LEWES DISTRICT OUTDOOR PLAYING SPACE REVIEW
A REPORT BY PMP
OCTOBER 2004 Contents
Page
Section One: Introduction 1
Section Two: The current picture 3
Section Three: Methodology for assessing supply and demand 20
Section Four: Supply and demand 25
Section Five: The Playing Pitch Methodology (PPM) 43
Section Six: Review of children’s play areas 74
Section Seven: Priorities for action 80
Appendices
Appendix A List of clubs
Appendix B Example questionnaires
Appendix C List of Consultees
Appendix D Audit of Pitches
Appendix E Results of quality assessment
Appendix F Population Projections SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION LEWES DISTRICT OUTDOOR PLAYING SPACE REVEW 1. INTRODUCTION
Introduction
1.1 In March 2004, Lewes District Council (the Council) appointed PMP to review the outdoor playing space in the District.
1.2 The key objectives of the study were to:
• undertake a full playing pitch strategy, using the Playing Pitch Methodology (PPM, Sport England’s recommended approach) to cover the four main pitch sports; football, rugby, cricket and hockey
• undertake supply and demand assessments for tennis, bowls, athletics and stoolball
• consult with the local community in order to identify their expectations and needs for outdoor playing space
• update the Council’s audit of children’s play facilities and to comment on areas of shortfall
• provide information to inform decisions and determine future development proposals in Lewes District.
1.3 The playing pitch methodology is primarily concerned with voluntary participation in competitive association football (referred to in this document as ‘football’), cricket, rugby and hockey, by adults and young people. It presents the key findings arising from extensive survey work and consultation, highlighting areas of both concern and opportunity.
1.4 In addition, although not generally included within playing pitch strategies, the Council also requested that facility provision for tennis, bowls, athletics and stoolball be explored.
1.5 The final element of outdoor equipped and non- equipped informal/formal play space investigates changes in provision compared with the Council’s Topic Paper published in 2000. It is important to note that this section does not include open space such as down land or beach frontage but focuses on three distinct categories; equipped play space for under 12’s, equipped space for over 12’s and grass areas suitable for informal play.
1.6 The following key areas are covered within this document:
• the current picture – a review of current participation trends and playing space provision in England, at national and local levels
• methodology – a summary of the research process
• supply and demand – an overview of the playing pitch resource and pitch sport activity in Lewes District
• an application of Sport England’s Playing Pitch Methodology for the four main pitch sports; football, cricket, rugby and hockey
• an analysis of activity and pitch provision against national standards, where applicable, or comparison with local provision for tennis, athletics, stoolball and bowls
• an update of outdoor informal/equipped play space
A Report for Lewes District Council Page 1 LEWES DISTRICT OUTDOOR PLAYING SPACE REVEW 1. INTRODUCTION
• key issues, recommendations and priorities for the future based on development of the main issues arising from the supply and demand analysis, consideration of other key factors such as the implications of local Sports Development Initiatives, the Active Sports Development Plans, the varying needs of the Council.
1.7 Provision is analysed on a district wide basis and is also considered at sub-area and parish level. For the purposes of this study we have used the five Area Partnerships, which are Lewes, Seaford, Newhaven, Peacehaven/Telscombe and rural Lewes as the sub areas.
A Report for Lewes District Council Page 2 SECTION 2
THE CURRENT PICTURE LEWES DISTRICT OUTDOOR PLAYING SPACE REVEW 2: THE CURRENT PICTURE
The current picture
Introduction
2.1 This section outlines the current situation both nationally and locally with regards to outdoor playing space provision. The following aspects are discussed:
• wider national policy developments
• national trends in outdoor playing space provision
• current trends in sports participation
• significant regional developments
• the local context.
Wider National Policy
Game Plan (Dec 2002)
2.2 Published jointly by the Prime Minister's Strategy Unit and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport it sets out to ‘combat the couch potato culture’ and improve our international sporting performance. It urges a shake-up of England’s sporting structures to:
• increase the levels of mass participation in sport and fitness activities
• improve the development of young sporting talent and provide better support for our world-class athletes
• cut red tape
• improve our handling of 'mega' and major events.
2.3 The report also:
• highlights health benefits as the clearest advantage of encouraging greater involvement in sport and other physical activities
• says that introducing people to a wide range of sports and activities early on encourages them to stay 'sports literate' for life
• calls for better evaluation of pilot schemes to identify best ways of encouraging people to take more exercise
• states that local councils should set targets to achieve health benefits through sport and other activities
• says resources need to be targeted on children and young people, women, and older people, in particular those who live in economically-disadvantaged areas, to encourage participation
A Report for Lewes District Council Page 3 LEWES DISTRICT OUTDOOR PLAYING SPACE REVEW 2: THE CURRENT PICTURE
• calls for a new central database of sports facilities to help plan where new investment may be needed, and to monitor use and participation levels.
2.4 One of the report's key recommendations is for tighter funding agreements between Government and the Sports Councils. It says that decisions on handing over taxpayer's money should be based on results achieved in raising participation and elite level success, rather than on the programmes they are planning to run.
A Vision for 2020
The Framework for Sport in England 2004
2.5 In response to Game Plan Sport England published its framework for sport taking on the targets set and using them as a springboard to develop a new way of working with a new focus and a clear vision.
2.6 To deliver the vision, the framework identifies three strands:
• Making England Active – helping people to start and stay in sport
• Making England Successful – fulfilling aspirations to be the best sporting nation in the world
• Backing London’s bid to host the 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games
2.7 Driving participation in sport are seven key elements that need to be taken into account:
• the population is aging steadily and there has been a consistent trend that the older you are the less you participate
• the majority of people face time pressures. With longer working weeks and the diversity of family life trends suggest this is not going to get any easier
• the level of obesity has tripled in England in the past 20 years and once again trends suggest this situation will get worse unless action is taken
• currently participation in sports reveals inequity across a range of indicators including gender, ethnicity and disability. Barriers to sport vary, such as transport in rural areas and financial pressure in urban areas give great variations in access to all forms of participation in sport
• utilising education - schools can be a major contributor to alleviating time pressure on family life and in creating the bridge to participation after school. Facilities in further and higher education can also provide opportunities that should be utilised
• sport is the single biggest contributor to the voluntary sector with 26% of all volunteers involved in sport. Young people often do not realise the range of career opportunities in sport so together the volunteer and professional workforces need to be supported and developed
• if the sports sector is make changes the levels of investment available will be key. Expenditure by local authorities has barely kept up with inflation while facility stock is ageing
A Report for Lewes District Council Page 4 LEWES DISTRICT OUTDOOR PLAYING SPACE REVEW 2: THE CURRENT PICTURE
2.8 New structures are being put into place to bridge the gaps identified between national and local sports. These include School Sports Partnerships, County Sports Partnerships, Regional Sports Boards, Higher Education Talented Athletes Scholarship Scheme Consortia and the English Institute of Sport.
2.9 The Framework sets priorities for action to be developed through Sport England or with partners at a more local level. By 2020 the Framework’s objective is to achieve at least 50% of the population playing sport, increasing the number of people taking part in sport three times a week for 30 minutes of moderate intensity and reducing the inequality in participation amongst priority groups.
Playing pitch provision in England
A lack of reliable data
2.10 There are no reliable national estimates of the total recreational land resource, nor the playing pitch component within it, although various local studies show a wide variation in levels of provision. Through merging the data extracted from the Register of Recreational Land (Sports Council), the Playing Pitch Strategy (1991)1 suggests that:
• there are approximately 70,000 pitches in England • 50,000 of the pitches are adult / secondary school size • 20,000 are primary school size • they occupy about 90,000 hectares (220,000 acres) of land, or 28% of total open space provision.
2.11 There is, however, wide variation by locality, sport and ownership. Through collating previous local pitch strategies, the average population per pitch was 989, although this varied from 2,900 in the London Borough of Southwark to 700 in the London Borough of Bromley.
2.12 The Playing Pitch Strategy states that football accounts for about half of all adult size provision and cricket a quarter, with rugby and hockey sharing the balance. This reflects the relative popularity of these four sports.
2.13 With regards to ownership of pitches, around 40% of adult size pitches are in local authority control (leisure services and town/parish council), 30% in education authority control and 30% in private / voluntary sport clubs control. The Register of Recreational Land was undertaken in the early 1990s, however, the data collected has not been updated, and therefore it is an increasingly unreliable source. Despite this, the statistics tend to reflect the most recent pitch audit – the Register of English Football Facilities (REFF), which was commissioned by the Football Foundation and the Football Association in 2001 and completed in February 2002. The information collected went ‘live’ on the REFF website (www.reff.org.uk) in November 2002. Research for REFF revealed that there are 35,044 grass football pitches in England (21,640 adult, 8,418 junior, 4,986 mini).
1 Published by the Sports Council, the NPFA and the CCPR.
A Report for Lewes District Council Page 5 LEWES DISTRICT OUTDOOR PLAYING SPACE REVEW 2: THE CURRENT PICTURE
A lack of monitoring
2.14 With the exception of REFF, there are at present no reliable data sources concerning the numbers of pitches in England. Coupled with this is the fact that there is no national system for monitoring change.
2.15 The exact number of pitches being lost to development or neglect is unknown and remains a contentious issue. The Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) has established a Playing Fields Monitoring Group, tasked with publishing definitive data on this subject.
2.16 By virtue of statutory instrument made in 1996, Sport England is a statutory consultee on Formatted: Bullets and proposals for development, which affect playing fields, land used as playing fields at any Numbering time in the last five years which remains undeveloped, or land, which is identified for use as a playing field in a development plan. All applications that local planning authorities are minded to approve, but have attracted an objection from Sport England, will be referred to the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM) for consideration.
2.17 As such, Sport England must be notified by the local planning authority when a relevant Formatted: Bullets and planning application is received. Data stored by Sport England on statutory consultations Numbering since 1999 reveals the increasing pressure that is being placed upon pitches throughout the country (Table 2.1 below).
Table 2.1 Statutory consultations with Sport England
Region Number of consultations received % difference +/ 1999-2000 2000-2001
South East 144 198 38% West Midlands 107 174 63% North West 95 132 39% Yorkshire 102 99 -3% East 38 93 145% East Midlands 32 75 134% South West 56 43 -23% London 32 37 16% North 40 36 -10% England 646 887 37%
2.18 As shown in Table 2.1, Sport England was consulted on 37% more planning applications in 2001 than the previous year. The loss of playing pitches remains a real political issue for the government. Sport England, the NPFA and the CCPR have demonstrated their commitment to enhancing playing pitch provision by commissioning a review and updating of the 1991 Playing Pitch Strategy. The new document ‘Towards a level playing field: A manual for the production of a playing pitch strategy’ has been produced by PMP and is now available to download from the Sport England Website.
A Report for Lewes District Council Page 6 LEWES DISTRICT OUTDOOR PLAYING SPACE REVEW 2: THE CURRENT PICTURE
Participation trends in key sports
2.19 Key national statistics, trends, issues and implications for future demand for playing pitches are outlined in Table 2.2.
Table 2.2 National trends in selected sports
Key facts Key trends Implication for sports provision Out of school, football Participation in football Specialist mini and junior remains as one of the is high due to popularity pitches required top three sports played of mini/junior soccer regularly. The growth experienced between 1994 (37%) and 1999 (43%) has declined back to 37% in 20021 .
A large growth in More mid-week Players defecting to five-a informal five-a-side fixtures, more non- side, therefore additional football, 35% of players grass pitches synthetic turf and indoor who play 11 a-side also space may be required play 5 aside3
The average club consist Large number of clubs Investment required by local of 3.8 teams, 53% of rely of external authorities to maintain clubs play on local provision for their quality and number of authority pitches and playing facilities pitches 25% on local education authority pitches. 25 %
Football Football of clubs have bar or club facilities3
Decline in Sunday Less men playing the More specialist small-sided morning men’s football8 11-a-side game pitches required. Quality of 11-a-side provision needs to be enhance to sustain participation
Girls teams affiliated to Increase in women and Increased access required the FA has doubled in girls playing football to pitches, training facilities the year since 2002. and social provision The overall number of female players has increased by 38% to around 85,000 played in affiliated competitions10
A Report for Lewes District Council Page 7 LEWES DISTRICT OUTDOOR PLAYING SPACE REVEW 2: THE CURRENT PICTURE
Key facts Key trends Implication for sports provision Kwik cricket – a game Increased participation More pitches used for Kwik devised for children is by young people cricket and new mobile played by 1.1 million pitches introduced in pupils in 90% of the schools country’s primary schools – 434,000 of these are girls4 Cricket Cricket The number of women’s Increased participation Improved access needed to clubs increased from by women quality training pitches and 4,200 in 1997 to 7,611 in improved ancillary facilities 20015 in smaller clubs is required
The number of active Decline in the men’s May require better quality clubs has decreased game is recognised but pitches with ancillary over the last two many initiatives are in facilities seasons from 1537 to place to increase 14806 opportunities and promote the sport
Women’s participation Increase in participation Improved clubhouse has increased by women facilities and increased significantly in recent access to pitches years - from approximately 2,000 players in 1988, to 8,000 by 19987
Since 1994 participation Increase in children Need for family oriented in primary schools has trying rugby at younger facilities to encourage Rugby Union Union Rugby increased by 3% to 18% age primary aged children to while secondary participate out of school participation has time and then retain them decreased by 11% to through secondary years 28%6
50% of the population Profile of rugby RFU has published has been exposed to following the World Cup IMPACT strategy to build on rugby in the last year6 2003 success by successes and encourage England is high greater participation, need for quality facilities to support anticipated growth Hockey is the 8th most The emphasis placed Continuing requirement for popular sport played on promoting hockey STPs and improved frequently in school time. towards young people clubhouse facilities to meet The downward trend in to secure the future of league requirements and to popularity seen between the game is working encourage club/team 1994 (20%) and 1999 through the education formation. (17%) has been arrested sector. Hockey Hockey with 18% of children participating at least 10 times a year1/2
A Report for Lewes District Council Page 8 LEWES DISTRICT OUTDOOR PLAYING SPACE REVEW 2: THE CURRENT PICTURE
Key facts Key trends Implication for sports provision Athletics remain in the Growth in young Continuing requirement for top five sports with 38% people’s participation quality indoor and outdoor of children participating across all sectors of training facilities at least 10 times in a athletics. High media year compared to 33% in profile and probably 1994 and 35% in 19991/2 one of our most Athletics Athletics successful sports on the international stage.
Participation among Participation rates have Requirement to provide club households is 6.4% remained fairly static and community pay and which equates to around play facilities 3.5 million players of which 1.16 are dedicated or regular players playing at least 25 times a year. Since 1997 participation has oscillated within ±1% of 6%9
Tennis The overall downward Increase in young Requirement for increased trend evident between players participating in access to full court tennis 1994 and 1998 has been Mini Tennis where Mini Tennis arrested led by a programmes exist significant uplift in play by 4-11 year olds (up from 6-7% between 1998-20001 to 12% in 2002) 9
Data sources: 1. Young People and Sport, Sport England (2003) 2. Young People and Sport in England 1999) 3. Football Development Strategy 2001-06, Football Association 4. A Cricketing Future for All – the National Strategy for Cricket, England and Wales Cricket Board (2001) 5. Data provided by the England and Wales Cricket Board (unpublished) 6. RFU’s IMPACT strategy 2004 7. Running Rugby (June 1999) 8. Anecdotal evidence. 9. Tennis Participation and Attitude Survey 2002 (Lawn Tennis Association, unpublished) 10. FA audit 2003
2.20 Whilst the above provides a useful indication as to the changing nature of sports, it must be acknowledged that trends vary across the country.
A Report for Lewes District Council Page 9 LEWES DISTRICT OUTDOOR PLAYING SPACE REVEW 2: THE CURRENT PICTURE
Children’s Play
Planning for Play – a briefing for local authorities - Children’s Play Council 2004
2.21 The Children’s Play Council produces guidelines for local authorities on play provision. A consistent theme is the importance of having communities where there is “somewhere safe to go and something to do”.
2.22 Local authorities need to provide for children and young people’s play because
• good play provision benefits children, families and communities
• in consultations children and adults consistently say they want more provision for children and young people in their areas
• opportunities for children and young people to play freely are being constantly eroded
• providing for children’s play addresses many important policy objectives
2.23 To improve children’s and young peoples play opportunities local authorities can:
• consult widely, across departments and with their local communities
• build their planning into a strategic framework
• provide a strong infrastructure, supporting local providers with information and training
• ensure good provision is available to all, maintaining a good standard of provision, providing a range of dedicated outdoor play areas
• providing ongoing resources to support play space provision
Regional strategic documents
Mission Possible - The South East Plan for Sport 2004-2008
2.24 This recently published document echoes the Sport England Framework for Sport themes and provides direction for the new Regional Sports Board. Start, Stay and Succeed in sport and active recreation at every level gives a simple focus to the plan, which sets the strategic framework for sport and active recreation in the South East Region.
2.25 Seven identified outcomes drive the strategy. Sport England South East and the Regional Sports Board have committed to these outcomes and alongside them regional stakeholders are encouraging relevant organisations to assist with their implementation.
• Increasing Participation in Sport and Active Recreation – Sport England South East is looking for new ideas to kick-start and sustain a growth in participation. Innovative plans such as new multi-sport clubs and facilities will all be encouraged
• Improving Levels of Performance – through the evolving role of national and regional governing bodies of sport and an events strategy the bridge between participation and performance can be narrowed
A Report for Lewes District Council Page 10 LEWES DISTRICT OUTDOOR PLAYING SPACE REVEW 2: THE CURRENT PICTURE
• Widening Access – there are a number of significant sectors of the population who still find it difficult to participate in sport and the plan highlights these and identifies ways they can be encouraged. For example women and girls, the older population, black and minority ethnic populations, people on low incomes, people with disabilities, rural provision and deprivation and finally targeting people who choose not to take part
• Improving Health and Well-Being – promoting active lifestyles, addressing health inequalities, tackling obesity, ensuring children and young people are encouraged to participate and understanding the value of a healthy nation on the workplace all contribute to the targets for the plan
• Creating Stronger Safe Communities – sport and recreational activity can have a major role to play in reducing antisocial behaviour and crime. It also has a job to play in the growth of new communities and the regeneration of existing ones
• Improving Education – the challenge here is provide the link between the education sector and the community making sure there are opportunities for all to continue participating right through from primary to higher education and beyond
• Benefiting the Economy – sport has a major role to play in the economy both through the private and public sectors. Better links need to be made with development agencies and innovative ways of working with the commercial sector need to be found.
Countywide strategic documents
Sussex Sports Strategy (in preparation by Sussex Sport Board)
2.26 The Sussex Sports Board, formed to provide a unified voice for sport in Sussex and to provide a communication and advocacy structure to inform regional organisations, is currently drawing up its own strategy for sport in Sussex.
2.27 The general theme of the strategy will be the need to recognise that resources cannot be spread too thinly and that partnerships between sports providers will be essential for the wellbeing of sport in Sussex. There is a vision for the existence and development of clusters or hubs of sporting facilities and activities.
2.28 Lewes District will be recognised as a key player in the development of sporting activity and encouraged to take a lead role in bringing sporting factions together.
2.29 Lewes Town has strategically geographical importance; central to Sussex with good road links it provides opportunities for the development of a key sports hub.
2.30 Newhaven is another key location for targeting development and will be highlighted in the strategy document.
Sussex Local Football Partnership (LFP) Facility Strategy 2003-2006
2.31 This strategy examines the football facility requirements for Sussex LFP and the priority areas for development over the next five years. It is aligned with the FA’s National Game Strategy and Football Development Strategy.
2.32 The strategy aims to clearly define through a strategic approach the direction and objectives of facility investment within Sussex up to 2006:
A Report for Lewes District Council Page 11 LEWES DISTRICT OUTDOOR PLAYING SPACE REVEW 2: THE CURRENT PICTURE
2.33 Twelve strategic headlines emerged from the plan:
• support the development of FA Community Clubs • stop the decline of adult league football • encourage ownership of facilities by clubs • support the growth and development of small sided football • promote the game to minority groups • promote the women’s and girls game • address the under provision of mini soccer pitches • provide all weather surfaces with floodlights • promote community use of schools, colleges and university facilities • provide more disabled opportunities • improve coach education • promote equity and social inclusion. 2.34 The document sets priorities for facility development for the future based on a notional financial limitation of around £7.9 million. At the same time it notes that the list is not exhaustive and is subject to review and refinement. It highlights that some schemes may fail to develop while other schemes waiting in the wings may come forward and be judged on their own merits despite not being on the list of priorities.
2.35 Table 2.3 overleaf details schemes currently on the priority and reserve lists to be found in Lewes District:
A Report for Lewes District Council Page 12 LEWES DISTRICT OUTDOOR PLAYING SPACE REVEW 2: THE CURRENT PICTURE
Table 2.3 – Priority and Reserve Football Projects
Priority List Project Summary Total Project Cost
Peacehaven/Telscombe New club house changing room block £280,000
University of Sussex To lay a full size 3rd generation ATP to £400,000 replace worn and dangerous sand based surface
Malling Recreation Lay drainage on 3 pitches once flood £90,000 Ground defence work is completed
Reserve List Project Summary Total Project Cost
Lewes FC unknown £200,000
Newhaven FC To lay a full size ATP, renovate grass £500,000 and club house
Convent Fields, Lewes Drain 2 pitches and build 3rd generation £400,000 floodlit ATP
Fort Road Recreation Lay 5 new pitches £70,000 Ground, Newhaven
Crouch Gardens Improve existing floodlighting £400,000
Sussex Active Sports
2.36 Active Sussex is coordinated by the Sussex Sports Partnership to deliver Sport England’s seven-year national development programme ‘Active Sports’. Active Sussex targets ten sports which includes girl’s football, hockey, rugby union, cricket and tennis.
2.37 The aim is for 10 –16 year olds getting more from their involvement in sport and encourages participation at quality local clubs.
A Report for Lewes District Council Page 13 LEWES DISTRICT OUTDOOR PLAYING SPACE REVEW 2: THE CURRENT PICTURE
Strategic documents for Lewes District
Quality for Life in the Lewes District – Cultural Strategy 2003-2008
2.38 The Cultural Strategy for Lewes District outline the ways by which the quality of life in Lewes District can by promoted by the Council, whether acting in its own right or in partnership with other bodies.
2.39 The key themes which underpin the vision are:
• health in mind and body
• cultural activities helping the economy
• regeneration.
2.40 The specific aims identified within the action plan that are relevant to outdoor playing space provision in Lewes District are to:
• reduce the spatial and qualitative inadequacies of public playing field provision in areas of identified serious deficiency
• provide for informal recreation and children’s play.
2.41 The strategy identifies specific sites for focus and includes:
• Fort Road Recreation Ground, Newhaven
• new provision in Peacehaven
• reclamation of derelict land in Lewes Road Recreation Ground, Newhaven
• Avis Road, Newhaven
• Malling Recreation Ground, Lewes
• Newhaven Youth Sports Park.
Young People of Newhaven – aged 9 to 25 years - July 2001
2.42 The concept of the youth strategy was created in 2001 arising from the Newhaven Community Development Association Youth Forum. The first strategy was launched in July 2001 and June 2003 saw the fourth rewrite and a summary of achievements to date.
2.43 Newhaven’s position is one of relative deprivation in its position within the district, county and region. Meeching Ward is the most deprived in Lewes District and 12th in the county on the Index of Multiple Deprivation.
2.44 Recommendations from the strategy cover a wide range of areas. To date, phase one of the skate park has been completed, a new multiuse games area finished and the plans for facility development at Fort Road Recreation Ground developed. A key factor in the development of Newhaven is the partnership with sports clubs.
A Report for Lewes District Council Page 14 LEWES DISTRICT OUTDOOR PLAYING SPACE REVEW 2: THE CURRENT PICTURE
2.45 In addition green spaces have been identified for better integration into the youth framework. These include Valley Road playground, Lewes Road playground, Eastside Recreation Ground, The Union Green space, Denton Corner and Denton Playing Field.
Parish Action Plans
2.46 Action in Rural Sussex, formally known as Sussex Rural Community Council, has been encouraging rural parishes to complete parish action plans. Covering a wide range of topics, parish action plans identify specific needs of parishes and directions for future investment.
2.47 To date, Ringmer has completed its parish plan and identifies the need for tennis courts on land east of Ringmer Community College. Ditchling, East Chiltington, Hamsey and Newick are nearing completion while Barcombe, Wivelsfield and Kingston are in the early stages of development.
Local Plan 2002
2.48 Chapter 5 of the Lewes District Local Plan covers provision of outdoor playing space.
2.49 The Council sets district wide policies, which deal with a number of areas affecting outdoor playing space. They have five main aims:
• to provide for recreation, leisure and community services which are compatible with the environment
• to ensure that land and facilities for recreation and community service uses are safeguarded where there is a demonstrable need for them
• to provide sufficient sports and recreational facilities to enable full participation by local communities
• to ensure that new facilities are provided in appropriate, accessible and safe locations
• to identify the requirements for land and premises for community services.
2.50 Table 2.4 identifies two of the policies, which have greatest impact on the Council’s provision of outdoor play space.
Table 2.4 – Local Plan policies impacting on outdoor play space
RE1 – Provision of Sport, Recreation and Play
The Council will seek (through positive planning and provision, and through the control of development) to achieve provision of outdoor public and private playing space, which are as a matter of practise and policy available for public use, to at least the following minimum standards:
1.7 ha per 1000 population for outdoor sports, including pitches, courts and greens, and
0.7 has per 1000 population for children’s play, or which about 0.2-0.3 ha will comprise equipped areas and 0.4-0.5 ha will be of a more casual or informal nature.
A Report for Lewes District Council Page 15 LEWES DISTRICT OUTDOOR PLAYING SPACE REVEW 2: THE CURRENT PICTURE
RE2 – Existing Recreational Open Space
Planning permission will not be granted for development proposals which would result in the loss of existing outdoor playing space, or other space with recreational or amenity values regardless of their current or past availability to the public, unless it can be demonstrated that:
(a) sports and recreational facilities can be best retained and enhanced through the redevelopment of a small part of the site, or (b) alternative provision of at least equivalent community benefit is made available.
A Report for Lewes District Council Page 16 LEWES DISTRICT OUTDOOR PLAYING SPACE REVEW 2: THE CURRENT PICTURE
Demographic analysis
2.51 In analysing the need and demand for any playing space it is important to assess the size and composition of the local leisure markets and the impact they will have upon facility usage. An analysis of the population is shown in Table 2.5 below
Table 2.5 Demographic analysis of Lewes District
Population The resident population for Lewes District is 92,177.
The proportion of males to females is 48% to 52%.
76% of the population is found in Lewes and the coastal towns of Seaford, Newhaven, Peacehaven and Telscombe.
The remaining population is spread across 24 parishes with almost half of these having 300 or less residents.
Age 19% of the resident population is under 16, 59% is 16 to 65 and 22% structure is 65 and over.
This compares with national England and Wales figures of 20%, 64% and 16% respectively.
The mean age of residents is 42.9, higher than the national average of 38.7.
Ethnic The ethnic structure of the population is predominantly white – 98% background compared to 91% in England and Wales as a whole.
Economic The proportion of residents in full time employment is 62% compared Activity to 61% in England and Wales.
2.3% of the local population is unemployed compared to 3.4% in England and Wales.
18% of the population is retired compared to 14% of the population of England and Wales.
This means the proportion of retired and employed people is above average for England and Wales
Mobility Lewes District is ranked 201st (out of 376 local authority areas) in terms of proportion of households with no cars. 46% of households have 1 car or van and 32% of households have 2 or more cars.
This means that car ownership levels are above average for England and Wales.
Source 2001 Census
A Report for Lewes District Council Page 17 LEWES DISTRICT OUTDOOR PLAYING SPACE REVEW 2: THE CURRENT PICTURE
2.52 The relevance of the above demographic characteristics on a district basis is explored in Table 2.6 below.
Table 2.6 Demographic summary based on district wide statistics
Demographic Indicator Relevance to the district’s outdoor playing space
Population of 92,177 (2001 Relatively large potential user base. census) Higher proportion of people Facility and activity provision needs to cater for a wide aged 45+ and lower range of ages including those aged above 45 who typically proportion of young people have low participation rates in sport. 16-44 Above average level of car The level of car ownership is above the national average. ownership However, public transport is vital for the 21% of households without access to a car, to enable them to access outdoor playing space. Low level of unemployment Increased levels of disposable income.
2.53 Newhaven Valley, Newhaven Meeching, Peacehaven East and Peacehaven West are wards that sit in the top 25% most deprived wards in England and Wales based on the Index of Multiple Deprivation.
2.54 Table 2.7 below identifies further demographic breakdown by partnership area
Table 2.7 Demographic breakdown by Partnership area 65+ 0-15 16-65 with no car no car with unemployed % population % % population % population % population % % households % Lewes Sub-Area 19.7 62.2 18.1 2.6 29.1 Newhaven Sub-Area 22.2 61.3 16.5 2.9 26.7 Peacehaven/Telscombe 18.7 58.5 23.4 2.6 20.8 Seaford Sub-Area 16.4 52.3 31.3 2.0 21.8 Rural Sub Area 19.6 61.4 19.0 1.7 11.9 District 19 59 22 2.3 22 Source 2001 Census
2.55 Table 2.7 shows Seaford has an ageing population compared to the other partnership areas while Newhaven has a young population with 22.2% of the population under 16.
2.56 Unemployment is at its lowest in the rural part of Lewes District where car ownership is at its highest.
2.57 Further investigation at ward level shows there is wide variation across the district between wards, for example car ownership in the towns is lower than the rural parts of the district. In Seaford Central ward 32% of households do not have access to a car and in Plumpton, East Chiltington and St John Without ward 7.6% of households do not own a car.
A Report for Lewes District Council Page 18 LEWES DISTRICT OUTDOOR PLAYING SPACE REVEW 2: THE CURRENT PICTURE
2.58 Unemployment in Peacehaven West (3.0%) and Newhaven Valley (3.3%) is higher than the district average but below the national average.
2.59 Local variations in population demographics will need to be taken into account when looking at outdoor playing space requirements.
Population Growth
2.60 No population projection data was available from East Sussex County Council. As a result the population projections have been calculated based on residential properties completed from 2001-2003, outstanding planning permissions not yet completed and identified sites from the Local Plan. A future year of 2006 was agreed with officers for the purposes of this strategy.
2.61 An average number of residents per property in each parish was calculated using 2001 census data and this factor used in projecting the number of new residents anticipated by 2006.
2.62 Appendix F breaks down these calculations by parish. This shows a 5.5% population growth by 2006.
2.63 This demographic information will be fed into the supply and demand analysis in Section 5.
A Report for Lewes District Council Page 19 SECTION 3
METHODOLOGY FOR ASSESSING SUPPLY AND DEMAND LEWES DISTRICT OUTDOOR PLAYING SPACE REVEW 3: THE METHODOLOGY
Methodology for assessing supply and demand
Previous approaches to identifying need
3.1 The first attempt to establish a standard of provision for public open space and playing fields was made by the NPFA in 1925 and has been subsequently refined on a number of occasions. It is known as the ‘Six Acre Standard’.
3.2 The Six Acre Standard states that there should be a minimum of 2.4 hectares (or six acres) of ‘outdoor playing space’ (defined as playing pitches, greens, courts, parks, playgrounds, informal play space) per 1000 population. In the light of available evidence, within the broader standard of youth and adult use, the minimum standard for playing pitch provision (public, private and school facilities with community use) is recommended to be 1.2 hectares per 1000 population. The disaggregation of the Six Acre Standard was reaffirmed in 1991 and republished in 2001.
3.3 Additionally in terms of children’s playing space a minimum of 0.8 hectares should be allowed. This includes designated areas of equipped space as well as casual or informal playing space. The Six Acre Standard breaks this down further into Local Areas for Play (LAP), Local Equipped Area for Play (LEAP) and Neighbourhood Equipped Area for Play (NEAP).
3.4 As with other national ‘standards’, it has limitations that have been widely acknowledged. Most importantly, the simplicity of its approach means that local considerations are often overlooked (e.g. local league rules, the presence of synthetic turf pitches, pitch quality, pitch capacity, standard of changing provision etc). In addition, it is not related to the area’s demographic profile; it is not an estimate of likely demand, nor of the number of pitches required to serve an area. It is a broad statement of what the NPFA regards as the desirable area of land required for playing space. As stated in ‘Planning Policy Guidance (PPG)17: Planning for Open Space, Sport and Recreation’:
“The Government believes that open space standards are best set locally. National standards cannot cater for local circumstances, such as differing demographic profiles and the extent of existing built development in an area.”
The Playing Pitch Methodology (PPM)
3.5 The 1991 Playing Pitch Strategy moved away from a standards approach, instead examining the number and characteristics of teams demanding facilities and pitches available to meet that demand. Since the original methodology was produced, there have been changes and developments, particularly relating to trends in participation within the pitch sports, sports development initiatives and the general understanding, appreciation and perception of land in playing field use and its relation to other land uses.
3.6 Therefore, our process follows the methodology outlined in ‘Towards a level playing field: A manual for the production of a playing pitch strategy’ document launched in Spring 2003. This revised methodology was produced by PMP following widespread consultation on the 1991 methodology, in conjunction with a steering group comprising representatives from the Central Council of Physical Recreation, Local Government Association, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, Loughborough University and Sport England.
3.7 The aim of the PPM is to determine the number of pitches required for each activity based on demand in an actual or predicted set of circumstances. The essential difference between the methodology and previous approaches based on standards is that, instead of using
A Report for Lewes District Council Page 20 LEWES DISTRICT OUTDOOR PLAYING SPACE REVEW 3: THE METHODOLOGY
land area per head of population as the basic unit, it measures demand (at peak times) in terms of teams requiring pitches and then compares this with the pitches available, thus enabling a tangible measure of the adequacy of existing supply.
3.8 The particular advantage of this methodology is that it is related precisely to the local situation and the very task of collating and analysing the information highlights problems and issues from which policy options and solutions can be explored.
3.9 The revised methodology incorporates:
• a more holistic view of pitch provision as one element of open space
• the refinement of team generation rates
• the revised definition of a pitch
• the refined quantitative audits of pitches by the use of multiplication factors for: - availability / accessibility - quality (to include the importance of ancillary provision at pitch sites as well as pitches themselves) - carrying capacity.
3.10 In line with this revised methodology, this playing pitch strategy focuses exclusively on pitch provision for football, rugby union, hockey, and cricket. It also considers the role that synthetic turf pitches (STPs) can play in meeting the needs of residents of the area.
