put. The assessment involved a measure of the greens playing qualities as well as carrying out a soil analysis. The wider areas of each area were assessed visually.

6.1 ASSESSMENT METHOD FOR GREENS

The greens are by far the most important area of a golf course. This is where the game is won and lost and an area where the greatest level of refinement is required. In general, our aim is to create a set of reasonably paced, smooth, firm and true surfaces that are able to withstand year round play. The assessment of the greens aimed to build an accurate picture of their performance in terms of speed, smoothness and firmness. Soil samples were also taken to measure the soil organic matter content and major nutrient status.

6.1.1 Green Speed Green speed is measured at the distance rolled by a golf ball when released down a Stimpmeter ramp. The average distance of 3 rolls are measured in one direction then Kingston upon Hull City Council – Summer Sports Surfaces 52 another 3 in the opposite direction. Measurements were taken from at least 2 areas from each of the selected greens on the flattest areas possible. If the green is sloped the measurements are taken in the direction of the slope and the results are then calculated using the Brede equation to take out any slope effects.

The following table serves to outline reasonable standards for play.

Green Speed (Radko 1980) Average Green speed

distance rolled classification 8’6” Fast 7’6” Medium fast For regular member play 6’6” Medium 5’6” Medium slow 4’6” Slow 10’6” Fast 9’6” Medium fast For tournament Medium play 8’6” 7’6” Medium slow 6’6” Slow

The target speeds will vary throughout the year depending on the prevailing conditions. Greens will generally be quicker in the summer when the maintenance is at its most intensive rather than during the winter when the level of surface refinement naturally decreases.

6.1.2 Smoothness The smoothness of the surfaces was rated using the STRI Smoothness Scale (see below).

STRI Smoothness Scale

Score Description of smoothness/trueness

10 No chatter or snaking. Perfect roll.

9

Predominantly smooth, but with single isolated chatter events and minimal 8 snaking.

7

6 Chatter dominates with possibly single bobble events and some snaking.

5

4 Bobbling, snaking and chatter throughout the roll.

3

2 Bobbling and snaking (ball bouncing around). Ball stops abruptly.

1

Chatter = Distinct vertical vibrations discernable but ball does not leave ground. Snaking = Lateral deflection from intended path. Bobble = Distinct vertical movement where ball leaves the ground.

Kingston upon Hull City Council – Summer Sports Surfaces 53

9 rolls were scored for each green during the course of the Stimpmeter testing and the average of the 9 rolls was then calculated. A reasonable target for the greens of moderate standard would be to achieve smoothness ratings of around 6 where ‘chatter’ is present but the ball isn’t “bobbling” or “snaking” too much. Ratings of around 5 would describe a roll that contains significant chatter, bobble and snaking throughout.

6.1.3 Firmness/Hardness Firmness (or surface hardness) is measured as the peak deceleration (G Max) of a test mass dropped on the greens surface. The higher the G Max the firmer the surface. Values are expressed as gravities. A 9 point sampling grid was used for the greens to calculate the average and the standard error. A Clegg Impact soil tester was used with a 0.5kg test mass being dropped from a height of 0.5m.

Our aim when maintaining golf greens is to provide consistent firmness levels with minimal fluctuation between wet and dry weather. Excess variability indicates a maintenance issue that requires attention.

Ideal firmness ranges between course type and style/strategy. Our target ranges are based on research findings and player feedback. For parkland greens a firm surface is required (80-100 gravities) which allows balls from well-struck shots from fairways to impact, release and quickly stop. Improperly struck shots, or those taken from the rough will offer less control. Readings below 70 identify surfaces that are soft and become footprinted under play.

6.1.4 Soil Sampling for organic matter content and nutrient status Soil samples were taken for organic matter content and nutrient status. The samples were taken employing a 9 point sampling grid using the 12mm corer extending to a depth of 10cm. This allows a representative sample of the upper soil profile to be obtained from each green and to provide the laboratory with enough material to carry out the loss on ignition organic matter content test as well as pH, phosphate and potash levels.

6.2 SUTTON PARK GOLF CLUB – 24/09/2010

6.2.1 Greens The results of the testing of the greens are outlined in the table below:

Green No Green Speed Smoothness Hardness

2 5’5” 6 60 ± 4.9

5 5’4” 5.7 59 ± 4.0

18 5’8” 5.3 51 ± 2.0

It must be remembered that this assessment was carried out on a wet day at the start of autumn so they certainly aren’t a reflection of summer best. A reasonable target for this time of year for all the different playing qualities would be as follows:

· Achieve speeds of around 6’6” on the Stimpmeter. · Achieve smoothness ratings of around 6 using the STRI Smoothness Scale. · Achieve firmness levels of 70 and above using the Clegg Impact Hammer.

Kingston upon Hull City Council – Summer Sports Surfaces 2

The results of the testing at Sutton Park revealed the greens to be a little a little slower, more uneven and softer than desired. The focus of the maintenance should therefore be to work at improving the speed, smoothness and firmness of the surfaces.

It is felt that the performance of the greens in all these areas would improve if the drainage and organic matter content were improved. The greens were soft slow and boggy as a result of being saturated because they are thatchy and slow to drain. If we improve the drainage and firm up the surfaces then the performance will improve.

Samples were taken to review the organic matter content of the upper soil profile. The results of this testing are outlined below.

STRI Organic Matter Content

Loss on Ignition (%)

Depth Green 2 Green 5 Green 18

0 – 20 mm 12.2 16.5 13.0

20 - 40 mm 7.2 9.6 7.4

40 - 60 mm 5.5 8.4 6.9

60 - 80 mm 5.5 4.8 6.2

Our target level for the top 20mm would be between 5-7% moving to 3-4% lower down. We therefore have a significant amount of work to do to achieve our target figures. Hollow tining and heavy top dressing is required at least twice a year (spring and autumn) to reduce the influence of the organic matter at the turf base. If we reach our organic matter targets the greens will stay firmer and healthier during periods of wet weather and perform better all round.

The underlying drainage is clearly a problem with these greens being situated on quite a heavy clay soil. Pipe drainage should be considered for these greens to improve their performance during periods of wet weather especially.

The greens are dominated by annual meadow grass which is a reflection of the wet and thatchy environment that the greens are situated in. Also fusarium patch disease was noted at the time of inspection but this was under control. In general, the sward was healthy and exhibited good density.

The soil analysis results revealed:

Kingston upon Hull City Council – Summer Sports Surfaces 3

STRI Soil Chemical Analysis

Green 2 Green 5 Green 18

pH 6.0 6.4 6.0

P2O5 (mg/l) 7 1 2

K2O(mg/l) 93 125 106

The pH levels are ideal for the production of healthy turf. The phosphate and potash levels are low and should be supplemented during the year.

So, the greens were soft and slow at the time of inspection. They clearly contain too much organic matter at the turf base and are slow to drain. Hollow tining should be scheduled for twice year at least and drainage should be considered to improve the performance of the greens in this area.

6.2.2 Tees The tees exhibited a full cover of grass at the time of inspection. The sward was quite coarse in nature containing quite a high perennial ryegrass content. The use of the plant growth regulator Primo-MAXX may be considered during the summer to cut down the mowing requirements and help maintain a fine and dense sward on which to play.

The main problem at the time of inspection was the level of worm casting affecting the tees. Treatment with a proprietary lumbricide should be made during the autumn to control worm casting and the teeing areas from churning up under play.

The worm casting had actually brought weed seeds to the surface for germination and establishment. All were infested and will require treatment with selective herbicide next year.

The tees maintenance routine should involve; mowing at least twice a week, divot filling ideally every 1-2 weeks with marker movements occurring every 2-3 days.

6.2.3 Approaches, collars and surrounds The approaches, collars and surrounds generally exhibited full grass cover. Worm casting and weed infestation were the main problems and both require treatments. Worm casting on the green surrounds can churn up under play through the winter period and so should be controlled.

The approach to the 18th green was burned out as a result of the dry weather earlier in the year. This has been overseeded and will require continual overseeding to restore full grass cover starting next year.

6.2.4 Fairways The fairways have generally survived the dry weather in good condition although one or two thin areas were noted here and there. Localised areas would benefit from overseeding.

Kingston upon Hull City Council – Summer Sports Surfaces 4

Worm casting was evident in places but widespread treatment with proprietary lumbricide isn’t feasible on cost grounds.

Treatment with selective herbicide will be required on an annual basis to prevent weeds from over running the sward.

6.2.5 Rough Generally the rough was tidy at the time of inspection. In places it is quite coarse in nature and will grow prolifically during the summer. The key priority with the rough is to keep it mown frequently enough and this requires an appropriate level of manning and machinery capable of covering the ground quickly.

6.2.6 Bunkers The bunkers in general seemed to be topped up with sand and were all raked through at the time of inspection. Generally, the edges of the bunkers however were found to be weak and would require more regular attention.

6.2.7 Conclusion To Sutton Golf Course The Sutton golf course was inspected on a very wet day at the start of autumn. A number of issues were noted which would benefit from improvement but in general it was felt that this was still providing a good facility for the community.

6.3 SPRINGHEAD PARK GOLF CLUB

6.3.1 Greens The results of the testing for the greens are outlined in the table below:

Green No Green Speed Smoothness Hardness

3 6’7” 6 53 ± 5.8

10 6’7” 6 55 ± 3.3

18 6’7” 6 52 ± 3.7

The targets for the performance of the greens at this time of year are the same as for Sutton Park.

· Achieve speeds of around 6’6” on the Stimpmeter. · Achieve smoothness ratings of around 6 using the STRI Smoothness Scale. · Achieve firmness levels of 70 and above using the Clegg Impact Hammer.

So, the greens were generally on target in terms of their pace and smoothness but they were extremely soft at the time of inspection. Again, this highlighted the need to deal with the thatch accumulation at the turf base and also improving the surface drainage. Autumn and winter is a time when we should be aiming to maintain standards and encourage golfers to play, so it is important that the greens are able to be playable in periods of wet weather.

Samples were taken to review the organic matter content of these three greens

Kingston upon Hull City Council – Summer Sports Surfaces 5

STRI Organic Matter Content

Loss on Ignition (%)

Depth Green 2 Green 10 Green 18

0 – 20 mm 21.1 28.8 26.7

20 - 40 mm 6.9 11.7 9.5

40 - 60 mm 6.7 6.0 6.7

60 - 80 mm 12.9 12.3 7.5

Our target level for the top 20mm would be between 5-7% moving to 3-4% lower down. We therefore have a significant amount of work to do to achieve our target figures. Hollow tining and heavy top dressing is required at least twice a year (spring and autumn) to reduce the influence of the organic matter at the turf base. If we approach our organic matter targets the greens will stay firmer and healthier during periods of wet weather and perform better all round.

The organic matter holds water and some black layer stagnancy was noted in places. If allowed to develop black layer can cause turf to die back. Regular aeration was required through the autumn to aerate the soil and prevent stagnancy from developing.

The underlying soil is very heavy in nature and would benefit from deep tine aeration to help improve drainage and root development. Pipe drainage is the main consideration for these greens to improve their year round performance.

The greens exhibited a full cover at the time of inspection. One or two localised areas had thinned out as a result of the development of dry patch and a better dry patch control strategy is required next year. The greens are dominated by annual meadow grass and so have very little stress tolerance.

Fusarium patch disease was also noted and requiring treatment to prevent more widespread damage from occurring.

Worm casting was noted and would benefit from treatment with a proprietary lumbricide.

In general, the health of the sward was found to be good with no major areas of weakness noted.

The soil analysis results revealed: Kingston upon Hull City Council – Summer Sports Surfaces 6

STRI Soil Chemical Analysis

Green 2 Green 10 Green 18

pH 6.4 7.0 5.6

P2O5 (mg/l) <1 14 1

K2O(mg/l) 93 87 66

The pH levels are ideal for the production of healthy turf. The phosphate and potash levels are low and should be supplemented during the year.

So the greens weren’t in bad condition at the time of inspection but they were very soft and wet highlighting the need to improve the drainage in the underlying soil and reduce the level of organic matter at the turf base.

6.3.2 Tees The tees generally seemed to be large enough to be able to spread play around.

The grass cover is quite coarse in nature and being beset by widespread worm casting which was in need of control. We don’t want the tees churning up under play during the winter. The worm casting has also brought widespread weed infestation, which will need control next year.

6.3.3 Fairways The fairways in general are fine grass dominant. Widespread worm casting is leading to weed infestation and indeed coarse grass invasion. Unfortunately, it is not really feasible to treat worm casts on such a widespread scale but weed control should certainly be an annual treatment.

Moss was also seen to be invading the ridge tops and treatment with sulphate of iron would help prevent it from smothering out the sward and also might discourage an element of worm casting here and there.

The fairways are all soil based and slow to drain. It appears that some drainage has been installed in some of the furrows. Slit tining should be carried out to help maintain an open soil structure but not if it causes churning up of the worm casts.

6.3.4 Bunkers The bunkers were generally tidy at the time of inspection having been topped up with sand and raked through.

6.3.5 Rough The rough was generally very tidy at the time of inspection. As with the Sutton Park Golf Club the rough management is simply about mowing frequently to keep the rough down and keep play moving.

Kingston upon Hull City Council – Summer Sports Surfaces 7

6.4 DANE PARK PITCH AND PUT – 02/07/2010

The pitch and put course at Dane Park aims to provide an area suitable for recreational golf. The standards required aren’t particularly high but we would want to provide good lies from which to pitch and relatively smooth surfaces for putting.

6.4.1 Existing level of maintenance At present the fairways, greens and green surrounds appeared to be mown out using trailed gangs set at a level of 25mm. The tees and rough hadn’t been mown for some time. There was no evidence of any fertiliser or selective weed killer on the run up to inspection. The “pitch and put” appeared to be receiving an extremely basic level of maintenance at the time of the visit.

6.4.2 Greens A basic objective would be to produce fine putting surfaces that allow the ball to roll out relatively smoothly and true on its way to the hole. We would like the surface to reward an element of skill rather than being completely uneven and impossible to play on properly. This requires the production of a fine and closely mown sward.

At the time of inspection the greens were weedy, coarse and not refined at all. They couldn’t really be accurately described as greens and were more simply target areas.

To prepare acceptable surfaces for greens would require a more intensive level of maintenance. This would involve the following operations:

· Scarify and top dress in spring and autumn to provide a firm, true and smooth surface on which to play. · Overseed to establish a full and fine grass cover. · Mow at a level of around 6mm three times a week. · Verticut on a monthly basis to refine smooth surfaces on which to play. · Fertilise to produce healthy growth in spring and summer. · Control invading weeds. Kingston upon Hull City Council – Summer Sports Surfaces 8

· Aerate through the winter to maintain an open structured soil profile to provide a good foundation for healthy growth.

6.4.3 Tees For the tees we aim to produce a level platform from which to start, the hole that is large enough to be able to spread play around to withstand the rigours of play. The tees are quite small and uneven, worn and weedy at the time of inspection. They need levelling out at a minimum and increasing the level of maintenance to produce a good wear tolerant healthy grass cover.

The maintenance routine should involve the following:

· Scarify and overseed in spring and autumn to provide a good grass cover on which to play. · Fertiliser to sustain healthy growth in the spring. · Mow at a level of 10-15mm at least once a week. · Control invading weeds. · Aerate through the autumn and winter to relieve soil compaction.

6.4.4 Fairways For the fairways simply need to provide an even and fair lie from which to play. In general, they weren’t in bad condition at the time of inspection, just weedy.

I would recommend mowing at the existing level (25mm) twice a week during the growing season. Selective weed control should be carried out in the spring. Kingston upon Hull City Council – Summer Sports Surfaces 9

6.4.5 Rough I am not sure that we really need any rough but it does frame each hole and help direct play properly. The rough at the time of inspection was too long and overly penal for pitch and put. Players would lose balls if they were offline. The rough needs to be kept down to a more manageable level of 30-40mm mown at least on a weekly basis during the summer. The rough was also infested with weeds that would benefit from control.

6.4.6 Bunkers The bunkers aren’t being maintained at all. I would fill them in with grass and mow out as fairway.

6.4.6 Conclusion To Dane Park So, the existing pitch and put is effectively being mown out at a fairway height of cut at present. To improve the condition we should begin to intensify the maintenance. This site is prone to vandalism damage and so this may affect the decision to put more work into this area if it is only to be undone at a later date.

I hope you find all the points contained within this report both clear and helpful.

Signed

HENRY BECHELET B.Sc. (Hons) MBPR, RIPTA Turfgrass Agronomist

Bowling Club: Princess Elizabeth (pav) Green Name/number: 1 Date of Assessment: 06/08/2010 Assessed by: HCB

Data Standards Pass/Fail Cover and Content Sward Content (% cover) Grasses Fescue 61 Pass Browntop Bent 15 Pass Annual Meadow Grass 1 <30% Pass Yorkshire Fog 0 <5% Pass Ryegrass 8 <5% Fail Bare Ground 5 <2% Fail Weeds Moss 8 <5% Fail Clover 0 Pass Daisy 0 Pass Pearlwort 2 Pass Other 0 Pass Total weeds (plantains) 10 <2% Fail Cutting Quality of cut good Pass Height of cut >4mm >4mm Pass Performance Indicators Speed of Green Slow/satisfactory/good/fast Fast Satisfactory/good/fast Pass

Smoothness Visual Assessment Test 1 2 5 bobbles over length Pass Test 2 3 5 bobbles over length Pass Test 3 0 5 bobbles over length Pass Firmness (Clegg Impact Hammer) Average readings from 9 66 90-110 gravities Fail

Moisture (Theta Probe) Average readings from 9 29 10-25% Fail

Level Survey (mm) Straight edge -Maximum 5 6mm over 2 metres Pass Average of 15 readings 2.9 <4mm Pass Soil Profile Core profile Thatch depth 30mm <20mm Fail Root depth >100mm >75mm Pass

Organic Matter Testing 0-40mm 8.4 <7% Fail (% Loss on Ignition) 40-80mm 6.7 <5% Fail Other observations (any other relevant comments i.e drainage potential, maintenance issues, disease, health, uneven bias).

Surface fine in nature but soft and suffering from the development of dry patch. Need to deal with the thatch to firm up. Quite weedy and contains ryegrass. Levels could be better. Soil compacted needs aeration. Priority to reduce the level of thatch, attend to the levels (both with top dressing) and use wetting agent to control dry patch. Otherwise just good general maintenance required Bowling Club: Princess Elizabeth Green Name/number: 2 Date of Assessment: 06/08/2010 Assessed by: HCB

Data Standards Pass/Fail Cover and Content Sward Content (% cover) Grasses Fescue 63 Pass Browntop Bent 24 Pass Annual Meadow Grass 1 <30% Pass Yorkshire Fog 0 <5% Pass Ryegrass 6 <5% Fail Bare Ground 0 <2% Pass Weeds Moss 4 <5% Pass Clover 0 Pass Daisy 0 Pass Pearlwort 1 Pass Other 0 Pass Total weeds (plantains) 5 <2% Fail Cutting Quality of cut good Pass Height of cut >4mm >4mm Pass Performance Indicators Speed of Green Slow/satisfactory/good/fast Satisfactory Satisfactory/good/fast Pass

Smoothness Visual Assessment Test 1 2 5 bobbles over length Pass Test 2 1 5 bobbles over length Pass Test 3 2 5 bobbles over length Pass Firmness (Clegg Impact Hammer) Average readings from 9 63 90-110 gravities Fail

Moisture (Theta Probe) Average readings from 9 29 10-25% Fail

Level Survey (mm) Straight edge -Maximum 5 6mm over 2 metres Pass Average of 15 readings 3.7 <4mm Pass Soil Profile Core profile Thatch depth 25mm <20mm Fail Root depth >100mm >75mm Pass

Organic Matter Testing 0-40mm 9.2 <7% Fail (% Loss on Ignition) 40-80mm 8.1 <5% Fail Other observations (any other relevant comments i.e drainage potential, maintenance issues, disease, health, uneven bias).

Surface fine in nature and surface running well but levels poor. Surface soft. Need to firm up and level out. Quite Mossy and requires regular treatment with sulphate of Iron. Selective herbicide for PW. Soil compacted needs aeration. Priority was to reduce the level of thatch, attend to the levels (both with top dressing) and control weeds and moss. Otherwise just good general maintenance required Bowling Club: Springhead Green Name/number: 1 (Pavillion) Date of Assessment: 05/08/2010 Assessed by: HCB

Data Standards Pass/Fail Cover and Content Sward Content (% cover) Grasses Fescue 17 Pass Browntop Bent 47 Pass Annual Meadow Grass 29 <30% Pass Yorkshire Fog 3 <5% Pass Ryegrass 2 <5% Pass Bare Ground 0 <2% Pass Weeds Moss 12 <5% Fail Clover 0 Pass Daisy 0 Pass Pearlwort 0 Pass Other 0 Pass Total weeds (plantains) 12 <2% Fail Cutting Quality of cut good Pass Height of cut >4mm >4mm Pass Performance Indicators Speed of Green Slow/satisfactory/good/fast satisfactory/good Satisfactory/good/fast Pass

Smoothness Visual Assessment Test 1 3 5 bobbles over length Pass Test 2 2 5 bobbles over length Pass Test 3 2 5 bobbles over length Pass Firmness (Clegg Impact Hammer) Average readings from 9 77 90-110 gravities Fail

Moisture (Theta Probe) Average readings from 9 25 10-25% Pass

Level Survey (mm) Straight edge -Maximum 4 6mm over 2 metres Pass Average of 15 readings 2.26 <4mm Pass Soil Profile Core profile Thatch depth 30mm <20mm Fail Root depth >100mm >75mm Pass

Organic Matter Testing 0-40mm 11.8 <7% Fail (% Loss on Ignition) 40-80mm 10.4 <5% Fail Other observations (any other relevant comments i.e drainage potential, maintenance issues, disease, health, uneven bias).