Methodology for other sports investigated
3.11 In addition, our brief also included a requirement to assess four further sports; tennis, athletics, stoolball and bowls. Research was carried out to determine whether national standards existed or whether national supply and demand research had been carried out.
3.12 UK Athletics published a Facility Strategy for the United Kingdom 2001-2006 in which it defines target areas by population size and drive times. For example every county should have an eight lane synthetic track with covered spectator viewing and floodlighting. Additionally there should be one six-lane track with floodlighting per 250,000 population living within a 30 minute drive time (45 minutes in rural areas).
3.13 The Lawn Tennis Association (LTA) publishes no specific targets in terms of court provision although ten years of tracking studies give some clear guidance of what an area could be expecting to provide. For example in the South East of England 7% of people claim to play tennis and 2% of the population claim to be regular or dedicated users playing once a fortnight or more often. These players will require floodlit year round access to courts. The LTA recommends 1 floodlit court per 100 people wishing to play tennis on a regular basis.
3.14 Currently bowls is presided over by a number of different governing bodies and they do not have clear guidance for facility provision. Comparisons with local districts taking into account demographic differences will give a picture of whether supply is adequate.
3.15 Stooball is a minority game played during the summer months and tends to be village based. It is played mainly in the South East of England; Kent, Sussex, Surrey and Hampshire. Again the national governing body sets no standards and assessment will be based on feedback from the clubs and parishes who in the main host fixtures on local recreation grounds.
A Report for Lewes District Council Page 21 LEWES DISTRICT OUTDOOR PLAYING SPACE REVEW 3: THE METHODOLOGY
Methodology – children’s play areas
3.16 The NPFA Six Acre Standard identifies 0.6-0.8 hectares per 1000 population for children’s play of which 0.2-0.3ha will comprise equipped areas and 0.4-0.5ha to be of a more casual/informal nature. This broad-brush approach does not take account of local needs as highlighted in PPG17.
3.17 Whilst evaluations will be made against these NPFA standards a local standard can also be set based on current provision and aspirations for future provision. Comparisons will be made with previous research carried out by PMP.
Our approach – sports facilities 3.18 The success of the methodology outlined above depends largely on obtaining as accurate a tally as possible of the number of teams and pitches/facilities within Lewes District. To achieve this, a full audit of facilities, users and providers within the district was conducted. Questionnaires (which can be found in Appendix B) were sent to:
• all known football, cricket, rugby, hockey, athletics, tennis, stoolball and bowls clubs based within the district boundaries (identified in governing body and county association handbooks, league handbooks, pitch booking records, websites, local press, telephone directories, or through local knowledge)
• all known schools and colleges within the district
• all parish/ town councils.
3.19 Table 3.1 overleaf summarises the response rates. It was of paramount importance that a 100% response rate was received from providers of playing pitches. For this reason, all non-responding schools and colleges were contacted by telephone or site visits were undertaken. However, a 100% response rate was not needed from clubs. This is because club information was sourced from league handbooks, local knowledge and interviews with league secretaries. The purpose of the club surveys was to cross check information and gather qualitative information (ie comments) from clubs. To increase response rates, a reminder letter was sent.
A Report for Lewes District Council Page 22 LEWES DISTRICT OUTDOOR PLAYING SPACE REVEW 3: THE METHODOLOGY
Table 3.1 Consultation audit response rates
Questionnaire Questionnai Successful % data s sent res returned Telephone received interviews/ Site visits Sport Clubs Association Football 42 17 0 40% Cricket 24 9 0 38% Rugby 5 3 0 60% Hockey 2 1 0 50% Athletics 1 1 1 100% Tennis 9 2 0 22% Bowls 10 7 0 70% Stoolball 10 2 0 20% Sports Club Total 103 42 1 41% Schools/ Colleges Primary 32 16 16 100% Secondary/ Colleges 6 4 2 100% Independent 3 2 1 100% Schools Total 41 22 19 100% Providers Parish Councils 23 21 1 96% Town Councils 5 5 0 100% Providers Total 28 26 1 96% TOTAL 172 90 (52%) 21 65% * Data regarding clubs that did not respond was obtained through Council Officers, SDOs, Governing Bodies and league secretaries. 3.20 At 52%, the overall questionnaire response rate was considerably higher than average (25% is considered a ‘good’ response) and this was supplemented with a number of additional telephone interviews and site visits.
3.21 The response rate from schools was very good with 54% of questionnaires returned, as was the response from clubs (41%) and parish / town councils (93%). To improve the overall response rates and ensure accurate data, telephone interviews were conducted with representatives of sports clubs, schools and parish/ town councils. Site visits were also carried out (further details in Section 4).
3.22 Where parish/town council failed to respond despite numerous telephone calls from all parties the District Council officers completed the form to the best of their local knowledge. Some parishes did not fully complete actual pitch details especially where ownership lay with the District Council. The District Council officers completed these sections.
3.23 An assessment of the data obtained from the above research and consultation is detailed in Section 4.
3.24 In addition discussions were held with individuals/organisations that closely linked with the work of the review. A full list of these can be found in Appendix C
A Report for Lewes District Council Page 23 LEWES DISTRICT OUTDOOR PLAYING SPACE REVEW 3: THE METHODOLOGY
Our approach – children’s play areas
3.25 Lewes District Council had already produced a topic paper as background information to the local plan. Parish and town councils were asked to update the information in this document. If new play areas were identified maps were requested so that the size of the areas could be calculated. This will update the topic paper. A view of the quality and quantity of play areas was established through the Parish/Town Council questionnaires and Area Partnerships forum meetings.
A Report for Lewes District Council Page 24 SECTION 4
SUPPLY AND DEMAND LEWES DISTRICT OUTDOOR PLAYING SPACE REVIEW 4: SUPPLY AND DEMAND
Supply and demand
4.1 This section outlines the current situation in Lewes District of playing pitch provision for, and demand from, football, cricket, rugby, hockey, athletics, tennis, bowls and stoolball clubs.
Supply: outdoor playing pitch provision in Lewes District
Pitch stock
4.2 Overall, the research methods outlined in Section 3 for football, cricket, rugby and hockey identified 131 playing pitches in Lewes District. This figure includes all known public, private, school and other pitches whether or not they are in secured public use. The full audit of pitches can be seen in Appendix D. They comprise:
• 43 adult football pitches
• 32 junior football pitches
• 5 mini soccer pitches
• 25 cricket pitches
• 9 adult rugby union pitches
• 11 junior rugby union pitches
• 3 grass hockey pitches
• 3 full sized synthetic turf pitches (STPs).
4.3 Of these pitches, 83 (63%) are full-size adult football, cricket, rugby and hockey pitches. This equates to circa one pitch for every 282 adults in the district. This ratio compares very favourably with both the estimated equivalent national figure of one pitch for every 989 adults (Source: The 1991 Playing Pitch Strategy), and the majority of other local authorities for which data is currently available (from PMP’s database) as shown in Table 4.1 overleaf.
A Report for Lewes District Council Page 25 LEWES DISTRICT OUTDOOR PLAYING SPACE REVIEW 4: SUPPLY AND DEMAND
Table 4.1 Ratio of adult pitches per 1000 adults
Local Authority Ratio (Pitches: adults)
Lewes 1: 282 Kennett 1: 365 Waverley 1: 388 South Somerset 1:608 Bath and North East Somerset 1: 574 Colchester 1:655 North Wilts 1: 804 Derwentside 1:815 Swindon 1:926 Rochdale 1:980 England 1: 989 St Helens 1: 1,050 Portsmouth 1: 1,100 Torbay 1: 1,313
4.4 The local ratio for specific sports in comparison within the estimated national averages is shown in Table 4.2 below. Again, a favourable comparison is evident in most sports with the exception of hockey.
Table 4.2 Ratio of adult pitches to adults, by sport
Sport Lewes District England1 (pitches : adults) (pitches : adults)
Football 1: 1,740 1: 1,840 Cricket 1: 2,992 1: 4,243 Rugby 1: 8,312 1: 8,968 Hockey 1: 9,351 1: 8,271 1 = data extracted from The Playing Pitch Strategy (1991)
Community pitches
4.5 In line with Towards a level playing field, our definition of ‘community pitches’ is those pitches with ‘secured community use’, recognising that this has a considerable bearing upon the value of facilities both individually and collectively to the community at large.
4.6 In practice this definition embraces:
• pitches which are in local authority management or other public ownership or management
• any facilities owned, used or maintained by clubs/private individuals which as a matter of policy or practice are available for use by large sections of the public through membership of a club or admission fee. In either case the ‘cost of use’ must be reasonable and affordable for the majority of the community
• pitches at education sites which are available for use by the public through formal community use arrangements
A Report for Lewes District Council Page 26 LEWES DISTRICT OUTDOOR PLAYING SPACE REVIEW 4: SUPPLY AND DEMAND
• any other institutional facilities which are available to the public as a result of formal dual/community agreements.
4.7 Furthermore, pitches at educational establishments are only considered to be secure if one or more of the following is applicable:
• there is a formal community use agreement in place
• there is a leasing management arrangement between the Council and the school requiring the pitch to be available to community teams
• a policy of community use minuted by the school, including the provision of a tariff of charges
• minutes of the board of school governors allowing use of pitches by community teams
• written commitment from the school and where it is the proved intention of the school to maintain access for community teams to its pitch(es) at peak times for the next two or more years.
4.8 There are a number of educational establishments in Lewes district, which currently allow community teams to use their pitches. When considered under the above criteria, some of these pitches, for example, at Plumpton Agricultural College and University of Sussex are considered unsecured pitches at the present time.
4.9 Of the 131 pitches identified, 83 (63%) are secured for the local community. As demonstrated in Table 4.3, 63% can be considered high compared to other local authority areas where research has been completed.
Table 4.3 Percentage of secured community pitches in other Local Authorities
Local Authority % of pitches secured for community use
South Somerset District Council 69% Waverley Borough 69% Worcestershire County 66% Lewes District 63% Maidstone Borough Council 61% Bath and North East Somerset District Council 60% Mid Devon District Council 57% Torbay Council 57% Swindon Borough Council 55% Derwentside District Council 47% Rochdale 45% Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead 33.2%
4.10 The 83 secured community pitches comprise:
• 27 adult football pitches
• 19 junior football pitches
A Report for Lewes District Council Page 27 LEWES DISTRICT OUTDOOR PLAYING SPACE REVIEW 4: SUPPLY AND DEMAND
• 1 mini-soccer pitch
• 20 cricket pitches
• 7 adult rugby union pitches
• 7 junior rugby pitches
• 2 synthetic turf pitches.
4.11 The full breakdown of the ownership of these pitches is set out in Appendix D. Two college/university sites are currently used by community teams on an ad hoc or informal basis and are therefore ‘unsecured’ – this issue will be returned to in Section 7.
4.12 In addition, many schools within the district stated that their pitches could be used for community use, irrespective of whether community teams currently use them. This issue will be returned to in Section 7.
Area of pitches
4.13 Although the surveyed sports club secretaries were asked to state the exact size of the playing fields, the majority did not respond, guessed or simply did not know. Therefore standard sizes and areas for playing pitches published in The Six Acre Standard (NPFA, 2001) have been applied. It has been assumed that pitches throughout Lewes District are consistent with these standard measurements.
4.14 These sizes include the pitch itself, safety margins and side movement allowance. They do not include areas of open space used for other sports and recreational purposes (ie courts, greens, golf courses, picnic areas, heathland, woodland etc) or ancillary facilities (eg changing accommodation, car-parks etc). Total estimated area of pitches by sport in Lewes District is shown in Table 4.4 below.
Table 4.4 Total area of pitches by sport in Lewes District in 2004
NPFA pitch Areas Number of Area of areas assumed for pitches in pitches (hectares) this report Lewes District (hectares) (hectares)
Adult football 0.82-0.9 0.86 43 36.98 Junior football1 0.4-0.6 0.5 32 16.00 Mini football 0.22 0.22 5 1.10 Cricket 1.4-1.6 1.5 25 37.50 Adult rugby 1.26 1.26 9 11.34 Junior rugby 0.8 0.8 11 8.80 Hockey 0.6 0.6 6 3.60 Total 131 115.32
4.15 Table 4.5 below shows the total area of the district with playing pitches secured for community use. As can be seen, by comparing Tables 4.4 and 4.5, 63% of playing pitch area in Lewes District is secured for community use.
1 The dimensions for junior football pitches follow guidance from the NPFA and the English Schools Football Association. The Football Association only provides guidance for adult football. A Report for Lewes District Council Page 28 LEWES DISTRICT OUTDOOR PLAYING SPACE REVIEW 4: SUPPLY AND DEMAND
Table 4.5 Total area of secured community pitches by sport in Lewes District in 2004
NPFA pitch Areas Number of Area of areas assumed for pitches in pitches (hectares) this report Lewes District (hectares) (hectares)
Senior football 0.82-0.9 0.86 27 23.22 Junior football1 0.4-0.6 0.5 19 9.50 Mini football 0.22 0.22 1 0.22 Cricket 1.4-1.6 1.5 20 30.00 Adult rugby 1.26 1.26 7 8.82 Junior rugby 0.8 0.8 7 5.60 Hockey 0.6 0.6 2 1.20 Total 83 78.56
Location of pitches
4.16 As discussed in Section One, the location of the existing pitches in the district has been examined by sub-area. Table 4.6 illustrates the total area of playing pitches and those available for community use by catchment.
Table 4.6 Total area of pitches by sub-area in 2004
Partnership Total playing Total playing pitches % of pitches with Area pitches (ha.) with community use community use (ha.)
Lewes Town 24.80 20.48 82.6% Newhaven 9.18 5.22 56.9% Peacehaven/ Telscombe 7.30 5.44 74.5% Seaford Town 17.58 8.70 49.5% Rural Area 65.76 38.72 58.9% Total 124.62 78.56 63.0%
4.17 As can be seen in Table 4.6 above, the proportion of playing fields available to the community is relatively high. The highest proportion of community use pitches is found in Lewes Town, where almost 83% of pitches are secured, compared to 49.5% in the Seaford area.
4.18 Of the 25 parish groupings used for this study, 20 contain at least one playing pitch with the exception of Beddingham & Tarring Neville, Iford, Piddinghoe, Streat and Westmeston. These parishes do not have any playing pitch facilities available for either community or non-community use.
A Report for Lewes District Council Page 29 LEWES DISTRICT OUTDOOR PLAYING SPACE REVIEW 4: SUPPLY AND DEMAND
Ownership 4.19 Tables 4.7 and 4.8 summarise the ownership of playing pitches in Lewes District.
Table 4.7 Ownership of all playing pitches in Lewes District
Ownership Adult football Adult football Junior soccer Mini Cricket Rugby Adult Rugby Junior hockey Grass STP TOTAL Public provision (LA) 24 12 0 16 7 6 0 1 66 LEA provision 13 14 4 5 1 5 2 0 44 Other educational provision 5 2 0 2 1 0 1 1 12 Voluntary sector provision 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Private/ corporate provision 1 4 1 2 0 0 0 1 9 TOTAL 43 32 5 25 9 11 3 3 131
Table 4.8 Ownership of playing pitches with community use in Lewes District
Ownership Adult football Adult football Junior soccer Mini Cricket Rugby Adult Rugby Junior hockey Grass STP TOTAL Public provision (LA) 24 12 0 16 7 6 0 1 66 LEA provision 2 3 0 2 0 1 0 0 8 Other educational provision 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Voluntary sector provision 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Private/ corporate provision 1 4 1 2 0 0 0 1 9 TOTAL 27 19 1 20 7 7 0 2 83
4.20 The key points arising from Tables 4.7 and 4.8 above regarding the ownership of pitches are:
• the largest providers of playing pitches are district/town/parish councils, which together own 66 playing pitches across the district, all of which are formally secured for public use
• the next largest provider of pitches is the LEA which provides 44 pitches. Some of these pitches are leased to clubs
• none of the 12 pitches at independent schools / colleges / universities are secured for use by the community.
A Report for Lewes District Council Page 30 LEWES DISTRICT OUTDOOR PLAYING SPACE REVIEW 4: SUPPLY AND DEMAND
Supply of Athletics Provision
4.21 Lewes District has one six lane floodlit athletics track in Lewes based at Priory School. In other parts of Sussex there are a further five tracks; Withdean, Eastbourne, Horsham, Crawley and Worthing.
Supply of Bowls Provision
4.22 There are eight bowls greens in the district all with members clubs operating from the facilities. Table 4.9 identifies their locations. Table 4.10 identifies the ratio of bowls greens in Lewes compared with other district/boroughs in Sussex and Table 4.11 overleaf identifies bowls greens by sub area.
Table 4.9 Bowls Clubs in Lewes District
Partnership Area Location Ownership
Lewes Town Mountfield Road public Newhaven Recreation Ground public Peacehaven/ Piddinghoe Avenue private Telscombe Crouch Gardens public Seaford Town Chichester Road private Barcombe private Rural Area Newick private Ringmer private
Table 4.10 Ratio of bowls clubs in Lewes compared with other districts/boroughs in Sussex
Local Authority Ratio (Greens:population)
Rother 1: 7766 Worthing 1: 9754 Eastbourne 1:11,208 Lewes 1: 11,522 Chichester 1:11,827 Wealden 1: 12,729 Mid Sussex 1:12,738 Sussex 1:13,337 Horsham 1:13,564 Arun 1:14,079 Adur 1:14,906 Brighton and Hove 1:17,701 Crawley 1: 24,938 Hastings 1: 28,343
A Report for Lewes District Council Page 31 LEWES DISTRICT OUTDOOR PLAYING SPACE REVIEW 4: SUPPLY AND DEMAND
Table 4.11 Ratio of bowls club supply by Partnership Area
Partnership Area Population 2001 Ratio of greens
Lewes 15988 1:15,988 Newhaven 11171 1:11,171 Peacehaven/Telscombe 20350 1:20,350 Seaford 22826 1:11,413 Rural 21842 1:7281 Total 92177 1:11,522
4.23 From the above tables it can be seen that the provision of bowls greens across the district compares favourably with other districts in Sussex.
4.24 Bowls is generally perceived to be played by the older generations and the supply of bowls greens is reflected in the age profiles of the various districts. For example the average age of Rother residents is 46.3, significantly higher than Lewes at 42.9. At the other end of the scale Hastings residents have an average age of 39.6, and hence a lower ratio of greens to population.
4.25 Bowls greens are found across the district with all partnership areas having at least one green. The higher ratio in the Rural Partnership area reflects transport difficulties and the need for local provision in three of the larger villages.
4.26 The high Peacehaven/Telscombe ratio is tempered by the provision of bowls greens across the district border in Saltdean and Rottingdean.
Supply of Tennis Provision
4.27 Table 4.12 overleaf shows the breakdown of tennis facilities across Lewes District with secured community use either as pay and play venues or members’ clubs. This shows a total of 42 courts, excluding grass courts, of which 13 have year round floodlit use.
A Report for Lewes District Council Page 32 LEWES DISTRICT OUTDOOR PLAYING SPACE REVIEW 4: SUPPLY AND DEMAND
4.12 Tennis facilities across Lewes District with secured community use
Partnership Tennis Venue Courts Floodlit Area
Lewes Town Southdown Club 3 artificial grass 3 floodlit 7 macadam 2 floodlit 6 grass Convent Field 2 macadam 2 grass Newhaven Newhaven Tennis 3 macadam Club Peacehaven/ Peacehaven Sports 4 macadam Telscombe Park (Summer only) Seaford Seaford and 4 artificial grass 4 floodlit Blatchington Club 2 macadam 3 grass Salts Recreation 5 macadam Ground Rural Barcombe - club 3 macadam Ditchling - club 1 macadam Firle 1 macadam Kingston - club 2 macadam Newick - club 3 macadam 2 floodlit Piddinghoe - club 1 macadam Plumpton - club 3 macadam 2 floodlit Total 40 with year 13 round use
4.28 Sussex University, Falmer with six courts is the only other tennis site in the district with year round provision. These courts are not secured for community use.
4.29 The majority of venues are voluntary members’ clubs on private or parish/town council land. Although these clubs play a significant role in the provision of quality tennis facilities with open access to anyone who wishes to play they will not allow casual pay and play at all times.
4.30 There are only two venues, Salts Recreation Ground and Convent Field, which are only pay and play venues, neither of these are floodlit.
Supply of Stoolball Provision
4.31 There are 10 stoolball clubs across the district, nine adult and one junior. 100% of clubs are found in the rural area of the district and all make use of local recreation grounds for matches.
A Report for Lewes District Council Page 33 LEWES DISTRICT OUTDOOR PLAYING SPACE REVIEW 4: SUPPLY AND DEMAND
Quality of pitch and ancillary facilities User feedback 4.32 As stated in Towards a level playing field, pitch quality is a key issue. Perceived quality of pitches (and ancillary facilities) is almost as important as actual quality as it can heavily influence the pattern of play.
4.33 All sports clubs playing on pitches in the district were asked about their perceptions of pitch quality by postal questionnaire. The number of clubs who rated a certain pitch characteristic as ‘poor’ is indicated below in Table 4.13. Whilst there was a low response rate, the figures do provide an indication of clubs responses.
Table 4.13 Number of clubs dissatisfied with current facilities
Football Cricket Rugby Hockey TOTAL
Evenness of pitch 5 3 0 1 9 Drainage 2 0 0 0 2 Bounce of ball on pitch 3 2 0 0 5 Free from litter/ dog 10 1 2 0 13 fouling Changing facilities 5 1 0 0 6 Disabled access to 0 0 0 0 0 changing facilities/ pitch Length of grass 4 1 0 0 5 Grass cover 3 1 0 0 4 Parking 3 2 0 0 5 Overall quality of pitch 5 1 0 0 6 Firmness of surface 3 1 1 1 6 Showers 3 2 0 1 6 Value for money 6 1 1 1 9 Posts and sockets 2 0 0 0 2 Line markings 1 1 0 0 2 Availability of pitch for 0 0 0 0 0 playing season Grip underfoot 5 1 1 0 7
4.34 Key points arising from Table 4.13 are:
• the vast majority of clubs are satisfied with their matchday facilities
• the presence of litter and dog fouling (particularly in the case of football clubs) received the most negative responses, followed by evenness of the pitch and value for money
• a main concern for football clubs was poor drainage, causing waterlogged pitches, which results in cancellation of matches in wet weather. The presence of stones and flints was another area of concern for football clubs playing at Telscombe Playing Fields
A Report for Lewes District Council Page 34 LEWES DISTRICT OUTDOOR PLAYING SPACE REVIEW 4: SUPPLY AND DEMAND
• overall, six of the responding clubs rated the overall quality of the pitch as ‘poor’. These clubs were Village of Ditchling FC (who use Lewes Road Recreation Ground in Ditchling), Wivelsfield Green FC (who use Wivelsfield Green Recreation Ground), Jolly Boatman FC and Peacehaven Academicals FC (who both use Telscombe Playing Fields), Lewes Bridgeview Junior FC (who use Malling Playing Fields), Lewes Priory CC (who use the Stanley Turner Ground) and Newhaven CC (who use Fort Road Recreation Ground).
4.35 Clubs were asked to comment on the best and worst pitches they had experienced over the course of the season. A small number of pitches were complimented regarding quality and standard of maintenance, these were Walmer Road and Convent Field. However, pitches within Lewes District which were frequently criticised in questionnaire responses included:
• Malling Road Recreation Ground
• Stanley Turner Recreation Ground
• Telscombe Playing Fields.
4.36 Lewes Sunday Football League also cited Fort Road and East Side, both in Newhaven, as poor pitches with drainage problems on the former and safety issues on the latter.
4.37 The Athletics Club were more than happy with their current facilities, which they felt to be of a good standard.
4.38 Seven of the bowls clubs returned user questionnaires. Most were satisfied with their current facilities although three clubs identified the need for work to the playing greens. These were Peacehaven and Telscombe, Barcombe (installation of an automatic watering system and Lewes (re-lay the green). Two further clubs were looking to refurbish facilities in the future but did not identify their exact plans.
Site Visits 4.39 In addition to the above, the quality of pitches in Lewes District was ascertained through site visits, which were undertaken in May 2004. An assessment matrix was used to assess the overall site, the quality of each pitch and the ancillary facilities on site. This assessment matrix used can be found in Appendix E.
4.40 A sample of 20 sites throughout the district was undertaken; this comprised a total of 35 pitches. This sample included a selection of schools and voluntary club provision as well as Council owned sites. Pitches in each of the five sub-areas were included within the site visit sample.
4.41 The key issues emerging from site visits are highlighted below:
• overall, the quality of pitches varies between sites and occasionally between pitches on a single site
• local authority pitches appear to be well maintained with cut grass, however 22 of the pitches were considered to either have poor line markings or no line markings at all
A Report for Lewes District Council Page 35 LEWES DISTRICT OUTDOOR PLAYING SPACE REVIEW 4: SUPPLY AND DEMAND
• the quality of changing facilities varies across the district. There are a number of sites with adequate changing facilities, for example at Walmer Road Recreation Ground, Telscombe Playing Fields, King George V Field (Newick), East Side Recreation Ground and The Salts Recreation Ground. There are also a number of sites with excellent changing facilities such as Wivelsfield Green Recreation Ground, South Malling Recreation Ground, Ditchling Recreation Ground, Peacehaven Sports Park, Meridian Leisure Centre and Priory School
• presence of glass / stones / litter appears to be the main quality issue particularly at Priory School
• there was evidence of unofficial pitch use and/or damage to the pitch surface at a number of sites, particularly Telscombe Playing Fields, King George V Field (Newick) and The Salts Recreation Ground
• excellent parking facilities were found at a number of sites. Poor parking facilities were highlighted as an issue at Crouch Gardens
• 37% of pitches were classified as a ‘good’ pitch (ie scored 64-90% within the quality matrix), 34% were classified as an ‘average’ pitch (scored 55-64%), 29% of pitches were classified as ‘below average’. No pitches were classified as either ‘poor’ (ie scored below 30%) or ‘excellent’ (ie scored above 90%).
A Report for Lewes District Council Page 36 LEWES DISTRICT OUTDOOR PLAYING SPACE REVIEW 4: SUPPLY AND DEMAND
Demand: sports clubs in Lewes District
Pitch Sports
4.42 Table 4.14 illustrates the number of football, cricket, hockey and rugby union teams playing on pitches in Lewes district. These include adult, junior and mini teams. Key facts and figures for each sport are summarised after the table.
Table 4.14 Sports clubs using playing pitches in Lewes District
Football Cricket Rugby Hockey TOTAL Union
Total number of 33 20 5 2 60 clubs Total number of 111 72 15 20 218 teams Number of adult 48 46 9 19 122 teams Number of junior 63 26 6 1 96 teams
4.43 Towards A Level Playing Field assumes that clubs are based in the parish where they play their home matches and does not take into consideration where players live. A summary of the spread of teams in Lewes district can be found in Table 4.15 below.
Table 4.15 The Spread of Teams across Lewes District
Teams by Partnership Area Adult Junior Adult Cricket Junior Cricket Adult Rugby Junior Rugby Adult Hockey Junior Hockey Total Football Football Lewes 15 13 9 7 4 6 15 1 70 Newhaven 4 6 5 5 0 0 0 0 20 Peacehaven/ 5 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 Teslcombe 9 Seaford 6 20 2 3 1 0 4 0 36 Rural 18 20 30 11 4 0 0 0 82 TOTAL 48 63 46 26 9 6 19 1 218
4.44 As Table 4.15 illustrates, 38% of the teams in the district are based within the rural sub areas. Only 4% of teams play their home matches within Peacehaven and Telscombe.
4.45 Lewes town has the best spread of sports with every category represented. Peacehaven and Telscombe only has football teams.
A Report for Lewes District Council Page 37 LEWES DISTRICT OUTDOOR PLAYING SPACE REVIEW 4: SUPPLY AND DEMAND
Football Clubs in Lewes District – an overview
4.46 Of the 42 surveys sent out to football clubs, 17 were returned. This represents a response rate of 40%. The following is a summary of key findings gathered from questionnaires, conversations with league secretaries, club secretaries and sports development officers.
Membership 15 of the 33 clubs in Lewes district run more than one team. However, the majority of adult clubs are small with only one or two teams. Clubs with junior sections are larger, the largest being Seaford FC with 23 teams.
Membership ranges from approximately 350 (Seaford FC) to just 23 (Elephant and Castle FC).
Whilst the majority of clubs are for male members, Seahaven Harriers is an all female club. Seaford FC, Chailey Colts, Lewes FC, Deighton and South Heighton FC all run female adult and junior teams.
29% of football clubs responding to the survey have experienced growth in their membership over recent years, and only 17% of clubs felt that their membership numbers were declining.
Standard of play The standard of play varies throughout the district, however no teams play in the Nationwide Conference or above. The majority of teams play in the various divisions of the Sussex County Football League, the Mid Sussex Football League and the Lewes and District Sunday Football League.
The majority of junior teams play in the Sussex Sunday Youth Football League and the Crowborough and District Junior Football League.
Facilities used A large proportion of football teams hire pitches from the Council. In addition, pitches are leased to specific clubs, for example, Newhaven Football Club.
Many of the larger clubs have midweek training sessions, some of which are held at one of the STP’s in the district such as Downs Leisure Centre. A number of clubs, such as Seaford FC use their own ground for training purposes.
Constraints The major constraints facing football clubs in the district were identified (in order of importance) as:
• lack of internal funding • lack of external funding • lack of voluntary assistance • membership retention • poor relationships with fellow clubs • other (lack of all weather pitches) • access difficulties • other (pitch maintenance).
A Report for Lewes District Council Page 38 LEWES DISTRICT OUTDOOR PLAYING SPACE REVIEW 4: SUPPLY AND DEMAND
Future plans The majority of clubs revealed that they plan to increase their membership in the future. Lewes Bridge View FC, Lewes Bridge View Junior FC and Seaford Cinque Ports plan to expand their existing facilities. Wivelsfield Green FC and Lewes Bridge View FC all plan to refurbish existing facilities (mainly drainage). Jolly Boatman FC is looking to relocate. Two clubs, Lewes Wanderers FC and RBC 93 Sunday FC are unfortunately disbanding at the end of the 2003/2004 season.
Cricket Clubs in Lewes District – an overview
4.47 Of the 24 surveys sent out to cricket clubs, 9 were returned, a response rate of 38%.
Membership over half of cricket clubs within Lewes district run more than one team. Lewes Priory CC and St James’s Montiefiore are the largest clubs in the district. 56% of cricket clubs responding to the survey indicated that their membership had increased over the past few years. Newhaven CC has female junior team.
Standard of play The standard of play across the district varies, but the majority of teams play in the East Sussex League and the Sussex County League. Junior teams play in the North and Mid-Sussex Junior Cricket League.
Facilities used Responding clubs either hire their own facilities from parish/town councils, lease them from the district council or use school facilities
Constraints The major constraints facing responding cricket clubs were identified (in order of importance) as:
• lack of external funding • lack of internal funding and membership recruitment/retention • lack of voluntary assistance • lack of appropriate local facilities • poor relationships with fellow clubs • other (issues involving the Council).
Future plans The majority of clubs who returned their survey expressed plans to increase the number of members. Lewes Priory CC, Denton and District CC, Southwick Wanderers CC, St James’s Montefiore CC and Newhaven CC all plan to refurbish existing facilities.
Rugby Clubs in Lewes District – an overview
4.48 Of the four surveys sent out to rugby clubs, three were returned. A further rugby club was highlighted after the questionnaires were distributed and forms part of the overview.
Membership There are five rugby clubs playing in the district, based in three of the four sub-areas. The largest club in terms of teams is Lewes RFC. Each club fields junior and adult teams but no veteran teams. There is a female team at Lewes RFC. Plumpton RFC, Ditchling RFC and Seaford RFC are the smallest clubs in terms of numbers with only one adult team each.
A Report for Lewes District Council Page 39 LEWES DISTRICT OUTDOOR PLAYING SPACE REVIEW 4: SUPPLY AND DEMAND
Standard of play The standard of play varies throughout the district, with teams competing in the London League Division 3 South East, Sussex Merit Tables and Sussex Junior Leagues.
Facilities used The majority of pitches are hired from the parish/town and district councils. These pitches are used for matches and training.
Constraints The major constraints facing rugby clubs in the district were identified (in order of importance) as:
• lack of external funding • membership recruitment / retention • other (poor drainage).
Future plans The majority of clubs plan to increase membership. Lewes RFU also has plans for expansion and refurbishment of its facilities.
Hockey Clubs in Lewes District – an overview
4.49 There are two hockey clubs playing in Lewes District at present, one of whom responded to the questionnaire.
Membership Lewes HC is the largest club in the district, with 16 teams and approximately 150 members. It is the only club with adult, junior and veteran sections. Newhaven HC operates a mixed adult team.
Standard of play Each club plays in the Sussex Open Hockey League.
Facilities used Newhaven HC uses the synthetic turf pitch adjacent to Downs Leisure Centre. Lewes HC uses the sand based artificial pitch at the Southdown Sports Club.
Future plans The main plans for Newhaven HC is to increase membership.
Demand for Athletics Provision
4.50 With a population of just over 90,000 UK Athletics specifies that one six lane floodlit athletics track will be sufficient for the residents of the District provided they live with a 30 (45 for rural areas) minute drive time.
4.51 Tracks will host a variety of events through the season with home and away fixtures generally at weekends. Athletes will also train throughout the year utilising the tracks facilities.
4.52 Lewes Athletics Club has waiting lists for junior membership, the limiting factor being availability of coaches.
Demand for Bowls Provision
4.53 Bowls is a seasonal sport with the majority of play in afternoons and evenings during the summer.
A Report for Lewes District Council Page 40 LEWES DISTRICT OUTDOOR PLAYING SPACE REVIEW 4: SUPPLY AND DEMAND
4.54 Clubs will play in league and knockout competitions in a variety of different formats; men’s, ladies, mixed, pairs and four balls. In addition they will run internal competitions.
4.55 Clubs identified difficulties with recruiting and retaining members. Two clubs, Lewes and Seaford, cited poor public transport links and parking problems.
Demand for Tennis Provision
4.56 Using the Lawn Tennis Association’s annual tracking study information Table 4.16 below identifies the anticipated demand within each partnership area.
Table 4.16 Anticipated demand for floodlit tennis courts from LTA’s annual tracking study information
Partnership Population 2001 Anticipated demand Current Provision Area for floodlit year- round courts
Lewes 15988 3 5 Newhaven 11171 2 0 Peacehaven/ 20350 4 0 Telscombe Seaford 22826 5 4 Rural 21842 4 4 Total 92177 18 13
4.57 Tennis players will participate in a variety of match fixtures, with internal and external competitions and leagues. Social play also makes up a large proportion of court time in addition to coaching sessions for individuals and groups.
4.58 At some of the more progressive clubs, where talented juniors are developed, an increasing amount of time will be spent playing singles matches.
4.59 Plumpton, Southdown, Newick and Newhaven all have coaches operating from their courts increasing the interest in tennis and therefore the demand.
Demand for Stoolball Provision
4.60 Stoolball is a summer sport and league based. Matches tend to be mid week so the demand for pitches avoids peak cricket playing times.
4.61 Leagues in Sussex are made up of about 10 teams playing on a home or away basis.
4.62 There are 10 teams playing stoolball and from the consultation it was identified that they were satisfied with current provision.
A Report for Lewes District Council Page 41 LEWES DISTRICT OUTDOOR PLAYING SPACE REVIEW 4: SUPPLY AND DEMAND
Summary
4.63 The key issues emerging from supply and demand data are:
• there is a good ratio of adults to overall number of pitches in the district (compared to the national average and other local authorities)
• there is a high percentage of secured community pitches in the district (63%)
• the District Council and Parish/Town Councils are significant providers of pitches with all their pitches secured for community use
• the majority of tennis courts are in voluntary members’ clubs
• the spread of teams across the district is not even with only 9 (4%) teams in Peacehaven/Telscombe. The majority of teams are found in the rural part of the district with 82 teams
• there are increasing numbers of junior and mini soccer teams. Sports development initiatives (particularly through Active Sussex) are likely to increase participation in future years. However, growth in some sports is slow
• overall quality of pitches assessed through site visits varied with 37% classed as good, 34% average and 29% below average.
4.64 The supply and demand data contained in this section will be set in context by applying the Playing Pitch Methodology in Section 5.
A Report for Lewes District Council Page 42 SECTION 5
THE PLAYING PITCH METHODOLOGY (PPM) LEWES DISTRICT OUTDOOR PLAYING SPACE REVIEW 5: THE PLAYING PITCH METHODOLOGY The Playing Pitch Methodology
5.1 The Playing Pitch Methodology (PPM) comprises eight stages. Stages 1 to 6 involve numerical calculations, whilst Stages 7 and 8 develop issues and solutions. The methodology is employed to analyse the adequacy of current provision and to assess possible future situations, in order that latent and future demand (identified through Team Generation Rates), and the problems with quality, use and capacity of existing pitches can be taken into account. Flow-chart to illustrate the key stages:
Stage 1 Identifying teams
Stage 2 Calculating home games per team per week
Stage 3 Assessing total home games per week
Stage 4 Establishing temporal demand for games
Stage 5 Defining pitches used/required on each day
Stage 6 Establishing pitches available (allowance for qualitative issues)
Stage 7 Assessing the findings
Stage 8 Finding solutions
5.2 It is implicit to the method that each sport is dealt with individually with a specific set of calculations for each because, despite some superficial similarities, they exhibit very different patterns of play.
5.3 We have further subdivided the analysis of some sports to deal with specific sub-sectors of activity within them, e.g. junior play or adult play, in order that important aspects are not submerged in aggregated data. Football and rugby have been subdivided in this manner, whereas no differentiation has been made between junior and senior cricket and junior and senior hockey teams as they play on pitches of similar dimensions.
5.4 The summary of the findings for the District (Table 5.1) as a whole gives an indication of the shortfall/ surplus of pitches for each sport.
A Report for Lewes District Council Page 43 LEWES DISTRICT OUTDOOR PLAYING SPACE REVIEW 5: THE PLAYING PITCH METHODOLOGY NB. The calculations undertaken below assume that all pitches are able to undertake a standard two games per week (for the full season). The new Playing Pitch Methodology (Towards A Level Playing Field) allows authorities to take into account the carrying capacity (ie. The number of games that pitches are adequately able to sustain per week) when calculating the playing pitch methodology. The calculations will then be rerun later in this section taking into account the perceived carrying capacity of community pitches within Lewes District. Table 5.1 PPM calculations for the District (2004)
Football Cricket Rugby Hockey STAGE ONE Adult teams 48 71 9 20 Identifying teams1 Junior teams 36 6 STAGE TWO Adult games 0.5 0.7 0.5 0.5 Calculate home games per week2 Junior teams 0.5 0.5 STAGE THREE (S1x S2) Adult games 24 50 4.5 10 Assessing total home games per week Junior teams 18 3 STAGE FOUR Saturday Adult games 80% 45% 100% 100% Junior teams 0% Establish temporal demand for Sunday Adult games 20% 50% 0% 3 pitches Junior teams 100% 100% Midweek Adult games 5% Junior teams STAGE FIVE (S3 x S4) Saturday Adult games 19.2 22.5 4.5 10 Junior teams 0 0 Defining pitches used each Sunday Adult games 4.8 25 0 0 day Junior teams 18 3 Midweek Adult games 2.5 Junior teams STAGE SIX Adult pitches 26 20 7 84 Establishing pitches currently available Junior pitches 18 7 (2 STPs) STAGE SEVEN (S6-S5) Saturday Adult pitches 6.8 -2.5 2.5 -2 Junior pitches (0.5 STPs) Identifying shortfall (-) and Sunday Adult pitches 21.2 -5.0 ) 5 oversupply (+) Junior pitches 0 4 Midweek Adult pitches 17.3 Junior pitches
Notes: 1. Excludes mini-soccer (as per PPM guidance). Discussed later in this section. 2. As per PPM guidance, it is assumed that all football, hockey and rugby teams play a home match every fortnight. However, for cricket teams it is assumed that many teams play home matches more than every fortnight (ie mid-week matches), hence the figure of 0.7. 3. Determined by a combination of questionnaire responses, telephone interviews and discussions with league secretaries. 4. As per PPM guidance, it is assumed that one STP is the equivalent of four grass hockey pitches. Therefore 2 STPs are calculated as 8 pitches. Grass pitches have been excluded from the analysis, as league hockey should be played on STPs. Surplus or shortfall figures should therefore be divided by 4 to obtain shortfall / surplus in real terms. 5. The figures in bold represent the peak-day demand.
A Report for Lewes District Council Page 44 LEWES DISTRICT OUTDOOR PLAYING SPACE REVIEW 5: THE PLAYING PITCH METHODOLOGY 5.5 Key issues arising from Table 5.1 are:
• the over-supply of adult football pitches (6.8) on peak days (Saturdays) is low not leaving a great deal of scope for extra fixtures or being able to cope with poor pitch conditions
• the supply of junior football pitches covers demand exactly on peak days (Sunday) and indicates that is no spare capacity for extra matches. In addition, the fact that there is no spare capacity on existing junior pitches may prevent junior clubs from expanding, or new clubs being formed in the district
• there is an under-supply of cricket pitches (5.0) on peak days (Sunday) indicating that cricket pitches in the district may currently be overused or clubs may be looking outside of the district for fixtures
• there is an over-supply of adult rugby pitches (2.5) on peak days and an over supply of junior rugby pitches (4.0)
• there is an under-supply of synthetic hockey pitches (0.5) on peak days– this does not account for the potential for an STP to be used for training and casual opportunities.
5.6 While it is useful to gain an overall picture of pitch provision across the district it is also necessary to take a closer inspection of sub-areas. This allows a closer investigation of surpluses and shortfalls taking account of local demand
5.7 For pitch sports there is an accepted need for players to travel to games. Therefore, a parish analysis, although useful in terms for highlighting areas of shortfall/ surplus, tends to exaggerate the situation by not taking into account cross-boundary issues
Sub-Areas
5.8 Table 5.2 overleaf reveals the shortfall/surplus by parish and sub-area.
A Report for Lewes District Council Page 45 LEWES DISTRICT OUTDOOR PLAYING SPACE REVIEW 5: THE PLAYING PITCH METHODOLOGY
Table 5.2 Summary of PPM results by parish and sub-area in 2004
PPM Summary 2004 Shortfall/ of Surplus Football Adult of Surplus Junior Football Shortfall/ of Surplus Cricket Shortfall/ of Surplus Rugby Adult Shortfall/ of Surplus Rugby Junior Shortfall/ of Surplus Hockey pitches Total Shortfall/ Lewes Sub-Area -1.0 -1.5 -1.6 1.0 3.0 -1.8 -1.9 Newhaven Sub-Area 0.4 -2.0 -1.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 -3.1 Peacehaven/Telscombe 2.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.0 Peacehaven 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 Telscombe 1.2 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.2 Seaford Sub-Area 0.6 -3.0 -0.8 1.5 0.0 -0.2 -1.9 Rural Sub Area 4.8 4.5 -1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 9.3 Barcombe 0.2 1.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.9 Beddingham and Tarring Neville 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Chailey 0.6 0.5 -0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 Ditchling 0.4 0.0 -3.6 0.5 0.0 0.0 -2.7 East Chiltington and St John Without 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 Falmer and St Ann Without 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Firle 0.0 00 0.7 0.0 00 0.0 0.7 Glynde -0.4 0.0 -1.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 -1.9 Hamsey 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 Iford 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Kingston -0.4 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.6 Newick 0.2 0.0 -1.5 00 0.0 0.0 -1.3 Piddinghoe 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Plumpton 1.6 0.0 -1.1 -0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ringmer 0.8 1.5 2.7 0.0 1.0 0.0 6.0 Rodmell and Southease 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 South Heighton 0.0 -0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.5 Streat 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Westmeston 0.0 0.0 -0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.4 Wivelsfield -0.2 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 TOTAL 6.8 0.0 -4.9 2.5 4.0 -2.0 6.4
- numbers = shortfall
5.9 As shown, of the 25 parishes within Lewes, 17 (68%) have no overall shortfall.
5.10 The key issues arising from the above analysis coupled with information from questionnaire returns by sub-area are:
Lewes
• Lewes Town has an overall under-supply of pitches with a total of 1.9
• there is an under-supply of football pitches of 2.5, hockey pitches of 1.8 and cricket pitches of 1.6. This is the largest under-supply in the district
A Report for Lewes District Council Page 46 LEWES DISTRICT OUTDOOR PLAYING SPACE REVIEW 5: THE PLAYING PITCH METHODOLOGY • the main surpluses within Lewes are for junior rugby (3.0) and adult rugby (1.0). Lewes Rugby Club is an expanding active club with a healthy junior section. All of their junior matches (6 teams) except for mini rugby are played on adult pitches which reverses this apparent surplus to a shortfall of 1 adult pitch.
Newhaven
• there is an overall undersupply (3.1) in the total number of pitches in Newhaven
• there is no hockey or rugby clubs based within the town as there are no facilities and therefore no hockey or rugby pitch surpluses or shortfalls. Newhaven Hockey Club is currently based in Seaford and would like to relocate back to their home town.
• there is a small number of football clubs with Newhaven based players who travel to home grounds in other parts of district in order to have access to pitches.
• there is a small under-supply of 1.5 cricket pitches.
Peacehaven/Telscombe
• there is an overall oversupply of pitches within the Peacehaven/Telscombe area, equivalent to 4 pitches
• however, Peacehaven/Telscombe does not have any hockey, cricket or rugby facilities. The town is keen to promote these sports on a local basis for their residents and an analysis of the teams that the population could support is included later in this section.
Seaford
• although there is a very small surplus of adult football pitches there is an under-supply of 3.0 junior pitches
• Seaford has one of the two STP’s for club hockey in the district but there is still a marginal undersupply of 0.2
• there is a small over-supply of rugby pitches of 1.5.
Rural Area
• five of the parishes have an under-supply of pitches, the largest being at Ditchling at 2.7 which is reflected in their shortage of cricket facilities
• only four parishes show an under-supply of adult or junior football and none of these are significant. Similarly no parish demonstrates an overwhelming over-supply of football pitches
• there are no hockey STP’s in the rural area
• of the three rugby venues, Plumpton, Ditchling and Newick, none show a significant over or under supply
• the greatest shortfall is for cricket pitches with six parishes showing an under-supply ranging from 3.6 in Ditchling to 0.4 in Westmeston. Ditchling Cricket Club currently
A Report for Lewes District Council Page 47 LEWES DISTRICT OUTDOOR PLAYING SPACE REVIEW 5: THE PLAYING PITCH METHODOLOGY use a second venue at Plumpton Agricultural College and St James’ Montefiore Cricket Club also based in Ditchling is looking to expand their development programme
A Report for Lewes District Council Page 48 LEWES DISTRICT OUTDOOR PLAYING SPACE REVIEW 5: THE PLAYING PITCH METHODOLOGY Carrying Capacity
5.11 The 1991 Playing Pitch Strategy assumed that all pitches are of sufficient standard to sustain two games per week. It is however acknowledged that this may not always be the case. The new playing pitch methodology, Towards A Level Playing Field suggests that the quality of a pitch is taken into account. In addition to running the playing pitch methodology based on the number of pitches available, we have recalculated the methodology taking into account the perceived quality of the pitches.
5.12 The number of community matches a grass pitch can absorb is a function of the needs of other users and quality. For example a school pitch may be able to accommodate one game each weekend, while a comparable Council pitch is able to allow two. The quality of pitches must be considered.
5.13 There is no formula for calculating the carrying capacity of pitches as it is dependent on a wide range of factors such as weather conditions, age/weight of users, quality of players etc. However, through local knowledge, user surveys, interviews and an analysis of usage patterns from the previous season it is possible to calculate the capacity of each pitch.
5.14 In calculating the carrying capacity of a pitch, the following should be considered:
• what proportion of games are cancelled on the pitch due to poor pitch condition?
• is the condition of the pitch declining over the season?
• what is the maintenance regime for the pitch at present?
• could the capacity of the pitch be improved by enhanced maintenance?
• the extent to which pitches are required to accommodate training activity?
5.15 A matrix was completed following discussions with Council officers, league secretaries, site visits and questionnaire responses detailing the approximate actual capacity of the pitches, as opposed to the standard assumed in the previous model analysis. Where data for pitches was unavailable, it has been assumed that these pitches are able to sustain two games per week, as per the standard playing pitch methodology.
5.16 The audit was weighted according to the actual capability of each pitch. Pitches that were considered capable of sustaining only one match per week were therefore weighted as only equivalent to half a pitch in the audit. The weighting system used is outlined in Table 5.3 on the below.
Table 5.3 Carrying Capacity for each type of pitch
Carrying Capacity Multiplication Factor
Three matches (or more) per week 1.5 Two matches 1.0 One match per week 0.5 One match or less per fortnight 0.25
5.17 Where school facilities are available for community use, it is necessary to consider the amount of time the pitch is used during the week for curricular purposes, as this will reduce the ability of the pitch to sustain additional matches at the weekend.
A Report for Lewes District Council Page 49 LEWES DISTRICT OUTDOOR PLAYING SPACE REVIEW 5: THE PLAYING PITCH METHODOLOGY 5.18 The playing pitch model was reapplied using the amended carrying capacity pitch data and Table 5.4 summarises the provision of pitches in Lewes District at parish and sub area level.
Table 5.4 Provision of pitches by sub area and parish, taking into account carrying capacity
PPM Summary 2004 Shortfall/ of Surplus Football Adult of Surplus Junior Football Shortfall/ of Surplus Cricket Shortfall/ of Surplus Rugby Adult Shortfall/ of Surplus Rugby Junior Shortfall/ of Surplus Hockey pitches Total Shortfall/ Lewes Sub-Area -1.0 -1.5 -1.6 1.0 3.0 -1.8 -1.9 Newhaven Sub-Area 0.4 -2.0 -1.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 -3.1 Peacehaven/Telscombe 3.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.0 Peacehaven 1.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.8 Telscombe 1.2 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.2 Seaford Sub-Area 0.6 -3.0 -0.8 1.5 0.0 -0.2 -1.9 Rural Sub Area 3.8 4.5 -1.5 0.0 1.0 0.0 7.8 Barcombe -0.3 1.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.4 Beddingham and Tarring Neville 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Chailey 0.6 0.5 -0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 Ditchling 0.4 0.0 -3.6 0.5 0.0 0.0 -2.7 East Chiltington and St John Without 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 Falmer and St Ann Without 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Firle 0.0 00 0.7 0.0 00 0.0 0.7 Glynde -0.4 0.0 -1.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 -1.9 Hamsey 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 Iford 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Kingston -0.4 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.6 Newick 0.2 0.0 -1.5 00 0.0 0.0 -1.3 Piddinghoe 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Plumpton 1.6 0.0 -1.1 -0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ringmer 0.8 1.5 2.7 0.0 1.0 0.0 6.0 Rodmell and Southease 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 South Heighton 0.0 -0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.5 Streat 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Westmeston 0.0 0.0 -0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.4 Wivelsfield -0.7 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.5 TOTAL 6.8 0.0 -5.4 2.5 4.0 -2.0 5.9
- numbers = shortfall
5.19 A comparison between table 5.2 and Table 5.4 shows:
• taking into account carrying capacity, there is very little difference between the over supply of pitches as it reduces slightly from 4.3 to 3.8 • There continues to be an undersupply of cricket (5.4) and hockey (2.0) pitches
A Report for Lewes District Council Page 50 LEWES DISTRICT OUTDOOR PLAYING SPACE REVIEW 5: THE PLAYING PITCH METHODOLOGY • Football pitches at Barcombe and Wivelsfield can sustain less than two matches a week, the former now having a small undersupply. • The Rural area sees a drop in pitch surplus from 9.3 to 7.8.
Predicting the Future
Team Generation Rates
5.20 Team Generation Rates (TGRs) indicate how many people in a specified age group are required to generate one team. TGRs are derived by dividing the appropriate population age band in the area by the number of teams playing within that area in that age band. Calculating TGRs enables fair comparison to be made between different areas where similar studies have been undertaken. The 10-44 age group yields the vast majority of pitch sport players.
5.21 In line with the 1991 Playing Pitch Strategy, dividing the estimated number of male teams playing each sport (excluding mini-soccer – as played by under 10s) within Lewes District (163 teams) by the estimated total number of males aged between 10-44 years (approximately 14,255) gives an overall district TGR of 86. This means that there is one pitch sport team for every 86 male residents aged 10-44.
5.22 Tables 5.5 to 5.8 on the next page compare TGRs in each sport with those of other studies.
Table 5.5 Football Team Generation Rates
Local Authority/ Area TGR (football)
Mid Devon 1:118 Bromsgrove 1:127 South Somerset 1:131 Waverley 1:146 East Devon 1:169 Worcester City 1:170 Wychavon 1:180 Redditch 1:182 Kennet District 1:183 Crawley, Horsham, Hastings, Bexhill and Maidstone 1:183 Colchester Borough 1:200 Derwentside 1:230 Portsmouth 1:236 RMBC 1:238 Malvern Hills 1:241 West Devon 1:244 Wyre Forest 1:252 Tyne and Wear 1:290 North Wiltshire 1:314 Lewes District 1:455
A Report for Lewes District Council Page 51 LEWES DISTRICT OUTDOOR PLAYING SPACE REVIEW 5: THE PLAYING PITCH METHODOLOGY Table 5.6 Cricket Team Generation Rates
Local Authority/ Area TGR (cricket) Bromsgrove 1:231 West Devon 1:233 Wychavon 1:239 Waverley 1:257 Mid Devon 1:271 North Devon 1:298 South Somerset 1:298 Derwentside 1:328 Kennet District 1:407 Torbay 1:463 Malvern Hills 1:499 North Wiltshire 1:501 Colchester Borough 1:568 RMBC 1:560 Lewes District 1:646 Worcester City 1:664 Redditch 1:703 East Devon 1:737 Wyre Forest 1:831 Portsmouth 1:2,808
Table 5.7 Rugby Team Generation Rates
Local Authority/ Area TGR (rugby) Bromsgrove 1:306 Mid Devon 1:495 Wychavon 1:498 West Devon 1:501 South Somerset 1: 608 Waverley 1:617 East Devon 1:716 Worcester City 1:875 Wyre Forest 1:1,062 Malvern Hills 1:1,068 RMBC 1:1,123 North Wiltshire 1:1,185 Colchester Borough 1:1,206 Kennet District 1:1,337 Redditch 1:1,407 Derwentside 1:1,431 Lewes District 1:2,194
A Report for Lewes District Council Page 52 LEWES DISTRICT OUTDOOR PLAYING SPACE REVIEW 5: THE PLAYING PITCH METHODOLOGY Table 5.8 Hockey Team Generation Rates
Local Authority/ Area TGR (hockey) East Devon 1:437 Wychavon 1:450 Waverley 1:617 Worcester City 1:875 Mid Devon 1:1025 Wyre Forest 1:1,062 South Somerset 1:1,081 Bromsgrove 1:1,296 West Devon 1:1668 Lewes District 1:1852 Kennet District 1:2,977 Redditch 1:3,095 Colchester Borough 1:3,217 North Wiltshire 1:4,400 Malvern Hills 1:4,986 RMBC 1:16,484
What do these numbers mean?
5.23 The following examples help clarify what TGRs mean:
1:100 � high TGR � relatively low latent (unmet) demand
1: 1000 � low TGR � relatively high latent (unmet) demand
5.24 For Lewes District, this means:
Football 1:455 � low TGR � potentially high latent (unmet) demand
Cricket 1:646 � low TGR � high latent (unmet) demand
Rugby 1: 2194 � low TGR � high latent (unmet) demand
Hockey 1: 1852 low TGR � high latent (unmet) demand
5.25 It is important to note that latent demand indicated by TGRs is relative to other studies. At present, no national TGR figures are available.
Projections for 2006
5.26 By applying TGRs to the population projections for 2006, we can project the theoretical number of teams that would be generated over the four years given the current supply of pitches and numbers of teams. This can then be applied to the PPM model to forecast the future shortfall of pitches; assuming that no new pitches are built in the interim and that ‘district average’ TGRs are applied to those parishes with current low TGRs (to simulate a possible increase in participation rates).
A Report for Lewes District Council Page 53 LEWES DISTRICT OUTDOOR PLAYING SPACE REVIEW 5: THE PLAYING PITCH METHODOLOGY 5.27 The results from this analysis are shown in Table 5.9 below. The table shows the situation in 2006 by parish and sub-area, taking into account the carrying capacity of pitches.
Table 5.9 PPM calculations in 2006 by parish and sub-area, taking into account carrying capacity and 2% growth targets
PPM Summary 2006 – Carrying Capacity Shortfall/ of Surplus Football Adult of Surplus Junior Football Shortfall/ of Surplus Cricket Shortfall/ of Surplus Rugby Adult Shortfall/ of Surplus Rugby Junior Shortfall/ of Surplus Hockey pitches Total Lewes Sub-Area -1.3 -1.7 -1.9 0.9 2.9 -2.0 -3.1 Newhaven Sub-Area 0.0 -2.7 -2.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 -5.0 Peacehaven/Telscombe 2.9 1.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.8 Peacehaven 1.7 -0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.7 Telscombe 1.2 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.2 Seaford Sub-Area 0.5 -3.3 -0.8 1.5 0.0 -0.3 -2.4 Rural Sub Area 3.4 4.3 -2.1 -0.1 1.0 0.0 6.5 Barcombe -0.3 1.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.3 Beddingham and Tarring 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Neville Chailey 0.6 0.4 -0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 Ditchling 0.3 0.0 -3.7 0.5 0.0 0.0 -2.9 East Chiltington and St 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 John Without Falmer and St Ann Without 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Firle 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 Glynde -0.4 0.0 -1.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 -1.9 Hamsey 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 Iford 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Kingston -0.4 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.6 Newick 0.2 0.0 -1.6 -0.1 0.0 0.0 -1.5 Piddinghoe 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Plumpton 1.6 0.0 -1.2 -0.5 0.0 0.0 -0.1 Ringmer 0.7 1.5 2.6 0.0 1.0 0.0 5.8 Rodmell and Southease 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 00 0.0 2.0 South Heighton 0.0 -0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.5 Streat 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Westmeston 0.0 0.0 -0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.4 Wivelsfield -0.7 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.6 TOTAL 5.5 -1.5 -7.1 2.3 3.9 -2.3 0.8
- numbers = shortfall
5.28 As shown in Table 5.9, as a result of the projected increase in population and the general impact of sports development, overall demand will increase. The key issues in 2006 will be:
• the small surplus of pitches in 2004 reduces in size to 0.8 pitches.
• Peacehaven and Telscombe and the Rural sub area will continue to have a surplus of pitches all thought this will be reducing. It must be remembered that the former has no cricket, rugby or hockey pitches.
A Report for Lewes District Council Page 54 LEWES DISTRICT OUTDOOR PLAYING SPACE REVIEW 5: THE PLAYING PITCH METHODOLOGY
• there will be an increased under-supply of cricket pitches (7.1) across the district.
• the supply of junior football pitches changes to a shortfall of 1.5 while the surplus of adult football pitches reduces from 6.8 to 5.5.
• rugby and hockey pitch supply remains fairly static.
5.29 Table 5.9 is based on current supply and demand for pitch sports with population projections and general sports development programmes included as part of the Playing Pitch Methodology calculations.
5.30 By including more in depth analysis of district wide TGR’s by sub area it can be established how many teams could potentially be supported by a population. This is especially relevant where there are demographic differences between the areas. For example Seaford has an older population and in terms of economic status the towns tend to have lower car ownership per household making access to sport facilities harder if provision is not local.
5.31 Like the smaller rural villages the coastal towns and Lewes town also aspire to a community identity and there is a desire to have sports teams and quality local facilities based in each town.
5.32 Tables 5.10-5.13 show a sport by sport breakdown of the number of teams the sub areas currently support and with population increases what they could support. It should be noted that these are only indications and not an absolute measure as some people will travel outside of their immediate location to play.
Table 5.10 Potential number of football teams the sub areas could support Football Team Generation Rates 1:455*
Based on population 10-45 ential Pot population based on TGR on based based on TGR on based football teams* football Projected 2006 Projected of football football teams of number of of teams number Actual number of Actual number Potential Population 2001 Population Lewes Sub-Area 7268 22 16 7478 16 Newhaven Sub-Area 5342 10 12 6472 14 Peacehaven/Telscombe 8338 9 18 8548 19 Peacehaven 5342 7 12 5477 12 Telscombe 2996 2 6 3041 7 Seaford Sub-Area 8032 18 18 8324 18 Rural Sub Area 9220 25 20 9621 21 * excludes mini football
A Report for Lewes District Council Page 55 LEWES DISTRICT OUTDOOR PLAYING SPACE REVIEW 5: THE PLAYING PITCH METHODOLOGY Table 5.11 Potential number of rugby teams the sub areas could support Rugby Union Team Generation Rates 1:2194 Boys 13-17 Girls 16-17 ential Pot
Men 18-45 population rugby teams rugby based on TGR on based based on TGR on based of rugby teamsrugby of Women 18-45 excludes minis 2006 Projected number of of teams number Actual number of Actual number Potential Population 2001 Population Lewes Sub-Area 6383 10 3 6567 3 Newhaven Sub-Area 4580 0 2 5549 3 Peacehaven/Telscombe 7374 0 3 7560 3 Peacehaven 4777 0 2 4897 2 Telscombe 2597 0 1 2659 1 Seaford Sub-Area 6834 1 3 7083 3 Rural Sub Area 7735 4 4 8071 4
Table 5.12 Potential number of cricket teams the sub areas could support Cricket Generation Rates 1: 646
Based on population 11-55 ential Pot population cricketteams based on TGR on based based on TGR on based Projected 2006 Projected of cricketteams of number of of teams number Actual number of Actual number Potential Population 2001 Population Lewes Sub-Area 9378 16 15 9648 15 Newhaven Sub-Area 6593 10 10 7988 12 Peacehaven/Telscombe 10956 0 17 11232 17 Peacehaven 7080 0 11 7259 11 Telscombe 3876 0 6 3973 6 Seaford Sub-Area 10771 5 17 11163 17 Rural Sub Area 12325 41 19 12861 20
Table 5.13 Potential number of hockey teams the sub areas could support Hockey Team Generation Rates 1:1852
Based on population 11-45 ential Pot population hockey teams hockey based on TGR on based based on TGR on based Projected 2006 Projected of hockey teams hockey of number of of teams number Actual number of Actual number Potential Population 2001 Population Lewes Sub-Area 7079 16 4 7283 4 Newhaven Sub-Area 5158 0 3 6249 3 Peacehaven/Telscombe 8102 0 5 8306 5 Peacehaven 5194 0 3 5325 3 Telscombe 2908 0 2 2981 2 Seaford Sub-Area 7795 4 4 8079 4 Rural Sub Area 8921 0 5 9309 5
5.33 Key findings from these tables show
• The Rural sub area shows clear village identities by the number of football and cricket teams established. The cost of hockey facilities tends to be prohibitive for smaller rural communities to sustain so it is not surprising that there are no clubs
A Report for Lewes District Council Page 56 LEWES DISTRICT OUTDOOR PLAYING SPACE REVIEW 5: THE PLAYING PITCH METHODOLOGY in the rural sub area. The rugby clubs are spread across the rural district but they do not have active junior sections developing players for the future.
• Lewes Town has a lower number of cricket teams than could be expected and this is also reflected in the current shortfall of pitches. New teams will not be established while current teams have difficulties in finding quality facilities. The number of rugby and hockey teams is high and this is reflected by the two large clubs based within the town, both of whom have a number of active teams in addition to development programmes.
• Newhaven has no venue for its hockey club who currently play in Seaford. Rugby is also a sport for which there is no provision in Newhaven.
• Peacehaven and Telscombe only have provision for football teams to play in the town. Research has indicated that there is latent demand for sport and with a desire for increased community cohesion. The town is developing and provided new facilities are enhanced with suitable sports development support to ensure sustainability there is a sound population base to support pitch development. Any new facility development should start small with room for growth.
• Peacehaven Community School has identified they have adequate outdoor space for their current role numbers but as these grow there will be pressure on their pitches.
• Seaford has a lower than expected number of cricket teams and there is scope for the rugby club to run more teams.
Mini Soccer
5.34 For the 27 teams that play in Lewes District there is only one specific mini football pitch identified giving an under supply of 12.5 pitches.
5.35 Mini soccer is played in 15-minute matches and it is assumed that each pitch is able to sustain six matches. As a result of the structure of mini leagues which tend to be based at a central venue, rather than requiring teams to travel, each team always plays at home. This indicates that in Lewes District mini football matches are generally played on full size pitches.
5.36 This is a crude method of calculation; hence it is important to consider provision at a local level to meet the needs of young children. Mini soccer provision will be discussed further in Section 7.
Maps showing over-supply and shortfall by catchment area
5.37 Maps 5.1 to 5.7 show surplus and deficit by sub area and by sport for 2004 and maps 5.8 to 5.14 show surplus and deficits for 2006.
A Report for Lewes District Council Page 57 LEWES DISTRICT OUTDOOR PLAYING SPACE REVIEW 5: THE PLAYING PITCH METHODOLOGY Map 5.1 Map showing shortfall/surplus for adult football 2004
Rural Sub-Area
Lewes
Telscombe/ Peacehaven Newhaven
Seaford
A Report for Lewes District Council Page 58 LEWES DISTRICT OUTDOOR PLAYING SPACE REVIEW 5: THE PLAYING PITCH METHODOLOGY
5.2 Map showing surplus/shortfall for junior football 2004
Rural Sub-Area
Lewes
Telscombe/ Peacehaven Newhaven Seaford
A Report for Lewes District Council Page 59 LEWES DISTRICT OUTDOOR PLAYING SPACE REVIEW 5: THE PLAYING PITCH METHODOLOGY
Map 5.3 Map showing shortfall/surplus for mini-soccer 2004
Rural Sub-Area
Lewes
Telscombe/ Peacehaven Newhaven
Seaford
A Report for Lewes District Council Page 60 LEWES DISTRICT OUTDOOR PLAYING SPACE REVIEW 5: THE PLAYING PITCH METHODOLOGY Map 5.4 Map showing shortfall/surplus for cricket 2004
Rural Sub-Area
Lewes
Telscombe/ Peacehaven Newhaven
Seaford
A Report for Lewes District Council Page 61 LEWES DISTRICT OUTDOOR PLAYING SPACE REVIEW 5: THE PLAYING PITCH METHODOLOGY Map 5.5 Map to show shortfall/surplus for adult rugby 2004
Rural Sub-Area
Lewes
Telscombe/ Peacehaven Newhaven Seaford
A Report for Lewes District Council Page 62 LEWES DISTRICT OUTDOOR PLAYING SPACE REVIEW 5: THE PLAYING PITCH METHODOLOGY Map 5.6 Map to show shortfall/surplus for junior rugby 2004
Rural Sub-Area
Lewes
Telscombe/ Peacehaven Newhaven Seaford
A Report for Lewes District Council Page 63 LEWES DISTRICT OUTDOOR PLAYING SPACE REVIEW 5: THE PLAYING PITCH METHODOLOGY Map 5.7 Map to show shortfall/surplus for hockey 2004
Rural Sub-Area
Lewes
Telscombe/ Peacehaven Newhaven
Seaford
A Report for Lewes District Council Page 64 LEWES DISTRICT OUTDOOR PLAYING SPACE REVIEW 5: THE PLAYING PITCH METHODOLOGY Map 5.8 Map to show shortfall/surplus for adult football 2006
Rural Sub-Area
Lewes
Telscombe/ Peacehaven Newhaven Seaford
A Report for Lewes District Council Page 65 LEWES DISTRICT OUTDOOR PLAYING SPACE REVIEW 5: THE PLAYING PITCH METHODOLOGY Map 5.9 Map to show shortfall/surplus for junior football 2006
Rural Sub-Area
Lewes
Telscombe/ Peacehaven Newhaven
Seaford
A Report for Lewes District Council Page 66 LEWES DISTRICT OUTDOOR PLAYING SPACE REVIEW 5: THE PLAYING PITCH METHODOLOGY Map 5.10 Map to show shortfall/surplus for mini-soccer 2006
Rural Sub-Area
Lewes
Telscombe/ Peacehaven Newhaven
Seaford
A Report for Lewes District Council Page 67 LEWES DISTRICT OUTDOOR PLAYING SPACE REVIEW 5: THE PLAYING PITCH METHODOLOGY Map 5.11 Map to show shortfall/surplus for cricket 2006
Rural Sub-Area
Lewes
Telscombe/ Peacehaven Newhaven
Seaford
A Report for Lewes District Council Page 68 LEWES DISTRICT OUTDOOR PLAYING SPACE REVIEW 5: THE PLAYING PITCH METHODOLOGY Map 5.12 Map to show shortfall/surplus for adult rugby 2006
Rural Sub-Area
Lewes
Telscombe/ Peacehaven Newhaven Seaford
A Report for Lewes District Council Page 69 LEWES DISTRICT OUTDOOR PLAYING SPACE REVIEW 5: THE PLAYING PITCH METHODOLOGY Map 5.13 Map to show shortfall/surplus for junior rugby 2006
Rural Sub-Area
Lewes
Telscombe/ Peacehaven Newhaven Seaford
A Report for Lewes District Council Page 70 LEWES DISTRICT OUTDOOR PLAYING SPACE REVIEW 5: THE PLAYING PITCH METHODOLOGY Map 5.14 Map to show shortfall/surplus for Hockey 2006
Rural Sub-Area
Lewes
Telscombe/ Peacehaven Newhaven
Seaford
A Report for Lewes District Council Page 71 LEWES DISTRICT OUTDOOR PLAYING SPACE REVIEW 5: THE PLAYING PITCH METHODOLOGY Athletics Analysis
5.38 The current supply of one athletics track is line with expectations for the population and projected population for Lewes District. No further tracks are therefore needed.