Barely satisfactory but struggling due to thatch accumulation (dry patch, moss, soft, bare areas) Levels generally OK but clearly some runs. Soil compacted needs aeration. Priority was to reduce the level od thatch and use wetting agent to control dry patch. Otherwise just general maintenance required Bowling Club: Springhead Green Name/number: 2 Date of Assessment: 05/08/2010 Assessed by: HCB

Data Standards Pass/Fail Cover and Content Sward Content (% cover) Grasses Fescue 10 Pass Browntop Bent 58 Pass Annual Meadow Grass 22 <30% Pass Yorkshire Fog 0 <5% Pass Ryegrass 0 <5% Pass Bare Ground 0 <2% Pass Weeds Moss 10 <5% Fail Clover 0 Pass Daisy 0 Pass Pearlwort 0 Pass Other 0 Pass Total weeds (plantains) 10 <2% Fail Cutting Quality of cut good Pass Height of cut >4mm >4mm Pass Performance Indicators Speed of Green Slow/satisfactory/good/fast satisfactory Satisfactory/good/fast Pass

Smoothness Visual Assessment Test 1 3 5 bobbles over length Pass Test 2 3 5 bobbles over length Pass Test 3 3 5 bobbles over length Pass Firmness (Clegg Impact Hammer) Average readings from 9 70 90-110 gravities Fail

Moisture (Theta Probe) Average readings from 9 35 10-25% Fail

Level Survey (mm) Straight edge -Maximum 6 6mm over 2 metres Pass Average of 15 readings 3.4 <4mm Pass Soil Profile Core profile Thatch depth 30mm <20mm Fail Root depth >100mm >75mm Pass

Organic Matter Testing 0-40mm 15.5 <7% Fail (% Loss on Ignition) 40-80mm 12.4 <5% Fail Other observations (any other relevant comments i.e drainage potential, maintenance issues, disease, health, uneven bias).

Barely satisfactory but struggling due to thatch accumulation (dry patch, moss, soft, bare areas). Surface chipping out under play Levels generally OK. Soil compacted needs aeration. Priority was to reduce the level od thatch and use wetting agent to control dry patch. Otherwise just good general maintenance required Bowling Club: West Park Green Name/number: 1 Date of Assessment: 05/08/2010 Assessed by: HCB

Data Standards Pass/Fail Cover and Content Sward Content (% cover) Grasses Fescue 87 Pass Browntop Bent 12 Pass Annual Meadow Grass 1 <30% Pass Yorkshire Fog 0 <5% Pass Ryegrass 0 <5% Pass Bare Ground 0 <2% Pass Weeds Moss 0 <5% Pass Clover Trace Pass Daisy 0 Pass Pearlwort 0 Pass Other 0 Pass Total weeds 0 <2% Pass Cutting Quality of cut good Pass Height of cut >4mm >4mm Pass Performance Indicators Speed of Green Slow/satisfactory/good/fast good Satisfactory/good/fast Pass

Smoothness Visual Assessment Test 1 2 5 bobbles over length Pass Test 2 2 5 bobbles over length Pass Test 3 3 5 bobbles over length Pass Firmness (Clegg Impact Hammer) Average readings from 9 91 90-110 gravities Pass

Moisture (Theta Probe) Average readings from 9 15 10-25% Pass

Level Survey (mm) Straight edge -Maximum 4 6mm over 2 metres Pass Average of 15 readings 2.66 <4mm Pass Soil Profile Core profile Thatch depth 10mm <20mm Pass Root depth >100mm >75mm Pass

Organic Matter Testing 0-40mm 10.3 <7% Fail (% Loss on Ignition) 40-80mm 7.3 <5% Fail Other observations (any other relevant comments i.e drainage potential, maintenance issues, disease, health, uneven bias).

Really good surface. Firm fine and dense sward. Dry but no dry patch. Health good, some red thread but due to the weather. Levels generally OK but clearly some runs. No major thatch but soil testing shows too high. Soil compacted needs aeration. Priority was for good renovation involving: solid tining, top dressing (for levels and soil profile), overseeding. Otherwise just general maintenance required Bowling Club: West Park Green Name/number: 2 Date of Assessment: 05/08/2010 Assessed by: HCB

Data Standards Pass/Fail Cover and Content Sward Content (% cover) Grasses Fescue 57 Pass Browntop Bent 14 Pass Annual Meadow Grass 4 <30% Pass Yorkshire Fog 0 <5% Pass Ryegrass 0 <5% Pass Bare Ground 3 <2% Pass Weeds Moss 0 <5% Pass Clover 0 Pass Daisy 0 Pass Pearlwort 1 Pass Other (Plantain, Dandelion) 1 Pass Total weeds 2 <2% Pass Cutting Quality of cut good Pass Height of cut >4mm >4mm Pass Performance Indicators Speed of Green Slow/satisfactory/good/fast Fast Satisfactory/good/fast Pass

Smoothness Visual Assessment Test 1 3 5 bobbles over length Pass Test 2 2 5 bobbles over length Pass Test 3 1 5 bobbles over length Pass Firmness (Clegg Impact Hammer) Average readings from 9 92 90-110 gravities Pass

Moisture (Theta Probe) Average readings from 9 12 10-25% Pass

Level Survey (mm) Straight edge -Maximum 10 6mm over 2 metres Fail Average of 15 readings 4.6 <4mm Fail Soil Profile Core profile Thatch depth 10mm <20mm Pass Root depth >100mm >75mm Pass

Organic Matter Testing 0-40mm 10 <7% Fail (% Loss on Ignition) 40-80mm 9.4 <5% Fail Other observations (any other relevant comments i.e drainage potential, maintenance issues, disease, health, uneven bias).

Good surface. Firm and fine. Health good, some dollar spot my indicate need for slight increase in fertiliser input. Poor levels the main problem. No major thatch but soil testing shows too high. Soil compacted needs aeration. Priority was for good renovation involving: solid tining, top dressing (particularly to attend to levels), overseeding. Otherwise just general maintenance required Bowling Club: West Park Green Name/number: 3 Date of Assessment: 05/08/2010 Assessed by: HCB

Data Standards Pass/Fail Cover and Content Sward Content (% cover) Grasses Fescue 68 Pass Browntop Bent 18 Pass Annual Meadow Grass 11 <30% Pass Yorkshire Fog 0 <5% Pass Ryegrass 2 <5% Pass Bare Ground 0 <2% Pass Weeds Moss 0 <5% Pass Clover 0 Pass Daisy 0 Pass Pearlwort 0 Pass Other (Plantain, Dandelion) 1 Pass Total weeds 1 <2% Pass Cutting Quality of cut good Pass Height of cut >4mm >4mm Pass Performance Indicators Speed of Green Slow/satisfactory/good/fast Fast Satisfactory/good/fast Pass

Smoothness Visual Assessment Test 1 2 5 bobbles over length Pass Test 2 1 5 bobbles over length Pass Test 3 2 5 bobbles over length Pass Firmness (Clegg Impact Hammer) Average readings from 9 100 90-110 gravities Pass

Moisture (Theta Probe) Average readings from 9 11.2 10-25% Pass

Level Survey (mm) Straight edge -Maximum 6 6mm over 2 metres Pass Average of 15 readings 3 <4mm Pass Soil Profile Core profile Thatch depth 10mm <20mm Pass Root depth >100mm >75mm Pass

Organic Matter Testing 0-40mm 10.9 <7% Fail (% Loss on Ignition) 40-80mm 9.1 <5% Fail Other observations (any other relevant comments i.e drainage potential, maintenance issues, disease, health, uneven bias).

Good surface. Firm, fine and fast. Fescue dominated, health good, dry but no dry patch. Levels satisfactory but could be improved. No major thatch but soil testing shows too high. Soil compacted needs aeration. Priority was for good renovation involving: solid tining, top dressing, overseeding. Otherwise just general maintenance required Bowling Club: East Park Green Name/number: 1 Date of Assessment: 22/07/2010 Assessed by: HCB

Data Standards Pass/Fail Cover and Content Sward Content (% cover) Grasses Fescue 46 Pass Browntop Bent 33 Pass Annual Meadow Grass 16 <30% Pass Yorkshire Fog 0 <5% Pass Ryegrass 0 <5% Pass Bare Ground 0 <2% Pass Weeds Moss 0 <5% Pass Clover 1 Pass Daisy Trace Pass Pearlwort Trace Pass Other (Plantain, Dandelion) 0 Pass Total weeds 2 <2% Pass Cutting Quality of cut good Pass Height of cut >4mm >4mm Pass Performance Indicators Speed of Green Slow/satisfactory/good/fast good Satisfactory/good/fast Pass

Smoothness Visual Assessment Test 1 1 5 bobbles over length Pass Test 2 2 5 bobbles over length Pass Test 3 2 5 bobbles over length Pass Firmness (Clegg Impact Hammer) Average readings from 9 73 90-110 gravities Fail

Moisture (Theta Probe) Average readings from 9 28.8 10-25% Fail

Level Survey (mm) Straight edge -Maximum 4 6mm over 2 metres Pass Average of 15 readings 2.4 <4mm Pass Soil Profile Core profile Thatch depth 30mm <20mm Fail Root depth >120mm >75mm Pass

Organic Matter Testing 0-40mm 8 <7% Fail (% Loss on Ignition) 40-80mm 8 <5% Fail Other observations (any other relevant comments i.e drainage potential, maintenance issues, disease, health, uneven bias).

Good cover. Firm, fine, smooth and fast. Fescue bent blend, health good. Take all Patch disease but dry patch evident. Weeds in need of control. Levels satisfactory but could be improved. Thatch needs dealing with. Fear that too sift because overwatering. RZ needs aeration. Priority was for good renovation involving: Hollow tining, top dressing, overseeding. Otherwise just general maintenance required Bowling Club: East Park Green Name/number: 2 Date of Assessment: 22/07/2010 Assessed by: HCB

Data Standards Pass/Fail Cover and Content Sward Content (% cover) Grasses Fescue 44 Pass Browntop Bent 42 Pass Annual Meadow Grass 8 <30% Pass Yorkshire Fog 0 <5% Pass Ryegrass 0 <5% Pass Bare Ground 0 <2% Pass Weeds Moss 2 <5% Pass Clover 3 Pass Daisy 0 Pass Pearlwort 1 Pass Other (Plantain, Dandelion) 0 Pass Total weeds 6 <2% Fail Cutting Quality of cut good Pass Height of cut >4mm >4mm Pass Performance Indicators Speed of Green Slow/satisfactory/good/fast satisfactory Satisfactory/good/fast Pass

Smoothness Visual Assessment Test 1 4 5 bobbles over length Pass Test 2 2 5 bobbles over length Pass Test 3 4 5 bobbles over length Pass Firmness (Clegg Impact Hammer) Average readings from 9 71 90-110 gravities Fail

Moisture (Theta Probe) Average readings from 9 32 10-25% Fail

Level Survey (mm) Straight edge -Maximum 4 6mm over 2 metres Pass Average of 15 readings 2 <4mm Pass Soil Profile Core profile Thatch depth 30mm <20mm Fail Root depth >100mm >75mm Pass

Organic Matter Testing 0-40mm 9.5 <7% Fail (% Loss on Ignition) 40-80mm 4.4 <5% Pass Other observations (any other relevant comments i.e drainage potential, maintenance issues, disease, health, uneven bias).