Bowls Analysis
5.39 The rural area has the greatest supply of bowls greens while Peacehaven and Telscombe have the fewest number of greens per head of population.
5.40 The situation remains constant as the population increases to 2006. Table 5.14 shows ratios of greens to head of population.
Table 5.14 Ratio of greens to population in 2001 and 2006
Partnership Population Ratio of greens Population Ratio of greens Area 2001 2006
Lewes 15988 1:15988 16449 1:16449 Newhaven 11171 1:11171 13534 1:13534 Peacehaven/ 20350 1:20350 20863 1:20863 Telscombe Seaford 22826 1:11413 23657 1:11829 Rural 21842 1:7281 22792 1:7597 Total 92177 1:11522 97295 1:12162
5.41 If the district were to aspire to levels of provision similar to the rural area then in 2006 there will be an under-supply of 4.8 greens. The largest under-supply of greens (1.7) will be in Peacehaven/Telscombe.
5.42 As four of the bowling clubs identified membership recruitment and retention as a problem area for their club this would indicate demand for bowls facilities is not currently outstripping supply. None of the bowling clubs identified a difficulty with too many players for the facility, difficulties were more to do with the quality of the greens and ancillary provision.
Tennis Analysis
5.43 There is a current shortfall in year round floodlit tennis provision across the district. Table 5.15 breaks this down by partnership area where only Lewes has an apparent surplus in provision. These floodlit courts are at the Southdown Club, a large member’s only club. However, as the main town in the district, these facilities effectively have a wider catchment than just the town itself, and are unlikely to be truly surplus.
A Report for Lewes District Council Page 72 LEWES DISTRICT OUTDOOR PLAYING SPACE REVIEW 5: THE PLAYING PITCH METHODOLOGY Table 5.15 Surplus and shortfall of tennis courts in 2001
Area Partnership 2001 Current Requirement Surplus/Shortfall Census provision population
Lewes 15988 5 3 +2 Newhaven 11171 0 2 -2 Peacehaven/Telscombe 20350 0 4 -4 Seaford 22826 4 5 -1 Rural 21842 4 4 - Total 92177 13 18 -5
5.44 Looking ahead to 2006 there continues to be a growing under-supply of floodlit tennis courts with only Lewes Town maintaining its good supply. Peacehaven and Telscombe persist in having the largest shortfall in provision. Table 5.16 shows projected requirements for 2006.
Table 5.16 Projected surplus/shortfall of tennis provision in 2006
Area Partnership 2006 Current Requirement Surplus/Shortfall projected provision population
Lewes 16449 5 3 +2 Newhaven 13534 0 3 -3 Peacehaven/Telscombe 20863 0 4 -4 Seaford 23657 4 5 -1 Rural 22792 4 5 -1 Table 97295 13 20 -7
5.45 Table 5.16 shows an increased shortfall of tennis courts by 2006 to seven courts.
A Report for Lewes District Council Page 73 SECTION 6
REVIEW OF CHILDREN’S PLAY AREAS LEWES DISTRICT OUTDOOR PLAYING SPACE REVEW 6: CHILDREN’S PLAY AREAS
Review of children’s play areas
The current picture
6.1 We have closely reviewed the topic paper produced by the Council in 2002 and, through our research and consultation, also identified additional outdoor space, which is shown in Table 6.1 below.
Table 6.1 Outdoor play space identified not included in 2002 Topic Paper Parish Venue Type of outdoor size space Ditchling Long Park Corner Equipped 0.02ha Hamsey The Malthouse Equipped 0.02ha Lewes De Montfort Estate Equipped 0.11ha Harvard Close Equipped 0.02ha Kingfisher Courtyard Equipped 0.03ha Shelley Close Equipped 0.02ha Newhaven Hazel Close Equipped 0.05ha Hillcrest Court Equipped 0.02ha Peacehaven/Telscombe Robert Kingham Equipped 0.2ha Coney Furlong Informal 0.07ha The Oval Informal 1.82ha Greenwich Way Informal 0.08ha Seaford North Way Informal 0.1ha The Holt Informal 0.06ha Normansal open space Informal 0.9ha
6.2 There were two areas identified in the topic paper which were no longer available as play areas:
• Barcombe – Munster Green Informal Play Area is no longer considered suitable as a play space as it is located in front of a block of flats
• Newhaven – Court Farm Road: informal space is now used for residential housing.
6.3 In addition there were some areas that had been used previously as outdoor sports pitches but were not currently supporting any teams. The list is not extensive see Table 6.2 below.
Table 6.2 Outdoor informal play space previously used as sports pitches Kingston The Green Newhaven Avis Road Lewes Road Recreation Ground Peacehaven The Dell Cairo Avenue The Joff Piddinghoe The Hoe, Recreation Ground
6.4 It should be acknowledged during this analysis of informal play space that formal sports pitches are often used for informal play. Whilst, if there is no informal provision, this provides a valuable area to play it can have a detrimental impact on the standard of the playing pitch. For example excessive wear in key areas especially goal mouths if posts are left in place.
A Report for Lewes District Council Page 74 LEWES DISTRICT OUTDOOR PLAYING SPACE REVEW 6: CHILDREN’S PLAY AREAS
Towards a local standard
6.5 PPG17 states that local authorities should move away from national standards, such as the NPFA Six Acre Standard, and develop local standards based on local audits and local assessments of need. We have followed this approach in this section.
6.6 Table 6.2 shows the current size of informal and equipped play spaces by population in each partnership area. From these figures local standards can be set.
Table 6.2 Current provision of play space per 1000 population 2001 provision (hectares) provision (hectares) population population population Ha per 1000 per Ha 1000 per Ha Space actual Space actual Space Partnership Area Play Informal Equipped Play Equipped
Lewes 15988 2.91 0.18 0.73 0.05 Newhaven 11171 2.95 0.26 0.27 0.02 Peacehaven/Telscombe 20350 10.56 0.52 1.36 0.07 Seaford 22826 5.92 0.26 0.83 0.04 Rural 21842 3.54 0.16 2.19 0.10 District 92177 25.88 0.28 5.38 0.06
6.7 From Table 6.2 shows that Lewes District currently has 0.28ha per 1000 population of informal play space and 0.06ha of equipped play spaces per 1000 population. The overall (mean) level of provision is 0.34ha per 1000 population.
6.8 Local assessments of need have been undertaken by consultation with the area partnerships, as representatives of the local community. Members of the public were also invited for their views. General feedback expressed the view that the level of play provision for younger children was satisfactory.
6.9 Provision of equipped areas across the district for children aged 12 and over is not extensive. Five parishes, through the consultations, indicated that they possessed equipped areas specifically for older children. These were Ditchling, Newick, Peacehaven, Ringmer and Seaford.
6.10 The Rural partnership specifically expressed a desire for more equipped areas for children aged 12 and over, such as skateboard ramps and basketball hoops with sufficient hard surfacing. Peacehaven Town Council had recently erected small goals on two of its informal spaces to encourage young people to play casual ball games.
6.11 In determining the local standard at 0.34ha for Lewes District it makes an assumption that the current level of play space provision is adequate and that the quality and variety of equipment on offer is suitable to meet the needs of the young people.
6.12 Equipped play space for older and younger children has a finite life span as equipment ages and children’s demands change. Although most areas cater for young children’s play there is a desire across the district to improve provision for older children.
A Report for Lewes District Council Page 75 LEWES DISTRICT OUTDOOR PLAYING SPACE REVEW 6: CHILDREN’S PLAY AREAS
6.13 In practical terms it is likely that new equipped play space developments will use land already designated as informal play space. While this is simple it will mean informal space is lost.
6.14 A far better solution is to increase the local standard to make allowances for this identified district-wide deficiency. By increasing the local standard identified by 0.04ha (approximately the size of a tennis court) to an overall local standard of 0.38ha Lewes District can improve greatly the provision of outdoor play space.
6.15 However, PPG17 also advocates benchmarking these local views to ensure that they are reasonable and realistic. We have therefore compared these local ratios with rural local authorities areas, which have already set local standards for outdoor play space. It should be noted that very few authorities have prepared such local standards in this, so the benchmarking process is inevitably limited. Table 6.3 below shows the comparisons we have been able to make.
Table 6.3 Local standards for play space for rural local authorities Local Standard (hectares per 1000 Local Authority population)
Waverley 0.02 Maidstone 0.2 Newark 0.75
6.16 Clearly, there is a very wide variation in local standards but the value in Lewes District, at 0.38ha overall, is close to the mean value. It is therefore reasonable to set the current level of provision as the minimum local standard for Lewes District. Local provision can then be compared to this to establish surplus or shortfall in individual areas.
A Report for Lewes District Council Page 76 LEWES DISTRICT OUTDOOR PLAYING SPACE REVEW 6: CHILDREN’S PLAY AREAS
6.17 Table 6.4 below shows current provision by sub area and parish compared with the local standard.
Table 6.4 Comparison of informal and children’s play space against local standards of 0.28ha (informal) and 0.10ha (equipped), using 2001 population figures
Local standard 0.28 0.1 Population Local standard requirement forInformal Space Play InformalPlay actual Space provision Surplus/Shor tfall Local standard requirement forEquipped Equipped Space Play actual provision Surplus/shor Partnership Area 2001 (hectares) (hectares) (hectares) playspace (hecatares) tfall Lewes 15,988 4.5 2.91 -1.6 1.6 0.73 -0.9 Newhaven 11,171 3.1 2.95 -0.2 1.1 0.27 -0.8 Peacehaven/Telscombe 20,350 5.7 10.56 4.9 2.0 1.36 -0.7 Peacehaven 13,217 3.7 10.56 6.9 1.3 0.82 -0.5 Telscombe 7133 2.0 0 -2.0 0.7 0.54 -0.2 Seaford 22,826 6.4 5.92 -0.5 2.3 0.83 -1.5 Rural 21,842 6.1 3.54 -2.6 2.2 2.19 0.0 Barcombe 1411 0.4 0 -0.4 0.1 0.05 -0.1 Beddingham and Tarring Neville 289 0.1 0 -0.1 0.0 0 -0.0 Chailey 2703 0.8 0.23 -0.5 0.3 0.18 -0.1 Ditchling 1802 0.5 0.5 -0.0 0.2 0.11 -0.1 East Chiltington and St John 491 0.1 0.1 -0.0 0.0 0.04 -0.0 Falmer and St Ann Without 276 0.1 0 -0.1 0.0 0 -0.0 Firle 325 0.1 0 -0.1 0.0 0.03 -0.0 Glynde 258 0.1 0 -0.1 0.0 0.04 0.0 Hamsey 565 0.2 0 -0.2 0.1 0.11 0.1 Iford 194 0.1 0 -0.1 0.0 0.5 0.5 Kingston 836 0.2 0.76 0.5 0.1 0.03 -0.1 Newick 2318 0.6 0.52 -0.1 0.2 0.1 -0.1 Piddinghoe 240 0.1 2.37 2.3 0.0 0.03 0.0 Plumpton 1659 0.5 0 -0.5 0.2 0.13 -0.0 Ringmer 4444 1.2 1.34 0.1 0.4 0.28 -0.2 Rodmell and Southease 492 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.05 0.0 South Heighton 1105 0.3 0 -0.3 0.1 0.26 0.1 Streat 156 0.0 0 -0.0 0.0 0 -0.0 Westmeston 297 0.1 0.27 0.2 0.0 0 -0.0 Wivelsfield 1981 0.6 0 -0.6 0.2 0.25 0.1 Totals 92,177 25.8 25.8 -0.0 9.2 5.38 -3.8
- = shortfall
6.18 12 parishes have no informal provision. Telscombe is included in this number although many residents are in reach of Telscombe Tye, which is registered as common land.
6.19 Four parishes have no equipped play areas. Those that are equipped range from areas with one piece of equipment for young children to more involved play areas including skateboard ramps and basketball areas such as The Salts Recreation Ground, Seaford.
6.20 Lewes is the partnership area with the lowest area of informal play space at (2.91ha) while Peacehaven/Telscombe has the largest area (10.56ha).
6.21 Piddinghoe is the rural parish with the largest amount of informal play space (2.37ha) although this includes the former sports pitches of Piddinghoe Recreation Ground.
A Report for Lewes District Council Page 77 LEWES DISTRICT OUTDOOR PLAYING SPACE REVEW 6: CHILDREN’S PLAY AREAS
6.22 The rural partnership area has the most equipped play space, 2.19ha, based at sixteen different sites. Newhaven has six sites but of a much smaller nature (0.27ha in total).
6.23 Feedback from the parishes/town councils and through partnership consultations indicated that people were generally happy with play equipment for under 12’s although some could do with updating e.g. Ringmer.
6.24 Concerns about accessibility of play space were raised on a number of occasions. For example, children needing to cross busy roads to reach play areas is an issue in towns and this will need to be addressed if new play space is developed with new residential developments.
Predicting for the future
6.25 As populations increase the need for sufficient play space increases too. Table 6.5 below shows current provision for informal and equipped play space against population projections for 2006.
Table 6.5 Comparison of informal and children’s play space against local standards of 0.28ha (informal) and 0.10ha (equipped), using 2006 population figures
Local standard 0.28 0.1
Partnership Area 2006Population Localstandard requirement for InformalPlay Space (hectares) InformalPlay Space actualprovision (hectares) Surplus/Shortfall (hectares) Localstandard requirement for Equipped play space Equipped Play Space actual provision (hecatares) Surplus/shortfall Lewes 16,449 4.6 2.91 -1.7 1.6 0.73 -0.9 Newhaven 13,534 3.8 2.95 -0.8 1.4 0.27 -1.1 Peacehaven/Telscombe 20,863 5.8 10.56 4.7 2.1 1.36 -0.7 Peacehaven 13,730 3.8 10.56 6.7 1.4 0.82 -0.6 Telscombe 7,133 2.0 0 -2.0 0.7 0.54 -0.2 Seaford 23,657 6.6 5.92 -0.7 2.4 0.83 -1.5 Rural 22,791 6.4 3.54 -2.8 2.3 2.19 -0.1 Barcombe 1,451 0.4 0 -0.4 0.1 0.05 -0.1 Beddingham and Tarring Neville 289 0.1 0 -0.1 0.0 0 -0.0 Chailey 2,845 0.8 0.23 -0.6 0.3 0.18 -0.1 Ditchling 1,841 0.5 0.5 -0.0 0.2 0.11 -0.1 East Chiltington and St John 491 0.1 0.1 -0.0 0.0 0.04 -0.0 Falmer and St Ann Without 288 0.1 0 -0.1 0.0 0 -0.0 Firle 325 0.1 0 -0.1 0.0 0.03 -0.0 Glynde 261 0.1 0 -0.1 0.0 0.04 0.0 Hamsey 574 0.2 0 -0.2 0.1 0.11 0.1 Iford 194 0.1 0 -0.1 0.0 0.5 0.5 Kingston 852 0.2 0.76 0.5 0.1 0.03 -0.1 Newick 2,395 0.7 0.52 -0.2 0.2 0.1 -0.1 Piddinghoe 240 0.1 2.37 2.3 0.0 0.03 0.0 Plumpton 1,668 0.5 0 -0.5 0.2 0.13 -0.0 Ringmer 4,782 1.3 1.34 0.0 0.5 0.28 -0.2 Rodmell and Southease 513 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.05 -0.0 South Heighton 1,100 0.3 0 -0.3 0.1 0.26 0.2 Streat 156 0.0 0 -0.0 0.0 0 -0.0 Westmeston 302 0.1 0.27 0.2 0.0 0 -0.0 Wivelsfield 2,226 0.6 0 -0.6 0.2 0.25 0.0 Totals 97,295 27.2 25.88 -1.4 9.7 5.38 -4.3
- = shortfall
A Report for Lewes District Council Page 78 LEWES DISTRICT OUTDOOR PLAYING SPACE REVEW 6: CHILDREN’S PLAY AREAS
6.26 Key issues arising from the table are:
• there is a small overall shortfall of informal play space (-1.4ha)
• the areas with the biggest shortfalls are Lewes (-1.7ha), Telscombe (-2.0ha) and the Rural partnership area (-2.8ha)
• there is a surplus in Peacehaven of 6.7ha
• there is an overall shortfall of equipped play space (-4.3ha)
• this shortfall is district-wide with the largest shortfall in Seaford (-1.5ha).
6.27 Residential developments will impact on the requirements for further play space and this will be discussed further in Section 7.
A Report for Lewes District Council Page 79 SECTION 7
PRIORITIES FOR ACTION LEWES DISTRICT OUTDOOR PLAYING SPACE REVEW 7: PRIORITIES FOR ACTION
Priorities for action
7.1 The research findings lead to the following components as a basis for maintaining and enhancing outdoor playing space provision in Lewes District:
• protection of existing provision
• enhancement of existing provision
• overcoming identified deficiencies and planning for new provision
• dealing with identified surpluses
• developing a local standard.
7.2 The local consultation sets standards specific to Lewes District. The demand for outdoor play space is unique to Lewes District reflecting the desires of individuals living in the district as well people who are members of local clubs or who use the play facilities.
(a) Protection of existing provision
7.3 The current and projected (by 2006) deficiencies identified emphasise the necessity of protecting all existing areas of playing pitch land and outdoor playing space in public, private and educational ownership located in each sub-area with a current or projected future shortfall in particular sports.
7.4 Existing shortfalls and surpluses are detailed below.
Lewes Town: current and future shortfall of football, junior football and cricket pitches current and future shortfall in equipped and informal play space Newhaven: current and future shortfall of junior football and cricket pitches. No provision for hockey or rugby current and future shortfall in equipped and informal play space Peacehaven/ current surplus of football pitches Telscombe: no provision for rugby, cricket or hockey current and future surplus of informal play space, shortfall of equipped areas Seaford: current and future shortfall of junior football and cricket pitches current and future shortfall in equipped and informal play space Rural Area: current and future shortfall of cricket pitches, surplus of football pitches. current and future shortfall in equipped and informal play space
A Report for Lewes District Council Page 80 LEWES DISTRICT OUTDOOR PLAYING SPACE REVEW 7: PRIORITIES FOR ACTION
7.5 There is shortfall across the district of floodlit tennis courts.
7.6 Provision of athletics and bowls facilities is at an acceptable level.
Recommendation 1 It is recommended that all existing outdoor playing space is protected with consideration only given to disposal where alternative high quality provision is made available.
Protection of unsecured sites
7.7 Unsecured sites provide a vital role in the facilitation of pitch sports in the area and consideration must therefore be given to securing their future use. There are currently four educational sites, listed in Table 7.1 without community-use agreements which are currently used on an ad hoc basis by community teams. These sites play a vital role in the facilitation of pitch sports in the area and consideration must therefore be given to securing their future use. It should be noted that it might not be appropriate to develop secured community use agreements with all schools, but the list provided should be the starting point for future exploration by Council officers.
Table 7.1 Unsecured educational sites currently used by community teams
School Name Partnership Area Pitch currently used for Priory School Lewes Town football Tideway School Newhaven football Plumpton Agricultural College Rural cricket Sussex University Rural Football/cricket
7.8 The continuing development of the community use of school playing fields and the joint development of community pitch facilities on education sites holds considerable potential, particularly for meeting any growth in demand from junior/ mini teams and for providing artificial surfaces. This often needs financial commitment from local authorities to improve playing surfaces and capacity, providing or improving changing accommodation and possibly providing revenue subsidies to users.
7.9 Clearly there are management issues inherent in formulating and managing community-use agreements. Further advice and guidance can be obtained from Educational facilities - management of community use (Sport England, 1995), which advises on the opportunities to develop community use of school sports facilities, looks at the different management options and offers a practical checklist for managers. This can be obtained at http://www.sportenglandpublications.org.uk
Recommendation 2 Securing the use of a number of educational sites for community use is recommended. Formal agreements should be drawn up with schools that currently accommodate community teams at weekends. Formal agreements must not compromise curricular physical education for school sites.
A Report for Lewes District Council Page 81 LEWES DISTRICT OUTDOOR PLAYING SPACE REVEW 7: PRIORITIES FOR ACTION
(b) Enhancement of existing provision
Recommendation 3 A key priority for the future should be to place greater emphasis on improving the quality of pitches, ancillary facilities and outdoor play space in Lewes. Lewes District Council should introduce a 5 year rolling programme of improvements for council owned facilities.
7.10 Improvement of existing provision and sites will contribute significantly towards improving overall playing space provision in Lewes District. Both the supply and demand analysis and consultation identifies the need to improve the quality of a number of existing facilities.
7.11 Overall, priorities for enhancing provision should include:
• improve pitches and playing surfaces (including drainage, gradient and grass cover) that are often unplayable to increase their carrying capacity and reliability
• demolish /upgrade /refurbish changing facilities to ensure that standards are acceptable. Where possible, all sites should be equipped with changing facilities
• where possible, ensure that sufficient facilities are available to allow multi sex and multi age group use of sites simultaneously
• provide fences on pitches to restrict unauthorised and /or inappropriate use
• promote the use of portable goals to reduce casual usage of public pitches.
7.12 All pitches which host league matches should meet the minimum quality standards for facilities set out by the governing body, the NPFA and Sport England. In addition, all provision should comply with the Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) 1995. The Code of Practice is downloadable from http://www.disability.gov.uk
7.13 A site specific list of pitches/ facilities requiring further investigation for upgrading/improvements (identified through site visits, consultation and user surveys) is presented in Table 7.2. The list should form a starting point; however, the quality of pitch provision throughout Lewes requires further detailed investigation.
A Report for Lewes District Council Page 82 LEWES DISTRICT OUTDOOR PLAYING SPACE REVEW 7: PRIORITIES FOR ACTION
Table 7.2 Pitches/ facilities requiring investigation
Site Name Area in need of improvement Ownership Lewes Town Malling Recreation Evenness of pitch, drainage Lewes DC Ground Priory School Evidence of litter LEA Stanley Turner Evenness of pitch, grass coverage, Lewes DC water logging improved changing facilities Quality of cricket outfield poor Newhaven Fort Road Evidence of damage to pitch surface, Lewes DC unofficial use and littering Quality of cricket outfield poor, wicket not fenced off East Side Some evidence of littering and Lewes DC unofficial use Peacehaven.Telscombe Telscombe Cliffs Low grass coverage, problems with Lewes DC flints coming to surface, evidence of unofficial use, dog fouling and littering, pitch not well sheltered. Temporary changing accommodation Peacehaven Sports Damage to surface, littering and Peacehaven TC Park unofficial use, poor line markings Seaford Walmer Road Some damage to pitch surface and Lewes DC littering, poor line markings. Poor changing Downs Leisure Centre STP needs replacing Lewes DC Rural Chailey Sports Field Evenness of pitch Private Plumpton, King Slope and evenness of pitches Plumpton PC George’s Field Newick, King George V Changing accommodation, evidence of Newick PC Field unofficial use and damage to pitch surface Ringmer Village Green Slope of pitch Private
7.14 The above pitches require a combination of capital and revenue expenditure. The Council needs to put in place a rolling programme of pitch improvements to maintain and improve current standards. Capital funding sources and advice on maintenance regimes are also discussed later in this section.
(c) Overcoming identified deficiencies
7.15 Deficiencies in pitches arise when there is an absolute shortage and/or when existing pitch(es) cannot accommodate existing demand, at peak periods. Some degree of spare capacity is an integral part of playing pitch provision for the following reasons:
• to accommodate latent and future demand for existing pitch sport teams
• for the development/expansion of new pitch sports (such as mini-soccer / ‘tag’ rugby)
• to accommodate backlogs (created as a result of poor weather/ drainage) and for rest and recovery periods
• to enable training and casual activities.
A Report for Lewes District Council Page 83 LEWES DISTRICT OUTDOOR PLAYING SPACE REVEW 7: PRIORITIES FOR ACTION
7.16 There are pitches in Lewes that are unsecured for community use and are therefore excluded from playing pitch methodology calculations. The main vehicle for reducing shortfalls of pitches should therefore be the securing of community use agreements, as discussed earlier in this section.
7.17 The Council owns large multi pitch sites such as The Salts Recreation Ground in Seaford and around the south of Lewes Town, Convent Field and Stanley Turner Ground. Such sites are cost effective in terms of maintenance and ancillary facilities and encourage a sporting atmosphere. There is also the potential for external investment (particularly from the Football Foundation) for multi use sites. Consultation has confirmed the value placed on these sites by users, hence they should be protected, and similar future developments should be encouraged.
Recommendation 4 Where possible, any new provision should be considered in multi pitch site format, rather than at single site locations.
7.18 The following recommendations (Tables 7.3-7.7) set out additional provision, by partnership area, in line with the PPM and analysis of the other sports.
7.19 It must be acknowledged that the recommendations for pitches are a minimum level of provision, based on a pragmatic approach to what may be feasible in the long-term and where the greatest latent demand/pressure for additional pitches has been identified. Where new provision is recommended it is prudent to start with a modest level of development but allowing for future expansion over the coming years.
7.20 All figures are based on carrying capacity adjustments.
A Report for Lewes District Council Page 84 LEWES DISTRICT OUTDOOR PLAYING SPACE REVEW 7: PRIORITIES FOR ACTION
Table 7.3 Playing pitch issues and solutions: Lewes Partnership Area Issue Solution Football 1. Develop community-use agreements with schools (with suitable pitches Current undersupply of and ancillary facilities), for example Priory School. Investment in 1.0 adult pitches, appropriate school provision may be needed predicted to increase to 1.3 by 2006 2. Work with Active Lewes Partnership to develop a sports hub around the South of Lewes with the Convent Field at its centre Current undersupply of 1.5 junior football pitches, 3. Investigate increasing adult and junior pitch numbers at Convent Field predicted to increase to 1.7 by 2006 4. Opportunities should be explored (for example with Active Lewes Partnership) for an ATP for football training and community/school use
5. Seek any possible developer contributions via section 106 agreements
6. Improvements should be made to pitches as outlined in Table 7.2.
Cricket 7. Develop community-use agreements with schools (with suitable pitches Current shortfall of 1.6 and ancillary facilities), for example Priory School cricket pitches. Predicted to increase to 1.9 pitches 8. Work with Active Lewes Partnership to develop a sports hub around the by 2006. South of Lewes with the Convent Field at its centre
Clubs have moved out of 9. Improvements should be made to the sites as listed in Table 7.2. Lewes Town for better facilities 10. Seek any possible developer contributions via Section 106 agreements
Rugby 11. The small surplus should be retained to allow for rest and recovery Oversupply of 1.0 pitch predicted to decrease to 12. Investigate reconfiguring pitches on Stanley Turner Ground to improve 0.9 by 2006. efficiency of layout,
Oversupply of 3.0 junior 13. Work with Lewes Rugby Club to achieve the right balance of adult and pitches (equivalent to junior pitches approx 2 adult) predicted to decrease to 2.9 by 14. Progress with application to Rugby Foundation for funding to assist with 2006. facility/ground improvements
15. Improvements should be made to the sites as listed in Table 7.2
Hockey 16. Opportunities should be explored (for example with Active Lewes Undersupply of 1.8 partnership) to develop a further community floodlit ATP linked to the pitches (0.5 STPs) hockey club for overflow hockey use in addition to other sports predicted to remain at 0.5 STP’s by 2006.
The STP is in club ownership and the club’s competitive growth will be limited by its pitch capacity.
Bowls 17. Investigate the requirements to re-lay the bowling green The number of bowls greens is sufficient based 18. Explore solutions to car parking restrictions/costs with bowls club as this on current supply and may affect membership both short and long term demand
Tennis 19. Ensure Convent Field tennis courts are included as part of the sports hub Surplus of two courts and investigate the possibilities of floodlighting the courts
A Report for Lewes District Council Page 85 LEWES DISTRICT OUTDOOR PLAYING SPACE REVEW 7: PRIORITIES FOR ACTION
projected to remain at 2 courts for 2006
Current floodlit courts are in club ownership which may be prohibitive for some potential tennis players Athletics 20. Support Athletics Club to maintain current track facilities. Provision is satisfactory for the District
A Report for Lewes District Council Page 86 LEWES DISTRICT OUTDOOR PLAYING SPACE REVEW 7: PRIORITIES FOR ACTION
Table 7.4 Playing pitch issues and solutions: Newhaven Partnership Area
Issue Solution Football 1. Develop community-use agreements with schools (with suitable pitches Current surplus of 0.4 and ancillary facilities), for example Tideway School. Investment in adult pitches, predicted to appropriate school provision may be needed decrease to no pitches by 2006 2. Continue to pursue developments at Fort Road Sports Park, improve quality of current pitches to improve carrying capacity to allow for increase Current undersupply of in junior matches 2.0 junior football pitches, predicted to increase to 3. Seek any possible developer contributions via Section 106 agreements 2.7 by 2006 4. Improvements should be made to pitches as outlined in Table 7.2.
Cricket 5. Develop community-use agreements with schools (with suitable pitches Current shortfall of 1.5 and ancillary facilities), for example Tideway School cricket pitches. Predicted to increase to 2.3 pitches 6. Seek any possible developer contributions via Section 106 agreements for by 2006. a minimum of one new pitch
7. Improvements should be made to the sites as listed in Table 7.2
Rugby 8. Continue to monitor the local population to establish whether there is the No rugby provision but potential and sports development back up to form a rugby club population could support 3 rugby teams
Hockey 9. Continue with plans for Fort Road Sports Park and the development of a No hockey teams but STP. population could support 3 teams 10. Seek any possible developer contributions via Section 106 agreements for a minimum of one new pitch Newhaven hockey club, currently based in 11. Encourage the club to develop a junior programme Seaford would like to relocate back to Newhaven
Bowls 12. Continue to work with the bowls club to maintain the current facility The number of bowls greens is sufficient based on current supply and demand
Tennis 13. Continue with the plans to redevelop Fort Road Sports Park to include Shortfall of 2 floodlit three floodlit courts with a mix of club and community use courts projected to increase to 3 courts by 2006 Athletics 14. Track provision in Lewes and surrounding towns out of Lewes District is No provision sufficient, no action required
A Report for Lewes District Council Page 87 LEWES DISTRICT OUTDOOR PLAYING SPACE REVEW 7: PRIORITIES FOR ACTION
Table 7.5 Playing pitch issues and solutions: Peacehaven/Telscombe Partnership Area
Issue Solution Football 1. This surplus should be maintained as a minimum to allow rest and Based on current recovery time participation there is a current surplus of 3.0 2. Improvements should be made to pitches as outlined in Table 7.2 adult pitches, predicted to decrease to 2.9 pitches 3. Work with Town Council on improvements to Peacehaven Sports Park, by 2006. Telscombe floodlit training facilities and improvements to pitches. Cliffs pitches are not popular with the players 4. Investigate with Town Council, Meridian Centre and Community School the as they are windy and formation of a sports hub/partnership to work together managing the have a poor surface outdoor sports provision
Current surplus of 2.0 5. Seek any possible developer contributions via Section 106 agreements to junior football pitches, increase pitch numbers and ancillary facilities for a minimum of two adult predicted to decrease to and two junior pitches for community and potential school use 1.9 by 2006
Peacehaven Community School pitches will shortly reach capacity and may require access to further community pitches
With sports development input and investment Peacehaven/ Telscombe could sustain up to ten more football teams
Cricket 6. Investigate the steps required to generate adult and junior cricket Participation is constrained due to lack of 7. Seek any possible developer contributions via Section 106 agreements for facility provision. With a minimum of one cricket pitch sports development input and investment 8. Investigate with Town Council, Meridian Centre and Community School the Peacehaven/ Telscombe formation of a sports hub/partnership to work together managing the could sustain cricket outdoor sports provision provision. The population could support up to 17 cricket teams
Rugby 9. Investigate with Lewes Rugby Club/Sussex RFU the possibilities of forming Participation is a new junior section based in Peacehaven/Telscombe constrained by lack of facility provision. With 10. Seek any possible developer contributions via Section 106 agreements for sports development input a minimum of one pitch suitable for junior play and investment Peacehaven/ Telscombe could sustain rugby provision. The population could support up to 3 teams
Hockey 11. Encourage hockey participation in Newhaven (provided the relocation of No current provision Newhaven HC goes ahead) and Lewes
A Report for Lewes District Council Page 88 LEWES DISTRICT OUTDOOR PLAYING SPACE REVEW 7: PRIORITIES FOR ACTION
Although the population could support additional hockey teams the nature of the sport and the facilities required make it logical to encourage hockey participation alongside existing clubs
Bowls 12. Work with bowls club to access funding for required work The number of bowls greens is sufficient based on current supply and demand
Requirement to improve standard of facility
Tennis 13. Work with the sports providers in Peacehaven/Telscombe to identify a No current year round suitable site for year round tennis facilities tennis provision, predicted demand 4 14. Seek any possible developer contributions via Section 106 agreements for floodlit courts by 2006 a minimum of four floodlit tennis courts and ancillary facilities
Athletics 15. Track provision in Lewes and surrounding towns out of Lewes District is No provision sufficient, no action required
A Report for Lewes District Council Page 89 LEWES DISTRICT OUTDOOR PLAYING SPACE REVEW 7: PRIORITIES FOR ACTION
Table 7.6 Playing pitch issues and solutions: Seaford Partnership Area
Issue Solution Football 1. This surplus should be maintained as a minimum to allow rest and Current surplus of 0.6 recovery time adult pitches, predicted to decrease to 0.5 pitches 2. Improvements should be made to pitches as outlined in Table 7.2 by 2006 3. Identify suitable sites and seek any possible developer contributions via Current undersupply of Section 106 agreements and other funding sources (e.g. Football 3.0 junior football pitches, Foundation) for a minimum of 3 junior pitches predicted to increase to 3.3 by 2006
Cricket 4. Identify a potential site and seek any possible developer contributions via Current undersupply of Section 106 agreements for a minimum of one new cricket pitch 0.8 pitches predicted to remain the same by 5. Improvements should be made to pitches as outlined in Table 7.2 2006.