Good surface. Firm and fine. Fescue Bent blend with annual meadow grass patches. Health good, dry but no dry patch. Take All Patch evident and recommended immediate spray with Fungicide. Levels satisfactory but could be improved. Thatch needs dealing with because making surface water retentive and soft. Rootzone in good shape and rooting good. Priority was for treatment with fingicide then good renovation involving: Hollow tining, top dressing, overseeding. Otherwise just general maintenance required Bowling Club: East Park Green Name/number: 3 Date of Assessment: 22/07/2010 Assessed by: HCB

Data Standards Pass/Fail Cover and Content Sward Content (% cover) Grasses Fescue 44 Pass Browntop Bent 44 Pass Annual Meadow Grass 10 <30% Pass Yorkshire Fog 0 <5% Pass Ryegrass 0 <5% Pass Bare Ground 0 <2% Pass Weeds Moss 0 <5% Pass Clover 0 Pass Daisy 0 Pass Pearlwort 1 Pass Other (Plantain, Dandelion) 1 Pass Total weeds 2 <2% Pass Cutting Quality of cut good Pass Height of cut >4mm >4mm Pass Performance Indicators Speed of Green Slow/satisfactory/good/fast Satisfactory Satisfactory/good/fast Pass

Smoothness Visual Assessment Test 1 5 5 bobbles over length Pass Test 2 4 5 bobbles over length Pass Test 3 3 5 bobbles over length Pass Firmness (Clegg Impact Hammer) Average readings from 9 80 90-110 gravities Fail

Moisture (Theta Probe) Average readings from 9 25.9 10-25% Fail

Level Survey (mm) Straight edge -Maximum 8 6mm over 2 metres Pass Average of 15 readings 2.9 <4mm Pass Soil Profile Core profile Thatch depth 40mm <20mm Pass Root depth >150mm >75mm Pass

Organic Matter Testing 0-40mm 8.3 <7% Fail (% Loss on Ignition) 40-80mm 5.6 <5% Fail Other observations (any other relevant comments i.e drainage potential, maintenance issues, disease, health, uneven bias).

Good cover. Firm and fine. Fescue Bent dominated but with Poa and weeds present. Health good but dry patch noted. Surface soft due to high moisture and organic matter content. Levels satisfactory but could be improved. Rooting into rootzone good but needs aeration. Priority was for good renovation involving: Hollow tining, top dressing, overseeding. Otherwise just general maintenance required Bowling Club: Costello Park Green Name/number: 1 Date of Assessment: 13/07/2010 Assessed by: HCB

Data Standards Pass/Fail Cover and Content Sward Content (% cover) Grasses Fescue 42 Pass Browntop Bent 3 Pass Annual Meadow Grass 3 <30% Pass Yorkshire Fog 0 <5% Pass Ryegrass 7 <5% Fail Bare Ground 7 <2% Fail Weeds Moss 0 <5% Pass Clover 18 Fail Daisy 3 Fail Pearlwort 12 Fail Other (Plantain, Dandelion) 5 Fail Total weeds 38 <2% Fail Cutting Quality of cut N/A Fail Height of cut N/A >4mm Fail Performance Indicators Speed of Green Slow/satisfactory/good/fast N/A Satisfactory/good/fast Fail

Smoothness Visual Assessment Test 1 N/A 5 bobbles over length Fail Test 2 N/A 5 bobbles over length Fail Test 3 N/A 5 bobbles over length Fail Firmness (Clegg Impact Hammer) Average readings from 9 92 90-110 gravities Pass

Moisture (Theta Probe) Average readings from 9 12.7 10-25% Pass

Level Survey (mm) Straight edge -Maximum N/A 6mm over 2 metres Fail Average of 15 readings N/A <4mm Fail Soil Profile Core profile Thatch depth 10mm <20mm Pass Root depth 75mm >75mm Pass

Organic Matter Testing 0-40mm 29.6 <7% Fail (% Loss on Ignition) 40-80mm 9.8 <5% Fail Other observations (any other relevant comments i.e drainage potential, maintenance issues, disease, health, uneven bias).

Abandoned. Weedy, droughted, uneven. Needs full scale resurfacing/turfing Levels would need attention when resurfacing. Major thatch in need of complete removal. Soil compacted needs aeration. Resurfacing required. Renovation woul be of little benefit. Top needs taking off. Bowling Club: Pelican Park Green Name/number: Date of Assessment: 05/08/2010 Assessed by: HCB

Data Standards Pass/Fail Cover and Content Sward Content (% cover) Grasses Fescue N/A Fail Browntop Bent N/A Fail Annual Meadow Grass N/A <30% Fail Yorkshire Fog N/A <5% Fail Ryegrass N/A <5% Fail Bare Ground N/A <2% Fail Weeds Moss N/A <5% Fail Clover N/A Fail Daisy N/A Fail Pearlwort N/A Fail Other (Plantain, Dandelion) N/A Fail Total weeds N/A <2% Fail Cutting Quality of cut N/A Fail Height of cut N/A >4mm Fail Performance Indicators Speed of Green Slow/satisfactory/good/fast N/A Satisfactory/good/fast Fail

Smoothness Visual Assessment Test 1 N/A 5 bobbles over length Fail Test 2 N/A 5 bobbles over length Fail Test 3 N/A 5 bobbles over length Fail Firmness (Clegg Impact Hammer) Average readings from 9 N/A 90-110 gravities Fail

Moisture (Theta Probe) Average readings from 9 N/A 10-25% Fail

Level Survey (mm) Straight edge -Maximum N/A 6mm over 2 metres Fail Average of 15 readings N/A <4mm Fail Soil Profile Core profile Thatch depth N/A <20mm Fail Root depth N/A >75mm Fail

Organic Matter Testing 0-40mm N/A <7% Fail (% Loss on Ignition) 40-80mm N/A <5% Fail Other observations (any other relevant comments i.e drainage potential, maintenance issues, disease, health, uneven bias).

Abandoned. Mix of bare areas and coarse grasses Underlying soil compacted Levels terrible Needs complete reconstruction. Bowling Club: Victoria Dock Green Name/number: Date of Assessment: 02/07/2010 Assessed by: HCB

Data Standards Pass/Fail Cover and Content Sward Content (% cover) Grasses Fescue 40 Pass Browntop Bent 3 Pass Annual Meadow Grass 0 <30% Pass Yorkshire Fog 0 <5% Pass Ryegrass 0 <5% Pass Bare Ground 31 <2% Fail Weeds Moss 10 <5% Fail Clover 4 Fail Daisy 0 Pass Pearlwort 0 Pass Other (Plantain, Dandelion) 2 Fail Total weeds 16 <2% Fail Cutting Quality of cut poor Fail Height of cut ? >4mm Fail Performance Indicators Speed of Green Slow/satisfactory/good/fast Satisfactory Satisfactory/good/fast Pass

Smoothness Visual Assessment Test 1 >10 5 bobbles over length Fail Test 2 >10 5 bobbles over length Fail Test 3 >10 5 bobbles over length Fail Firmness (Clegg Impact Hammer) Average readings from 9 124 90-110 gravities Fail

Moisture (Theta Probe) Average readings from 9 6 10-25% Fail

Level Survey (mm) Straight edge -Maximum 12 6mm over 2 metres Fail Average of 15 readings 5.3 <4mm Fail Soil Profile Core profile Thatch depth 20 <20mm Pass Root depth 60mm >75mm Fail

Organic Matter Testing 0-40mm 6 <7% Pass (% Loss on Ignition) 40-80mm 0.9 <5% Pass Other observations (any other relevant comments i.e drainage potential, maintenance issues, disease, health, uneven bias). Very poor construction.

Surface extremely dry and stressed out to make it uneven. Rootzone very sandy and need irrigation to maintain turf health in dry Levels very poor and warrants re surfacing Priority was for releveling and then the instigation of a good maintenance plan. Otherwise just general maintenance required Bowling Club: Alderman Kneeshaw Green Name/number: 1 (far) Date of Assessment: 16/09/2010 Assessed by: HCB

Data Standards Pass/Fail Cover and Content Sward Content (% cover) Grasses Fescue 39 Pass Browntop Bent 39 Pass Annual Meadow Grass 11 <30% Pass Yorkshire Fog 0 <5% Pass Ryegrass 0 <5% Pass Bare Ground 0 <2% Pass Weeds Moss 0 <5% Pass Clover 4 Fail Daisy 6 Fail Pearlwort 0 Pass Other (Plantain, Dandelion) 1 Pass Total weeds 11 <2% Fail Cutting Quality of cut good Pass Height of cut >4mm >4mm Pass Performance Indicators Speed of Green Slow/satisfactory/good/fast good Satisfactory/good/fast Pass

Smoothness Visual Assessment Test 1 3 5 bobbles over length Pass Test 2 2 5 bobbles over length Pass Test 3 3 5 bobbles over length Pass Firmness (Clegg Impact Hammer) Average readings from 9 86 90-110 gravities Fail

Moisture (Theta Probe) Average readings from 9 15 10-25% Pass

Level Survey (mm) Straight edge -Maximum 3 6mm over 2 metres Pass Average of 15 readings 2 <4mm Pass Soil Profile Core profile Thatch depth 20mm <20mm Pass Root depth >100mm >75mm Pass

Organic Matter Testing 0-40mm 14 <7% Fail (% Loss on Ignition) 40-80mm 8.3 <5% Fail Other observations (any other relevant comments i.e drainage potential, maintenance issues, disease, health, uneven bias).