Rugby 6. Improvements should be made to pitches as outlined in Table 7.2 Current oversupply of 1.5 pitches predicted to 7. Either encourage Seaford Rugby Club to develop a thriving junior section remain the same by 2006 or investigate the possibilities of remarking one rugby pitch as junior football
Hockey 8. Current pitch at Downs Leisure Centre is in poor condition and in need of Current undersupply of replacement. Investigate sources of funding for use as football training 0.2 pitches predicted to facility if Newhaven Hockey Club relocates successfully back to home town increase to 0.3
Bowls 9. Continue to maintain standard of facilities The number of bowls greens is sufficient to 10. Investigate parking difficulties at Seaford Bowling Club. match the needs of the town based on current supply and demand
Tennis 11. Investigate possibilities of floodlighting the public courts at the Salts Current undersupply of 1 Recreation Ground floodlit tennis court predicted to remain for 2006
Athletics 12. Track provision in Lewes and surrounding towns out of Lewes District is No provision sufficient
A Report for Lewes District Council Page 90 LEWES DISTRICT OUTDOOR PLAYING SPACE REVEW 7: PRIORITIES FOR ACTION
Table 7.7 Playing pitch issues and solutions: Rural Partnership Area Issue Solution Football 1. This surplus should be maintained as a minimum to allow rest and Current surplus of 3.8 recovery time. adult pitches, predicted to decrease to 2.9 pitches 2. Villages in parishes with a shortfall, who are unable to expand, should be by 2006 encouraged to maintain their pitches to the highest possible standard to ensure the best possible carrying capacity. Current surplus of 4.5 junior football pitches, 3. Where there is scope to expand e.g. Barcombe the parish should be predicted to decrease to assisted with funding applications to ensure the development is successful 4.3 by 2006 4. Should the opportunity arise seek capital funding and any possible Despite an overall developer contributions via Section 106 agreements for additional football surplus it is recognised pitches in Barcombe, Glynde, Kingston, South Heighton and Wivelsfield that there will be a shortfall in some parishes 5. Improvements should be made to pitches as outlined in Table 7.2
The rural nature of the area engenders community spirit and generally teams do not play home fixtures out of their village location
Cricket 6. The largest undersupply of pitches affects two clubs in Ditchling, one of Current undersupply of which, St James’s Montefiore, is looking to purchase an adjoining field to 1.5 pitches predicted to expand their development programme. Assist the club with their plans for remain the same by expansion and applications for funding support. 2006. 7. Should the opportunity arise seek any possible developer contributions via 106 agreements for new cricket pitches in Chailey, Ditchling, Glynde, Newick, and Plumpton
Rugby 7. Clubs felt their current supply was sufficient to cope with the development Current supply matches programmes and teams they were currently running. Maintain a watching demand exactly. brief on rugby developments across the district and in wake of World Cup success encourage clubs to form junior sections. If numbers on Current oversupply of 1.0 development programmes increase dramatically then review pitch junior pitch, remains the provision in the rural area. same for 2006
Hockey 8. Although the population could support additional hockey teams the nature No STP provision of the sport and the facilities required make it logical to encourage hockey participation alongside existing clubs, in Newhaven (provided the relocation of Newhaven HC goes ahead) and Lewes.
Bowls 9. Work with the clubs to increase membership which will allow the clubs to The number of bowls generate more income and maintain and improve their facilities to a good greens is sufficient based standard on current supply and demand
Membership numbers are fairly low at the three private members clubs
Tennis 10. Investigate with leisure providers (school/parish councils) in Chailey and Current supply sufficient Ringmer the possibilities of developing tennis or multi-use games areas. at two venues, no change
A Report for Lewes District Council Page 91 LEWES DISTRICT OUTDOOR PLAYING SPACE REVEW 7: PRIORITIES FOR ACTION
predicted 11. Investigate community access to school facilities
Although the number of 12. Encourage clubs to develop junior sections. Where no floodlighting exists floodlit courts is sufficient at the active clubs work with the club to access funding e.g. LTA club loans for the population the to improve facilities. rural nature of the district makes access difficult for many residents
Two of the seven tennis venues have floodlit facilities
Athletics 13. Track provision in Lewes and surrounding towns out of Lewes District is No provision sufficient
Mini-soccer
7.21 As outlined in Section 4, there is only 1 mini-soccer pitch secured for community use in Lewes District. At present this equates to an under-supply of 12.5 pitches and with trends indicating that participation will continue to increase new pitches will need to be identified.
Recommendation 5 Current mini-soccer site should be retained. Identify central venues where mini soccer is played and investigate identifying areas dedicated to the mini game. Where possible, at least two mini soccer pitches should be located at each site.
Section 106 Agreements
7.22 It is a long standing and well-accepted principle that new residential developments should include the provision of appropriate areas of public open space. It is now formally accepted that all such development should actually contribute to the provision of open space, including outdoor playing space, which are required to meet the needs generated by the development and prevent deficiencies and shortfalls being increased.
7.23 Developer contributions should be related to the suggested local standard (see 7.28).
Recommendation 6 It is recommended that contributions from developers should be sought under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 from all housing developments. Provision should also be made for sports development input and subsequent maintenance costs.
(d) Dealing with identified ‘surpluses’
7.24 The supply and demand analysis has identified a small surplus of pitches within Lewes. The majority of this surplus is in the form of adult football pitches. Total surplus is currently equivalent to 3.8 pitches (taking into account carrying capacity). Therefore it is important that existing provision is improved and current provision is protected. Rest and recovery periods of pitches must also be accommodated, and a cushion of pitches should always be available. Only once the shortfalls in each sport have been addressed should consideration be given to the future of any remaining potential pitches.
A Report for Lewes District Council Page 92 LEWES DISTRICT OUTDOOR PLAYING SPACE REVEW 7: PRIORITIES FOR ACTION
7.25 Playing pitches are often under threat from other development, therefore, discussions should take place with Sport England (as a statutory consultee) to agree the most appropriate cause of action for areas of over-supply. As stated in PPG 17 Sport, Open Space and Recreation, “for open space, 'surplus to requirements' should include consideration of all the functions that open space can perform”, therefore the policy options include:
1. further promotion and marketing of the relevant sports in order to ensure that latent demand in the area has been genuinely accommodated
2. a long-term view of likely trends on demography and sports over the next 20 years and of the long-term open space needs of the population. As the population of the district continues to grow more play space will be required and therefore there is a need to retain current provision
3. reduce the number of pitches on a site to improve those remaining, for example by increasing their size, realigning them to improve drainage or landscaping. This will require a high degree of maintenance on those remaining pitches
4. change of use, such as from football to cricket pitches
5. changing to other recreational uses: jogging, cycling, walking, golf etc
6. designation of pitches as approved training areas. This would solve the problem which clubs face of a lack of training facilities
7. if no other sporting demand is expressed, the land could revert to informal recreational uses: urban park, nature reserve etc.
(e) Sources of capital funding
7.26 There are several sources of financial aid and funding agencies to fund the long list of projects which have been identified throughout the review:
i. Football Foundation: The Foundation is dedicated to revitalising the grass roots of the game, constructing modern football infrastructure creating facilities that are fit for the game in the 21st century. The maximum grant for a capital project is £1m. Ceiling grants will only be awarded in exceptional circumstances. The percentage level of support is typically no more than 50%, but in exceptional circumstances could reach 90%. (See www.footballfoundation.org.uk for more information)
ii. Rugby Football Foundation: The RFU has recently announced (January 2003) the commencement of this fund, through which community rugby clubs may apply for grants and/or interest free loans to fund capital facilities projects. This is available for clubs participating at Level 5 or below. At this stage, clubs can apply for £1,500-5,000 which must be matched (50:50) by clubs. Interest Free Loan Schemes are available of up to £100,000. The fund commenced on 16 January 2003. (Information packs are available from [email protected])
A Report for Lewes District Council Page 93 LEWES DISTRICT OUTDOOR PLAYING SPACE REVEW 7: PRIORITIES FOR ACTION
iii. Sport England Funding: This is divided into community and national funding streams. The community funding will be distributed on a regional basis and priorities are currently being set. In the national stream £130 million is being dedicated to 30 sports which include cricket, football, rugby, hockey, tennis and athletics. This funding will be distributed through the national governing bodies of sport and other national partners. (See www.sportengland.org for more information)
iv. Developers: Through Section 106 agreements where appropriate
v. The Lord’s Taverners: It may be possible for cricket clubs to obtain funding from this organisation. The Lord’s Taverners is accredited by the England & Wales Cricket Board as the official national charity for recreational cricket. Grants are distributed on the recommendation of the ECB. (See http://www.lordstaverners.org/ for more information).
vi. The Lawn Tennis Association: Affiliated clubs may apply for financial assistance, generally in the form of loan money, to improve tennis facilities. (See http://www.lta.org.uk for more information).
7.27 However, it is recognised that sufficient financial resources will not be available immediately to meet all the identified needs. To ensure strategic development of all the potential projects in Lewes, it is necessary to:
• give all partners, providers and users the opportunity to add to this long list of projects (identified in Tables 7.2-7.6) and ensure that it evolves as necessary following this assessment
• develop a set of criteria against which projects can be judged, in order to assess which of the potential projects should be developed first
• make priorities against this criteria.
(f) Towards a local standard
7.28 An important outcome from an outdoor playing space review is the development of local standards of provision, in accordance with national planning policy. Such standards will:
• underpin negotiations with developers over their contributions for new pitch provision to meet the needs of new residential developments
• provide an additional overview of the general supply of pitches/level of provision
• assist in protecting land in playing field use
• assist in benchmarking with other areas/authorities.
7.29 The NPFA’s Six Acre Standard states that for every 1000 people, 1.2 hectares of playing pitches should be provided. This is a useful national benchmark and is often adopted as a local standard in the absence of a detailed local assessment.
7.30 The current total population of the district is 92,177. The playing pitch methodology carried out for this study identifies that there is a total of 115.3 hectares of playing pitches in the District. This equates to a standard of 1.25 hectares per 1000, almost
A Report for Lewes District Council Page 94 LEWES DISTRICT OUTDOOR PLAYING SPACE REVEW 7: PRIORITIES FOR ACTION
exactly the NPFA benchmark. However, of this total there are only 78.6 hectares (public, private and secured community use) available to meet the demand from local teams and clubs. This is equivalent to 0.85 hectares per 1000.
7.31 Table 7.8 below shows how the demand for community pitches will change by 2006.
Table 7.8 – Calculation of a Local Standard for Playing Pitches Partnership Area (A) Area of (B) Shortfall (C ) 2006 Hectares existing /oversupply Hectares Population required community for 2006 required per 1000 pitches (hectares) by 2006 population (A-B) Lewes Town 20.48 -2.56 23.04 16,449 1.40 Newhaven 5.22 -4.80 10.02 13,534 0.74 Peacehaven/Telscombe 5.44 3.44 2.00 20,863 0.10 Seaford 8.70 -0.71 9.41 23,657 0.40 Rural 38.72 2.60 36.12 22,792 1.58 Total 78.56 -2.03 80.59 97,295 0.82
7.32 The table indicates there is an overall shortfall of 2.03 hectares of pitches to meet demand in 2006. This indicates that a local standard of 0.82 hectares of community playing pitches per 1000 population is required for formal playing fields with secured community access. It does not include the provision of bowls greens, tennis courts or athletics tracks.
7.33 In determining this standard it is assumed that all pitches with secured community access are in good condition and capable of hosting two games per week.
7.34 The level of new provision required to meet the shortfall indicated in the table above depends on the amount of existing pitches, which can be secured for community use. If the number of school facilities with secured community use can be increased then this will reduce the need for new pitches. Conversely, if the number of secured pitches decreases then the shortfall will increase and lead to a greater need for new provision.
Recommendation 7 It is therefore recommended that a local standard of 0.82 hectares of playing pitches per 1000 population is adopted by the Council.
7.35 The NPFA’s Six Acre Standard states that for every 1000 people, 0.8 hectares of children’s playing space should be provided. This is a useful national benchmark and is often adopted as a local standard in the absence of a detailed local assessment.
7.36 We have addressed the issue of a local standard in Section 6 and recommend that this is set at 0.38 ha per 1000 population.
7.37 Table 7.9 shows the calculation for a local standard to Lewes District for informal and equipped play space taking into account the actual current provision of 0.34ha per 1000 population and increasing by 0.04ha per 1000 population for improving play provision for older children without losing other outdoor play space.
A Report for Lewes District Council Page 95 LEWES DISTRICT OUTDOOR PLAYING SPACE REVEW 7: PRIORITIES FOR ACTION
Recommendation 8 It is therefore recommended that a local standard of 0.38 hectares of equipped and informal play space per 1000 population is adopted by the Council.
A Report for Lewes District Council Page 96 LEWES DISTRICT OUTDOOR PLAYING SPACE REVEW 7: PRIORITIES FOR ACTION
Summary
The role of all Partners
7.38 All organisations responsible for providing/developing outdoor play space and pitches in the study area should consider the following actions:
• all providers in the public, voluntary, commercial and education sectors should strive to protect all existing areas of playing pitch land and open space from other forms of development pressures. Once play space is lost it is very hard to replace
• providers should seek to retain a degree of spare capacity of pitches. This is an integral part of playing pitch provision and sports development, to accommodate latent and future demand and allow for rest and recovery of pitches
• for playing pitches shortfalls should be met firstly through the upgrading of existing facilities and pitches rather than the acquisition of new land. Provision can be increased through schemes which:
improve drainage of sites improve changing facilities, including dedicated provision for women and children improve access, spectator facilities and car parking
• following quality improvement schemes, the second priority to meet shortfalls is to acquire by agreement or negotiating community access to private sports pitches and school sites, or securing leasing agreements with existing landowners
partners should seek to secure funds from their own resources through re- designation of surplus adult pitches to open space, thus saving pitch maintenance costs
• new play space developments must take account of location, safe access to the site and the type of equipment installed
7.39 As a planning authority, the Council should seek to:
• support the principal that the new pitch facilities and outdoor play space should be developed, wherever possible, in locations where ancillary facilities are acceptable (in planning and licensing terms) in order that the fullest use can be made of the investment required and where sports clubs exist they can maximise revenue and become self-sufficient
• when determining planning applications, adopt the minimum standard of playing pitches and outdoor play space as set out in this report
• consult with Sport England on any planning application relating to the potential loss of playing fields
• give favourable consideration to voluntary sports clubs wishing to relocate their pitches to a new site providing that all proceeds are reinvested in the club and that there is no assessed deficiency of overall open space in the area being vacated
A Report for Lewes District Council Page 97 LEWES DISTRICT OUTDOOR PLAYING SPACE REVEW 7: PRIORITIES FOR ACTION
• enter Section 106 agreements under the Town and Country Planning Act for the provision of the outdoor play space, sports pitches and ancillary facilities, and for subsequent maintenance and sports development support. In new developments, if appropriate, to provide compensatory facilities where existing provision is under threat
7.40 The Council has a central role in planning, providing and co-ordinating provision of outdoor playing space in the district. The Council must pinpoint cases where provision is poor, for example the breadth of sports offered in Peacehaven/Telscombe and work to rectify the situation through facility developments and improvements and sports development input.
7.41 The Council should also play a major part in assisting other providers (such as schools) to allow community access and maintain and enhance the quality of their provision. Our recommendations, outlined above are directed at the Council as the lead organisation in ensuring future provision of pitches is balanced, meets the needs of the community and is protected for future generations.
A Report for Lewes District Council Page 98 APPENDIX A
LIST OF CLUBS REVIEW OF OUTDOOR PLAYING SPACE Appendices
APPENDIX A – List of clubs and teams identified as of 13 May 2004
Barcombe Cricket Club Associates Football Club
Brighton R.A.F.C Cricket Club Barcombe Football Club
Chailey Cricket Club Chailey Colts Football Club
Denton Cricket Club Chailey Football Club
Ditchling Cricket Club Denton and South Heighton Football Club
Firle Cricket Club Elephant and Castle Football Club
Glynde and Beddingham Cricket Club Engineer Football Club
Lewes St Michael’s Cricket Club Glynde and Beddingham Football Club
Lewes Priory Cricket Club Jolly Boatman Football Club
Plumpton Cricket Club Kingston Village Football Club
Newhaven Cricket Club Juniors Lewes Comets Football Club
Newhaven Cricket Club Lewes Football Club
Newick Cricket Club Lewes Ladies Football Club
Ringmer Junior Cricket Club Lewes Bridge View Junior Football Club
Ringmer Cricket Club Lewes Bridgeview Football Club
St James’ Montefiore Cricket Club Lewes Wanderers
Seaford Cricket Club Lewes Youth Football Club
Southover Church Cricket Club Newhaven Con Football Club
Southwick Wanderers Cricket Club Meridian Athletic Football Club
Sussex Martlets Cricket Club Newhaven Railway
Streat and Westmeston Cricket Club Newhaven Football Club
Wivelsfield Green Cricket Club Newick FC
Peacehaven Academicals
Newhaven Hockey Club Peacehaven Football Club
Southdown Club Lewes Hockey Club Peacehaven and Telscombe Juniors FC
Plumpton Athletic FC
Ditchling Rugby Football Club RBC 93
Lewes Rugby Football Club Ringmer Football Club
Newick Rugby Football Club Ringmer Rover FC
A Report for Lewes District Council REVIEW OF OUTDOOR PLAYING SPACE Appendices
Plumpton Rugby Football Club Seahaven Harriers Football Club
Seaford RFC Seaford Crown
Seaford Football Club
Barcombe Stoolball Club Seaford Cinque Ports
Bluebells Stoolball Club Seaford United
Chailey Stoolball Club Seaford Youth FC
Ditchling Stoolball Club Village of Ditchling Football Club
Newick Stoolball Club Wivelsfield Green FC
Plumpton Stoolball Club
Ringmer Stoolball Club Barcombe Tennis Club
Ringmer Junior Stoolball Club Ditchling Tennis Club
South Heighton Stoolball Club Kingston Tennis Club
Wivelsfield Green Stoolball Club Newhaven Tennis Club
Newick Tennis Club
Barcombe Bowling Club Piddinghoe Lawn Tennis Club
Chailey Bowling Club Plumpton Tennis Club
Crouch Bowling Club Ringmer Lawn Tennis Club
Denton Island Indoor Bowls Club Seaford & Blatchington Tennis Club
Lewes Bowling Club Seaford Salts Tennis Club
Newhaven Bowls Club Southdown Club
Newick Bowling Club
Peacehaven and Telscombe Bowls Club
Plumpton Green Bowling Club
Ringmer Outdoor Bowls Club
Seaford Bowling Club
Lewes Athletics Club
A Report for Lewes District Council APPENDIX B
EXAMPLE QUESTIONNAIRES Outdoor Playing Spaces in Lewes District
Governing body representatives questionnaire
«Contact_name» «Title» «Organisation» «Address_1» «Address2» «Town» «County» «Postcode»
Q1 What are the key sports development initiatives for your sport at the moment? How might they affect the need for sports facilities in Lewes District?
Q2 Which parts of the district are particularly lacking in facilities for your sport, and what kind of facilities do they require?
Q3 How would you justify this need for facilities? For example, is it for casual use, club use, junior development, league requirements, particular sports development programmes…?
Sally Graham, PMP Tel: 01483 890772 Email: [email protected] Q4 What would be your top priority for facility development in the area? Why?
Q5 If Lewes District could do three things to help your organisation achieve its aims for sport, what would they be?
Q6 Any other comments?
Please return this questionnaire in the FREEPOST envelope provided by 1st April 2004. Many thanks for your help.
Sally Graham, PMP Tel: 01483 890772 Email: [email protected] Outdoor Playing Space in Lewes District
Provider questionnaire
«Contact_Name» «Title» «CompanyOrganisation» «Address1» «Address2» «TownCity» «County» «Post_Code»
Instructions for completing the grid overleaf:
• Tick each box which is relevant to the facility • If you do not know the answer to a question, please mark the box with a question mark • If you run out of space on a line, please mark with an asterisk and continue on a separate sheet • Please return the completed questionnaire in the FREEPOST envelope provided or by fax by 2nd April 2004 even if the information is incomplete • If you have any queries please contact Sally Graham at: − Tel: 01483 890772 − Fax: 01483 890773 − E-mail: [email protected]
Thank you very much for your assistance Q1 Please attach a copy of your schedule of bookings for the facilities identified on the grid.
Q2 Are any of these facilities/ pitches threatened in any way? Please give details:
Q3 Do you have any plans for the expansion of these facilities/ pitches? Please give details:
Q4 Are these facilities/ pitches currently utilised to the full? Please tick box:
Under capacity……… At capacity………...… Over capacity……..…….
Q5 If usage of these facilities/ pitches is under-capacity, at which times and days?
Q6 Do you see demand increasing for these facilities/ pitches? If so, please explain why. (For example, you may be involved in a sports development initiative)
Q7 Do you have any other comments concerning outdoor playing space in Lewes District?
MANY THANKS FOR YOUR ASSISTANCE Outdoor Playing Space in Lewes District
Q1. Please state the full name of your school:
Q2. How many pupils does your school have? Boys Girls
Q3. What is the age range of pupils are your school?
Q4. Which of the following grass pitches/courts does your school own? (please state number)
Mini-soccer pitch Cricket pitch (grass wicket) Shared tennis/netball Junior football pitch Cricket pitch (artificial wicket) Standalone tennis crts Adult football pitch Grass hockey pitch Standalone netball crts Junior rugby pitch Artificial turf pitch Stoolbool Adult rugby pitch Generic grass field Athletics (grass) Athletics (all weather)
Q5. Which (if any) of the above pitches/courts are used regularly by community sports teams?
Q6. If applicable, at what times and on what days are the above facilities used by community sport teams?
Q7. If applicable, please list the teams that use your pitches/courts:
Q8. Does your school have any formal dual-use agreement for use of your pitches/courts?
Yes No
Q9. If your school does not currently own any playing pitches/courts, please state the name and location of the pitches/courts your school uses, the landowner, the sports played and the frequency of use: Q10. If your school does not use any public pitches/courts, would it consider doing so in the future?
Yes No
Q11. Please rate the following aspects of the pitch(es)/court(s) that your school uses:
Good Acceptable Poor Firmness of surface Grip underfoot Bounce of ball on pitch Evenness of pitch Length of grass Grass cover Posts and sockets Line markings Free from litter, dog fouling etc Changing facilities Showers - clean, hot, plenty of water Parking Value for money Overall quality of pitch
Q12. Does your school have any future plans to develop or expand its sports facilities?
Yes No
Q13. If YES, please give details:
Q14. If you have any further comments or views concerning playing pitch/court provision in Lewes District, please use the space provided below
Please return this questionnaire in the FREEPOST envelope provided by no later than 26th March 2004. Many thanks for your assistance Outdoor Playing Space in Lewes District
Q1. Please state the full name of your sports club:
Q2. Which sport(s) does your club participate in?
Football Rugby League Hockey Other (please state): Cricket Rugby Union Stoolball
Q3. How many members does your club have?
Under 18 Adult Veteran (over 45) Male Female
Q4. Over the last 5 years has membership….
Increased Decreased Remained static
Q5. How many teams does your club have?
Little League Mini Junior Adult Veteran (over 45) Male Female Mixed
Q6. Which leagues/ competitions do your teams participate in? (if possible, please attach a fixture list)
Q7. Please give contact name and telephone number for the above league/ competition organisers:
Q8. Does your club currently have a written development plan?
Yes (please enclose a copy) No
Q9. Which of the following issues are currently problematic for your club? (please tick all that apply)
Lack of internal funding (subs/ fund-raising) Lack of external funding (parish council, governing bodies etc) Access difficulties for members (cost, lack of public transport etc) Lack of information about local facilities/ services Poor/ No relationship with local clubs (facility usage/ exit routes etc) Lack of voluntary assistance (committee members/ coaches etc) Membership recruitment/ retention Lack of appropriate local facilities e.g. Other. Please specify
Sally Graham, PMP 01483 890772 Q10. Please complete the table below, listing the venue(s) that your club use for home matches and training: (example responses are shown in italic )
MATCHDAY VENUES
Hired/ leased/ Name and address Postcode Facility details (size/ surface/ ancillary) owned If hired/ leased, from who? Days/ times when used Alton Recreation Ground, GU99 1AB 2 junior grass football pitch, with changing Leased Alton Parish Council Sunday 10-12am Kings Road, Alton rooms Tuesday 6-7pm 1
2
3
OUTDOOR TRAINING VENUES
Hired/ leased/ Name and address Postcode Facility details (size/ surface/ ancillary) owned If hired/ leased, from who? Days/ times when used Alton School, Queens GU99 1CD Hired Alton School Tuesday 6-7pm Road, Alton 1 junior grass football pitch, no changing rooms 1
2
3
INDOOR TRAINING VENUES
Hired/ leased/ Name and address Postcode Facility details (size/ surface/ ancillary) owned If hired/ leased, from who? Days/ times when used Alton Leisure Centre, GU99 1EF 3 court sports hall, with changing rooms Hired Alton Leisure Centre Thursdays 8-10pm Prince Road, Alton 1
2
3
Q11. Are the matchday pitches listed in Q10 your preferred location to play home matches?
Yes No If NO, please state your preferred location (site name and address)
Sally Graham, PMP 01483 890772 Q12. How many matches do you play on your main pitch each season?
Q13. How many games were cancelled due to the pitch condition last season (excluding frozen pitches)?
Q14. How many matches per week do you feel that your main match pitch can adequately sustain?
Q15. Does your club train on your main match pitch?
Yes If YES, for how many hours per week?
No If NO, do you train on another grass pitch? If so, where
Q16. What are the three BEST pitches you have played on this season (home or away)? Please state site name and address:
1
2
3
Q17. What are the three WORST pitches you have played on this season (home or away)? Please state site name and address:
1
2
3
Q18. Please rate the following aspects of your main match pitch: Good Acceptable Poor Firmness of surface Grip underfoot Bounce of ball on pitch Evenness of pitch Length of grass Grass cover Posts and sockets Line markings Free from litter, dog fouling etc Changing facilities Showers - clean, hot, plenty of water Parking Value for money Overall quality of pitch
Sally Graham, PMP 01483 890772 Q19. What future plans does your club have?
Increase the number of members Expand the range of facilities provided Refurbish existing facilities Relocation to different premises None Other - please state
Q20. In which town/ village do the majority of your players reside?
Q21. In your opinion is pitch provision (quality and quantity) in Lewes District sufficient to meet your clubs needs?
Q22. If your club does not use public pitches, would you consider doing so in the future?
Yes No
Please return this questionnaire in the FREEPOST envelope provided by no later than 5 April 2004. Many thanks for your assistance
Sally Graham, PMP 01483 890772 Sally Graham, PMP 01483 890772 Outdoor Playing Space in Lewes District
Q1. Please state the full name of your sports club:
Q2. Which sport(s) does your club participate in?
Bowls Other (please state):
Q3. How many members does your club have?
Under 18 Adult Veteran (over 60) Male Female
Q4. Over the last 5 years has membership….
Increased Decreased Remained static
Q5. How many teams does your club have?
Little League Mini Junior Adult Veteran (over 60) Male Female Mixed
Q6. Which leagues/ competitions do your teams participate in? (if possible, please attach a fixture list)
Q7. Please give contact name and telephone number for the above league/ competition organisers:
Q8. Does your club currently have a written development plan?
Yes (please enclose a copy) No
Q9. Which of the following issues are currently problematic for your club? (please tick all that apply)
Lack of internal funding (subs/ fund-raising) Lack of external funding (parish council, governing bodies etc) Access difficulties for members (cost, lack of public transport etc) Lack of information about local facilities/ services Poor/ No relationship with local clubs (facility usage/ exit routes etc) Lack of voluntary assistance (committee members/ coaches etc) Membership recruitment/ retention Lack of appropriate local facilities e.g. Other. Please specify
Sally Graham, PMP 01483 890772 Q10. Please complete the table below, listing the venue(s) that your club use for home matches and training: (example responses are shown in italic )
MATCHDAY VENUES
Hired/ leased/ Name and address Postcode Facility details (size/ surface/ ancillary) owned If hired/ leased, from who? Days/ times when used Alton Recreation Ground, GU99 1AB 2 junior grass football pitch, with changing Leased Alton Parish Council Sunday 10-12am Kings Road, Alton rooms Tuesday 6-7pm 1
2
3
OUTDOOR TRAINING/SOCIAL PLAY VENUES
Hired/ leased/ Name and address Postcode Facility details (size/ surface/ ancillary) owned If hired/ leased, from who? Days/ times when used Alton School, Queens GU99 1CD Hired Alton School Tuesday 6-7pm Road, Alton 1 junior grass football pitch, no changing rooms 1
2
3
INDOOR TRAINING VENUES
Hired/ leased/ Name and address Postcode Facility details (size/ surface/ ancillary) owned If hired/ leased, from who? Days/ times when used Alton Leisure Centre, GU99 1EF 3 court sports hall, with changing rooms Hired Alton Leisure Centre Thursdays 8-10pm Prince Road, Alton 1
2
3
Q11. Are the matchday venues listed in Q10 your preferred location to play home matches?
Yes No If NO, please state your preferred location (site name and address)
Sally Graham, PMP 01483 890772 Q12. How many matches do you play/compete in each season?
Q13. How many events/matches were cancelled due to facility conditions?
Q14. How many matches per week do you feel that your main match green can adequately sustain?
Q15. Does your club train on your main match green?
Yes If YES, for how many hours per week?
No If NO, do you train on another green? If so, where
Q16. What are the three BEST venues you have played on last season (home or away)? Please state site name and address:
1
2
3
Q17. What are the three WORST venues you have played on last season (home or away)? Please state site name and address:
1
2
3
Sally Graham, PMP 01483 890772 Q18. What future plans does your club have?
Increase the number of members Expand the range of facilities provided Refurbish existing facilities Relocation to different premises None Other - please state
Q19. In which town/ village do the majority of your players reside?
Q20. In your opinion is facility provision (quality and quantity) in Lewes District sufficient to meet your clubs needs?
Q21. If your club does not use public facilities, would you consider doing so in the future?
Yes No
Please return this questionnaire in the FREEPOST envelope provided by no later than 5 April 2004. Many thanks for your assistance
Sally Graham, PMP 01483 890772 Sally Graham, PMP 01483 890772 Outdoor Playing Space in Lewes District
Q1. Please state the full name of your sports club:
Q2. Which sport(s) does your club participate in?
Tennis Athletics Other (please state):
Q3. How many members does your club have?
Under 18 Adult Veteran (over 45) Male Female
Q4. Over the last 5 years has membership….
Increased Decreased Remained static
Q5. How many teams does your club have?
Little League Mini Junior Adult Veteran (over 45) Male Female Mixed
Q6. Which leagues/ competitions do your teams participate in? (if possible, please attach a fixture list)
Q7. Please give contact name and telephone number for the above league/ competition organisers:
Q8. Does your club currently have a written development plan?
Yes (please enclose a copy) No
Q9. Which of the following issues are currently problematic for your club? (please tick all that apply)
Lack of internal funding (subs/ fund-raising) Lack of external funding (parish council, governing bodies etc) Access difficulties for members (cost, lack of public transport etc) Lack of information about local facilities/ services Poor/ No relationship with local clubs (facility usage/ exit routes etc) Lack of voluntary assistance (committee members/ coaches etc) Membership recruitment/ retention Lack of appropriate local facilities e.g. Other. Please specify
Sally Graham, PMP 01483 890772 Q10. Please complete the table below, listing the venue(s) that your club use for home matches and training: (example responses are shown in italic )
MATCHDAY VENUES
Hired/ leased/ Name and address Postcode Facility details (size/ surface/ ancillary) owned If hired/ leased, from who? Days/ times when used Alton Recreation Ground, GU99 1AB 2 junior grass football pitch, with changing Leased Alton Parish Council Sunday 10-12am Kings Road, Alton rooms Tuesday 6-7pm 1
2
3
OUTDOOR TRAINING/SOCIAL PLAY VENUES
Hired/ leased/ Name and address Postcode Facility details (size/ surface/ ancillary) owned If hired/ leased, from who? Days/ times when used Alton School, Queens GU99 1CD Hired Alton School Tuesday 6-7pm Road, Alton 1 junior grass football pitch, no changing rooms 1
2
3
INDOOR TRAINING VENUES
Hired/ leased/ Name and address Postcode Facility details (size/ surface/ ancillary) owned If hired/ leased, from who? Days/ times when used Alton Leisure Centre, GU99 1EF 3 court sports hall, with changing rooms Hired Alton Leisure Centre Thursdays 8-10pm Prince Road, Alton 1
2
3
Q11. Are the matchday venues listed in Q10 your preferred location to play home matches?
Yes No If NO, please state your preferred location (site name and address)
Sally Graham, PMP 01483 890772 Q12. How many matches do you play/compete in each season?
Q13. How many events/matches were cancelled due to facility conditions?
Q14. Does your club train at your main match venue?
Yes If YES, for how many hours per week?
No
Q16. What are the three BEST venues you have played/competed at in the last year (home or away)? Please state site name and address:
1
2
3
Q17. What are the three WORST venues you have played/competed at in the last year (home or away)? Please state site name and address:
1
2
3
Sally Graham, PMP 01483 890772 Q18. What future plans does your club have?
Increase the number of members Expand the range of facilities provided Refurbish existing facilities Relocation to different premises None Other - please state
Q19. In which town/ village do the majority of your players reside?
Q20. In your opinion is facility provision (quality and quantity) in Lewes District sufficient to meet your clubs needs?
Q21. If your club does not use public facilities, would you consider doing so in the future?
Yes No
Please return this questionnaire in the FREEPOST envelope provided by no later than 5 April 2004. Many thanks for your assistance
Sally Graham, PMP 01483 890772 Sally Graham, PMP 01483 890772 Outdoor Playing Space in Lewes District Organisation/Parish Council Name:
Instructions 1. Tick each box which is relevant to the facility, or insert a number to indicate quantity 2. If you don't know the answer to a question, please mark with a question mark 3. If you run out of space on a line, please mark with an asterisk and continue over the page or on a separate sheet 4. If you run out of space on this questionnaire, or have any problems completing it, please call Sally Graham on 01483 890772 5. Please return the questionnaire by 31st March, even if it is incomplete.