Beautiful fine grass dominated surface. No major bare areas, localised overseeding required here and there Levels good but as always would benefit from heavy top dressing at end of year. Surface soft due to organic matter in top 20mm. Hollow tining required on an annual basis to firm up. Soil profile needs aeration. Hollow tining and heavy top dressing required as part of routine maintenance. Bowling Club: Alderman Kneeshaw Green Name/number: 2 Date of Assessment: 16/09/2010 Assessed by: HCB

Data Standards Pass/Fail Cover and Content Sward Content (% cover) Grasses Fescue 30 Pass Browntop Bent 47 Pass Annual Meadow Grass 10 <30% Pass Yorkshire Fog 0 <5% Pass Ryegrass 0 <5% Pass Bare Ground 0 <2% Pass Weeds Moss 0 <5% Pass Clover 8 Fail Daisy 3 Fail Pearlwort 0 Pass Other (Plantain, Dandelion) 2 Fail Total weeds 13 <2% Fail Cutting Quality of cut good Pass Height of cut >4mm >4mm Pass Performance Indicators Speed of Green Slow/satisfactory/good/fast Satisfactory Satisfactory/good/fast Pass

Smoothness Visual Assessment Test 1 3 5 bobbles over length Pass Test 2 3 5 bobbles over length Pass Test 3 2 5 bobbles over length Pass Firmness (Clegg Impact Hammer) Average readings from 9 89 90-110 gravities Fail

Moisture (Theta Probe) Average readings from 9 17.4 10-25% Pass

Level Survey (mm) Straight edge -Maximum 5 6mm over 2 metres Pass Average of 15 readings 2 <4mm Pass Soil Profile Core profile Thatch depth 20mm <20mm Pass Root depth >100mm >75mm Pass

Organic Matter Testing 0-40mm 12.4 <7% Fail (% Loss on Ignition) 40-80mm 7.3 <5% Fail

Other observations (any other relevant comments i.e drainage potential, maintenance issues, disease, health, uneven bias). Beautiful fine grass dominated surface. No major bare areas, localised overseeding required here and there Levels good but as always would benefit from heavy top dressing at end of year. Surface soft due to organic matter in top 20mm. Hollow tining required on an annual basis to firm up. Soil profile needs aeration. Hollow tining and heavy top dressing required as part of routine maintenance. Bowling Club: Alderman Kneeshaw Green Name/number: Abandoned 1 Date of Assessment: Assessed by: HCB

Data Standards Pass/Fail Cover and Content Sward Content (% cover) Grasses Fescue 3 Pass Browntop Bent 6 Pass Annual Meadow Grass 19 <30% Pass Yorkshire Fog 0 <5% Pass Ryegrass 19 <5% Fail Bare Ground 36 <2% Fail Weeds Moss 0 <5% Pass Clover 0 Pass Daisy 1 Pass Pearlwort 0 Pass Other (Plantain, Dandelion) 16 Fail Total weeds 17 <2% Fail Cutting Quality of cut N/A Fail Height of cut N/A >4mm Pass Performance Indicators Speed of Green Slow/satisfactory/good/fast N/A Satisfactory/good/fast Fail

Smoothness Visual Assessment Test 1 N/A 5 bobbles over length Fail Test 2 N/A 5 bobbles over length Fail Test 3 N/A 5 bobbles over length Fail Firmness (Clegg Impact Hammer) Average readings from 9 87 90-110 gravities Fail

Moisture (Theta Probe) Average readings from 9 17 10-25% Pass

Level Survey (mm) Straight edge -Maximum 10 6mm over 2 metres Fail Average of 15 readings 5.3 <4mm Fail Soil Profile Core profile Thatch depth 20mm <20mm Fail Root depth >100mm >75mm Pass

Organic Matter Testing 0-40mm 13.7 <7% Fail (% Loss on Ignition) 40-80mm 13.1 <5% Fail Other observations (any other relevant comments i.e drainage potential, maintenance issues, disease, health, uneven bias).

Abandoned Would need full scale resurfacing to reinstate Bowls Summary Table

P.E.P.F. 1 P.E.P.F. 2 Springhead 1 Springhead 2 West Park 1 West Park 2 West Park 3 East Park 1 East Park 2 East Park 3 Costello Pelican Park Victoria Dock Ald. Knees. 1 Ald Knees 2. Ald Knees. 3 Cover and Content Fescue Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Fail Pass Pass Pass Pass Browntop Bent Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Fail Pass Pass Pass Pass AMG Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Fail Pass Pass Pass Pass Yorkshire Fog Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Fail Pass Pass Pass Pass Ryegrass Fail Fail Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Fail Fail Pass Pass Pass Fail Bare Ground Fail Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Fail Fail Fail Pass Pass Fail Moss Fail Pass Fail Fail Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Fail Fail Pass Pass Pass Clover Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Fail Fail Fail Fail Fail Pass Daisy Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Fail Fail Pass Fail Fail Pass Pearlwort Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Fail Fail Pass Pass Pass Pass Other Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Fail Fail Fail Pass Fail Fail Total weeds Fail Fail Fail Fail Pass Pass Pass Pass Fail Pass Fail Fail Fail Fail Fail Fail Mowing Quality of cut Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Fail Fail Fail Pass Pass Fail Height of cut Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Fail Fail Fail Pass Pass Pass Performance Indicators Speed of Green Slow/sat./good/fast Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Fail Fail Pass Pass Pass Fail Smoothness Test 1 Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Fail Fail Fail Pass Pass Fail Test 2 Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Fail Fail Fail Pass Pass Fail Test 3 Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Fail Fail Fail Pass Pass Fail Firmness Ave. from 9 Fail Fail Fail Fail Pass Pass Pass Fail Fail Fail Pass Fail Fail Fail Fail Fail Moisture Ave. from 9 Fail Fail Pass Fail Pass Pass Pass Fail Fail Fail Pass Fail Fail Pass Pass Pass Level Survey Straight edge -Max. Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Fail Pass Pass Pass Pass Fail Fail Fail Pass Pass Fail Ave. of 15 readings Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Fail Pass Pass Pass Pass Fail Fail Fail Pass Pass Fail Soil Profile Core profile Thatch depth Fail Fail Fail Fail Pass Pass Pass Fail Fail Pass Pass Fail Pass Pass Pass Fail Root depth Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Fail Fail Pass Pass Pass

Organic Matter Testing 0-40mm Fail Fail Fail Fail Fail Fail Fail Fail Fail Fail Fail Fail Pass Fail Fail Fail (% Loss on Ignition) 40-80mm Fail Fail Fail Fail Fail Fail Fail Fail Pass Fail Fail Fail Pass Fail Fail Fail Cricket Table Location: Alderman Kneeshaw Table number: 1 Date of Assessment: 16/09/2010 Assessed by: HCB

Data Standards Pass/Fail Cover and Content Sward Content (% cover) Grasses Fescue 24 >20% Pass Browntop Bent 12 >20% Fail Ryegrass 23 >20% Pass Annual Meadow Grass 8 <30% Pass Yorkshire Fog 0 <5% Pass Bare Ground 0 <10% Pass Weeds Moss 0 <5% Pass Clover 20 Fail Daisy 2 Pass Pearlwort 0 Pass Other 2 Pass Total weeds (plantains) 24 <5% Fail Performance Indicators Firmness (Clegg Impact Hammer) Average readings from 9 98 >130 gravities Pass

Moisture (Theta Probe) Average readings from 6 26 10-30% Pass

Levels (visual Assessment) Poor/Satisfactory/good satisfactory Satisfactory/good Pass

Soil Profile Core profile Thatch depth 0 <10mm Pass Thickness of Loam 100mm >50mm Pass Root depth >100mm >75mm Pass Layering Consistent Consistent/layered Pass Other observations (any other relevant comments i.e drainage potential, maintenance issues, disease, health, uneven bias).

Very weedy and in need of treatment. Background sward generally good but needs annual autumn overseeding. Levels satisfactory. Firmness could be improved with rolling. Soil profile in good condition. Aeration required in the winter. Maintenance should involve; Rolling in the spring, weed control, Autumn renovations, winter aeration. Cricket Table Location: Costello Park Table number: 1 (car park end) Date of Assessment: 03/09/2010 Assessed by: HCB

Data Standards Pass/Fail Cover and Content Sward Content (% cover) Grasses Fescue 0 >20% Fail Browntop Bent 38 >20% Pass Ryegrass 29 >20% Pass Annual Meadow Grass 0 <30% Pass Yorkshire Fog 0 <5% Pass Bare Ground 6 <10% Pass Weeds Moss 0 <5% Pass Clover 2 Fail Daisy 2 Pass Pearlwort 0 Pass Other 23 Pass Total weeds (plantains) 27 <5% Fail Performance Indicators Firmness (Clegg Impact Hammer) Average readings from 9 141 >130 gravities Pass

Moisture (Theta Probe) Average readings from 6 14.4 10-30% Pass

Levels (visual Assessment) Poor/Satisfactory/good Poor Satisfactory/good Fail

Soil Profile Core profile Thatch depth 0 <10mm Pass Thickness of Loam 50mm >50mm Pass Root depth >100mm >75mm Pass Layering Layered Consistent/layered Pass Other observations (any other relevant comments i.e drainage potential, maintenance issues, disease, health, uneven bias).

Sward quality poor and needs annual overseeding. Very weedy and in need of treatment. Levels poor and may consider resurfacing. Firmness good. Soil profile in good condition. Aeration required in the winter to encoruage rooting Maintenance should involve; Rolling in the spring, weed control, Autumn renovations, winter aeration. Cricket Table Location: Costello Park Table number: 2 (middle) Date of Assessment: 03/09/2010 Assessed by: HCB

Data Standards Pass/Fail Cover and Content Sward Content (% cover) Grasses Fescue 5 >20% Fail Browntop Bent 34 >20% Pass Ryegrass 41 >20% Pass Annual Meadow Grass 5 <30% Pass Yorkshire Fog 0 <5% Pass Bare Ground 6 <10% Pass Weeds Moss 0 <5% Pass Clover 3 Pass Daisy 0 Pass Pearlwort 0 Pass Other 16 Fail Total weeds (plantains) 19 <5% Fail Performance Indicators Firmness (Clegg Impact Hammer) Average readings from 9 106 >130 gravities Fail

Moisture (Theta Probe) Average readings from 6 14.8 10-30% Pass

Levels (visual Assessment) Poor/Satisfactory/good Poor Satisfactory/good Fail

Soil Profile Core profile Thatch depth 0 <10mm Pass Thickness of Loam 50mm >50mm Pass Root depth >100mm >75mm Pass Layering Layered Consistent/layered Fail Other observations (any other relevant comments i.e drainage potential, maintenance issues, disease, health, uneven bias).