Address details Ownership Type of facility (insert quantity of each) Availability Current usage Ancillary facilities (insert quantity) Facility ratings
*
No. of games the
Postcode or Lease and rent details (term, review, pitch can sustain per week needed) P = poor (in need of serious improvement) Bar G = good condition (no/ very little repair Other (please specify) Number of team changing rooms required) Number of officials' changing rooms Stoolbool Pitches A = average (some repair/ improvements Number of showers Floodlights (Yes or No) Clubroom No. of car parking spaces (approx) Adult football pitches Junior football pitches Cricket pitches Adult rugby pitches Junior rugby pitches pitches hockey Grass Synthetic turf pitch (Astroturf) Multi-use Games areas Bowls Greens Tracks Athletics Number of toilets of Number Tennis Courts Other (please specify) Name of SPORTS venue Address grid reference Freeholder etc) Hired to…. On... (insert days/times/seasons) Charges Other (please specify) Examples:
Alton playing field Green Lane, Alton GU99 XYZ Mr A J Bloggs 99 Year lease until 2030 1 1 1 2 Alton Football Club Every Saturday, 2-5pm, Sept to April £10/day 2 2 4 2 0 1 9 N
Y Every Saturday 10-4pm, Sept-May; Alton Recreation Ground Red Lane, Alton GU99 ABC Parish Council N/A 12 Alton RFC £25/day 6 28 4 1 111 Y Every Tuesday, 7-9pm, all year
Type of facility Facilty Ratings Comments
Name of PLAY venue equipped play space equippedTeenage playspace ** Informal play space Good Average Poor
*defined as 'A fenced, non-turf surfaced area marked out and an adequate size for at least two of the following sports: Tennis, Netball, Basketball, 5-a-side Football
**for example skateboard ramps APPENDIX C
LIST OF CONSULTEES REVIEW OF OUTDOOR PLAYING SPACE Appendices
APPENDIX C – LIST OF CONSULTEES
Lewes District Council
- Owen Clifford
- Andy Frost
- Jackie Wood
- Sally Harper
- Peacehaven/Telscombe Partnership Group Representatives
- Shirley James, Rural Partnership Chairman
- Seaford Area Partnership
Other Relevant Groups/Individuals
- English Bowling Association/English Women’s Bowling Association
- Ian Phillips, County Event Organiser, English Bowls Youth Development Scheme
- Steve Nelson, Sussex Sports Partnership
- John Feetham, Sport England
- Henry Millington, Sussex FA
- Michelle Lawrence, Active Sport Girls Football Development Officer
- Charlotte Slade, County Development Officer, Lawn Tennis Association
- John and Kay Price, English Stoolball Association
- Malcolm McNeill, Active Sports Hockey Development Officer
- Jack Wilkinson, Consultant to Sussex Sports Partnership
- David Pankhurst, Lewes Sunday Football League
- Peter Bentley, Sussex County Football League
- Emma Forward, Active Sport Athletics Development Officer
- Peter Masters, Lewes Athletics Club, Active Lewes Partnership
- Bob Lake, East Sussex County Council
- Mal Chumbley, Active Sports Rugby Development Officer
- Ieuan Sherwood, Rural Action in Sussex
A Draft Report for Lewes District Council APPENDIX D
AUDIT OF PITCHES REVIEW OF OUTDOOR PLAYING SPACE Appendices
Site Parish Ownership
Barcombe Recreation Ground Barcombe Parish Council
Lewes Road Recreation Ground Ditchling Parish Council
Firle Recreation Ground Firle Parish Council
Cooksbridge Recreation Ground Hamsey Parish Council
St Pancreas Recreation Ground Kingston Parish Council
The Green Kingston Parish Council
King George V Playing Fields Newick Parish Council
David Manwaring Robertson Playing Field Newick Parish Council
Peacehaven Sports Park Peacehaven Parish Council
Ringmer Village Green Ringmer Private/Corporate
Cheyney Field Ringmer Private/Corporate
Fingerpost Field Ringmer Local Authority
Anchor Field Ringmer Local Authority
Rodmell & Rodmell Recreation Ground Southease Private/Corporate
Wivelsfield Recreation Ground Wivelsfield Parish Council
South Heighton Rec Ground South Heighton Private/Corporate
Chailey Sports Ground Chailey Private/Corporate
Rowheath Village Green Chailey Parish Council
East Chiltington & Hollycroft St John Without Local Authority
Telscombe Playing Field Telscombe Local Authority
Meridian Leisure Centre Peacehaven Local Authority
The Dell Recreation Ground Peacehaven Parish Council
The Joff Peacehaven LEA
Cairo Avenue South Recreation Space Peacehaven Parish Council
Salts Recreation Ground Seaford Local Authority
Martello Fields Seaford Parish Council
Crouch Gardens Recreation Ground Seaford Local Authority
Walmer Road Recreation Ground Seaford Local Authority
A Report for Lewes District Council REVIEW OF OUTDOOR PLAYING SPACE Appendices
The Downs Recreation Ground Seaford Local Authority
Valley Dip Play Area Seaford Local Authority
Fort Road Recreation Ground Newhaven Local Authority
Eastside Recreation Ground Newhaven Local Authority
Denton & Mt Pleasant Recreation Ground Newhaven Local Authority
Avis Road Newhaven Local Authority
Piddinghoe Recreation Ground (The Hoe) Piddinghoe Parish Council
Southdown Sports Club Lewes Private/Corporate
Ringmer Community College Ringmer LEA
Annecy Catholic Primary School Seaford LEA
Keymer Road Recreation Ground Ditchling Parish Council
Glynde Recreation Ground Glynde Parish Council
Convent Field Lewes Local Authority
Malling Recreation Ground Lewes Local Authority
Stanley Turner Ground Lewes Local Authority
Neville Recreation Ground Lewes Local Authority
King George V Playing Fields Plumpton Parish Council
Lewes Road Recreation Ground Newhaven Local Authority
Plumpton Agricultural College Plumpton Other Education
Falmer & St Ann Sussex University Without Other Education
St Peter's CE Primary School Chailey LEA
Chailey School Chailey LEA
Seaford Head School Seaford LEA
Seaford County Primary School Seaford LEA
Telscombe Cliffs Community Primary Telscombe LEA
Ditchling (St Margaret's) Community Primary Ditchling LEA
South Malling CE Primary School Lewes LEA
Denton Community School Newhaven LEA
Newick CE Primary Newick LEA
A Report for Lewes District Council REVIEW OF OUTDOOR PLAYING SPACE Appendices
Plumpton Primary School Plumpton LEA
Western Road Community Primary Lewes LEA
East Hoathly CE Primary Lewes LEA
Priory School Lewes LEA
Peacehaven Community School Peacehaven LEA
Southdown Junior School Newhaven LEA
Seaford Primary School Seaford LEA
Rodmell & Rodmell CE Primary School Southease LEA
Meching Valley Primary School Newhaven LEA
Hamsey Community Primary School Hamsey LEA
Grays School Newhaven LEA
Lewes Oid Grammar School Lewes Other Education
Laughton County Primary School Lewes LEA
Chiddingly County Primary School Lewes LEA
Barcombe CE Primary School Barcombe LEA
Tideway Community School & Sixth Form CentreNewhaven LEA
St Pancras Catholic Primary School Lewes LEA
Rodmell & Northease Manor Southease Other Education
Ringmer Primary School Ringmer LEA
Firle CE Primary Firle LEA
Southover CE Primary School Lewes LEA
Hoddern Junior School Peacehaven LEA
Wallands School Lewes LEA
Meridian County Primary Peacehaven LEA
Peacehaven Infant School Peacehaven LEA
Iford & Kingston C of E Primary School Kingston LEA
Chyngton School Seaford LEA
St Anne's School Lewes LEA
Pells CE Primary Lewes LEA
A Report for Lewes District Council REVIEW OF OUTDOOR PLAYING SPACE Appendices
Cradle Hill Community Primary School Seaford LEA
A Report for Lewes District Council APPENDIX E
RESULTS OF QUALITY ASSESSMENT Undertaking a pitch quality assessment - Guidance Notes
1 This pack is intended to give a standard approach to helping to assess the quality of pitches within your area. It is intended to be carried out individuals who do not have any specific technical expertise in pitch quality.
2 The 'Site Sheet' should be used for each playing field site, recording information for that site and the quality of the ancillary facilities on site.
For each pitch within the site, use a separate 'Pitch (1), Pitch (2), Pitch (3)' etc., to record the individual pitch quality issues. Whilst pitches within a site 3 may share the same characteristics and problems, its important that specific issues for individual pitches are recorded so decisions can be made in their improvement in the over strategy and action plan.
To use the Scoring assesment sheets, place an 'x' in the orange boxes. The 4 scores will automatically be added up and a % score shown at the bottom of each sheet. Please check that only one box per question is entered, otherwise there will be a double score for that question. Quality Assessment - Site Sheet and Ancillary Facilities
Site Name: Assessment undertaken by: Alec
Site Address: Date of Assessment: Grid Ref: X Grid Ref: Y Weather condition:
Nr of pitch(es): Football Cricket Rugby Hockey Other
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 ancillary facilities…
Perceived quality of changing accommodation Excellent Good Average Poor No changing Does it look well maintained, clean, safe etc
Evidence of vandalism None Yes - some Yes - lots Damage to pavillion, graffiti, broken glass etc
Parking Good Average Is there enough for circa 20 cars, bays marked out etc
Scoring: 0 out of 20 Key: over 90% Excellent 60%-89% Good 40%-59% Average 30%-39% Poor Total Score 0% Less than 30% Very Poor
Poor Quality Assessment - Individual Pitch Assessment
Pitch Number: 1 Sport: Football Pitch Name: Stanley Turner Recreation Ground
Background information: Number of games played on pitch each season Number of hours of training on pitch during season/ pre-season (total for year) Number of games cancelled due to unfitness of pitch (excluding frozen pitches) % 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 pitch/ outfield…
Grass cover - entire pitch/ outfield? >94% 85-94% 70-84% X 60-69% <60% Where, 90%+ grass cover should be given 'Excellent'; less than 50% should be considered 'very poor'
Length of grass? Excellent Good Average X Poor Very Poor The ideal length of grass will vary between sports
Drainage - % of games cancelled (see above) None 1-10% 11-30% 31-49% >50% Take % from above
Size of pitches? - does it meet the NGB standard? Yes - for adults X Yes - for juniors No See guidance notes for pitch dimensions
Adequate safety margins? - does it meet the NGB standard? Yes - for adults Yes - for juniors No X See guidance notes for pitch dimensions
Slope of pitches (gradient and cross fall) Excellent Good Poor Where, flat pitch = 'Excellent' Evenness of pitch Excellent Good Poor X
Problem Areas: Evidence of Dog fouling None Yes - some X Yes - lots If no evidence, assume none ie score as '5' or refer to user survey
Problem Areas: Evidence of Glass/ stones/ litter None X Yes - some Yes - lots If no evidence, assume none ie score as '5' or refer to user survey
Problem Areas: Evidence of Unofficial use None Yes - some X Yes - lots eg trespass, kids kickabout etc. If no evidence, assume none ie score as '5' or refer to user survey
eg. golf divots, car-parking on field etc. If no evidence, assume none ie score as '5' or refer to user Problem Areas: Evidence of Damage to surface None Yes - some X Yes - lots survey
Exposure of pitch to elements Yes No X Is the pitch sheltered from the prevaling wind
Training area X Yes No X eg nets/ gaols/ grids off main body of pitch
Eg. Well painted, upright and has safe hooks…at both ends. If posts are dismantled after game, Goal posts/ nets/ wicket square - quality Excellent X Good Average Poor Very Poor assume Excellent ie score as '5'
Line markings - quality Excellent Good Average Poor Very Poor X Eg. Have they been painted recently; are lines clear etc
Protection of pitch/ wicket Yes No X Is goal mouth cordoned off, wicket covered etc when pitch is not being used
Changing None (for rec. ground, Parking Average X Vandalism None
Scoring: Pitch 32 out of 61 Key: 90%+ An excellent pitch Equipment 6 out of 15 64-90% A good pitch 55-64% An average pitch TOTAL 38 76 30-54% A below average pit Less than 30 A poor pitch Total Score 50 % Quality Assessment - Individual Pitch Assessment
Pitch Number: 2 Sport: Football Pitch Name: Stanley Turner Recreation Ground
Background information: Number of games played on pitch each season Number of hours of training on pitch during season/ pre-season 0 (total for year) 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 pitch/ outfield…
Grass cover - entire pitch/ outfield? >94% 85-94% 70-84% X 60-69% <60% Where, 90%+ grass cover should be given 'Excellent'; less than 50% should be considered 'very poor'
Length of grass? Excellent Good Average X Poor Very Poor The ideal length of grass will vary between sports
Drainage - % of games cancelled (see above) None 1-10% 11-30% 31-49% >50% Take % from above
Size of pitches? - does it meet the NGB standard? Yes - for adults X Yes - for juniors No See guidance notes for pitch dimensions
Adequate safety margins? - does it meet the NGB standard? Yes - for adults Yes - for juniors No X See guidance notes for pitch dimensions
Slope of pitches (gradient and cross fall) Excellent Good X Poor Where, flat pitch = 'Excellent' Evenness of pitch Excellent Good Poor X
Problem Areas: Evidence of Dog fouling None Yes - some X Yes - lots If no evidence, assume none ie score as '5' or refer to user survey
Problem Areas: Evidence of Glass/ stones/ litter None X Yes - some Yes - lots If no evidence, assume none ie score as '5' or refer to user survey
Problem Areas: Evidence of Unofficial use None Yes - some X Yes - lots eg trespass, kids kickabout etc. If no evidence, assume none ie score as '5' or refer to user survey
eg. golf divots, car-parking on field etc. If no evidence, assume none ie score as '5' or refer to user Problem Areas: Evidence of Damage to surface None Yes - some X Yes - lots survey
Exposure of pitch to elements Yes No X Is the pitch sheltered from the prevaling wind
Training area Yes No X eg nets/ gaols/ grids off main body of pitch About the equipment/ wicket…
Eg. Well painted, upright and has safe hooks…at both ends. If posts are dismantled after game, Goal posts/ nets/ wicket square - quality Excellent X Good Average Poor Very Poor assume Excellent ie score as '5'
Line markings - quality Excellent Good Average Poor Very Poor X Eg. Have they been painted recently; are lines clear etc
Protection of pitch/ wicket Yes No X Is goal mouth cordoned off, wicket covered etc when pitch is not being used
Changing None (for rec. ground, Parking Average X Vandalism None
Scoring: Pitch 32 out of 61 Key: 90%+ An excellent pitch Equipment 6 out of 15 64-90% A good pitch 55-64% An average pitch TOTAL 38 76 30-54% A below average pit Less than 30 A poor pitch Total Score 50 % Quality Assessment - Individual Pitch Assessment
Pitch Number: 1 Sport: Football Pitch Name: Walmer Road Recreation Ground
Background information: Number of games played on pitch each season 20 Number of hours of training on pitch during season/ pre-season 0 (total for year) Number of games cancelled due to unfitness of pitch (excluding frozen pitches) 0 % of games cancelled per season 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 pitch/ outfield…
Grass cover - entire pitch/ outfield? >94% 85-94% X 70-84% 60-69% <60% Where, 90%+ grass cover should be given 'Excellent'; less than 50% should be considered 'very poor'
Length of grass? Excellent X Good Average Poor Very Poor The ideal length of grass will vary between sports
Drainage - % of games cancelled (see above) None 1-10% 11-30% 31-49% >50% Take % from above
Size of pitches? - does it meet the NGB standard? Yes - for adults X Yes - for juniors No See guidance notes for pitch dimensions
Adequate safety margins? - does it meet the NGB standard? Yes - for adults X Yes - for juniors No See guidance notes for pitch dimensions
Slope of pitches (gradient and cross fall) Excellent Good X Poor Where, flat pitch = 'Excellent' Evenness of pitch Excellent Good X Poor
Problem Areas: Evidence of Dog fouling None X Yes - some Yes - lots If no evidence, assume none ie score as '5' or refer to user survey
Problem Areas: Evidence of Glass/ stones/ litter None Yes - some X Yes - lots If no evidence, assume none ie score as '5' or refer to user survey
Problem Areas: Evidence of Unofficial use None Yes - some X Yes - lots eg trespass, kids kickabout etc. If no evidence, assume none ie score as '5' or refer to user survey
eg. golf divots, car-parking on field etc. If no evidence, assume none ie score as '5' or refer to user Problem Areas: Evidence of Damage to surface None Yes - some X Yes - lots survey
Exposure of pitch to elements Yes X No Is the pitch sheltered from the prevaling wind
Training area Yes No X eg nets/ gaols/ grids off main body of pitch About the equipment/ wicket…
Eg. Well painted, upright and has safe hooks…at both ends. If posts are dismantled after game, Goal posts/ nets/ wicket square - quality Excellent X Good Average Poor Very Poor assume Excellent ie score as '5'
Line markings - quality Excellent Good Average Poor Very Poor X Eg. Have they been painted recently; are lines clear etc
Protection of pitch/ wicket Yes No X Is goal mouth cordoned off, wicket covered etc when pitch is not being used
Changing Poor X Parking Good X (Ample off-site) Vandalism Yes - some X
Scoring: Pitch 35 out of 61 Key: 90%+ An excellent pitch Equipment 6 out of 15 64-90% A good pitch 55-64% An average pitch TOTAL 41 76 30-54% A below average pit Less than 30 A poor pitch Total Score 54 % Quality Assessment - Individual Pitch Assessment
Pitch Number: 2 Sport: Football Pitch Name: Walmer Road Recreation Ground
Background information: Number of games played on pitch each season Number of hours of training on pitch during season/ pre-season (total for year) Number of games cancelled due to unfitness of pitch (excluding frozen pitches) % 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 pitch/ outfield…
Grass cover - entire pitch/ outfield? >94% 85-94% X 70-84% 60-69% <60% Where, 90%+ grass cover should be given 'Excellent'; less than 50% should be considered 'very poor'
Length of grass? Excellent X Good Average Poor Very Poor The ideal length of grass will vary between sports
Drainage - % of games cancelled (see above) None 1-10% 11-30% 31-49% >50% Take % from above
Size of pitches? - does it meet the NGB standard? Yes - for adults X Yes - for juniors No See guidance notes for pitch dimensions
Adequate safety margins? - does it meet the NGB standard? Yes - for adults X Yes - for juniors No See guidance notes for pitch dimensions
Slope of pitches (gradient and cross fall) Excellent Good X Poor Where, flat pitch = 'Excellent' Evenness of pitch Excellent Good X Poor
Problem Areas: Evidence of Dog fouling None X Yes - some Yes - lots If no evidence, assume none ie score as '5' or refer to user survey
Problem Areas: Evidence of Glass/ stones/ litter None Yes - some X Yes - lots If no evidence, assume none ie score as '5' or refer to user survey
Problem Areas: Evidence of Unofficial use None Yes - some X Yes - lots eg trespass, kids kickabout etc. If no evidence, assume none ie score as '5' or refer to user survey
eg. golf divots, car-parking on field etc. If no evidence, assume none ie score as '5' or refer to user Problem Areas: Evidence of Damage to surface None Yes - some X Yes - lots survey
Exposure of pitch to elements Yes X No Is the pitch sheltered from the prevaling wind
Training area Yes No X eg nets/ gaols/ grids off main body of pitch About the equipment/ wicket…
Eg. Well painted, upright and has safe hooks…at both ends. If posts are dismantled after game, Goal posts/ nets/ wicket square - quality Excellent X Good Average Poor Very Poor assume Excellent ie score as '5'
Line markings - quality Excellent Good Average Poor Very Poor X Eg. Have they been painted recently; are lines clear etc
Protection of pitch/ wicket Yes No X Is goal mouth cordoned off, wicket covered etc when pitch is not being used
Changing Poor X Parking Good X (Ample off-site) Vandalism Yes - some X
Scoring: Pitch 35 out of 61 Key: 90%+ An excellent pitch Equipment 6 out of 15 64-90% A good pitch 55-64% An average pitch TOTAL 41 76 30-54% A below average pit Less than 30 A poor pitch Total Score 54 % Quality Assessment - Individual Pitch Assessment
Pitch Number: 1 Sport: Football Pitch Name: Crouch Gardens
Background information: Number of games played on pitch each season Number of hours of training on pitch during season/ pre-season (total for year) Number of games cancelled due to unfitness of pitch (excluding frozen pitches) % 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 pitch/ outfield…
Grass cover - entire pitch/ outfield? >94% 85-94% X 70-84% 60-69% <60% Where, 90%+ grass cover should be given 'Excellent'; less than 50% should be considered 'very poor'
Length of grass? Excellent Good X Average Poor Very Poor The ideal length of grass will vary between sports
Drainage - % of games cancelled (see above) None 1-10% 11-30% 31-49% >50% Take % from above
Size of pitches? - does it meet the NGB standard? Yes - for adults X Yes - for juniors No See guidance notes for pitch dimensions
Adequate safety margins? - does it meet the NGB standard? Yes - for adults Yes - for juniors No X See guidance notes for pitch dimensions
Slope of pitches (gradient and cross fall) Excellent Good X Poor Where, flat pitch = 'Excellent' Evenness of pitch Excellent Good X Poor
Problem Areas: Evidence of Dog fouling None X Yes - some Yes - lots If no evidence, assume none ie score as '5' or refer to user survey
Problem Areas: Evidence of Glass/ stones/ litter None Yes - some X Yes - lots If no evidence, assume none ie score as '5' or refer to user survey
Problem Areas: Evidence of Unofficial use None X Yes - some Yes - lots eg trespass, kids kickabout etc. If no evidence, assume none ie score as '5' or refer to user survey
eg. golf divots, car-parking on field etc. If no evidence, assume none ie score as '5' or refer to user Problem Areas: Evidence of Damage to surface None X Yes - some Yes - lots survey
Exposure of pitch to elements Yes No X Is the pitch sheltered from the prevaling wind
Training area Yes No X eg nets/ gaols/ grids off main body of pitch About the equipment/ wicket…
Eg. Well painted, upright and has safe hooks…at both ends. If posts are dismantled after game, Goal posts/ nets/ wicket square - quality Excellent X Good Average Poor Very Poor assume Excellent ie score as '5'
Line markings - quality Excellent Good X Average Poor Very Poor Eg. Have they been painted recently; are lines clear etc
Protection of pitch/ wicket Yes No X Is goal mouth cordoned off, wicket covered etc when pitch is not being used
Changing Good X Parking Poor X Vandalism Yes - lots X
Scoring: Pitch 40 out of 61 Key: 90%+ An excellent pitch Equipment 9 out of 15 64-90% A good pitch 55-64% An average pitch TOTAL 49 76 30-54% A below average pit Less than 30 A poor pitch Total Score 64 % Quality Assessment - Individual Pitch Assessment
Pitch Number: 1 Sport: Football Pitch Name: Telscombe Playing Fields
Background information: Number of games played on pitch each season Number of hours of training on pitch during season/ pre-season (total for year) Number of games cancelled due to unfitness of pitch (excluding frozen pitches) % 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 pitch/ outfield…
Grass cover - entire pitch/ outfield? >94% 85-94% 70-84% 60-69% X <60% Where, 90%+ grass cover should be given 'Excellent'; less than 50% should be considered 'very poor'
Length of grass? Excellent Good Average X Poor Very Poor The ideal length of grass will vary between sports
Drainage - % of games cancelled (see above) None 1-10% 11-30% 31-49% >50% Take % from above
Size of pitches? - does it meet the NGB standard? Yes - for adults X Yes - for juniors No See guidance notes for pitch dimensions
Adequate safety margins? - does it meet the NGB standard? Yes - for adults X Yes - for juniors No See guidance notes for pitch dimensions
Slope of pitches (gradient and cross fall) Excellent Good X Poor Where, flat pitch = 'Excellent' Evenness of pitch Excellent Good X Poor
Problem Areas: Evidence of Dog fouling None Yes - some X Yes - lots If no evidence, assume none ie score as '5' or refer to user survey
Problem Areas: Evidence of Glass/ stones/ litter None Yes - some X Yes - lots If no evidence, assume none ie score as '5' or refer to user survey
Problem Areas: Evidence of Unofficial use None Yes - some Yes - lots X eg trespass, kids kickabout etc. If no evidence, assume none ie score as '5' or refer to user survey
eg. golf divots, car-parking on field etc. If no evidence, assume none ie score as '5' or refer to user Problem Areas: Evidence of Damage to surface None X Yes - some Yes - lots survey
Exposure of pitch to elements Yes X No Is the pitch sheltered from the prevaling wind
Training area Yes No X eg nets/ gaols/ grids off main body of pitch About the equipment/ wicket…
Eg. Well painted, upright and has safe hooks…at both ends. If posts are dismantled after game, Goal posts/ nets/ wicket square - quality Excellent Good Average Poor X Very Poor assume Excellent ie score as '5'
Line markings - quality Excellent Good Average X Poor Very Poor Eg. Have they been painted recently; are lines clear etc
Protection of pitch/ wicket Yes No X Is goal mouth cordoned off, wicket covered etc when pitch is not being used
Changing Poor X Parking Excellent X Vandalism None
Scoring: Pitch 29 out of 61 Key: 90%+ An excellent pitch Equipment 5 out of 15 64-90% A good pitch 55-64% An average pitch TOTAL 34 76 30-54% A below average pit Less than 30 A poor pitch Total Score 45 % Quality Assessment - Individual Pitch Assessment
Pitch Number: 2 Sport: Football Pitch Name: Telscombe Playing Fields
Background information: Number of games played on pitch each season Number of hours of training on pitch during season/ pre-season (total for year) Number of games cancelled due to unfitness of pitch (excluding frozen pitches) % 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 pitch/ outfield…
Grass cover - entire pitch/ outfield? >94% 85-94% 70-84% 60-69% X <60% Where, 90%+ grass cover should be given 'Excellent'; less than 50% should be considered 'very poor'
Length of grass? Excellent Good Average X Poor Very Poor The ideal length of grass will vary between sports
Drainage - % of games cancelled (see above) None 1-10% 11-30% 31-49% >50% Take % from above
Size of pitches? - does it meet the NGB standard? Yes - for adults Yes - for juniors X No See guidance notes for pitch dimensions
Adequate safety margins? - does it meet the NGB standard? Yes - for adults Yes - for juniors X No See guidance notes for pitch dimensions
Slope of pitches (gradient and cross fall) Excellent Good X Poor Where, flat pitch = 'Excellent' Evenness of pitch Excellent Good X Poor
Problem Areas: Evidence of Dog fouling None Yes - some X Yes - lots If no evidence, assume none ie score as '5' or refer to user survey
Problem Areas: Evidence of Glass/ stones/ litter None Yes - some X Yes - lots If no evidence, assume none ie score as '5' or refer to user survey
Problem Areas: Evidence of Unofficial use None Yes - some Yes - lots X eg trespass, kids kickabout etc. If no evidence, assume none ie score as '5' or refer to user survey
eg. golf divots, car-parking on field etc. If no evidence, assume none ie score as '5' or refer to user Problem Areas: Evidence of Damage to surface None X Yes - some Yes - lots survey
Exposure of pitch to elements Yes X No Is the pitch sheltered from the prevaling wind
Training area Yes X No eg nets/ gaols/ grids off main body of pitch About the equipment/ wicket…
Eg. Well painted, upright and has safe hooks…at both ends. If posts are dismantled after game, Goal posts/ nets/ wicket square - quality Excellent Good Average Poor X Very Poor assume Excellent ie score as '5'
Line markings - quality Excellent Good Average X Poor Very Poor Eg. Have they been painted recently; are lines clear etc
Protection of pitch/ wicket Yes No X Is goal mouth cordoned off, wicket covered etc when pitch is not being used
Changing Poor X Parking Excellent X Vandalism None
Scoring: Pitch 34 out of 61 Key: 90%+ An excellent pitch Equipment 5 out of 15 64-90% A good pitch 55-64% An average pitch TOTAL 39 76 30-54% A below average pit Less than 30 A poor pitch Total Score 51 % Quality Assessment - Individual Pitch Assessment
Pitch Number: 1 Sport: Cricket Pitch Name: Wivelsfield Green
Background information: Number of games played on pitch each season Number of hours of training on pitch during season/ pre-season (total for year) Number of games cancelled due to unfitness of pitch (excluding frozen pitches) % 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 pitch/ outfield…
Grass cover - entire pitch/ outfield? >94% X 85-94% 70-84% 60-69% <60% Where, 90%+ grass cover should be given 'Excellent'; less than 50% should be considered 'very poor'
Length of grass? Excellent X Good Average Poor Very Poor The ideal length of grass will vary between sports
Drainage - % of games cancelled (see above) None 1-10% 11-30% 31-49% >50% Take % from above
Size of pitches? - does it meet the NGB standard? Yes - for adults X Yes - for juniors No See guidance notes for pitch dimensions
Adequate safety margins? - does it meet the NGB standard? Yes - for adults X Yes - for juniors No See guidance notes for pitch dimensions
Slope of pitches (gradient and cross fall) Excellent X Good Poor Where, flat pitch = 'Excellent' Evenness of pitch Excellent X Good Poor
Problem Areas: Evidence of Dog fouling None X Yes - some Yes - lots If no evidence, assume none ie score as '5' or refer to user survey
Problem Areas: Evidence of Glass/ stones/ litter None X Yes - some Yes - lots If no evidence, assume none ie score as '5' or refer to user survey
Problem Areas: Evidence of Unofficial use None X Yes - some Yes - lots eg trespass, kids kickabout etc. If no evidence, assume none ie score as '5' or refer to user survey
eg. golf divots, car-parking on field etc. If no evidence, assume none ie score as '5' or refer to user Problem Areas: Evidence of Damage to surface None X Yes - some Yes - lots survey
Exposure of pitch to elements Yes No X Is the pitch sheltered from the prevaling wind
Training area Yes No X eg nets/ gaols/ grids off main body of pitch About the equipment/ wicket…
Eg. Well painted, upright and has safe hooks…at both ends. If posts are dismantled after game, Goal posts/ nets/ wicket square - quality Excellent X Good Average Poor Very Poor assume Excellent ie score as '5'
Line markings - quality Excellent Good Average Poor Very Poor Eg. Have they been painted recently; are lines clear etc None
Protection of pitch/ wicket Yes X No Is goal mouth cordoned off, wicket covered etc when pitch is not being used
Changing Excellent X Parking Excellent X Vandalism None
Scoring: Pitch 51 out of 61 Key: 90%+ An excellent pitch Equipment 10 out of 15 64-90% A good pitch 55-64% An average pitch TOTAL 61 76 30-54% A below average pit Less than 30 A poor pitch Total Score 80 % Quality Assessment - Individual Pitch Assessment
Pitch Number: 1 Sport: Cricket Pitch Name: Lewes Road Recreation Ground
Background information: Number of games played on pitch each season Number of hours of training on pitch during season/ pre-season (total for year) Number of games cancelled due to unfitness of pitch (excluding frozen pitches) % 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 pitch/ outfield…
Grass cover - entire pitch/ outfield? >94% X 85-94% 70-84% 60-69% <60% Where, 90%+ grass cover should be given 'Excellent'; less than 50% should be considered 'very poor'
Length of grass? Excellent Good X Average Poor Very Poor The ideal length of grass will vary between sports
Drainage - % of games cancelled (see above) None 1-10% 11-30% 31-49% >50% Take % from above
Size of pitches? - does it meet the NGB standard? Yes - for adults X Yes - for juniors No See guidance notes for pitch dimensions
Adequate safety margins? - does it meet the NGB standard? Yes - for adults X Yes - for juniors No See guidance notes for pitch dimensions
Slope of pitches (gradient and cross fall) Excellent Good X Poor Where, flat pitch = 'Excellent' Evenness of pitch Excellent Good X Poor
Problem Areas: Evidence of Dog fouling None X Yes - some Yes - lots If no evidence, assume none ie score as '5' or refer to user survey
Problem Areas: Evidence of Glass/ stones/ litter None X Yes - some Yes - lots If no evidence, assume none ie score as '5' or refer to user survey
Problem Areas: Evidence of Unofficial use None Yes - some X Yes - lots eg trespass, kids kickabout etc. If no evidence, assume none ie score as '5' or refer to user survey
eg. golf divots, car-parking on field etc. If no evidence, assume none ie score as '5' or refer to user Problem Areas: Evidence of Damage to surface None X Yes - some Yes - lots survey
Exposure of pitch to elements Yes No X Is the pitch sheltered from the prevaling wind
Training area Yes X No eg nets/ gaols/ grids off main body of pitch About the equipment/ wicket…
Eg. Well painted, upright and has safe hooks…at both ends. If posts are dismantled after game, Goal posts/ nets/ wicket square - quality Excellent Good Average X Poor Very Poor (Nets) assume Excellent ie score as '5'
Line markings - quality Excellent Good Average Poor Very Poor Eg. Have they been painted recently; are lines clear etc None
Protection of pitch/ wicket Yes X No Is goal mouth cordoned off, wicket covered etc when pitch is not being used
Changing Excellent X Parking Good X Vandalism None
Scoring: Pitch 49 out of 61 Key: 90%+ An excellent pitch Equipment 8 out of 15 64-90% A good pitch 55-64% An average pitch TOTAL 57 76 30-54% A below average pit Less than 30 A poor pitch Total Score 75 % Quality Assessment - Individual Pitch Assessment
Pitch Number: 1 Sport: Football Pitch Name: King George's Field (Plumpton)
Background information: Number of games played on pitch each season Number of hours of training on pitch during season/ pre-season (total for year) Number of games cancelled due to unfitness of pitch (excluding frozen pitches) % 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 pitch/ outfield…
Grass cover - entire pitch/ outfield? >94% 85-94% 70-84% X 60-69% <60% Where, 90%+ grass cover should be given 'Excellent'; less than 50% should be considered 'very poor'
Length of grass? Excellent Good X Average Poor Very Poor The ideal length of grass will vary between sports
Drainage - % of games cancelled (see above) None 1-10% 11-30% 31-49% >50% Take % from above
Size of pitches? - does it meet the NGB standard? Yes - for adults Yes - for juniors X No See guidance notes for pitch dimensions
Adequate safety margins? - does it meet the NGB standard? Yes - for adults Yes - for juniors No X See guidance notes for pitch dimensions
Slope of pitches (gradient and cross fall) Excellent Good Poor X Where, flat pitch = 'Excellent' Evenness of pitch Excellent Good Poor X
Problem Areas: Evidence of Dog fouling None X Yes - some Yes - lots If no evidence, assume none ie score as '5' or refer to user survey
Problem Areas: Evidence of Glass/ stones/ litter None X Yes - some Yes - lots If no evidence, assume none ie score as '5' or refer to user survey