Sward quality very poor and needs annual overseeding. Very weedy and in need of treatment. Levels extremely poor and may consider resurfacing. Firmness levels could be improved by rolling and good soil management. Soil profile in good condition. Aeration required in the winter to encoruage rooting Maintenance should involve; Releveling, rolling in the spring, weed control, Autumn renovations, winter aeration. Cricket Table Location: Costello Park Table number: 3 (lake end) Date of Assessment: 03/09/2010 Assessed by: HCB

Data Standards Pass/Fail Cover and Content Sward Content (% cover) Grasses Fescue 1 >20% Fail Browntop Bent 19 >20% Fail Ryegrass 26 >20% Pass Annual Meadow Grass 28 <30% Pass Yorkshire Fog 0 <5% Pass Bare Ground 18 <10% Fail Weeds Moss 0 <5% Pass Clover 2 Pass Daisy 0 Pass Pearlwort 0 Pass Other 6 Fail Total weeds (plantains) 8 <5% Fail Performance Indicators Firmness (Clegg Impact Hammer) Average readings from 9 114 >130 gravities Fail

Moisture (Theta Probe) Average readings from 6 14.8 10-30% Pass

Levels (visual Assessment) Poor/Satisfactory/good Poor Satisfactory/good Fail

Soil Profile Core profile Thatch depth 0 <10mm Pass Thickness of Loam 70mm >50mm Pass Root depth >100mm >75mm Pass Layering Consistent Consistent/layered Pass Other observations (any other relevant comments i.e drainage potential, maintenance issues, disease, health, uneven bias).

Sward quality very poor and needs annual overseeding. Weedy and in need of treatment. Levels extremely poor and may consider resurfacing. Firmness levels could be improved by rolling and good soil management. Soil profile in good condition. Aeration required in the winter to encoruage rooting Maintenance should involve; Releveling, rolling in the spring, weed control, Autumn renovations, winter aeration. Cricket Table Location: Oak Road Table number: 1 (nearest car park) Date of Assessment: 03/09/2010 Assessed by: HCB

Data Standards Pass/Fail Cover and Content Sward Content (% cover) Grasses Fescue 2 >20% Fail Browntop Bent 26 >20% Pass Ryegrass 26 >20% Pass Annual Meadow Grass 23 <30% Pass Yorkshire Fog 0 <5% Pass Bare Ground 21 <10% Fail Weeds Moss 0 <5% Pass Clover 0 Pass Daisy 0 Pass Pearlwort 0 Pass Other 2 Pass Total weeds (plantains) 2 <5% Pass Performance Indicators Firmness (Clegg Impact Hammer) Average readings from 9 117 >130 gravities Fail

Moisture (Theta Probe) Average readings from 6 20 10-30% Pass

Levels (visual Assessment) Poor/Satisfactory/good Satisfactory Satisfactory/good Pass

Soil Profile Core profile Thatch depth 0 <10mm Pass Thickness of Loam 50mm >50mm Pass Root depth >100mm >75mm Pass Layering Consistent Consistent/layered Pass Other observations (any other relevant comments i.e drainage potential, maintenance issues, disease, health, uneven bias). Worn ends needed renovation at end of season. Sward quality culd be improved with annual overseeding. Levels generally satisfactory but would benefit from annual top dressing. Firmness levels could be improved by rolling and good soil management. Soil profile in good condition. Aeration required in the winter to encoruage rooting Maintenance should involve; Rolling in the spring, good surface preparation, Autumn renovations, winter aeration. Cricket Table Location: Oak Road Table number: 2 Date of Assessment: 03/09/2010 Assessed by: HCB

Data Standards Pass/Fail Cover and Content Sward Content (% cover) Grasses Fescue 24 >20% Pass Browntop Bent 22 >20% Pass Ryegrass 23 >20% Pass Annual Meadow Grass 4 <30% Pass Yorkshire Fog 0 <5% Pass Bare Ground 23 <10% Fail Weeds Moss 0 <5% Pass Clover 0 Pass Daisy 0 Pass Pearlwort 0 Pass Other 2 Pass Total weeds (plantains) 2 <5% Pass Performance Indicators Firmness (Clegg Impact Hammer) Average readings from 9 109 >130 gravities Fail

Moisture (Theta Probe) Average readings from 6 17.6 10-30% Pass

Levels (visual Assessment) Poor/Satisfactory/good Poor Satisfactory/good Fail

Soil Profile Core profile Thatch depth 0 <10mm Pass Thickness of Loam 70mm >50mm Pass Root depth >100mm >75mm Pass Layering Consistent Consistent/layered Pass Other observations (any other relevant comments i.e drainage potential, maintenance issues, disease, health, uneven bias). Worn ends needed renovation at end of season. Sward quality could be improved with annual overseeding. Levels generally very poor with dip running through the whole table. Would consider leveling whole square. Firmness levels could be improved by rolling and good soil management. Soil profile in good condition. Aeration required in the winter to encoruage rooting Maintenance should involve; Relevelling, rolling in the spring, good surface preparation, Autumn renovations, winter aeration. Cricket Table Location: Oak Road Table number: 2 Date of Assessment: 03/09/2010 Assessed by: HCB

Data Standards Pass/Fail Cover and Content Sward Content (% cover) Grasses Fescue 24 >20% Pass Browntop Bent 22 >20% Pass Ryegrass 23 >20% Pass Annual Meadow Grass 4 <30% Pass Yorkshire Fog 0 <5% Pass Bare Ground 23 <10% Fail Weeds Moss 0 <5% Pass Clover 0 Pass Daisy 0 Pass Pearlwort 0 Pass Other 2 Pass Total weeds (plantains) 2 <5% Pass Performance Indicators Firmness (Clegg Impact Hammer) Average readings from 9 109 >130 gravities Fail

Moisture (Theta Probe) Average readings from 6 17.6 10-30% Pass

Levels (visual Assessment) Poor/Satisfactory/good Poor Satisfactory/good Fail

Soil Profile Core profile Thatch depth 0 <10mm Pass Thickness of Loam 70mm >50mm Pass Root depth >100mm >75mm Pass Layering Consistent Consistent/layered Pass Other observations (any other relevant comments i.e drainage potential, maintenance issues, disease, health, uneven bias). Worn ends needed renovation at end of season. Sward quality could be improved with annual overseeding.

Levels generally very poor with dip running through the whole table. Would consider leveling whole square. Firmness levels could be improved by rolling and good soil management. Soil profile in good condition. Aeration required in the winter to encoruage rooting Maintenance should involve; Relevelling, rolling in the spring, good surface preparation, Autumn renovations, winter aeration. Cricket Table Location: Pelican Park Table number: 1 Date of Assessment: 05/08/2010 Assessed by: HCB

Data Standards Pass/Fail Cover and Content Sward Content (% cover) Grasses Fescue 32 >20% Pass Browntop Bent 20 >20% Pass Ryegrass 10 >20% Fail Annual Meadow Grass 6 <30% Pass Yorkshire Fog 0 <5% Pass Bare Ground 20 <10% Fail Weeds Moss 0 <5% Pass Clover 12 Fail Daisy 0 Pass Pearlwort 0 Pass Other 0 Pass Total weeds (plantains) 12 <5% Fail Performance Indicators Firmness (Clegg Impact Hammer) Average readings from 9 119 >130 gravities Fail

Moisture (Theta Probe) Average readings from 6 18.7 10-30% Pass

Levels (visual Assessment) Poor/Satisfactory/good satisfactory Satisfactory/good Fail

Soil Profile Core profile Thatch depth 0 <10mm Pass Thickness of Loam 70mm >50mm Pass Root depth >100mm >75mm Pass Layering Consistent Consistent/layered Pass Other observations (any other relevant comments i.e drainage potential, maintenance issues, disease, health, uneven bias). Worn ends needed renovation at end of season. Sward quality could be improved with annual overseeding. Levels generally satisfactory. Firmness levels could be improved by rolling and good soil management. Soil profile in good condition. Aeration required in the winter to encoruage rooting Maintenance should involve; Rolling in the spring, good surface preparation, Autumn renovations, winter aeration. Cricket Table Location: Princess Elizabeth PF Table number: 1 Date of Assessment: 03/09/2010 Assessed by: HCB

Data Standards Pass/Fail Cover and Content Sward Content (% cover) Grasses Fescue 16 >20% Fail Browntop Bent 56 >20% Pass Ryegrass 18 >20% Fail Annual Meadow Grass 3 <30% Pass Yorkshire Fog 0 <5% Pass Bare Ground 5 <10% Pass Weeds Moss 0 <5% Pass Clover 1 Pass Daisy 0 Pass Pearlwort 0 Pass Other 1 Pass Total weeds (plantains) 2 <5% Pass Performance Indicators Firmness (Clegg Impact Hammer) Average readings from 9 92 >130 gravities Fail

Moisture (Theta Probe) Average readings from 6 15.2 10-30% Pass

Levels (visual Assessment) Poor/Satisfactory/good Poor Satisfactory/good Fail

Soil Profile Core profile Thatch depth 5mm <10mm Pass Thickness of Loam 70mm >50mm Pass Root depth >100mm >75mm Pass Layering Consistent Consistent/layered Pass Other observations (any other relevant comments i.e drainage potential, maintenance issues, disease, health, uneven bias).

Sward quality could be improved with annual overseeding. Levels poor and would consider leveling. Firmness levels could be improved by rolling and good soil management. Soil profile in good condition. Aeration required in the winter to encoruage rooting Maintenance should involve; Rolling in the spring, good surface preparation, Autumn renovations, winter aeration. Cricket Table Location: Princess Elizabeth PF Table number: 2 Date of Assessment: 03/09/2010 Assessed by: HCB

Data Standards Pass/Fail Cover and Content Sward Content (% cover) Grasses Fescue 2 >20% Fail Browntop Bent 36 >20% Pass Ryegrass 14 >20% Fail Annual Meadow Grass 36 <30% Pass Yorkshire Fog 0 <5% Pass Bare Ground 1 <10% Pass Weeds Moss 1 <5% Pass Clover 1 Pass Daisy 3 Pass Pearlwort 0 Pass Other 6 Pass Total weeds (plantains) 11 <5% Pass Performance Indicators Firmness (Clegg Impact Hammer) Average readings from 9 89 >130 gravities Fail

Moisture (Theta Probe) Average readings from 6 19.2 10-30% Pass

Levels (visual Assessment) Poor/Satisfactory/good Satisfactory Satisfactory/good Fail

Soil Profile Core profile Thatch depth 2mm <10mm Pass Thickness of Loam 100mm >50mm Pass Root depth >100mm >75mm Pass Layering Consistent Consistent/layered Pass Other observations (any other relevant comments i.e drainage potential, maintenance issues, disease, health, uneven bias).