Problem Areas: Evidence of Unofficial use None Yes - some X Yes - lots eg trespass, kids kickabout etc. If no evidence, assume none ie score as '5' or refer to user survey
eg. golf divots, car-parking on field etc. If no evidence, assume none ie score as '5' or refer to user Problem Areas: Evidence of Damage to surface None Yes - some X Yes - lots survey
Exposure of pitch to elements Yes X No Is the pitch sheltered from the prevaling wind
Training area Yes No X eg nets/ gaols/ grids off main body of pitch About the equipment/ wicket…
Eg. Well painted, upright and has safe hooks…at both ends. If posts are dismantled after game, Goal posts/ nets/ wicket square - quality Excellent X Good Average Poor Very Poor assume Excellent ie score as '5'
Line markings - quality Excellent Good Average Poor Very Poor Eg. Have they been painted recently; are lines clear etc None
Protection of pitch/ wicket Yes No X Is goal mouth cordoned off, wicket covered etc when pitch is not being used
Changing Good X Parking Excellent X Vandalism None
Scoring: Pitch 28 out of 61 Key: 90%+ An excellent pitch Equipment 5 out of 15 64-90% A good pitch 55-64% An average pitch TOTAL 33 76 30-54% A below average pit Less than 30 A poor pitch Total Score 43 % Quality Assessment - Individual Pitch Assessment
Pitch Number: 2 Sport: Cricket Pitch Name: King George's Field (Plumpton)
Background information: Number of games played on pitch each season Number of hours of training on pitch during season/ pre-season (total for year) Number of games cancelled due to unfitness of pitch (excluding frozen pitches) % 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 pitch/ outfield…
Grass cover - entire pitch/ outfield? >94% 85-94% 70-84% X 60-69% <60% Where, 90%+ grass cover should be given 'Excellent'; less than 50% should be considered 'very poor'
Length of grass? Excellent X Good Average Poor Very Poor The ideal length of grass will vary between sports
Drainage - % of games cancelled (see above) None 1-10% 11-30% 31-49% >50% Take % from above
Size of pitches? - does it meet the NGB standard? Yes - for adults X Yes - for juniors No See guidance notes for pitch dimensions
Adequate safety margins? - does it meet the NGB standard? Yes - for adults X Yes - for juniors No See guidance notes for pitch dimensions
Slope of pitches (gradient and cross fall) Excellent Good X Poor Where, flat pitch = 'Excellent' Evenness of pitch Excellent Good X Poor
Problem Areas: Evidence of Dog fouling None X Yes - some Yes - lots If no evidence, assume none ie score as '5' or refer to user survey
Problem Areas: Evidence of Glass/ stones/ litter None X Yes - some Yes - lots If no evidence, assume none ie score as '5' or refer to user survey
Problem Areas: Evidence of Unofficial use None Yes - some X Yes - lots eg trespass, kids kickabout etc. If no evidence, assume none ie score as '5' or refer to user survey
eg. golf divots, car-parking on field etc. If no evidence, assume none ie score as '5' or refer to user Problem Areas: Evidence of Damage to surface None Yes - some X Yes - lots survey
Exposure of pitch to elements Yes X No Is the pitch sheltered from the prevaling wind
Training area Yes No X eg nets/ gaols/ grids off main body of pitch About the equipment/ wicket…
Eg. Well painted, upright and has safe hooks…at both ends. If posts are dismantled after game, Goal posts/ nets/ wicket square - quality Excellent X Good Average Poor (nets) Very Poor assume Excellent ie score as '5'
Line markings - quality Excellent Good Average Poor Very Poor Eg. Have they been painted recently; are lines clear etc None
Protection of pitch/ wicket Yes X No Is goal mouth cordoned off, wicket covered etc when pitch is not being used
Changing Good X Parking Excellent X Vandalism None
Scoring: Pitch 36 out of 61 Key: 90%+ An excellent pitch Equipment 10 out of 15 64-90% A good pitch 55-64% An average pitch TOTAL 46 76 30-54% A below average pit Less than 30 A poor pitch Total Score 61 % Quality Assessment - Individual Pitch Assessment
Pitch Number: 1 Sport: Football Pitch Name: King George V Field (Newick)
Background information: Number of games played on pitch each season Number of hours of training on pitch during season/ pre-season (total for year) Number of games cancelled due to unfitness of pitch (excluding frozen pitches) % 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 pitch/ outfield…
Grass cover - entire pitch/ outfield? >94% 85-94% X 70-84% 60-69% <60% Where, 90%+ grass cover should be given 'Excellent'; less than 50% should be considered 'very poor'
Length of grass? Excellent X Good Average Poor Very Poor The ideal length of grass will vary between sports
Drainage - % of games cancelled (see above) None 1-10% 11-30% 31-49% >50% Take % from above
Size of pitches? - does it meet the NGB standard? Yes - for adults X Yes - for juniors No See guidance notes for pitch dimensions
Adequate safety margins? - does it meet the NGB standard? Yes - for adults X Yes - for juniors No See guidance notes for pitch dimensions
Slope of pitches (gradient and cross fall) Excellent Good X Poor Where, flat pitch = 'Excellent' Evenness of pitch Excellent Good X Poor
Problem Areas: Evidence of Dog fouling None X Yes - some Yes - lots If no evidence, assume none ie score as '5' or refer to user survey
Problem Areas: Evidence of Glass/ stones/ litter None Yes - some X Yes - lots If no evidence, assume none ie score as '5' or refer to user survey
Problem Areas: Evidence of Unofficial use None Yes - some Yes - lots X eg trespass, kids kickabout etc. If no evidence, assume none ie score as '5' or refer to user survey
eg. golf divots, car-parking on field etc. If no evidence, assume none ie score as '5' or refer to user Problem Areas: Evidence of Damage to surface None Yes - some X Yes - lots survey
Exposure of pitch to elements Yes No X Is the pitch sheltered from the prevaling wind
Training area Yes No X eg nets/ gaols/ grids off main body of pitch About the equipment/ wicket…
Eg. Well painted, upright and has safe hooks…at both ends. If posts are dismantled after game, Goal posts/ nets/ wicket square - quality Excellent Good Average Poor X Very Poor assume Excellent ie score as '5'
Line markings - quality Excellent Good Average Poor X Very Poor Eg. Have they been painted recently; are lines clear etc
Protection of pitch/ wicket Yes No X Is goal mouth cordoned off, wicket covered etc when pitch is not being used
Changing Poor X Parking Excellent X Vandalism Yes - some X
Scoring: Pitch 38 out of 61 Key: 90%+ An excellent pitch Equipment 4 out of 15 64-90% A good pitch 55-64% An average pitch TOTAL 42 76 30-54% A below average pit Less than 30 A poor pitch Total Score 55 % Quality Assessment - Individual Pitch Assessment
Pitch Number: 2 Sport: Cricket Pitch Name: King George V Field (Newick)
Background information: Number of games played on pitch each season Number of hours of training on pitch during season/ pre-season (total for year) Number of games cancelled due to unfitness of pitch (excluding frozen pitches) % 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 pitch/ outfield…
Grass cover - entire pitch/ outfield? >94% X 85-94% 70-84% 60-69% <60% Where, 90%+ grass cover should be given 'Excellent'; less than 50% should be considered 'very poor'
Length of grass? Excellent X Good Average Poor Very Poor The ideal length of grass will vary between sports
Drainage - % of games cancelled (see above) None 1-10% 11-30% 31-49% >50% Take % from above
Size of pitches? - does it meet the NGB standard? Yes - for adults X Yes - for juniors No See guidance notes for pitch dimensions
Adequate safety margins? - does it meet the NGB standard? Yes - for adults X Yes - for juniors No See guidance notes for pitch dimensions
Slope of pitches (gradient and cross fall) Excellent Good X Poor Where, flat pitch = 'Excellent' Evenness of pitch Excellent X Good Poor
Problem Areas: Evidence of Dog fouling None X Yes - some Yes - lots If no evidence, assume none ie score as '5' or refer to user survey
Problem Areas: Evidence of Glass/ stones/ litter None Yes - some X Yes - lots If no evidence, assume none ie score as '5' or refer to user survey
Problem Areas: Evidence of Unofficial use None Yes - some X Yes - lots eg trespass, kids kickabout etc. If no evidence, assume none ie score as '5' or refer to user survey
eg. golf divots, car-parking on field etc. If no evidence, assume none ie score as '5' or refer to user Problem Areas: Evidence of Damage to surface None X Yes - some Yes - lots survey
Exposure of pitch to elements Yes No X Is the pitch sheltered from the prevaling wind
Training area Yes No X eg nets/ gaols/ grids off main body of pitch About the equipment/ wicket…
Eg. Well painted, upright and has safe hooks…at both ends. If posts are dismantled after game, Goal posts/ nets/ wicket square - quality Excellent X Good Average Poor Very Poor assume Excellent ie score as '5'
Line markings - quality Excellent Good X Average Poor Very Poor Eg. Have they been painted recently; are lines clear etc
Protection of pitch/ wicket Yes No X Is goal mouth cordoned off, wicket covered etc when pitch is not being used
Changing Poor X Parking Excellent X Vandalism Yes - some X
Scoring: Pitch 45 out of 61 Key: 90%+ An excellent pitch Equipment 9 out of 15 64-90% A good pitch 55-64% An average pitch TOTAL 54 76 30-54% A below average pit Less than 30 A poor pitch Total Score 71 % Quality Assessment - Individual Pitch Assessment
Pitch Number: 1 Sport: Cricket Pitch Name: Chailey North Common Sports Field
Background information: Number of games played on pitch each season Number of hours of training on pitch during season/ pre-season (total for year) Number of games cancelled due to unfitness of pitch (excluding frozen pitches) % 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 pitch/ outfield…
Grass cover - entire pitch/ outfield? >94% 85-94% X 70-84% 60-69% <60% Where, 90%+ grass cover should be given 'Excellent'; less than 50% should be considered 'very poor'
Length of grass? Excellent Good X Average Poor Very Poor The ideal length of grass will vary between sports
Drainage - % of games cancelled (see above) None 1-10% 11-30% 31-49% >50% Take % from above
Size of pitches? - does it meet the NGB standard? Yes - for adults X Yes - for juniors No See guidance notes for pitch dimensions
Adequate safety margins? - does it meet the NGB standard? Yes - for adults Yes - for juniors No X See guidance notes for pitch dimensions
Slope of pitches (gradient and cross fall) Excellent X Good Poor Where, flat pitch = 'Excellent' Evenness of pitch Excellent Good Poor X
Problem Areas: Evidence of Dog fouling None X Yes - some Yes - lots If no evidence, assume none ie score as '5' or refer to user survey
Problem Areas: Evidence of Glass/ stones/ litter None X Yes - some Yes - lots If no evidence, assume none ie score as '5' or refer to user survey
Problem Areas: Evidence of Unofficial use None X Yes - some Yes - lots eg trespass, kids kickabout etc. If no evidence, assume none ie score as '5' or refer to user survey
eg. golf divots, car-parking on field etc. If no evidence, assume none ie score as '5' or refer to user Problem Areas: Evidence of Damage to surface None X Yes - some Yes - lots survey
Exposure of pitch to elements Yes X No Is the pitch sheltered from the prevaling wind
Training area Yes X No eg nets/ gaols/ grids off main body of pitch About the equipment/ wicket…
Eg. Well painted, upright and has safe hooks…at both ends. If posts are dismantled after game, Goal posts/ nets/ wicket square - quality Excellent Good Average X Poor Very Poor assume Excellent ie score as '5'
Line markings - quality Excellent Good Average Poor Very Poor Eg. Have they been painted recently; are lines clear etc None
Protection of pitch/ wicket Yes X No Is goal mouth cordoned off, wicket covered etc when pitch is not being used
Changing Average X Parking Excellent X Vandalism None
Scoring: Pitch 42 out of 61 Key: 90%+ An excellent pitch Equipment 8 out of 15 64-90% A good pitch 55-64% An average pitch TOTAL 50 76 30-54% A below average pit Less than 30 A poor pitch Total Score 66 % Quality Assessment - Individual Pitch Assessment
Pitch Number: 2 Sport: Football Pitch Name: North Chailey Common Sports Ground
Background information: Number of games played on pitch each season Number of hours of training on pitch during season/ pre-season (total for year) Number of games cancelled due to unfitness of pitch (excluding frozen pitches) % 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 pitch/ outfield…
Grass cover - entire pitch/ outfield? >94% 85-94% 70-84% X 60-69% <60% Where, 90%+ grass cover should be given 'Excellent'; less than 50% should be considered 'very poor'
Length of grass? Excellent Good Average X Poor Very Poor The ideal length of grass will vary between sports
Drainage - % of games cancelled (see above) None 1-10% 11-30% 31-49% >50% Take % from above
Size of pitches? - does it meet the NGB standard? Yes - for adults X Yes - for juniors No See guidance notes for pitch dimensions
Adequate safety margins? - does it meet the NGB standard? Yes - for adults X Yes - for juniors No See guidance notes for pitch dimensions
Slope of pitches (gradient and cross fall) Excellent X Good Poor Where, flat pitch = 'Excellent' Evenness of pitch Excellent Good X Poor
Problem Areas: Evidence of Dog fouling None X Yes - some Yes - lots If no evidence, assume none ie score as '5' or refer to user survey
Problem Areas: Evidence of Glass/ stones/ litter None X Yes - some Yes - lots If no evidence, assume none ie score as '5' or refer to user survey
Problem Areas: Evidence of Unofficial use None X Yes - some Yes - lots eg trespass, kids kickabout etc. If no evidence, assume none ie score as '5' or refer to user survey
eg. golf divots, car-parking on field etc. If no evidence, assume none ie score as '5' or refer to user Problem Areas: Evidence of Damage to surface None Yes - some X Yes - lots survey
Exposure of pitch to elements Yes X No Is the pitch sheltered from the prevaling wind
Training area Yes No X eg nets/ gaols/ grids off main body of pitch About the equipment/ wicket…
Eg. Well painted, upright and has safe hooks…at both ends. If posts are dismantled after game, Goal posts/ nets/ wicket square - quality Excellent Good Average Poor X Very Poor assume Excellent ie score as '5'
Line markings - quality Excellent Good Average X Poor Very Poor Eg. Have they been painted recently; are lines clear etc
Protection of pitch/ wicket Yes No X Is goal mouth cordoned off, wicket covered etc when pitch is not being used
Changing Average X Parking Excellent X Vandalism None
Scoring: Pitch 38 out of 61 Key: 90%+ An excellent pitch Equipment 5 out of 15 64-90% A good pitch 55-64% An average pitch TOTAL 43 76 30-54% A below average pit Less than 30 A poor pitch Total Score 57 % Quality Assessment - Individual Pitch Assessment
Pitch Number: 3 Sport: Football Pitch Name: North Chailey Common Sports Ground
Background information: Number of games played on pitch each season Number of hours of training on pitch during season/ pre-season (total for year) Number of games cancelled due to unfitness of pitch (excluding frozen pitches) % 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 pitch/ outfield…
Grass cover - entire pitch/ outfield? >94% 85-94% 70-84% X 60-69% <60% Where, 90%+ grass cover should be given 'Excellent'; less than 50% should be considered 'very poor'
Length of grass? Excellent Good Average X Poor Very Poor The ideal length of grass will vary between sports
Drainage - % of games cancelled (see above) None 1-10% 11-30% 31-49% >50% Take % from above
Size of pitches? - does it meet the NGB standard? Yes - for adults X Yes - for juniors No See guidance notes for pitch dimensions
Adequate safety margins? - does it meet the NGB standard? Yes - for adults X Yes - for juniors No See guidance notes for pitch dimensions
Slope of pitches (gradient and cross fall) Excellent X Good Poor Where, flat pitch = 'Excellent' Evenness of pitch Excellent Good X Poor
Problem Areas: Evidence of Dog fouling None X Yes - some Yes - lots If no evidence, assume none ie score as '5' or refer to user survey
Problem Areas: Evidence of Glass/ stones/ litter None X Yes - some Yes - lots If no evidence, assume none ie score as '5' or refer to user survey
Problem Areas: Evidence of Unofficial use None X Yes - some Yes - lots eg trespass, kids kickabout etc. If no evidence, assume none ie score as '5' or refer to user survey
eg. golf divots, car-parking on field etc. If no evidence, assume none ie score as '5' or refer to user Problem Areas: Evidence of Damage to surface None Yes - some X Yes - lots survey
Exposure of pitch to elements Yes X No Is the pitch sheltered from the prevaling wind
Training area Yes No X eg nets/ gaols/ grids off main body of pitch About the equipment/ wicket…
Eg. Well painted, upright and has safe hooks…at both ends. If posts are dismantled after game, Goal posts/ nets/ wicket square - quality Excellent Good Average Poor X Very Poor assume Excellent ie score as '5'
Line markings - quality Excellent Good Average X Poor Very Poor Eg. Have they been painted recently; are lines clear etc
Protection of pitch/ wicket Yes No X Is goal mouth cordoned off, wicket covered etc when pitch is not being used
Changing Average X Parking Excellent X Vandalism None
Scoring: Pitch 38 out of 61 Key: 90%+ An excellent pitch Equipment 5 out of 15 64-90% A good pitch 55-64% An average pitch TOTAL 43 76 30-54% A below average pit Less than 30 A poor pitch Total Score 57 % Quality Assessment - Individual Pitch Assessment
Pitch Number: 4 Sport: Football Pitch Name: North Chailey Common Sports Ground
Background information: Number of games played on pitch each season Number of hours of training on pitch during season/ pre-season (total for year) Number of games cancelled due to unfitness of pitch (excluding frozen pitches) % 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 pitch/ outfield…
Grass cover - entire pitch/ outfield? >94% 85-94% 70-84% X 60-69% <60% Where, 90%+ grass cover should be given 'Excellent'; less than 50% should be considered 'very poor'
Length of grass? Excellent Good Average X Poor Very Poor The ideal length of grass will vary between sports
Drainage - % of games cancelled (see above) None 1-10% 11-30% 31-49% >50% Take % from above
Size of pitches? - does it meet the NGB standard? Yes - for adults X Yes - for juniors No See guidance notes for pitch dimensions
Adequate safety margins? - does it meet the NGB standard? Yes - for adults X Yes - for juniors No See guidance notes for pitch dimensions
Slope of pitches (gradient and cross fall) Excellent X Good Poor Where, flat pitch = 'Excellent' Evenness of pitch Excellent Good X Poor
Problem Areas: Evidence of Dog fouling None X Yes - some Yes - lots If no evidence, assume none ie score as '5' or refer to user survey
Problem Areas: Evidence of Glass/ stones/ litter None X Yes - some Yes - lots If no evidence, assume none ie score as '5' or refer to user survey
Problem Areas: Evidence of Unofficial use None X Yes - some Yes - lots eg trespass, kids kickabout etc. If no evidence, assume none ie score as '5' or refer to user survey
eg. golf divots, car-parking on field etc. If no evidence, assume none ie score as '5' or refer to user Problem Areas: Evidence of Damage to surface None Yes - some X Yes - lots survey
Exposure of pitch to elements Yes X No Is the pitch sheltered from the prevaling wind
Training area Yes No X eg nets/ gaols/ grids off main body of pitch About the equipment/ wicket…
Eg. Well painted, upright and has safe hooks…at both ends. If posts are dismantled after game, Goal posts/ nets/ wicket square - quality Excellent Good Average Poor X Very Poor assume Excellent ie score as '5'
Line markings - quality Excellent Good Average X Poor Very Poor Eg. Have they been painted recently; are lines clear etc
Protection of pitch/ wicket Yes No X Is goal mouth cordoned off, wicket covered etc when pitch is not being used
Changing Average X Parking Excellent X Vandalism None
Scoring: Pitch 38 out of 61 Key: 90%+ An excellent pitch Equipment 5 out of 15 64-90% A good pitch 55-64% An average pitch TOTAL 43 76 30-54% A below average pit Less than 30 A poor pitch Total Score 57 % Quality Assessment - Individual Pitch Assessment
Pitch Number: 1 Sport: Football Pitch Name: South Malling Recreation Ground
Background information: Number of games played on pitch each season Number of hours of training on pitch during season/ pre-season (total for year) Number of games cancelled due to unfitness of pitch (excluding frozen pitches) % 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 pitch/ outfield…
Grass cover - entire pitch/ outfield? >94% 85-94% X 70-84% 60-69% <60% Where, 90%+ grass cover should be given 'Excellent'; less than 50% should be considered 'very poor'
Length of grass? Excellent Good Average X Poor Very Poor The ideal length of grass will vary between sports
Drainage - % of games cancelled (see above) None 1-10% 11-30% 31-49% >50% Take % from above
Size of pitches? - does it meet the NGB standard? Yes - for adults X Yes - for juniors No See guidance notes for pitch dimensions
Adequate safety margins? - does it meet the NGB standard? Yes - for adults X Yes - for juniors No See guidance notes for pitch dimensions
Slope of pitches (gradient and cross fall) Excellent X Good Poor Where, flat pitch = 'Excellent' Evenness of pitch Excellent Good Poor X
Problem Areas: Evidence of Dog fouling None X Yes - some Yes - lots If no evidence, assume none ie score as '5' or refer to user survey
Problem Areas: Evidence of Glass/ stones/ litter None Yes - some X Yes - lots If no evidence, assume none ie score as '5' or refer to user survey
Problem Areas: Evidence of Unofficial use None X Yes - some Yes - lots eg trespass, kids kickabout etc. If no evidence, assume none ie score as '5' or refer to user survey
eg. golf divots, car-parking on field etc. If no evidence, assume none ie score as '5' or refer to user Problem Areas: Evidence of Damage to surface None X Yes - some Yes - lots survey
Exposure of pitch to elements Yes X No Is the pitch sheltered from the prevaling wind
Training area Yes No X eg nets/ gaols/ grids off main body of pitch About the equipment/ wicket…
Eg. Well painted, upright and has safe hooks…at both ends. If posts are dismantled after game, Goal posts/ nets/ wicket square - quality Excellent Good X Average Poor Very Poor assume Excellent ie score as '5'
Line markings - quality Excellent Good Average X Poor Very Poor Eg. Have they been painted recently; are lines clear etc
Protection of pitch/ wicket Yes No X Is goal mouth cordoned off, wicket covered etc when pitch is not being used
Changing Excellent X Parking Average X Vandalism None
Scoring: Pitch 37 out of 61 Key: 90%+ An excellent pitch Equipment 7 out of 15 64-90% A good pitch 55-64% An average pitch TOTAL 44 76 30-54% A below average pit Less than 30 A poor pitch Total Score 58 % Quality Assessment - Individual Pitch Assessment
Pitch Number: 2 Sport: Football Pitch Name: South Malling Recreation Ground
Background information: Number of games played on pitch each season Number of hours of training on pitch during season/ pre-season (total for year) Number of games cancelled due to unfitness of pitch (excluding frozen pitches) % 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 pitch/ outfield…
Grass cover - entire pitch/ outfield? >94% 85-94% X 70-84% 60-69% <60% Where, 90%+ grass cover should be given 'Excellent'; less than 50% should be considered 'very poor'
Length of grass? Excellent Good Average X Poor Very Poor The ideal length of grass will vary between sports
Drainage - % of games cancelled (see above) None 1-10% 11-30% 31-49% >50% Take % from above
Size of pitches? - does it meet the NGB standard? Yes - for adults X Yes - for juniors No See guidance notes for pitch dimensions
Adequate safety margins? - does it meet the NGB standard? Yes - for adults X Yes - for juniors No See guidance notes for pitch dimensions
Slope of pitches (gradient and cross fall) Excellent X Good Poor Where, flat pitch = 'Excellent' Evenness of pitch Excellent Good Poor X
Problem Areas: Evidence of Dog fouling None X Yes - some Yes - lots If no evidence, assume none ie score as '5' or refer to user survey
Problem Areas: Evidence of Glass/ stones/ litter None Yes - some X Yes - lots If no evidence, assume none ie score as '5' or refer to user survey
Problem Areas: Evidence of Unofficial use None X Yes - some Yes - lots eg trespass, kids kickabout etc. If no evidence, assume none ie score as '5' or refer to user survey
eg. golf divots, car-parking on field etc. If no evidence, assume none ie score as '5' or refer to user Problem Areas: Evidence of Damage to surface None X Yes - some Yes - lots survey
Exposure of pitch to elements Yes X No Is the pitch sheltered from the prevaling wind
Training area Yes No X eg nets/ gaols/ grids off main body of pitch About the equipment/ wicket…
Eg. Well painted, upright and has safe hooks…at both ends. If posts are dismantled after game, Goal posts/ nets/ wicket square - quality Excellent Good X Average Poor Very Poor assume Excellent ie score as '5'
Line markings - quality Excellent Good Average X Poor Very Poor Eg. Have they been painted recently; are lines clear etc
Protection of pitch/ wicket Yes No X Is goal mouth cordoned off, wicket covered etc when pitch is not being used
Changing Excellent X Parking Average X Vandalism None
Scoring: Pitch 37 out of 61 Key: 90%+ An excellent pitch Equipment 7 out of 15 64-90% A good pitch 55-64% An average pitch TOTAL 44 76 30-54% A below average pit Less than 30 A poor pitch Total Score 58 % Quality Assessment - Individual Pitch Assessment
Pitch Number: 1 Sport: Cricket Pitch Name: Glynde Recreation Ground
Background information: Number of games played on pitch each season Number of hours of training on pitch during season/ pre-season (total for year) Number of games cancelled due to unfitness of pitch (excluding frozen pitches) % 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 pitch/ outfield…
Grass cover - entire pitch/ outfield? >94% X 85-94% 70-84% 60-69% <60% Where, 90%+ grass cover should be given 'Excellent'; less than 50% should be considered 'very poor'
Length of grass? Excellent Good X Average Poor Very Poor The ideal length of grass will vary between sports
Drainage - % of games cancelled (see above) None 1-10% 11-30% 31-49% >50% Take % from above
Size of pitches? - does it meet the NGB standard? Yes - for adults X Yes - for juniors No See guidance notes for pitch dimensions
Adequate safety margins? - does it meet the NGB standard? Yes - for adults Yes - for juniors No X See guidance notes for pitch dimensions
Slope of pitches (gradient and cross fall) Excellent X Good Poor Where, flat pitch = 'Excellent' Evenness of pitch Excellent Good X Poor
Problem Areas: Evidence of Dog fouling None X Yes - some Yes - lots If no evidence, assume none ie score as '5' or refer to user survey
Problem Areas: Evidence of Glass/ stones/ litter None Yes - some X Yes - lots If no evidence, assume none ie score as '5' or refer to user survey
Problem Areas: Evidence of Unofficial use None X Yes - some Yes - lots eg trespass, kids kickabout etc. If no evidence, assume none ie score as '5' or refer to user survey
eg. golf divots, car-parking on field etc. If no evidence, assume none ie score as '5' or refer to user Problem Areas: Evidence of Damage to surface None X Yes - some Yes - lots survey
Exposure of pitch to elements Yes X No Is the pitch sheltered from the prevaling wind
Training area Yes X No eg nets/ gaols/ grids off main body of pitch About the equipment/ wicket…
Eg. Well painted, upright and has safe hooks…at both ends. If posts are dismantled after game, Goal posts/ nets/ wicket square - quality Excellent Good X Average Poor Very Poor assume Excellent ie score as '5'
Line markings - quality Excellent X Good Average Poor Very Poor Eg. Have they been painted recently; are lines clear etc
Protection of pitch/ wicket Yes No X Is goal mouth cordoned off, wicket covered etc when pitch is not being used
Changing Average X Parking Excellent X Vandalism None
Scoring: Pitch 43 out of 61 Key: 90%+ An excellent pitch Equipment 9 out of 15 64-90% A good pitch 55-64% An average pitch TOTAL 52 76 30-54% A below average pit Less than 30 A poor pitch Total Score 68 % Quality Assessment - Individual Pitch Assessment
Pitch Number: 1 Sport: Cricket Pitch Name: Ringmer Village Green
Background information: Number of games played on pitch each season Number of hours of training on pitch during season/ pre-season (total for year) Number of games cancelled due to unfitness of pitch (excluding frozen pitches) % 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 pitch/ outfield…
Grass cover - entire pitch/ outfield? >94% X 85-94% 70-84% 60-69% <60% Where, 90%+ grass cover should be given 'Excellent'; less than 50% should be considered 'very poor'
Length of grass? Excellent Good X Average Poor Very Poor The ideal length of grass will vary between sports
Drainage - % of games cancelled (see above) None 1-10% 11-30% 31-49% >50% Take % from above
Size of pitches? - does it meet the NGB standard? Yes - for adults X Yes - for juniors No See guidance notes for pitch dimensions
Adequate safety margins? - does it meet the NGB standard? Yes - for adults X Yes - for juniors No See guidance notes for pitch dimensions
Slope of pitches (gradient and cross fall) Excellent Good Poor X Where, flat pitch = 'Excellent' Evenness of pitch Excellent Good X Poor
Problem Areas: Evidence of Dog fouling None X Yes - some Yes - lots If no evidence, assume none ie score as '5' or refer to user survey
Problem Areas: Evidence of Glass/ stones/ litter None Yes - some X Yes - lots If no evidence, assume none ie score as '5' or refer to user survey
Problem Areas: Evidence of Unofficial use None Yes - some X Yes - lots eg trespass, kids kickabout etc. If no evidence, assume none ie score as '5' or refer to user survey
eg. golf divots, car-parking on field etc. If no evidence, assume none ie score as '5' or refer to user Problem Areas: Evidence of Damage to surface None X Yes - some Yes - lots survey
Exposure of pitch to elements Yes X No Is the pitch sheltered from the prevaling wind
Training area Yes No X eg nets/ gaols/ grids off main body of pitch About the equipment/ wicket…
Eg. Well painted, upright and has safe hooks…at both ends. If posts are dismantled after game, Goal posts/ nets/ wicket square - quality Excellent X Good Average Poor Very Poor assume Excellent ie score as '5'
Line markings - quality Excellent Good Average Poor Very Poor Eg. Have they been painted recently; are lines clear etc None
Protection of pitch/ wicket Yes X No Is goal mouth cordoned off, wicket covered etc when pitch is not being used
Changing Good X Parking Average X Vandalism None
Scoring: Pitch 35 out of 61 Key: 90%+ An excellent pitch Equipment 10 out of 15 64-90% A good pitch 55-64% An average pitch TOTAL 45 76 30-54% A below average pit Less than 30 A poor pitch Total Score 59 % Quality Assessment - Individual Pitch Assessment
Pitch Number: 1 Sport: Cricket Pitch Name: Fort Road
Background information: Number of games played on pitch each season Number of hours of training on pitch during season/ pre-season 0 (total for year) 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
Grass cover - entire pitch/ outfield? >94% 85-94% X 70-84% 60-69% <60% Where, 90%+ grass cover should be given 'Excellent'; less than 50% should be considered 'very poor'
Length of grass? Excellent X Good Average Poor Very Poor The ideal length of grass will vary between sports
Drainage - % of games cancelled (see above) None 1-10% 11-30% 31-49% >50% Take % from above
Size of pitches? - does it meet the NGB standard? Yes - for adults X Yes - for juniors No See guidance notes for pitch dimensions
Adequate safety margins? - does it meet the NGB standard? Yes - for adults X Yes - for juniors No See guidance notes for pitch dimensions
Slope of pitches (gradient and cross fall) Excellent X Good Poor Where, flat pitch = 'Excellent' Evenness of pitch Excellent Good X Poor
Problem Areas: Evidence of Dog fouling None X Yes - some Yes - lots If no evidence, assume none ie score as '5' or refer to user survey
Problem Areas: Evidence of Glass/ stones/ litter None Yes - some X Yes - lots If no evidence, assume none ie score as '5' or refer to user survey
Problem Areas: Evidence of Unofficial use None Yes - some X Yes - lots eg trespass, kids kickabout etc. If no evidence, assume none ie score as '5' or refer to user survey
eg. golf divots, car-parking on field etc. If no evidence, assume none ie score as '5' or refer to user Problem Areas: Evidence of Damage to surface None Yes - some X Yes - lots survey
Exposure of pitch to elements Yes No X Is the pitch sheltered from the prevaling wind
Training area Yes X No eg nets/ gaols/ grids off main body of pitch About the equipment/ wicket…
Eg. Well painted, upright and has safe hooks…at both ends. If posts are dismantled after game, Goal posts/ nets/ wicket square - quality Excellent Good Average X Poor Very Poor assume Excellent ie score as '5'
Line markings - quality Excellent Good Average Poor Very Poor Eg. Have they been painted recently; are lines clear etc None
Protection of pitch/ wicket Yes No X Is goal mouth cordoned off, wicket covered etc when pitch is not being used
Changing Good X Parking Good X Vandalism None
Scoring: Pitch 47 out of 61 Key: 90%+ An excellent pitch Equipment 3 out of 15 64-90% A good pitch 55-64% An average pitch TOTAL 50 76 30-54% A below average pit Less than 30 A poor pitch Total Score 66 % Quality Assessment - Individual Pitch Assessment
Pitch Number: 1 Sport: No specific pitches Pitch Name: East Side
Background information: Number of games played on pitch each season Number of hours of training on pitch during season/ pre-season 0 (total for year) 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
Grass cover - entire pitch/ outfield? >94% X 85-94% 70-84% 60-69% <60% Where, 90%+ grass cover should be given 'Excellent'; less than 50% should be considered 'very poor'
Length of grass? Excellent X Good Average Poor Very Poor The ideal length of grass will vary between sports
Drainage - % of games cancelled (see above) None 1-10% 11-30% 31-49% >50% Take % from above
Size of pitches? - does it meet the NGB standard? Yes - for adults Yes - for juniors No See guidance notes for pitch dimensions N/A
Adequate safety margins? - does it meet the NGB standard? Yes - for adults Yes - for juniors No See guidance notes for pitch dimensions N/A
Slope of pitches (gradient and cross fall) Excellent X Good Poor Where, flat pitch = 'Excellent' Evenness of pitch Excellent Good X Poor
Problem Areas: Evidence of Dog fouling None X Yes - some Yes - lots If no evidence, assume none ie score as '5' or refer to user survey