Sward quality could be improved with annual overseeding. Levels could be improved with annual top dressing. Firmness levels could be improved by rolling and good soil management. Soil profile in good condition. Aeration required in the winter to encoruage rooting Maintenance should involve; Rolling in the spring, good surface preparation, Autumn renovations, winter aeration. Cricket Summary Table

Ald. Kneesh. Costello 1 Costello 2 Costello 3 Oak Road 1 Oak Road 2 Pelican Park P.E.P.F 1 P.E.P.F 2 Cover and Content Fescue Pass Pass Fail Fail Fail Pass Pass Fail Fail Browntop Bent Fail Fail Pass Fail Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Ryegrass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Fail Fail Fail AMG Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Yorkshire Fog Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Bare Ground Pass Pass Pass Fail Fail Fail Fail Pass Pass Moss Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Clover Fail Fail Pass Pass Pass Pass Fail Pass Pass Daisy Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pearlwort Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Other Pass Pass Fail Fail Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Total weeds Fail Fail Fail Fail Pass Pass Fail Pass Pass Performance Indicators Firmness Ave. from 9 Pass Pass Fail Fail Fail Fail Fail Fail Fail Moisture Ave. from 6 Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Levels Poor/Sat/good Pass Fail Fail Fail Pass Fail Fail Fail Fail Soil Profile Core profile Thatch depth Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Thickness Loam Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Root depth Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Layering Pass Pass Fail Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Hull Rugby League Service Area Strategy Workshop, KC Stadium, Monday 26 July 2010 at 7.15 pm

Q.What are the priorities of you organisation give me some ideas as to what you are about .In your groups debate and document your findings.

Group 1 To support the different factor of R.L. To pass on information and increase communication. Solve the problem areas the game has. Enough pitches, Develop the game, Increase participation and quality, Organise and promote. Group 2 To develop match officials, coaches, players and volunteers. To increase participation, We improve the environment our facilities, clubs and maintain a high standard. Access opportunities to play for women ect , wheelchair and for all. , through equality. Funding for some projects

Q. If you were to look at open space and facility’s in your opinion what are the needs of your sport discuses and document as follows, the good, poor, bad and other?

Group 1 The good-The accessibility of schools and currently free use. Poor - The changing facility’s at schools the condition of pitches all reduce the participation levels Bad - The quality of pitches .The number of RL specifics at clubs. The cost of running facilities and on other sites the lack of maintain ace .No full-size 3G for RL. Other - No floodlight’s, no RFL home in the city, we relay to much on school pitches, and games as a hole are called of to regularly. Group 2 The good- The volunteers our people and skills. The quantity of facilities, School/ community use of schools budget, but what about the future cost? Poor – Communication on how to book facilities, dog walkers understanding our needs for closed access on some sites. Bad –the maintenance levels , the H and S risk., the number of closed pitches / sites / schools that are empty, e.g. Reckitts. Other – The Home for RL?

Q Based on the last exercise please give me an indication of the sites were these issues relate or were you have an interest?

Group 1 WEST NORTH EAST CENTRAL S/B E/R Pickering/Sirius Schultz Reckitts Endeavour Barton Keyingham Beecroft Bransholme Lambwath Any parks PEPF Pelican Cooper Sch Eastmount Oak Road Tower Grange Group 2 As above with the addition of, West Hull Henry Cooper David Lister All Vacant sites work with RU

Q So with limited funding available to everyone which projects/sites would be your priority? Both groups worked together and produced one list.

1. Reckitts 2. Eastmount 3. East Stand HKR 4. Pickering 5. Beecfoft Street

Q Based on our discussions so far what are your priorities in relation to the above sites and actions?

1. Quality of pitches for RL Focus on Eastmount. 2. The availability of school pitches for the summer league and work with BSF. 3. Usage of facilities – Reckitts ect, currently closed. 4. Communication, how do we communicate, book facilities and feedback information. 5. Ensure that needs of grass are taken into account in timetabling, maintenance schedule built in. 6. Secure RL specific facilities in the city. Inc a Flood Light full-size ATP 3G and also Turf pitch 7. Homes for performance clubs, based on the West Hull rugby league Model.

Q So how will your success in addressing these issues be measured?

1. Set KP’S for/ within a Facilities document. 2. Record feedback from our members. 3. Record the number of games cancelled. 4. Audit the quality quantity and investment in facility projects 5. Deliver inward investment and partnership projects.

BSF Investment in Sport Executive Summary March 2008

Introduction

Hull’s BSF programme represents a £400M vision to deliver joined-up education through “Learning Centres”, which are central to learning communities and part of a future learning City. As part of a whole-City plan, BSF is one of a number of regeneration projects aimed at changing the City’s expectation from “perceived low achievement” to one of “high attainment”. Schools will be open and accessible places acting as a hub for the local delivery of wrap-around extended services and integrated Children and Young People’s services, creating better opportunities through joined-up services and multi-agency working.

Building School for the Future

In terms of the curriculum requirements for mainstream secondary schools under BSF these are set out in Building Bulletin 98 (BB98). BB98 sets out the elements of provision, which will be funded through the core BSF funding. Any provision over and above, for which there is a clear community need, will have to be funded outside the BSF programme through other Council capital, sale of assets, prudential borrowing, external funding (e.g. sport bodies, Sport England etc).

Following high level and strategic proposals driven through the BSF “Sports Workstream”, agreement has been reached to fund new, high quality sports provision over and above those provided through standards BSF funding. Hull BSF will deliver the following minimum provision at each of its future schools:  A main hall sufficient for assemblies of at least half the school at one time, examinations, public performances, parents’ evenings and community events  A four badminton court hall, which should be designed to Sport England’s specification, including the critical dimensions (18m x 33m x 7.6m)  An activity studio of at least 145m2, with a minimum internal width of 10m and height of 3.5m and a sprung floor, suitable for some gymnastics activities, dance and examinations if required  Playing fields area falls into a number of categories; sports pitches, game courts, soft informal and social, hard informal and social and habitat areas  The equivalent of 7 sports pitches, configured to meet curriculum needs as a core requirement e.g. winter pitches for preferred team games and overlapping summer pitches for athletics, cricket etc  Synthetic turf pitches can be provided for up to half size (60m x 50m) and would be counted twice in terms of pitch numbers, due to the intensive use  A multi-use games area, with 3 netball courts overlaid with critical dimensions of 60m x 33m and further tennis and netball courts  Ancillary provision; Indoor changing, outdoor changing, reception area, toilets, office and storage all separate to the school to service community use

Consultation

The result of high level strategic discussions there is now a clear agreement (between the City Council, Humber Sports Partnership, sport Governing Bodies, Sport England and PfS) that BSF strategy and investment will form the framework upon which city-wide sports provision will be enhanced/ developed. Sheffield Hallam

1 University have been commissioned to develop a city-wide sport strategy, and as part of the research feeding into this, a facilities focus group has been set up to identify gaps in provision and priorities for future investment.

Following analysis of provision, and identification of gaps and opportunities, these have been cross-referenced with the emerging BSF programme to identify where there might be opportunities to develop enhanced education based provision to meet wider leisure needs in partnership, with ongoing consultation with National Governing Bodies of Sport.

Meetings of the Learning Partnership and the BSF Sport and Culture Workstream have provided further opportunity to assess and refine these opportunities (summarised below).

Investment opportunities

The Football Foundation is seeking to invest on school sites for the benefit of sport on a much wider basis. The Football Foundation have aspirations to increase the number of 3G pitches throughout the city, improve changing and have a football focus at up to four new Learning Centres. With poor quality supply of pitches and comparatively low participation rates, the opportunity presented by BSF to develop high quality pitch provision on or near to school sites, with good access and facilities for the community is significant. The FA/FF have highlighted their priorities for investment in football provision in Hull, which have been considered alongside the analysis of quality and accessibility issues. Priority sites and investments have been identified. Key sites are Pickering and Andrew Marvell; it is imperative that any potential community access issues are resolved in advance of the build. Initially it was expected that the Football Foundation would contribute 50% of the total cost of identified works, but it is now likely that the contribution will be up to 60%.

Rugby League have looked at potential future developments, most of which are provided through BB98. Hull Service Area Rugby League have set out their priorities in terms of amateur rugby league. The ‘Hull and East Riding Facility Strategy (2008)’ highlights the need to invest in facility provision throughout the area. There are plans to link in with BSF to focus on the proposed Learning Centres to host up to 3 Service Area Academies or centres, strategically placed in the North, East and West of the City. Sites under review are:  Pickering Sports College or Kelvin Hall (West)  Malet Lambert, Andrew Marvell or Archbishop Sentamu (East)  Kingswood, Winifred Holtby or Northern Academy (North)

This would then address the current lack of high quality facilities in the city, meeting the demands of community amateur rugby and youth elite performance rugby. The intention is that each of these sites would house Clubmark rugby league clubs, and would have a minimum of 3 pitches, changing facilities (including female) and 1 full sized 3G pitch. All schools will have at least one rugby league/union pitch, with good access for community use to changing facilities.

Hull also has two strong professional rugby league clubs (Hull FC and Hull Kingston Rovers) who have shared their plans for potential future developments alongside the NGBs.

Hull Kingston Rovers, based in the East of the City, hopes to build an academy complex potentially on part of the old Isaac Newton School site. Plans would include

2 extensive educational and community use, as well as state of the art training facilities for the playing staff. The site is in close proximity to the location of the future Archbishop Sentamu Academy; discussions are taking place to ensure that provision is joined-up, with no duplication of facilities or cost.

Hull FC, which plays in the West of the City, is looking to relocate its playing facilities and to construct a hub that will provide a permanent base for junior and academy development as well as first team training with a focus on performance and education. The centre will provide community access, health clinic, Learning Zone, classroom and seminar facilities and will forge links with local schools and colleges. A site has not yet been confirmed, but the three options under review are The University of Hull, Costello Stadium, and Hull YPI.

The English Cricket Board has expressed an interest in the Northern Academy. As the site is currently playing fields and there will be the loss of 2 cricket squares on the site, they are keen to see some re-provision and future improvement of quality. Outdoor provision has been identified as 2 artificial wickets and there is potential funding for this through Lord’s Taverner money (amount to be confirmed). The cricket pitch would ideally have a 50m boundary. Subject to funding availability, it would also be ideal if there were a community changing facility close to the cricket pitch that could also then serve as a pavilion. The NGB have also identified Malet Lambert as an ideal site for 2 artificial cricket wickets.

British Cycling is seeking a facility in the West of the City with motorway access. A closed road circuit of at least one kilometre long, ideally lit would be a sub-regional facility focussing on youth development. The circuit would need to be at least 5 metres wide, with a slight camber on the bends and a 6m finishing straight. Rather than a ring track, a looped track with an ‘open end’ would enable the playing field to be used more effectively. The full specifications are available on the Sport England website. If CCDP money is made available to the NGB, there is a commitment to a contribution towards costs. Usually this would cover 50% of the costs. Such a facility would also provide the opportunity to promote Para Olympic sport at grass roots level.

With smart planning of car parking facilities satellite units could also be located on all sites. These would be particularly useful in North Hull. If it is possible to close off the car park from the road network on site, and ensure that car parks do not have kerbs or dividers between parking spaces car parks can be used for cycling proficiency. If planned in early, this would be at no additional cost.

England Hockey are seeking modern, competition standard facilities and would like to see a double Astroturf for competitions etc ideally in the East of the City. Andrew Marvell could accommodate this in terms of the size of its site, however the synthetic pitch requirements for football and hockey are conflicting, there is no likely additional financial investment identified to support this from the NGB, and participation in hockey is falling.

England Basketball have identified that they would like to see investment in three full size courts (12 badminton courts) next to each other to allow for a central venue league in West of City. This has not been mapped onto a school site as there is already a facility existing at the Gemtec Arena.

Other Potential Investments As there is no area in the Humber region that provides a full gymnastics facility, British Gymnastics would like to see investment in a sub-regional facility that could

3 be used as a club base shared with Trampolining. Any gymnastics facility on a school site would require an ‘add on’ to the sports hall, and would need to be a dedicated gymnastics area. Andrew Marvell School has been identified as a potential site as the location would ideally be in the East of the City, and the site is large enough to accommodate such a facility. Information on sizes/specifications and costs of facilities is to be provided. In terms of funding, there may be some money through the CCDP funding, but British Gymnastics are awaiting confirmation of this.

With regard to netball, the East of Hull, which houses the most deprived wards and lowest participation rates in sport and physical activity, is not well served by a facility or formal club infra-structure and should be a priority area of focus. Through the consultation process England Netball have expressed a desire to improve provision in the East of the city, with at least 2 additional outdoor courts and floodlighting available. Potential sites identified are Malet Lambert and Andrew Marvell Schools.

England Squash have expressed an interest in the BSF programme, but are yet to confirm future developments.

Consultation has taken place with the Amateur Swimming Association, who have provided design guidance documents to assist in the refurbishment of Winifred Holtby pool. Swimming pool supply is different from sports halls in that the curriculum aspects are linked to Key Stage 2, affecting primary schools rather than secondary. There is no entitlement for schools in the BSF programme to have a minimum amount of water space. The 4 lane 15metre pool at Winifred Holtby School will be retained and refurbished under BSF, but any new pools integrated into the BSF plans would have to justify this as part of the community enhancement and secure additional funding. The impact of the closure of Sydney Smith pool will require further consideration; however, school pools in Hull do not play a role in the delivery of the primary school swimming programme. Any new pools/upgrading of existing council owned stock will be considered by Hull Leisure as their plans for future facilities are being developed alongside the city-wide sport strategy.

In addition to the opportunities detailed above, Hull’s aspiration is that each school sports hall will also have enough run off space around and between courts to allow for spectators, etc. Through consultation with National Governing Bodies of Sport, the potential for 6-8 court sports halls on some school sites has been considered. However, there will be further investigation into this through further consultation with NGBs and clubs, ideally one in the East, North and West of the City (Andrew Marvell, Kingswood, Pickering).

The table below has been produced in light of the above consultation with NGBs and Professional clubs, and shows how BSF sites could potentially accommodate the priorities identified, meeting wider community needs. Early costs are included in the table below, which also outlines confirmed contributions to those costs. Further work is now required to secure additional funding for these facilities and to develop an approach to the management of these facilities.

On-going appraisal and feasibility work will also be required to refine the proposals set out and work through their deliverability in terms of planning, design and capital and revenue funding.

4 School Construction Facilities provided Additional facilities Cost of additional Contribution Contribution Funding Gap start date under BB98 identified facilities from NGB/other from HCC source ALL SITES Additional run off space £130K* per sports To be confirmed To be £910K around four court sports hall confirmed halls to create ‘4+’ 2m addition to 33m x 18m sports hall in each direction

7 x £130K = £910K Health and Fitness suite To be confirmed – DISCUSSIONS OVER REQUIREMENTS STILL TO TAKE PLACE Hull FC October 2008 N/A Relocation of training To be confirmed – DISCUSSIONS ONGOING Sports ‘HUB’ facilities, development of a hub as a base for [Site to be junior and academy finalised] rugby. To include community access, health clinic, learning zone, classroom and seminar facilities. Pre LEP Schemes Pickering January 2009  Four court sports Football Foundation - Up to £500K* £250K £250K NIL hall 3G ATP on school site (engineered base)  Activity studio (floodlit) Up to £425K*  Grass playing (dynamic base) pitches  Outdoor hard 106m x 71m (i.e. courts (MUGA) including run off),  Changing to fenced and floodlit accommodate half Football Foundation - £400K £200K £200K NIL

*Includes prelims @ 12%; all costs anticipated as part of a larger project (costs do not include professional fees, VAT, fixtures/equipment) 5 year group at a Changing facility/pitch time works at Pickering Park Soil sample required before drainage requirements can be identified and costed British Cycling – closed £450K* (5048m² = To be confirmed To be £450K road circuit at least 1km 1km plus finishing once future confirmed long, 5m wide with a straight) CCDP funding is slight camber on the known bends and a 6m Cost can be reduced finishing straight, if use road network finishing straight to be on site (as long as 7-8m wide this can be isolated when required) Increase size of sports £550K* (plus cost of To be confirmed To be £1.1M hall to 6/8 courts 4 court sports hall) confirmed

Additional 2 courts to create 6 court sports hall. Includes 50% increase of hall and changing (total = 450m²)

£1.1M* (plus cost of 4 court sports hall)

Additional 4 courts to create 8 court sports hall. Includes 100% increase of hall and changing (total =

*Includes prelims @ 12%; all costs anticipated as part of a larger project (costs do not include professional fees, VAT, fixtures/equipment) 6 900m²) Squash –have To be confirmed To be confirmed To be To be expressed an interest confirmed confirmed but are still to confirm what investment they would like to see Kelvin Hall April 2009  Four court sports NOF funded works – All funding finalised, to be completed in advance of BSF hall sports hall and  Activity studio changing, and all  Grass playing weather pitch pitches  Outdoor hard courts (MUGA)  Changing to accommodate half year group at a time Sample Schemes Archbishop March 2010  Four court sports None identified N/A N/A To be N/A Sentamu hall confirmed  Activity studio  Grass playing pitches  Outdoor hard courts (MUGA)  Changing to accommodate half year group at a time Winifred March 2010  Four court sports NOF funded works – full All funding finalised, to be completed in advance of BSF Holtby hall sized floodlit sand

*Includes prelims @ 12%; all costs anticipated as part of a larger project (costs do not include professional fees, VAT, fixtures/equipment) 7  Activity studio based STP, MUGA, and  Grass playing community changing etc pitches Refurbishment of £1,285,200 at current None identified £1,285,200 NIL  Outdoor hard swimming pool costs courts (MUGA)  Changing to accommodate half year group at a time Phase One Andrew October 2010  Four court sports Football Foundation - £250K £250K NIL Marvell hall 3G ATP Up to £500K*  Activity studio (engineered base)  Grass playing Up to £425K* pitches (dynamic base)  Outdoor hard courts (MUGA) 106m x 71m (i.e.  Changing to including run off), accommodate half fenced and floodlit year group at a British Gymnastics - To be confirmed once To be confirmed To be To be time Sports hall extension specifications once future confirmed confirmed and provision of received. CCDP funding is gymnastics facilities known within this (specification to be provided) Athletics – 200m Up to £260K* (6 lane) To be confirmed To be £290K polymeric J track Up to £290K* (8 lane) (NGB have not confirmed confirmed what funding streams they depend on) Netball – 2 additional £98,280 To be confirmed To be £98,280 outdoor courts (floodlit) once future confirmed

*Includes prelims @ 12%; all costs anticipated as part of a larger project (costs do not include professional fees, VAT, fixtures/equipment) 8 CCDP funding is known Increase size of sports £550K* (plus cost of 4 To be confirmed To be £1.1M hall to 6/8 courts court sports hall) confirmed

Additional 2 courts to create 6 court sports hall. Includes 50% increase of hall and changing (total = 450m²)

£1.1M* (plus cost of 4 court sports hall)

Additional 4 courts to create 8 court sports hall. Includes 100% increase of hall and changing (total = 900m²) Kingswood October 2010  Four court sports Football Foundation - £400K £200K £200K NIL hall Changing facility/pitch  Activity studio works Soil sample required  Grass playing before drainage pitches requirements can be  Outdoor hard identified and costed courts (MUGA) Increase size of sports £550K* (plus cost of 4 To be confirmed To be £1.1M  Changing to hall to 6/8 courts court sports hall) confirmed accommodate half year group at a Additional 2 courts to time create 6 court sports

*Includes prelims @ 12%; all costs anticipated as part of a larger project (costs do not include professional fees, VAT, fixtures/equipment) 9 hall. Includes 50% increase of hall and changing (total = 450m²)

£1.1M* (plus cost of 4 court sports hall)

Additional 4 courts to create 8 court sports hall. Includes 100% increase of hall and changing (total = 900m²) Northern December  Four court sports 2 artificial cricket Up to £8.5K* per pitch Funding amount To be £17K Academy 2010 hall wickets to be confirmed confirmed  Activity studio 30m length, artificial  Grass playing match pitch pitches  Outdoor hard 2 x £8.5K = £17K courts (MUGA)  Changing to accommodate half year group at a time Malet December  Four court sports Football Foundation – £300K £150K £150K NIL Lambert 2010 hall pitch works  Activity studio Soil sample required  Grass playing before drainage pitches requirements can be  Outdoor hard identified and costed courts (MUGA) Netball – 2 additional £98,280 To be confirmed To be £98,280

*Includes prelims @ 12%; all costs anticipated as part of a larger project (costs do not include professional fees, VAT, fixtures/equipment) 10  Changing to outdoor courts (floodlit) once future confirmed accommodate half CCDP funding is year group at a known time 2 artificial cricket Up to £8.5K* per pitch Funding amount To be £17K wickets to be confirmed confirmed 30m length, artificial match pitch

2 x £8.5K = £17K Phase 2 Hull Trinity September  Four court sports None identified N/A N/A N/A N/A House 2011 hall  Activity studio  Grass playing pitches  Outdoor hard courts (MUGA)  Changing to accommodate half year group at a time Newland January 2010  Four court sports None identified N/A N/A N/A N/A School for hall Girls  Activity studio  Grass playing pitches  Outdoor hard courts (MUGA)  Changing to accommodate half year group at a time

*Includes prelims @ 12%; all costs anticipated as part of a larger project (costs do not include professional fees, VAT, fixtures/equipment) 11 St Mary’s January 2012  Four court sports Football Foundation - £400K £200K £200K NIL hall Changing facility/pitch  Activity studio works Soil sample required  Grass playing before drainage pitches requirements can be  Outdoor hard identified and costed courts (MUGA) Increase size of sports £550K* (plus cost of 4 To be confirmed To be £550K  Changing to hall to 6 courts court sports hall) confirmed accommodate half year group at a Additional 2 courts to time create 6 court sports hall. Includes 50% increase of hall and changing (total = 450m²)

GOALs football To be completed in advance of BSF. company – 10 5-a-side 3G pitches

Endeavour ICT only N/A None identified N/A N/A N/A N/A

TOTAL £9,515,760 £1,250,000 £2,535,200 £5,730,560

*Includes prelims @ 12%; all costs anticipated as part of a larger project (costs do not include professional fees, VAT, fixtures/equipment) 12