Problem Areas: Evidence of Glass/ stones/ litter None Yes - some X Yes - lots If no evidence, assume none ie score as '5' or refer to user survey
Problem Areas: Evidence of Unofficial use None Yes - some X Yes - lots eg trespass, kids kickabout etc. If no evidence, assume none ie score as '5' or refer to user survey
eg. golf divots, car-parking on field etc. If no evidence, assume none ie score as '5' or refer to user Problem Areas: Evidence of Damage to surface None X Yes - some Yes - lots survey
Exposure of pitch to elements Yes No X Is the pitch sheltered from the prevaling wind
Training area Yes No X eg nets/ gaols/ grids off main body of pitch About the equipment/ wicket…
Eg. Well painted, upright and has safe hooks…at both ends. If posts are dismantled after game, Goal posts/ nets/ wicket square - quality Excellent Good Average Poor Very Poor assume Excellent ie score as '5' N/A
Line markings - quality Excellent Good Average Poor Very Poor Eg. Have they been painted recently; are lines clear etc N/A
Protection of pitch/ wicket Yes No Is goal mouth cordoned off, wicket covered etc when pitch is not being used N/A
Changing Poor X Parking Average X Vandalism Yes - some X
Scoring: Pitch 39 out of 61 Key: 90%+ An excellent pitch Equipment 0 out of 15 64-90% A good pitch 55-64% An average pitch TOTAL 39 76 30-54% A below average pit Less than 30 A poor pitch Total Score 51 % Quality Assessment - Individual Pitch Assessment
Pitch Number: 1 Sport: Football Pitch Name: Peacehaven Sports Park
Background information: Number of games played on pitch each season Number of hours of training on pitch during season/ pre-season 0 (total for year) 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 pitch/ outfield…
Grass cover - entire pitch/ outfield? >94% 85-94% 70-84% X 60-69% <60% Where, 90%+ grass cover should be given 'Excellent'; less than 50% should be considered 'very poor'
Length of grass? Excellent Good Average X Poor Very Poor The ideal length of grass will vary between sports
Drainage - % of games cancelled (see above) None 1-10% 11-30% 31-49% >50% Take % from above
Size of pitches? - does it meet the NGB standard? Yes - for adults X Yes - for juniors No See guidance notes for pitch dimensions
Adequate safety margins? - does it meet the NGB standard? Yes - for adults X Yes - for juniors No See guidance notes for pitch dimensions
Slope of pitches (gradient and cross fall) Excellent X Good Poor Where, flat pitch = 'Excellent' Evenness of pitch Excellent Good X Poor
Problem Areas: Evidence of Dog fouling None X Yes - some Yes - lots If no evidence, assume none ie score as '5' or refer to user survey
Problem Areas: Evidence of Glass/ stones/ litter None Yes - some X Yes - lots If no evidence, assume none ie score as '5' or refer to user survey
Problem Areas: Evidence of Unofficial use None Yes - some X Yes - lots eg trespass, kids kickabout etc. If no evidence, assume none ie score as '5' or refer to user survey
eg. golf divots, car-parking on field etc. If no evidence, assume none ie score as '5' or refer to user Problem Areas: Evidence of Damage to surface None Yes - some X Yes - lots survey
Exposure of pitch to elements Yes X No Is the pitch sheltered from the prevaling wind
Training area Yes No X eg nets/ gaols/ grids off main body of pitch About the equipment/ wicket…
Eg. Well painted, upright and has safe hooks…at both ends. If posts are dismantled after game, Goal posts/ nets/ wicket square - quality Excellent X Good Average Poor Very Poor assume Excellent ie score as '5'
Line markings - quality Excellent Good Average Poor Very Poor X Eg. Have they been painted recently; are lines clear etc
Protection of pitch/ wicket Yes No X Is goal mouth cordoned off, wicket covered etc when pitch is not being used
Changing Excellent X Parking Excellent X Vandalism Yes - some X
Scoring: Pitch 34 out of 61 Key: 90%+ An excellent pitch Equipment 6 out of 15 64-90% A good pitch 55-64% An average pitch TOTAL 40 76 30-54% A below average pit Less than 30 A poor pitch Total Score 53 % Quality Assessment - Individual Pitch Assessment
Pitch Number: 2 Sport: Football Pitch Name: Peacehaven Sports Park
Background information: Number of games played on pitch each season Number of hours of training on pitch during season/ pre-season (total for year) Number of games cancelled due to unfitness of pitch (excluding frozen pitches) % 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 pitch/ outfield…
Grass cover - entire pitch/ outfield? >94% 85-94% 70-84% X 60-69% <60% Where, 90%+ grass cover should be given 'Excellent'; less than 50% should be considered 'very poor'
Length of grass? Excellent Good Average X Poor Very Poor The ideal length of grass will vary between sports
Drainage - % of games cancelled (see above) None 1-10% 11-30% 31-49% >50% Take % from above
Size of pitches? - does it meet the NGB standard? Yes - for adults Yes - for juniors X No See guidance notes for pitch dimensions
Adequate safety margins? - does it meet the NGB standard? Yes - for adults Yes - for juniors X No See guidance notes for pitch dimensions
Slope of pitches (gradient and cross fall) Excellent X Good Poor Where, flat pitch = 'Excellent' Evenness of pitch Excellent Good Poor
Problem Areas: Evidence of Dog fouling None X Yes - some Yes - lots If no evidence, assume none ie score as '5' or refer to user survey
Problem Areas: Evidence of Glass/ stones/ litter None Yes - some X Yes - lots If no evidence, assume none ie score as '5' or refer to user survey
Problem Areas: Evidence of Unofficial use None Yes - some X Yes - lots eg trespass, kids kickabout etc. If no evidence, assume none ie score as '5' or refer to user survey
eg. golf divots, car-parking on field etc. If no evidence, assume none ie score as '5' or refer to user Problem Areas: Evidence of Damage to surface None Yes - some X Yes - lots survey
Exposure of pitch to elements Yes X No Is the pitch sheltered from the prevaling wind
Training area Yes No X eg nets/ gaols/ grids off main body of pitch X
Eg. Well painted, upright and has safe hooks…at both ends. If posts are dismantled after game, Goal posts/ nets/ wicket square - quality Excellent X Good Average Poor Very Poor assume Excellent ie score as '5'
Line markings - quality Excellent Good Average Poor Very Poor X Eg. Have they been painted recently; are lines clear etc
Protection of pitch/ wicket Yes No X Is goal mouth cordoned off, wicket covered etc when pitch is not being used
Changing Excellent X Parking Excellent X Vandalism Yes - some X
Scoring: Pitch 34 out of 61 Key: 90%+ An excellent pitch Equipment 6 out of 15 64-90% A good pitch 55-64% An average pitch TOTAL 40 76 30-54% A below average pit Less than 30 A poor pitch Total Score 53 % Quality Assessment - Individual Pitch Assessment
Pitch Number: 1 Sport: Football Pitch Name: Meridian Leisure Centre
Background information: Number of games played on pitch each season Number of hours of training on pitch during season/ pre-season (total for year) Number of games cancelled due to unfitness of pitch (excluding frozen pitches) % 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 pitch/ outfield…
Grass cover - entire pitch/ outfield? >94% 85-94% X 70-84% 60-69% <60% Where, 90%+ grass cover should be given 'Excellent'; less than 50% should be considered 'very poor'
Length of grass? Excellent Good X Average Poor Very Poor The ideal length of grass will vary between sports
Drainage - % of games cancelled (see above) None 1-10% 11-30% 31-49% >50% Take % from above
Size of pitches? - does it meet the NGB standard? Yes - for adults X Yes - for juniors No See guidance notes for pitch dimensions
Adequate safety margins? - does it meet the NGB standard? Yes - for adults X Yes - for juniors No See guidance notes for pitch dimensions
Slope of pitches (gradient and cross fall) Excellent X Good Poor Where, flat pitch = 'Excellent' Evenness of pitch Excellent Good X Poor
Problem Areas: Evidence of Dog fouling None X Yes - some Yes - lots If no evidence, assume none ie score as '5' or refer to user survey
Problem Areas: Evidence of Glass/ stones/ litter None Yes - some X Yes - lots If no evidence, assume none ie score as '5' or refer to user survey
Problem Areas: Evidence of Unofficial use None X Yes - some Yes - lots eg trespass, kids kickabout etc. If no evidence, assume none ie score as '5' or refer to user survey
eg. golf divots, car-parking on field etc. If no evidence, assume none ie score as '5' or refer to user Problem Areas: Evidence of Damage to surface None X Yes - some Yes - lots survey
Exposure of pitch to elements Yes X No Is the pitch sheltered from the prevaling wind
Training area Yes No X eg nets/ gaols/ grids off main body of pitch About the equipment/ wicket…
Eg. Well painted, upright and has safe hooks…at both ends. If posts are dismantled after game, Goal posts/ nets/ wicket square - quality Excellent Good Average Poor X Very Poor assume Excellent ie score as '5'
Line markings - quality Excellent X Good Average Poor Very Poor Eg. Have they been painted recently; are lines clear etc
Protection of pitch/ wicket Yes No X Is goal mouth cordoned off, wicket covered etc when pitch is not being used
Changing Excellent X Parking Excellent X Vandalism None
Scoring: Pitch 40 out of 61 Key: 90%+ An excellent pitch Equipment 7 out of 15 64-90% A good pitch 55-64% An average pitch TOTAL 47 76 30-54% A below average pit Less than 30 A poor pitch Total Score 62 % Quality Assessment - Individual Pitch Assessment
Pitch Number: 2 Sport: Rugby Pitch Name: Meridian Leisure Centre
Background information: Number of games played on pitch each season Number of hours of training on pitch during season/ pre-season (total for year) Number of games cancelled due to unfitness of pitch (excluding frozen pitches) % 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 pitch/ outfield…
Grass cover - entire pitch/ outfield? >94% 85-94% X 70-84% 60-69% <60% Where, 90%+ grass cover should be given 'Excellent'; less than 50% should be considered 'very poor'
Length of grass? Excellent Good X Average Poor Very Poor The ideal length of grass will vary between sports
Drainage - % of games cancelled (see above) None 1-10% 11-30% 31-49% >50% Take % from above
Size of pitches? - does it meet the NGB standard? Yes - for adults X Yes - for juniors No See guidance notes for pitch dimensions
Adequate safety margins? - does it meet the NGB standard? Yes - for adults X Yes - for juniors No See guidance notes for pitch dimensions
Slope of pitches (gradient and cross fall) Excellent X Good Poor Where, flat pitch = 'Excellent' Evenness of pitch Excellent Good X Poor
Problem Areas: Evidence of Dog fouling None X Yes - some Yes - lots If no evidence, assume none ie score as '5' or refer to user survey
Problem Areas: Evidence of Glass/ stones/ litter None Yes - some X Yes - lots If no evidence, assume none ie score as '5' or refer to user survey
Problem Areas: Evidence of Unofficial use None X Yes - some Yes - lots eg trespass, kids kickabout etc. If no evidence, assume none ie score as '5' or refer to user survey
eg. golf divots, car-parking on field etc. If no evidence, assume none ie score as '5' or refer to user Problem Areas: Evidence of Damage to surface None X Yes - some Yes - lots survey
Exposure of pitch to elements Yes X No Is the pitch sheltered from the prevaling wind
Training area Yes No X eg nets/ gaols/ grids off main body of pitch About the equipment/ wicket…
Eg. Well painted, upright and has safe hooks…at both ends. If posts are dismantled after game, Goal posts/ nets/ wicket square - quality Excellent Good X Average Poor Very Poor assume Excellent ie score as '5'
Line markings - quality Excellent X Good Average Poor Very Poor Eg. Have they been painted recently; are lines clear etc
Protection of pitch/ wicket Yes No X Is goal mouth cordoned off, wicket covered etc when pitch is not being used
Changing Excellent X Parking Excellent X Vandalism None
Scoring: Pitch 40 out of 61 Key: 90%+ An excellent pitch Equipment 9 out of 15 64-90% A good pitch 55-64% An average pitch TOTAL 49 76 30-54% A below average pit Less than 30 A poor pitch Total Score 64 % Quality Assessment - Individual Pitch Assessment
Pitch Number: 1 Sport: Rugby Pitch Name: The Salts
Background information: Number of games played on pitch each season Number of hours of training on pitch during season/ pre-season (total for year) Number of games cancelled due to unfitness of pitch (excluding frozen pitches) % 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 pitch/ outfield…
Grass cover - entire pitch/ outfield? >94% X 85-94% 70-84% 60-69% <60% Where, 90%+ grass cover should be given 'Excellent'; less than 50% should be considered 'very poor'
Length of grass? Excellent X Good Average Poor Very Poor The ideal length of grass will vary between sports
Drainage - % of games cancelled (see above) None 1-10% 11-30% 31-49% >50% Take % from above
Size of pitches? - does it meet the NGB standard? Yes - for adults X Yes - for juniors No See guidance notes for pitch dimensions
Adequate safety margins? - does it meet the NGB standard? Yes - for adults X Yes - for juniors No See guidance notes for pitch dimensions
Slope of pitches (gradient and cross fall) Excellent X Good Poor Where, flat pitch = 'Excellent' Evenness of pitch Excellent Good X Poor
Problem Areas: Evidence of Dog fouling None X Yes - some Yes - lots If no evidence, assume none ie score as '5' or refer to user survey
Problem Areas: Evidence of Glass/ stones/ litter None X Yes - some Yes - lots If no evidence, assume none ie score as '5' or refer to user survey
Problem Areas: Evidence of Unofficial use None Yes - some Yes - lots X eg trespass, kids kickabout etc. If no evidence, assume none ie score as '5' or refer to user survey
eg. golf divots, car-parking on field etc. If no evidence, assume none ie score as '5' or refer to user Problem Areas: Evidence of Damage to surface None X Yes - some Yes - lots survey
Exposure of pitch to elements Yes X No Is the pitch sheltered from the prevaling wind
Training area Yes No X eg nets/ gaols/ grids off main body of pitch About the equipment/ wicket…
Eg. Well painted, upright and has safe hooks…at both ends. If posts are dismantled after game, Goal posts/ nets/ wicket square - quality Excellent Good X Average Poor Very Poor assume Excellent ie score as '5'
Line markings - quality Excellent Good Average Poor X Very Poor Eg. Have they been painted recently; are lines clear etc
Protection of pitch/ wicket Yes No X Is goal mouth cordoned off, wicket covered etc when pitch is not being used
Changing Poor X Parking Excellent X Vandalism None
Scoring: Pitch 40 out of 61 Key: 90%+ An excellent pitch Equipment 6 out of 15 64-90% A good pitch 55-64% An average pitch TOTAL 46 76 30-54% A below average pit Less than 30 A poor pitch Total Score 61 % Quality Assessment - Individual Pitch Assessment
Pitch Number: 2 Sport: Rugby Pitch Name: The Salts
Background information: Number of games played on pitch each season Number of hours of training on pitch during season/ pre-season (total for year) Number of games cancelled due to unfitness of pitch (excluding frozen pitches) % 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 pitch/ outfield…
Grass cover - entire pitch/ outfield? >94% X 85-94% 70-84% 60-69% <60% Where, 90%+ grass cover should be given 'Excellent'; less than 50% should be considered 'very poor'
Length of grass? Excellent X Good Average Poor Very Poor The ideal length of grass will vary between sports
Drainage - % of games cancelled (see above) None 1-10% 11-30% 31-49% >50% Take % from above
Size of pitches? - does it meet the NGB standard? Yes - for adults X Yes - for juniors No See guidance notes for pitch dimensions
Adequate safety margins? - does it meet the NGB standard? Yes - for adults X Yes - for juniors No See guidance notes for pitch dimensions
Slope of pitches (gradient and cross fall) Excellent X Good Poor Where, flat pitch = 'Excellent' Evenness of pitch Excellent Good X Poor
Problem Areas: Evidence of Dog fouling None X Yes - some Yes - lots If no evidence, assume none ie score as '5' or refer to user survey
Problem Areas: Evidence of Glass/ stones/ litter None X Yes - some Yes - lots If no evidence, assume none ie score as '5' or refer to user survey
Problem Areas: Evidence of Unofficial use None Yes - some Yes - lots X eg trespass, kids kickabout etc. If no evidence, assume none ie score as '5' or refer to user survey
eg. golf divots, car-parking on field etc. If no evidence, assume none ie score as '5' or refer to user Problem Areas: Evidence of Damage to surface None X Yes - some Yes - lots survey
Exposure of pitch to elements Yes X No Is the pitch sheltered from the prevaling wind
Training area Yes No X eg nets/ gaols/ grids off main body of pitch About the equipment/ wicket…
Eg. Well painted, upright and has safe hooks…at both ends. If posts are dismantled after game, Goal posts/ nets/ wicket square - quality Excellent Good X Average Poor Very Poor assume Excellent ie score as '5'
Line markings - quality Excellent Good Average Poor X Very Poor Eg. Have they been painted recently; are lines clear etc
Protection of pitch/ wicket Yes No X Is goal mouth cordoned off, wicket covered etc when pitch is not being used
Changing Poor X Parking Excellent X Vandalism None
Scoring: Pitch 40 out of 61 Key: 90%+ An excellent pitch Equipment 6 out of 15 64-90% A good pitch 55-64% An average pitch TOTAL 46 76 30-54% A below average pit Less than 30 A poor pitch Total Score 61 % Quality Assessment - Individual Pitch Assessment
Pitch Number: 3 Sport: Cricket Pitch Name: The Salts
Background information: Number of games played on pitch each season Number of hours of training on pitch during season/ pre-season 0 (total for year) 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 pitch/ outfield…
Grass cover - entire pitch/ outfield? >94% X 85-94% 70-84% 60-69% <60% Where, 90%+ grass cover should be given 'Excellent'; less than 50% should be considered 'very poor'
Length of grass? Excellent X Good Average Poor Very Poor The ideal length of grass will vary between sports
Drainage - % of games cancelled (see above) None 1-10% 11-30% 31-49% >50% Take % from above
Size of pitches? - does it meet the NGB standard? Yes - for adults X Yes - for juniors No See guidance notes for pitch dimensions
Adequate safety margins? - does it meet the NGB standard? Yes - for adults X Yes - for juniors No See guidance notes for pitch dimensions
Slope of pitches (gradient and cross fall) Excellent Good X Poor Where, flat pitch = 'Excellent' Evenness of pitch Excellent Good X Poor
Problem Areas: Evidence of Dog fouling None X Yes - some Yes - lots If no evidence, assume none ie score as '5' or refer to user survey
Problem Areas: Evidence of Glass/ stones/ litter None X Yes - some Yes - lots If no evidence, assume none ie score as '5' or refer to user survey
Problem Areas: Evidence of Unofficial use None Yes - some X Yes - lots eg trespass, kids kickabout etc. If no evidence, assume none ie score as '5' or refer to user survey
eg. golf divots, car-parking on field etc. If no evidence, assume none ie score as '5' or refer to user Problem Areas: Evidence of Damage to surface None X Yes - some Yes - lots survey
Exposure of pitch to elements Yes X No Is the pitch sheltered from the prevaling wind
Training area Yes X No eg nets/ gaols/ grids off main body of pitch About the equipment/ wicket…
Eg. Well painted, upright and has safe hooks…at both ends. If posts are dismantled after game, Goal posts/ nets/ wicket square - quality Excellent Good X Average Poor Very Poor assume Excellent ie score as '5'
Line markings - quality Excellent Good Average Poor Very Poor Eg. Have they been painted recently; are lines clear etc None
Protection of pitch/ wicket Yes X No Is goal mouth cordoned off, wicket covered etc when pitch is not being used
Changing Poor X Parking Excellent X Vandalism None
Scoring: Pitch 45 out of 61 Key: 90%+ An excellent pitch Equipment 9 out of 15 64-90% A good pitch 55-64% An average pitch TOTAL 54 76 30-54% A below average pit Less than 30 A poor pitch Total Score 71 % Quality Assessment - Individual Pitch Assessment
Pitch Number: 1 Sport: Cricket Pitch Name: Barcombe Recreation Ground
Background information: Number of games played on pitch each season Number of hours of training on pitch during season/ pre-season 0 (total for year) 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 pitch/ outfield…
Grass cover - entire pitch/ outfield? >94% 85-94% X 70-84% 60-69% <60% Where, 90%+ grass cover should be given 'Excellent'; less than 50% should be considered 'very poor'
Length of grass? Excellent Good X Average Poor Very Poor The ideal length of grass will vary between sports
Drainage - % of games cancelled (see above) None 1-10% 11-30% 31-49% >50% Take % from above
Size of pitches? - does it meet the NGB standard? Yes - for adults X Yes - for juniors No See guidance notes for pitch dimensions
Adequate safety margins? - does it meet the NGB standard? Yes - for adults X Yes - for juniors No See guidance notes for pitch dimensions
Slope of pitches (gradient and cross fall) Excellent Good X Poor Where, flat pitch = 'Excellent' Evenness of pitch Excellent Good X Poor
Problem Areas: Evidence of Dog fouling None X Yes - some Yes - lots If no evidence, assume none ie score as '5' or refer to user survey
Problem Areas: Evidence of Glass/ stones/ litter None X Yes - some Yes - lots If no evidence, assume none ie score as '5' or refer to user survey
Problem Areas: Evidence of Unofficial use None X Yes - some Yes - lots eg trespass, kids kickabout etc. If no evidence, assume none ie score as '5' or refer to user survey
eg. golf divots, car-parking on field etc. If no evidence, assume none ie score as '5' or refer to user Problem Areas: Evidence of Damage to surface None X Yes - some Yes - lots survey
Exposure of pitch to elements Yes X No Is the pitch sheltered from the prevaling wind
Training area Yes X No eg nets/ gaols/ grids off main body of pitch About the equipment/ wicket…
Eg. Well painted, upright and has safe hooks…at both ends. If posts are dismantled after game, Goal posts/ nets/ wicket square - quality Excellent Good X Average Poor (nets) Very Poor assume Excellent ie score as '5'
Line markings - quality Excellent Good Average Poor Very Poor Eg. Have they been painted recently; are lines clear etc None
Protection of pitch/ wicket Yes X No Is goal mouth cordoned off, wicket covered etc when pitch is not being used
Changing Good X Parking Good X Vandalism None
Scoring: Pitch 45 out of 61 Key: 90%+ An excellent pitch Equipment 9 out of 15 64-90% A good pitch 55-64% An average pitch TOTAL 54 76 30-54% A below average pit Less than 30 A poor pitch Total Score 71 % Quality Assessment - Individual Pitch Assessment
Pitch Number: 1 Sport: Cricket Pitch Name: Convent Fields
Background information: Number of games played on pitch each season Number of hours of training on pitch during season/ pre-season 0 (total for year) 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 pitch/ outfield…
Grass cover - entire pitch/ outfield? >94% X 85-94% 70-84% 60-69% <60% Where, 90%+ grass cover should be given 'Excellent'; less than 50% should be considered 'very poor'
Length of grass? Excellent X Good Average Poor Very Poor The ideal length of grass will vary between sports
Drainage - % of games cancelled (see above) None 1-10% 11-30% 31-49% >50% Take % from above
Size of pitches? - does it meet the NGB standard? Yes - for adults X Yes - for juniors No See guidance notes for pitch dimensions
Adequate safety margins? - does it meet the NGB standard? Yes - for adults X Yes - for juniors No See guidance notes for pitch dimensions
Slope of pitches (gradient and cross fall) Excellent X Good Poor Where, flat pitch = 'Excellent' Evenness of pitch Excellent Good X Poor
Problem Areas: Evidence of Dog fouling None X Yes - some Yes - lots If no evidence, assume none ie score as '5' or refer to user survey
Problem Areas: Evidence of Glass/ stones/ litter None X Yes - some Yes - lots If no evidence, assume none ie score as '5' or refer to user survey
Problem Areas: Evidence of Unofficial use None X Yes - some Yes - lots eg trespass, kids kickabout etc. If no evidence, assume none ie score as '5' or refer to user survey
eg. golf divots, car-parking on field etc. If no evidence, assume none ie score as '5' or refer to user Problem Areas: Evidence of Damage to surface None X Yes - some Yes - lots survey
Exposure of pitch to elements Yes X No Is the pitch sheltered from the prevaling wind
Training area Yes No X eg nets/ gaols/ grids off main body of pitch About the equipment/ wicket…
Eg. Well painted, upright and has safe hooks…at both ends. If posts are dismantled after game, Goal posts/ nets/ wicket square - quality Excellent X Good Average Poor Very Poor assume Excellent ie score as '5'
Line markings - quality Excellent Good Average Poor Very Poor Eg. Have they been painted recently; are lines clear etc None
Protection of pitch/ wicket Yes X No Is goal mouth cordoned off, wicket covered etc when pitch is not being used
Changing Good X Parking Excellent X Vandalism None
Scoring: Pitch 44 out of 61 Key: 90%+ An excellent pitch Equipment 10 out of 15 64-90% A good pitch 55-64% An average pitch TOTAL 54 76 30-54% A below average pit Less than 30 A poor pitch Total Score 71 % Quality Assessment - Individual Pitch Assessment
Pitch Number: 2 Sport: Cricket Pitch Name: Convent Fields
Background information: Number of games played on pitch each season Number of hours of training on pitch during season/ pre-season 0 (total for year) 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 pitch/ outfield…
Grass cover - entire pitch/ outfield? >94% X 85-94% 70-84% 60-69% <60% Where, 90%+ grass cover should be given 'Excellent'; less than 50% should be considered 'very poor'
Length of grass? Excellent X Good Average Poor Very Poor The ideal length of grass will vary between sports
Drainage - % of games cancelled (see above) None 1-10% 11-30% 31-49% >50% Take % from above
Size of pitches? - does it meet the NGB standard? Yes - for adults X Yes - for juniors No See guidance notes for pitch dimensions
Adequate safety margins? - does it meet the NGB standard? Yes - for adults X Yes - for juniors No See guidance notes for pitch dimensions
Slope of pitches (gradient and cross fall) Excellent X Good Poor Where, flat pitch = 'Excellent' Evenness of pitch Excellent Good X Poor
Problem Areas: Evidence of Dog fouling None X Yes - some Yes - lots If no evidence, assume none ie score as '5' or refer to user survey
Problem Areas: Evidence of Glass/ stones/ litter None X Yes - some Yes - lots If no evidence, assume none ie score as '5' or refer to user survey
Problem Areas: Evidence of Unofficial use None X Yes - some Yes - lots eg trespass, kids kickabout etc. If no evidence, assume none ie score as '5' or refer to user survey
eg. golf divots, car-parking on field etc. If no evidence, assume none ie score as '5' or refer to user Problem Areas: Evidence of Damage to surface None X Yes - some Yes - lots survey
Exposure of pitch to elements Yes X No Is the pitch sheltered from the prevaling wind
Training area Yes No X eg nets/ gaols/ grids off main body of pitch About the equipment/ wicket…
Eg. Well painted, upright and has safe hooks…at both ends. If posts are dismantled after game, Goal posts/ nets/ wicket square - quality Excellent X Good Average Poor Very Poor assume Excellent ie score as '5'
Line markings - quality Excellent Good Average Poor Very Poor Eg. Have they been painted recently; are lines clear etc None
Protection of pitch/ wicket Yes X No Is goal mouth cordoned off, wicket covered etc when pitch is not being used
Changing Good X Parking Excellent X Vandalism None
Scoring: Pitch 44 out of 61 Key: 90%+ An excellent pitch Equipment 10 out of 15 64-90% A good pitch 55-64% An average pitch TOTAL 54 76 30-54% A below average pit Less than 30 A poor pitch Total Score 71 % Quality Assessment - Individual Pitch Assessment
Pitch Number: 3 Sport: Cricket Pitch Name: Convent Fields
Background information: Number of games played on pitch each season Number of hours of training on pitch during season/ pre-season (total for year) Number of games cancelled due to unfitness of pitch (excluding frozen pitches) % 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 pitch/ outfield…
Grass cover - entire pitch/ outfield? >94% X 85-94% 70-84% 60-69% <60% Where, 90%+ grass cover should be given 'Excellent'; less than 50% should be considered 'very poor'
Length of grass? Excellent X Good Average Poor Very Poor The ideal length of grass will vary between sports
Drainage - % of games cancelled (see above) None 1-10% 11-30% 31-49% >50% Take % from above
Size of pitches? - does it meet the NGB standard? Yes - for adults X Yes - for juniors No See guidance notes for pitch dimensions
Adequate safety margins? - does it meet the NGB standard? Yes - for adults X Yes - for juniors No See guidance notes for pitch dimensions
Slope of pitches (gradient and cross fall) Excellent X Good Poor Where, flat pitch = 'Excellent' Evenness of pitch Excellent Good X Poor
Problem Areas: Evidence of Dog fouling None X Yes - some Yes - lots If no evidence, assume none ie score as '5' or refer to user survey
Problem Areas: Evidence of Glass/ stones/ litter None X Yes - some Yes - lots If no evidence, assume none ie score as '5' or refer to user survey
Problem Areas: Evidence of Unofficial use None X Yes - some Yes - lots eg trespass, kids kickabout etc. If no evidence, assume none ie score as '5' or refer to user survey
eg. golf divots, car-parking on field etc. If no evidence, assume none ie score as '5' or refer to user Problem Areas: Evidence of Damage to surface None X Yes - some Yes - lots survey
Exposure of pitch to elements Yes X No Is the pitch sheltered from the prevaling wind
Training area Yes No X eg nets/ gaols/ grids off main body of pitch About the equipment/ wicket…
Eg. Well painted, upright and has safe hooks…at both ends. If posts are dismantled after game, Goal posts/ nets/ wicket square - quality Excellent X Good Average Poor Very Poor assume Excellent ie score as '5'
Line markings - quality Excellent Good Average Poor Very Poor Eg. Have they been painted recently; are lines clear etc None
Protection of pitch/ wicket Yes X No Is goal mouth cordoned off, wicket covered etc when pitch is not being used
Changing Good X Parking Excellent X Vandalism None
Scoring: Pitch 44 out of 61 Key: 90%+ An excellent pitch Equipment 10 out of 15 64-90% A good pitch 55-64% An average pitch TOTAL 54 76 30-54% A below average pit Less than 30 A poor pitch Quality Assessment - Individual Pitch Assessment
Pitch Number: 1 Sport: No proper pitches, just a grass area Pitch Name: Priory School
Background information: Number of games played on pitch each season Number of hours of training on pitch during season/ pre-season (total for year) Number of games cancelled due to unfitness of pitch (excluding frozen pitches) % 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 pitch/ outfield…
Grass cover - entire pitch/ outfield? >94% X 85-94% 70-84% 60-69% <60% Where, 90%+ grass cover should be given 'Excellent'; less than 50% should be considered 'very poor'
Length of grass? Excellent Good Average X Poor Very Poor The ideal length of grass will vary between sports
Drainage - % of games cancelled (see above) None 1-10% 11-30% 31-49% >50% Take % from above
Size of pitches? - does it meet the NGB standard? Yes - for adults Yes - for juniors No See guidance notes for pitch dimensions N/A
Adequate safety margins? - does it meet the NGB standard? Yes - for adults Yes - for juniors No See guidance notes for pitch dimensions N/A
Slope of pitches (gradient and cross fall) Excellent X Good Poor Where, flat pitch = 'Excellent' Evenness of pitch Excellent Good Poor
Problem Areas: Evidence of Dog fouling None X Yes - some Yes - lots If no evidence, assume none ie score as '5' or refer to user survey
Problem Areas: Evidence of Glass/ stones/ litter None Yes - some Yes - lots X If no evidence, assume none ie score as '5' or refer to user survey
Problem Areas: Evidence of Unofficial use None X Yes - some Yes - lots eg trespass, kids kickabout etc. If no evidence, assume none ie score as '5' or refer to user survey
eg. golf divots, car-parking on field etc. If no evidence, assume none ie score as '5' or refer to user Problem Areas: Evidence of Damage to surface None X Yes - some Yes - lots survey
Exposure of pitch to elements Yes No X Is the pitch sheltered from the prevaling wind
Training area Yes X No eg nets/ gaols/ grids off main body of pitch (Cricket Nets) X
Eg. Well painted, upright and has safe hooks…at both ends. If posts are dismantled after game, Goal posts/ nets/ wicket square - quality Excellent X Average Poor Very Poor assume Excellent ie score as '5'
Line markings - quality Excellent Good Average Poor Very Poor Eg. Have they been painted recently; are lines clear etc None
Protection of pitch/ wicket Yes No Is goal mouth cordoned off, wicket covered etc when pitch is not being used N/A
Changing Excellent X Parking Excellent X Vandalism None
Scoring: Pitch 42 out of 61 Key: 90%+ An excellent pitch Equipment 0 out of 15 64-90% A good pitch 55-64% An average pitch TOTAL 42 76 30-54% A below average pit Less than 30 A poor pitch Total Score 55 % APPENDIX F
POPULATION PROJECTIONS APPENDIX F Lewes District Population Projections 2006
Parishes 2001 Census Occupied Dwellings Occupied Census 2001 Population Census 2001 dwelling per population Avg 01/04/01 completed New dwellings 01/04/02 01/04/02 completed New dwellings 01/04/03 planning with anticipated New dwellings 01/04/03 at as granted permission 01/04/03-01/04/06 sites Identified - dwellings new Total sites identified 01/04/01-01/04/06 2006 population Projected Barcombe 561 1411 2.52 11 3 2 16 1451 Beddingham and Tarring Neville 132 289 2.19 0 289 Chailey 1050 2703 2.57 1 9 5 40 55 2845 Ditchling 694 1802 2.60 2 13 15 1841 East Chiltington and St John 205 491 2.40 0 491 Falmer and St Ann Without 119 276 2.32 2 1 2 5 288 Firle 143 325 2.27 0 325 Glynde 100 258 2.58 1 1 261 Hamsey 239 565 2.36 1 3 4 574 Iford 80 194 2.43 0 194 Kingston 318 836 2.63 6 6 852 Lewes 7004 15988 2.28 14 45 73 70 202 16449 Newhaven 4670 11171 2.39 133 143 188 524 988 13534 Newick 938 2318 2.47 5 17 9 31 2395 Peacehaven 5822 13217 2.27 9 15 17 185 226 13730 Piddinghoe 110 240 2.18 0 240 Plumpton 577 1659 2.88 1 2 3 1668 Ringmer 1868 4444 2.38 3 16 8 115 142 4782 Rodmell and Southease 188 492 2.62 1 7 8 513 Seaford 10381 22826 2.20 60 64 133 121 378 23657 South Heighton 466 1105 2.37 -1 -1 -2 1100 Streat 65 156 2.40 0 156 Telscombe 3119 7133 2.29 0 7133 Westmeston 115 297 2.58 1 1 2 302 Wivelsfield 737 1981 2.69 2 1 18 70 91 2226 Totals 39701 92177 97295
Note - population projections exclude unidentified sites 03-06 Hamsey and St John Without - placed in Hamsey Glynde/Beddingham 02-03 - placed in Glynde